{"id":227142,"date":"2009-02-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-02-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-i-sali-vs-chief-engineer-on-26-february-2009"},"modified":"2017-08-07T05:13:58","modified_gmt":"2017-08-06T23:43:58","slug":"t-i-sali-vs-chief-engineer-on-26-february-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-i-sali-vs-chief-engineer-on-26-february-2009","title":{"rendered":"T.I.Sali vs Chief Engineer on 26 February, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
T.I.Sali vs Chief Engineer on 26 February, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nOP.No. 12524 of 2001(N)\n\n\n\n1. T.I.SALI\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. CHIEF ENGINEER, P.W.D., TRIVANDRUM\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN (KOLLAM)\n\n                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN\n\n Dated :26\/02\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n                             S. Siri Jagan, J.\n               =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=\n                       O.P. No. 12524 of 2001\n               =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=\n                Dated this, the 26th   February, 2009.\n\n                           J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
       Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner<\/p>\n
in respect of payment of bill amount to a contractor for maintenance<\/p>\n
of a pond in Mulakkulam Panchayat under the drought relief scheme,<\/p>\n
while he was working as an Assistant Engineer at Kaduthuruthy Block<\/p>\n
of the Public Works Department of the Government of Kerala. The<\/p>\n
estimate amount was Rs. 12,500\/-.        Administrative and technical<\/p>\n
sanction was also granted for that amount. The work was completed<\/p>\n
on 26-5-1987.    Measurement was recorded in the M Book by the<\/p>\n
overseer and it was check-measured by the petitioner on 26-5-1987<\/p>\n
itself. Pursuant thereto, an amount of Rs. 12,164.70 was paid to the<\/p>\n
contractor, who was the convenor of a beneficiary committee who<\/p>\n
undertook the work.      Subsequently, one of the members of the<\/p>\n
beneficiary committee filed Ext. P1 complaint alleging that the work<\/p>\n
was not completed and the man days calculated was exaggerated.<\/p>\n
The B.D.O concerned forwarded Ext. P1(a) report to the Collector<\/p>\n
stating that the allegation regarding the excess man-days is not true.<\/p>\n
In respect of the other allegation, the report was silent. By Ext. P2<\/p>\n
dated 31-12-1987, the petitioner and the overseer were placed under<\/p>\n
suspension. Thereafter, it appears that the Executive Engineer of<\/p>\n
PWD Roads Division, Kottayam was directed to conduct an enquiry.<\/p>\n
By Ext. P3 dated 24-12-1988, the Chief Engineer forwarded Ext. P3<\/p>\n
report of the Executive Engineer to the Government. Earlier, the<\/p>\n
Chief Technical Examiner had measured the pond as 47 meters x 20.4<\/p>\n
meters whereas in Ext. P3 report the size of the pond was measured<\/p>\n
as 62 meters x 28 meters.     The Executive Engineer also said that in<\/p>\n
view of passage of time and from the available quantity of the cut<\/p>\n
soil, the correct quantity of the work done cannot be arrived at, at<\/p>\n
that point of time. Subsequently, Ext. P4 charge memo dated 6-6-<\/p>\n
O.P. No. 12524\/2001              -: 2 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
1989 was issued to the petitioner directing him to submit his written<\/p>\n
statement of defence against the charges levelled in Ext. P4 with a<\/p>\n
proposal to recover the proportionate share of loss sustained by the<\/p>\n
Government out of the excess amount of Rs.7165\/- paid to the<\/p>\n
contractor,    from the petitioner.   A statement of allegations was<\/p>\n
attached to the same. The petitioner filed Ext. P5 reply refuting the<\/p>\n
allegations against the petitioner, specifically pointing out that in Ext.<\/p>\n
P3 report of the Executive Engineer, no finding against the petitioner<\/p>\n
was recorded.      However, by Ext. P6 show cause notice, the<\/p>\n
petitioner’s written statement of defence was rejected and it was<\/p>\n
found that the petitioner is responsible for excess payment of<\/p>\n
Rs.7165\/- made to the contractor. He was directed to show cause why<\/p>\n
the punishment of recovery of the said amount should not be imposed<\/p>\n
on him. The petitioner filed Ext. P7 objections, However, by Ext. P8<\/p>\n
order, the same was confirmed and it was directed to recover an<\/p>\n
amount of Rs.2866\/-     in 22 instalments of Rs.125\/- each from his<\/p>\n
salary with the last instalment as Rs. 116\/- . The petitioner filed Ext.<\/p>\n
P9 appeal to the Government on 15-11-1990. After two years, by Ext.<\/p>\n
P10 dated 25-8-1992, the petitioner was directed to show cause why<\/p>\n
the punishment should not be        enhanced and the punishment of<\/p>\n
barring of increments for two years with cumulative effect should not<\/p>\n
be imposed on the petitioner in addition to the recovery of loss.<\/p>\n
Again, the petitioner submitted Ext. P11 objection.           Thereafter,<\/p>\n
according to the petitioner, he was not informed of any further orders<\/p>\n
pursuant to Ext. P10.\n<\/p>\n
      2. While so, by Ext. P12, the Chief Engineer sanctioned 10 year<\/p>\n
higher grade to the petitioner excluding the period of suspension<\/p>\n
undergone by him apparently because the period of suspension had<\/p>\n
not been regularised.      When Ext. P12 dated          21-10-2000 was<\/p>\n
O.P. No. 12524\/2001              -: 3 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
forwarded to the Accountant General, the Accountant General said<\/p>\n
that by order dated 23-5-1996, the period of suspension of the<\/p>\n
petitioner had already been regularised. According to the petitioner,<\/p>\n
it was from Ext. P13 he came to understand about the order dated 23-<\/p>\n
5-1996, which apparently was on the show cause notice for enhancing<\/p>\n
the punishment. Therefore, he obtained copy of that order, which is<\/p>\n
produced as Ext. P14. In Ext. P14, in addition to the recovery of an<\/p>\n
amount of Rs.2868\/- the punishment of barring of increments for two<\/p>\n
years was also imposed on the petitioner. Subsequently, by Ext. P14<\/p>\n
(a), Ext. P14 order was modified making the punishment of barring of<\/p>\n
increments “with cumulative effect”.      The petitioner is challenging<\/p>\n
Exts.P8, P14 and P14(a) in this original petition.<\/p>\n
       4. The contention of the petitioner is that the conclusion of<\/p>\n
guilt arrived at by the disciplinary authority and the Government is<\/p>\n
totally perverse. He points out that there was no reliable evidence<\/p>\n
whatsoever to show that the measurement recorded by the petitioner<\/p>\n
was bogus. The petitioner points out that by Ext. P1(a), the B.D.O had<\/p>\n
reported to the Collector that there was no basis for the allegation<\/p>\n
that the man days reported is not correct. Again, by Ext. P3, the<\/p>\n
Executive Engineer stated that from the available quantity of cut soil,<\/p>\n
the correct quantum of work done cannot be arrived at. Further, the<\/p>\n
Chief Technical Examiner measured the pond as 47 m. x 26.40 m.<\/p>\n
whereas the Executive Engineer measured it as 62 m. x 28 m. That<\/p>\n
itself, according to the petitioner, shows that there was       serious<\/p>\n
infirmities in the measurements. He would further point out that<\/p>\n
although the petitioner had submitted Ext. P5 reply running into 5<\/p>\n
pages to Ext. P4 memo of charges in Ext. P6, all what has been<\/p>\n
stated is that the defence statement submitted by the petitioner was<\/p>\n
examined with reference to the inspection note of the Chief Technical<\/p>\n
O.P. No. 12524\/2001              -: 4 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
Examiner and other connected records and found that the petitioner<\/p>\n
was responsible for non-payment of Rs. 7165\/- made to the contractor<\/p>\n
without stating as to how that conclusion was arrived at and without<\/p>\n
discussing the elaborate reply given by the petitioner. He further<\/p>\n
submits that it was after two years of his filing an appeal that the<\/p>\n
Government came up with a show cause notice for enhancing the<\/p>\n
punishment.      To the same, the petitioner submitted very detailed<\/p>\n
reply. However, the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of<\/p>\n
being heard and he was also not informed about the result.         He<\/p>\n
further points out that Ext. P14 has been modified by Ext. P14(a)<\/p>\n
without an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner.<\/p>\n
      5.    A counter affidavit as been filed by the 3rd respondent<\/p>\n
refuting the contentions of the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
      6. I have considered the rival contentions in detail.<\/p>\n
      7. I am inclined to agree with the counsel for the petitioner.<\/p>\n
Apart from the fact that the amount involved is very low, I find that<\/p>\n
the measurement recorded was not consistent. The Chief Technical<\/p>\n
Examiner is stated to have returned a measurement of 47 m. x 26.4<\/p>\n
m. whereas the Executive Engineer had returned a measurement of<\/p>\n
62 m. x 28 m. in Ext. P3. The difference is very substantial, perhaps<\/p>\n
sufficient cover the difference now sought to be recovered.<\/p>\n
Therefore, while passing orders of punishment on the petitioner, that<\/p>\n
too, without an enquiry, the disciplinary authority     had a duty to<\/p>\n
explain this discrepancy. Nothing of that sort is stated in the orders<\/p>\n
imposing punishment. As such, I find that Ext. P8 order is perverse in<\/p>\n
so far as relevant materials have not been considered by the<\/p>\n
disciplinary authority and no reasons are mentioned in the orders<\/p>\n
finding the petitioner guilty.\n<\/p>\n
      8. Apart from that, when the Government wanted to enhance<\/p>\n
O.P. No. 12524\/2001              -: 5 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
the punishment to one of barring of increments with cumulative effect<\/p>\n
in addition to recovery of loss imposed by the disciplinary authority,<\/p>\n
the Government had a duty to afford the petitioner an opportunity of<\/p>\n
being heard. There is nothing to indicate that the petitioner has been<\/p>\n
heard before passing Exts. P14 and P14(a). In fact, there is nothing to<\/p>\n
indicate that Exts. P14 and P14(a) had been served on the petitioner<\/p>\n
at all.\n<\/p>\n
       For all the above reasons, I am satisfied that the impugned<\/p>\n
orders are perverse, violative of    principles of natural justice and<\/p>\n
unsustainable. Accordingly, the same are quashed.<\/p>\n
                                         Sd\/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge.\n<\/p>\n
Tds\/<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court T.I.Sali vs Chief Engineer on 26 February, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM OP.No. 12524 of 2001(N) 1. T.I.SALI … Petitioner Vs 1. CHIEF ENGINEER, P.W.D., TRIVANDRUM … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN (KOLLAM) For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER The Hon’ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN Dated :26\/02\/2009 O R D E […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-227142","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nT.I.Sali vs Chief Engineer on 26 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-i-sali-vs-chief-engineer-on-26-february-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"T.I.Sali vs Chief Engineer on 26 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-i-sali-vs-chief-engineer-on-26-february-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-02-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-08-06T23:43:58+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-i-sali-vs-chief-engineer-on-26-february-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-i-sali-vs-chief-engineer-on-26-february-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"T.I.Sali vs Chief Engineer on 26 February, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-02-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-06T23:43:58+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-i-sali-vs-chief-engineer-on-26-february-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1395,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-i-sali-vs-chief-engineer-on-26-february-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-i-sali-vs-chief-engineer-on-26-february-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-i-sali-vs-chief-engineer-on-26-february-2009\",\"name\":\"T.I.Sali vs Chief Engineer on 26 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-02-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-06T23:43:58+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-i-sali-vs-chief-engineer-on-26-february-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-i-sali-vs-chief-engineer-on-26-february-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-i-sali-vs-chief-engineer-on-26-february-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"T.I.Sali vs Chief Engineer on 26 February, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"T.I.Sali vs Chief Engineer on 26 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-i-sali-vs-chief-engineer-on-26-february-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"T.I.Sali vs Chief Engineer on 26 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-i-sali-vs-chief-engineer-on-26-february-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-02-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-08-06T23:43:58+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-i-sali-vs-chief-engineer-on-26-february-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-i-sali-vs-chief-engineer-on-26-february-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"T.I.Sali vs Chief Engineer on 26 February, 2009","datePublished":"2009-02-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-06T23:43:58+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-i-sali-vs-chief-engineer-on-26-february-2009"},"wordCount":1395,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-i-sali-vs-chief-engineer-on-26-february-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-i-sali-vs-chief-engineer-on-26-february-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-i-sali-vs-chief-engineer-on-26-february-2009","name":"T.I.Sali vs Chief Engineer on 26 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-02-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-06T23:43:58+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-i-sali-vs-chief-engineer-on-26-february-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-i-sali-vs-chief-engineer-on-26-february-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-i-sali-vs-chief-engineer-on-26-february-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"T.I.Sali vs Chief Engineer on 26 February, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/227142","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=227142"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/227142\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=227142"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=227142"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=227142"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}