{"id":227294,"date":"2005-01-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-01-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-ramu-vs-the-union-of-india-on-28-january-2005"},"modified":"2014-07-20T03:37:51","modified_gmt":"2014-07-19T22:07:51","slug":"s-ramu-vs-the-union-of-india-on-28-january-2005","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-ramu-vs-the-union-of-india-on-28-january-2005","title":{"rendered":"S.Ramu vs The Union Of India on 28 January, 2005"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
S.Ramu vs The Union Of India on 28 January, 2005<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           \n\nDATED: 28\/01\/2005  \n\nC O R A M  \n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SATHASIVAM            \nand \nTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.K.KRISHNAN           \n\nWRIT PETITION NO.12945 of 2001    \nand \nWPMP.No.19038 of 2001    \n\nS.Ramu  \nEx. Branch Post Master, \nSeethakamangalam,   \nA\/W Sengalipuram-612 602,  \nKodavasal Taluk,\nThiruvarur District.                            ... Petitioner\n\n-Vs-\n\n1.The Union of India,\n  rep. by the Additional General\n  Manager, Business Development  \n  Office of the Chief Post Master\n  General, Tamil Nadu Circle,\n  Chennai-600 002.\n\n2.The Director of Postal Services,\n  Thiruchirapalli.\n\n3.The Superintendent of Post Offices,\n  Kumbakonam Division, \n  Kumbakonam-612 001.   \n\n4.The Central Administrative Tribunal,\n  Chennai-600 104.                                      ... Respondents\n\n                Petition under Article 226 of The  Constitution  of  India  to\nissue  a  Writ  of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the order in\nO.A.No.496\/1997 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal,  Madras  Bench,\ndated 16.7.1999 and quash the same.  \n\n!For petitioner ...  Mr.G.Purushothaman for\n                Mr.A.Nagarathinam\n\n^For Respondents ...  Mr.K.Mohanram,ACGSC    \n\n:O R D E R \n<\/pre>\n
(Order of the Court was made by P.SATHASIVAM,J)    <\/p>\n
                Aggrieved by the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal,
\nMadras  Bench  dated 16.7.1999 made in O.A.No.496 of 1997, the petitioner, Ex.
\nBranch Post Master, Seethakamangalam, has filed the  above  writ  petition  to
\nquash the same on various grounds.\n<\/p>\n
                2.  The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder:\n<\/p>\n
        The  petitioner  was appointed as Branch Post Master, Seethakamangalam
\nBranch Office on 18.2.1992 by the Superintendent of Post  Offices,  Kumbakonam
\nDivision, the  third  respondent herein.  Whileso, he was placed under PUT OFF
\nduty with effect from 18.6.1994 on  the  ground  of  disciplinary  proceedings
\ncontemplated against him.  The third respondent has issued a charge memo dated
\n30.9.1994  alleging that the petitioner had kept the cash and stamp balance of
\nSeethakamangalam Branch Office short to the tune of Rs.348.10 and secondly, he
\nhad failed to bring into account a sum of Rs.1,500\/-, which  was  accepted  as
\ndeposit in the  S.B.   Account No.463936 in the name of R.Vasuki.  Thereafter,
\nthe Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices, Kumbakonam  North  Sub  Division
\nwas appointed  as  Enquiry  Officer.    The  Enquiry Officer has submitted his
\nreport  on  30.1.1995  concluding  the  charges  levelled  against  him   were
\nestablished.  Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority called for an explanation
\nfrom the  petitioner.    The  petitioner has also submitted his explanation on
\n18.2.1995.  Ultimately, the Disciplinary Authority  has  passed  an  order  on
\n29.1.1996 removing the petitioner from service.\n<\/p>\n
                3.   Questioning  the  order  of  removal,  the petitioner has
\npreferred an appeal to the second respondent, the Director of Postal Services,
\nTrichirapalli.  The same was disposed of by the first respondent on 11 .5.1996
\ndismissing  his  appeal  confirming  the  order  of  the   third   respondent.
\nThereafter,  the  petitioner  has  filed  an application in O.A.No.496 of 1997
\nbefore the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench.   By  the  impugned
\norder dated  16.7.1999,  the  Tribunal dismissed the said application.  Hence,
\nthe present writ petition.\n<\/p>\n
                4.  Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner  as  well  as
\nthe  learned  Additional Central Government Standing Counsel for respondents 1
\nto 3.\n<\/p>\n
                5.   After  taking  us  through  relevant  materials  and  the
\nimpugned  order  of  the  Tribunal,  the  learned  counsel  appearing  for the
\npetitioner has raised the following contentions:\n<\/p>\n
(i) Inasmuch as the petitioner was not given an opportunity  to  putforth  his
\nobjection with regard to proposed punishment, the ultimate order passed by the
\nthird respondent  cannot  be  sustained.  In other words, the third respondent
\nhas not complied with Rule 8 of E.D.A.  Conduct and Service Rules.\n<\/p>\n
(ii) Even though the petitioner has filed an appeal to the second  respondent,
\nwho  is  an  Appellate  Authority,  his  appeal  was  disposed of by the first
\nrespondent.  Hence, the petitioner lost his one more remedy  viz.,  revisional
\njurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n
(iii)  The  appeal  preferred  by  the  petitioner has not been disposed of as
\nprovided under Rule 15 of the said Rules.  The  Appellate  Authority  has  not
\nconsidered the punishment with reference to the charges levelled against him.\n<\/p>\n
                6.    On  the  other  hand,  the  learned  Additional  Central
\nGovernment Standing Counsel after taking us through the relevant materials and
\nthe Rules applicable would contend that the Disciplinary Authority has  passed
\nthe  order  removing  the  petitioner  from  service  after fulfilling all the
\nconditions as provided under the  Rules.    According  to  him,  there  is  no
\ndeviation as claimed by the learned counsel for the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
                7.   He further contended that in the absence of the Appellate
\nAuthority viz.,the second respondent, inasmuch as  the  first  respondent  was
\nduly  authorised to consider and dispose of the disciplinary matters, there is
\nno flaw in the disposal of the appeal.  He also brought to our notice that the
\nAppellate Authority  has  disposed  of  the  appeal  in  accordance  with  the
\nconditions  as  prescribed  in  Rule  15  including the proportionality of the
\npunishment with reference to the proved  charges.    Accordingly,  prayed  for
\ndismissal of the writ petition.\n<\/p>\n
                8.  We have carefully considered the rival submissions.\n<\/p>\n
                9.With  reference  to the first contention that the petitioner
\nwas not given show cause notice before imposing  punishment  of  removal  from
\nservice, it is relevant to refer the Rule applicable.  Rule 8 speaks about the
\nprocedure for imposing penalty which reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
“8.Procedure for imposing a penalty:\n<\/p>\n
        (1) No order imposing a penalty shall be passed except after-\n<\/p>\n
        (a) the employee is informed in writing of the proposal to take action
\nagainst  him  and  of  the  allegation on which it is proposed to be taken and
\ngiven an opportunity to make any representation he may wish to make, and\n<\/p>\n
        (b) such representation, if any, is taken into  consideration  by  the
\nappointing authority:\n<\/p>\n
Provided  that  the  penalty of dismissal or removal from service shall not be
\nimposed except after an enquiry in which he has been informed of  the  charges
\nagainst  him  and  has  been  given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in
\nrespect of those charges:\n<\/p>\n
        Provided further that where it is  proposed  after  such  enquiry,  to
\nimpose  upon him any such penalty, such penalty may be imposed on the basis of
\nthe evidence adduced during such enquiry.\n<\/p>\n
        (2) The record of proceedings shall include-\n<\/p>\n
        (i)a copy of the intimation to
\nthe employee of the proposal
\nto take action against him;\n<\/p>\n
(ii)a copy of the statement of
\nallegations, along with a list
\nof evidence in support thereof,
\ncommunicated to him;\n<\/p>\n
(iii)his representation, if any;\n<\/p>\n
(iv)the records of the enquiry
\nproceedings along with the
\nenquiry report of the appointing
\nauthority or enquiry officer,
\nif any, appointed in a case
\nwhere a formal enquiry is
\nnecessary;\n<\/p>\n
        (v)findings of the appointing
\nauthority in respect of the
\nallegations with reasons
\ntherefor; and<\/p>\n
(vi)the order imposing the penalty.\n<\/p>\n
                10.  Though the learned counsel appearing for  the  petitioner
\nvehemently contended that the Disciplinary Authority has complied with earlier
\npart  of  the  Rule,  regarding  opportunity  with  reference to the report of
\nEnquiry Officer, he has not issued notice to the petitioner giving opportunity
\nto putforth his claim before imposing a penalty.    A  reading  of  the  above
\nprovisions,  particularly,  Sub  Rule  1  and 2, as rightly pointed out by the
\nlearned Additional Central Government  Standing  Counsel,  there  is  no  such
\nspecific  Rule,  which  compels  the  Authority to issue notice intimating the
\nproposed penalty.  On the other hand, the Rule provides that before initiation
\nof disciplinary proceedings, the person concerned must be informed in  writing
\nregarding the  proposal  to take action against him.  The allegations on which
\nit is proposed to be taken and he must be given an  opportunity  to  make  any
\nrepresentation.   It  further  shows  that  if  the  explanation of the person
\nconcerned is not acceptable, it is open to the Authority to take action  after
\ndue enquiry.    It  is  not  the  case of the petitioner that he was not given
\nopportunity like participating in the enquiry.\n<\/p>\n
                11.  It is not in dispute that after submission of the  Report
\nby  the  Enquiry  Officer, the petitioner was given copy of the enquiry report
\nand also made a reply to the same.  The Sub rule 2  does  not  not  show  that
\namong  the  other  reference\/intimation  etc.,  proposed  penalty  has  to  be
\nintimated before imposing the same.  In the absence of  specific  Rule,  which
\ncompels the Authority to communicate the same, it cannot be contended that the
\npetitioner must be given one more opportunity regarding the proposed penalty.
\nIn this regard, it is relevant to refer the judgment of the Constitution Bench
\nof  the  Supreme  Court  reported  in 1993 4 SCC 727 (MANAGING DIRECTOR, ECIL,
\nHYDERABAD AND OTHERS VS.  B.KARUNAKAR AND OTHERS).  In  that  decision,  after
\nreferring  various  earlier  decisions  including Mohammed Ramzan Khan’s case,
\ntheir Lordships have held as follows:\n<\/p>\n
“25.  While the right to represent against the findings in the report is  part
\nof  the reasonable opportunity available during the first stage of the inquiry
\nviz., before the disciplinary authority takes into consideration the  findings
\nin the report, the right to show cause against the penalty proposed belongs to
\nthe  second  stage when the disciplinary authority has considered the findings
\nin the report and has come to the conclusion with regard to the guilt  of  the
\nemployee and  proposes  to award penalty on the basis of its conclusions.  The
\nfirst right is the right to prove innocence.  The second right is to plead for
\neither no penalty or a lesser penalty although the  conclusion  regarding  the
\nguilt is  accepted.    It  is the second right exercisable at the second stage
\nwhich was taken away by the Forty-second Amendment.”\n<\/p>\n
        In para 29, it is further held as follows:\n<\/p>\n
“29.  Hence, it has to be held that  when  the  enquiry  officer  is  not  the
\ndisciplinary  authority, the delinquent employee has a right to receive a copy
\nof the enquiry officer’s report before the disciplinary authority  arrives  at
\nits  conclusions  with  regard  to the guilt or innocence of the employee with
\nregard to the charges levelled against him.  That  right  is  a  part  of  the
\nemployee’s  right  to defend himself against the charges levelled against him.
\nA denial of the enquiry officer’s report  before  the  disciplinary  authority
\ntakes  its  decision  on the charges, is a denial of reasonable opportunity to
\nthe employee to prove his innocence and is  a  breach  of  the  principles  of
\nnatural justice.”\n<\/p>\n
                12.   It  is  clear  from  the  above decision that the second
\nopportunity viz., communication of the proposed punishment has taken  away  by
\nForty second  Amendment  of  the Constitution.  No doubt, if there is specific
\nprovision in the Service  Rules  applicable  to  the  persons  concerned,  the
\ndisciplinary authority  has  to  fulfil  the  said  mandate.   We have already
\nextracted the relevant rule applicable.  We are satisfied  that  there  is  no
\nsuch  specific  provision compelling the disciplinary authority to provide one
\nmore opportunity to the petitioner before imposition  of  penalty.    In  such
\ncircumstance,  the  first  contention  raised  by  the learned counsel for the
\npetitioner is liable to be rejected.\n<\/p>\n
                13.   Coming  to  the  second  contention  that   though   the
\npetitioner  has  filed an appeal to the second respondent\/Appellate Authority,
\nhis appeal was disposed of by the first  respondent,  who  is  the  Revisional
\nAuthority.   In  this  regard,  learned Additional Central Government Standing
\nCounsel has brought to our notice, the stand taken by the respondents in  para
\n19  of the counter affidavit, in which, it is specifically stated that Rule 10
\nof ED Agents (C &S) Rules, 1964 specifies the authorities, who  are  competent
\nto   dispose   of   the   appeals  viz.,  the  Director  of  Postal  Services,
\nTrichirapalli.  It is further stated that the  Director  of  Postal  Services,
\nTrichirapalli  has  been  transferred  to  the Office of the Chief Post Master
\nGeneral, Chennai-2 as Additional General Manager  (Business  and  Development)
\nand power  has  been vested with him to dispose of the appeal.  The Chief Post
\nMaster General, Tamil Nadu Circle, Chennai-2,  in  his  memo  dated  29.3.1996
\nempowered  the Additional General Manager (Business and Development) office of
\nthe Chief Post Master General, Chennai-2 to look after the statutory duties of
\nthe Director of Postal Services, Trichirapalli for Central  Region  consequent
\non  the redeployment of the post of Director of Postal Services, Trichirapalli
\nas Director (BD) at Circle level and the same is in pursuance of the authority
\nvested with the Chief Post Master General  by  order  No.31-31\/87-PE-II  dated
\n24.2.1989 of the Director General, Department of Posts, New Delhi.  Apart from
\nthe  specific  information  in  the  counter  affidavit  vide.,  para  19, the
\nrespondents have also filed additional typed  set,  which  contains  the  said
\nproceedings.   It  is also brought to our notice that the same information has
\nbeen furnished before the Tribunal in the form of reply.  In the light of  the
\nabove  information,  we are of the view that the disposal of the appeal by the
\nfirst respondent cannot be faulted with and we  do  not  find  any  procedural
\nerror as  claimed  by the learned counsel for the petitioner.  Accordingly, we
\nreject the second contention also.\n<\/p>\n
                14.  Coming to the last contention that  the  appeal  has  not
\nbeen  disposed  of  as provided under Rule 15 and no discussion with regard to
\npunishment.  Rule 15 speaks about the consideration of appeal by the authority
\nconcerned, which reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
        “15.  Consideration of appeal:\n<\/p>\n
The appellate authority shall consider,-\n<\/p>\n
(a) whether the procedure prescribed in these rules has been complied with;\n<\/p>\n
(b) whether the findings are justified; and\n<\/p>\n
(c) whether the penalty imposed is excessive, adequate or inadequate and  pass
\norders-\n<\/p>\n
(i) setting aside, reducing, confirming or enhancing the penalty;\n<\/p>\n
(ii)  remitting  the case to the authority which imposed the penalty or to any
\nother authority with such direction as it may deem fit in the circumstances of
\nthe case:\n<\/p>\n
Provided that no order imposing an enhanced penalty shall be passed unless the
\nappellant is given an opportunity of making any representation  which  he  may
\nwish to make against such enhanced penalty.”\n<\/p>\n
                15.   It  is  true  that  Sub  Clause  enables  the  Appellate
\nAuthority to consider whether the penalty imposed is  excessive,  adequate  or
\ninadequate and  pass  appropriate  orders.    A  reading  of  the order of the
\nAppellate Authority shows that after referring the case of the petitioner with
\nreference to the charges levelled against him, findings of the Enquiry Officer
\nand the decision of the Disciplinary Authority, after  considering  all  those
\naspects  and  concurring  with  the  conclusion arrived at by the Disciplinary
\nAuthority and taking note of  the  totality  of  the  charges,  arrived  at  a
\nconclusion  that  the  punishment  of the removal from service is justifiable.
\nThough the Appellate Authority has not mentioned the  relevant  Rule  and  the
\nprocedure  to  be  followed, it cannot be construed that he has not considered
\nthe case of the petitioner,  particularly,  the  punishments  imposed  on  the
\npetitioner.\n<\/p>\n
                16.   As  stated earlier, a reading of the entire order of the
\nAppellate  Authority  clearly  shows  that  he  has  considered  the  relevant
\nmaterials,  such  as  charges  levelled  against the petitioner, report of the
\nEnquiry officer, decision taken by the Disciplinary Authority and the  grounds
\nraised  by the petitioner in the appeal and ultimately concluded that there is
\nno merit in the appeal and upheld the  order  of  the  Disciplinary  Authority
\nincluding the  punishment  of  removal.    We are satisfied that the Appellate
\nAuthority has fully complied with Rule 15 and also considered the  quantum  of
\npunishment.\n<\/p>\n
                17.   In this regard, it is worthwhile to mention the decision
\nreported in (2001)2 Supreme Court Cases 386 (OM KUMAR AND OTHERS VS.  UNION OF
\nINDIA) wherein their Lordships have held as follows:
\n“The quantum of punishment  in  disciplinary  matters  is  primarily  for  the
\ndisciplinary authority to decide and the jurisdiction of the High Courts under
\nArticle  226 of the Constitution or of the Administrative Tribunals is limited
\nand is confined to the  applicability  of  one  or  other  of  the  well-known
\nprinciples known as Wednesbury principles.”\n<\/p>\n
                18.   It is also relevant to refer the recent pronouncement of
\nthe  Supreme  Court  regarding  the  interference  of  this  Court  exercising
\njurisdiction  under  Article  226  of  the  Constitution  of India in a matter
\nrelating to decision taken by the Disciplinary  Authority  and  the  Appellate
\nAuthority  reported  in  (2003)  9  Supreme  Court  Cases  191 (SUB DIVISIONAL
\nOFFICER, KONCH VS.  MAHARAJ  SINGH)  wherein  their  Lordships  have  held  as
\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n
“The jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 is a supervisory one and
\nnot an  appellate  one.    When  the conclusion of the enquiring authority was
\nupheld by the disciplinary authority as well as by the U.P.    Public  Service
\nTribunal, this Court is not justified in interfering with the findings arrived
\nat  by the enquiring authority by exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of
\nthe Constitution of India.”\n<\/p>\n
                19.  In the light of what is stated above, we do not find  any
\nerror or  infirmity  in the order, which is under challenge.  Accordingly, the
\nwrit petition fails and the same is dismissed.  No costs.  Consequently,  WPMP
\nNo.19038 of 2001 is also dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
Index :  Yes
\nInternet :  Yes<\/p>\n
raa<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1.The Additional General
\nManager, Business Development,
\nUnion of India,
\nOffice of the Chief Post Master
\nGeneral, Tamil Nadu Circle,
\nChennai-600 002.\n<\/p>\n
2.The Director of Postal Services,
\nThiruchirapalli.\n<\/p>\n
3.The Superintendent of Post Offices,
\nKumbakonam Division,
\nKumbakonam-612 001.\n<\/p>\n
4.The Central Administrative Tribunal,
\nChennai-600 104.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court S.Ramu vs The Union Of India on 28 January, 2005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 28\/01\/2005 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SATHASIVAM and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.K.KRISHNAN WRIT PETITION NO.12945 of 2001 and WPMP.No.19038 of 2001 S.Ramu Ex. Branch Post Master, Seethakamangalam, A\/W […]<\/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":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-227294","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nS.Ramu vs The Union Of India on 28 January, 2005 - 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\/s-ramu-vs-the-union-of-india-on-28-january-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"S.Ramu vs The Union Of India on 28 January, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-ramu-vs-the-union-of-india-on-28-january-2005\" \/>\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=\"2005-01-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-07-19T22:07:51+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=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-ramu-vs-the-union-of-india-on-28-january-2005#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-ramu-vs-the-union-of-india-on-28-january-2005\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"S.Ramu vs The Union Of India on 28 January, 2005\",\"datePublished\":\"2005-01-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-07-19T22:07:51+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-ramu-vs-the-union-of-india-on-28-january-2005\"},\"wordCount\":2631,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-ramu-vs-the-union-of-india-on-28-january-2005#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-ramu-vs-the-union-of-india-on-28-january-2005\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-ramu-vs-the-union-of-india-on-28-january-2005\",\"name\":\"S.Ramu vs The Union Of India on 28 January, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2005-01-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-07-19T22:07:51+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-ramu-vs-the-union-of-india-on-28-january-2005#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-ramu-vs-the-union-of-india-on-28-january-2005\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-ramu-vs-the-union-of-india-on-28-january-2005#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"S.Ramu vs The Union Of India on 28 January, 2005\"}]},{\"@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":"S.Ramu vs The Union Of India on 28 January, 2005 - 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\/s-ramu-vs-the-union-of-india-on-28-january-2005","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"S.Ramu vs The Union Of India on 28 January, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-ramu-vs-the-union-of-india-on-28-january-2005","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2005-01-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-07-19T22:07:51+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":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-ramu-vs-the-union-of-india-on-28-january-2005#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-ramu-vs-the-union-of-india-on-28-january-2005"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"S.Ramu vs The Union Of India on 28 January, 2005","datePublished":"2005-01-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-07-19T22:07:51+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-ramu-vs-the-union-of-india-on-28-january-2005"},"wordCount":2631,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-ramu-vs-the-union-of-india-on-28-january-2005#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-ramu-vs-the-union-of-india-on-28-january-2005","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-ramu-vs-the-union-of-india-on-28-january-2005","name":"S.Ramu vs The Union Of India on 28 January, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2005-01-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-07-19T22:07:51+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-ramu-vs-the-union-of-india-on-28-january-2005#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-ramu-vs-the-union-of-india-on-28-january-2005"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-ramu-vs-the-union-of-india-on-28-january-2005#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"S.Ramu vs The Union Of India on 28 January, 2005"}]},{"@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\/227294","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=227294"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/227294\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=227294"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=227294"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=227294"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}