{"id":228210,"date":"2010-11-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-11-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-bagavathi-vs-the-principal-chief-conservator-on-26-november-2010"},"modified":"2016-07-21T12:46:28","modified_gmt":"2016-07-21T07:16:28","slug":"b-bagavathi-vs-the-principal-chief-conservator-on-26-november-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-bagavathi-vs-the-principal-chief-conservator-on-26-november-2010","title":{"rendered":"B.Bagavathi vs The Principal Chief Conservator on 26 November, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">B.Bagavathi vs The Principal Chief Conservator on 26 November, 2010<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATE: 26\/11\/2010\n\nCORAM\nTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.RAMANATHAN\n\nW.P.(MD)No.5731 of 2009\nand\nM.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2009\n\nB.Bagavathi\t\t\t\t\t...\tPetitioner\n\nvs.\n\n1. The Principal Chief Conservator\n\tof Forests,\n   Chennai 600 015.\n\n2. The District Forest Officer,\n   Madurai Division,\n   Madurai. \t\t\t\t\t...\tRespondents\n\t\n\tWrit Petition filed under Article  226 of the Constitution of India for\nissue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the second\nrespondent in Charge Memo No.643\/2008\/Pa.2(1) dated 14.5.2009, quash the same\nand issue consequential directions to the respondents to include the name of the\npetitioner in the ensuing panel for promotion as Forest Ranger and promote him\nas such with all consequential benefits.\n\n!For petitioner ... Mr.M.Ravi\n^For respondents... Mr.S.C.Herold Singh,\n\t\t    Government Advocate\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>\tThe petitioner challenges the charge memo dated 14.5.2009 issued against<br \/>\nhim, in this writ petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2. The case of the petitioner is that he joined services as Forest Guard<br \/>\non 24.11.1980 and was promoted as Forester in the year 1997 and when he was<br \/>\nworking as Forester in Agro-Forestry Research Division, Madurai, a show cause<br \/>\nnotice was issued against him in respect of certain irregularities alleged to<br \/>\nhave been committed by him in the execution of T.A.P. works of 2004-2005 as<br \/>\nTheppathupatti Thevar Colony, T.A.P. village as Forester from 28.2.2003 to<br \/>\n11.12.2003 and till 11.12.2007 and the loss to the Government was Rs.5,82,250\/=<br \/>\nand the petitioner is liable to pay Rs.1,01,894\/= and therefore, he was asked to<br \/>\nshow cause for having caused loss to the Government and why the sum of<br \/>\nRs.1,01,894\/= should not be recovered from him.  The petitioner challenges the<br \/>\nsaid charge memo raising various points and the learned counsel for the<br \/>\npetitioner Mr.M.Ravi confined his arguments in respect of two points viz., that<br \/>\nthere is violation of Rule 9-A of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and<br \/>\nAppeal) Rules and there is discrimination in the action taken by the<br \/>\nrespondents.  According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is the<br \/>\nspecific case of the respondents that in addition to the petitioner, Forest<br \/>\nRanger Mr.Chinnasamy was also involved alongwith two other persons and the<br \/>\nDistrict Forest Officer was also involved in the alleged misconduct and as per<br \/>\nRule 9-A, when a higher official is also involved in the same misconduct, the<br \/>\ndisciplinary proceedings are to be initiated only by the competent authority who<br \/>\ncan initiate action against the higher officials and in this case, the District<br \/>\nForest Officer was also involved and only the Principal Conservator of Forests<br \/>\nis such competent authority to issue charge memo against the District Forest<br \/>\nOfficer and having regard to Rule 9-A, the charge memo against the petitioner<br \/>\nalso ought to have been issued by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and<br \/>\nadmittedly, the charge memo was issued by the District Forest Officer and hence,<br \/>\nit is against the provisions of Rule 9-A.  He further submitted that as per Rule<br \/>\n9-A, the disciplinary proceedings shall be taken against all the officials<br \/>\ntogether and in this case, admittedly, that was not followed.  Therefore, on<br \/>\nthat ground also, there is violation of Rule 9-A.  He further submitted that<br \/>\nthere is discrimination in awarding punishment and the Government has dropped<br \/>\nproceedings against the Forest Ranger Mr.Chinnasamy though he was charged along<br \/>\nwith the petitioner for the same  misconduct and the Enquiry Officer has found<br \/>\nthat the charge against the Forest Ranger was not proved and it was accepted by<br \/>\nthe Government and he was relieved of the charges by Government Order dated<br \/>\n30.6.2010 and therefore, the charges levelled against the petitioner are also<br \/>\nliable to be quashed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3. Mr.Herold Singh, learned Government Advocate reiterated the allegations<br \/>\nmade in the counter affidavit and submitted that there is no violation of Rule<br \/>\n9-A as alleged by the petitioner and proceedings were initiated against the<br \/>\nRanger and the petitioner and others by the District Forest Officer, who is the<br \/>\ncompetent authority and in respect of the District Forest Officer, the provision<br \/>\nunder Rule 9-A cannot be applied as he is governed by the All India Service<br \/>\nRules and proposal was sent to Government by the Principal Chief Conservator of<br \/>\nForests on 17.6.2009 for approval of the charge sheet against the District<br \/>\nForest Officer and therefore, there is no violation of Rule 9-A.  He further<br \/>\nsubmitted that the quantum of responsibility and the monetary value was arrived<br \/>\nat after the count of seedlings actually planted as reported by the FEMAS Wing<br \/>\nand it was not on area basis as claimed by the petitioner and therefore, on the<br \/>\nbasis of the materials available, charge memo was issued and without giving<br \/>\nexplanation to the charge memo, it is not open to the petitioner to challenge<br \/>\nthe charge memo.  He further contended that the charge memo can be quashed only<br \/>\nwhen it was issued by a person who was not competent to issue the same and the<br \/>\ncharge memo contains the allegations which are vague and prima facie, no guilt<br \/>\ncan be arrived at on the face of the charge memo.  In this case, sufficient<br \/>\nmaterials are available for framing the charges and therefore, the charge memo<br \/>\ncannot be quashed.  He further submitted that the case of Chinnasamy cannot be<br \/>\ncompared by the petitioner as he was exonerated on the basis of the Enquiry<br \/>\nReport after he participated in the enquiry and so far as the petitioner is<br \/>\nconcerned, the enquiry has not started and only charge memo is issued and if<br \/>\nafter the enquiry the petitioner is also absolved by the Enquiry Officer, the<br \/>\nGovernment will also drop the proceedings against the petitioner and at this<br \/>\nstage, it cannot be stated that there is discrimination.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4. Heard both the counsel. It is the admitted fact that in respect of same<br \/>\nmisconduct,  action was taken against the District Forest Officer, Forest<br \/>\nRanger, the petitioner and two others.  It is also admitted that in respect of<br \/>\nthe District Forest Officer, the competent authority is the Government and in<br \/>\nrespect of  Forest Ranger, petitioner and others, the competent authority is the<br \/>\nDistrict Forest Officer.  As per Rule 9-A of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services<br \/>\n(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, when more than one Government servant of the same<br \/>\ndepartment are involved, the competent authority to institute disciplinary<br \/>\nproceedings and impose any of the penalties specified in the Rules shall be the<br \/>\nauthority in the Department who is competent to institute disciplinary<br \/>\nproceedings against the Government Servant who holds the higher post and the<br \/>\ndisciplinary proceedings against both shall be taken together.  Therefore, a<br \/>\nreading of Rule 9-A will make it clear that when more than one Government<br \/>\nservant is involved, and one of them is holding higher post, then the authority<br \/>\ncompetent to initiate proceedings against both is the authority, who can proceed<br \/>\nagainst the person who is holding the higher post.   The next ingredient is that<br \/>\nthe disciplinary proceedings against both will be taken together.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5. Now, it is contended by the learned Government Advocate that the<br \/>\nDistrict Forest Officer is government by All India Service Rules and proposal<br \/>\nwas sent to the Government for getting permission for initiating action against<br \/>\nhim by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests. It is admitted that<br \/>\nproceedings are contemplated or initiated against one of the higher officials<br \/>\nand therefore, when one of the delinquents is holding higher post, the<br \/>\nproceedings can be initiated only by the authority who can initiate disciplinary<br \/>\nproceedings against that person, in respect of other persons also.  Further, the<br \/>\ndisciplinary proceedings shall be taken against all of them together.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6. Rule 9-A was interpreted  by me in the judgment rendered in W.P.No.7828<br \/>\nof 2009 dated 23.12.2009 in the matter of <a href=\"\/doc\/441418\/\">R.NEETHIRAJAN v. GOVERNMENT OF<br \/>\nTAMILNADU AND OTHERS<\/a> wherein the facts are almost identical.  In that case, the<br \/>\ncharge memo was sent  in respect of Deputy Commissioner of Forests for approval<br \/>\nand at the same time, for the same misconduct, charge  memo was issued against<br \/>\nForest Rangers.  In such circumstances, I held as follows:-<br \/>\n&#8221;\t16.In this case, in so far the first condition is concerned, the Principal<br \/>\nChief Conservator of Forest is the authority to take action against  the Deputy<br \/>\nConservator of Forest as the Deputy Conservator of Forest holds higher post and<br \/>\ntherefore, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest alone is competent to take<br \/>\ndisciplinary proceedings against the petitioner also.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t17.But the charge memo against the petitioner was issued only by the<br \/>\nConservator of Forest and therefore, charge memo does not satisfy the first<br \/>\nrequirement of the rule 9(A). Even assuming that Conservator of Forest is the<br \/>\nauthority to initiate action against the Deputy Conservator of Forest,  the 2nd<br \/>\nrequirement under Rule 9(A) is not satisfied. As per the second requirement, the<br \/>\ndisciplinary proceedings against all of them shall be taken together and in this<br \/>\ncase, admittedly, action has been taken only against the petitioner and till<br \/>\ndate, there is no proof made available that any action has been taken against<br \/>\nthe Deputy Conservator of Forest.  Even assuming that charge memo has been<br \/>\nissued against the Deputy Conservator of Forest that will also not cure the<br \/>\ndefect inasmuch as rule 9(A) contemplates that the action must be taken together<br \/>\nagainst all of them. Therefore, the fact that the action was not taken against<br \/>\nboth the officials together and charge memo was not issued by the Principal<br \/>\nChief Conservator of Forest, who is competent to initiate action against the<br \/>\nDeputy Conservator of Forest, the charge memo issued by the Conservator of<br \/>\nForest, the 3rd respondent, is not in accordance with law.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7. Therefore, I hold that there is a clear violation of Rule 9-A in this<br \/>\ncase also. It vitiates the issuance of charge memo and the charge memo is liable<br \/>\nto be set aside on that ground.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8. Further, it is admitted that against Chinnasamy, the Forest Ranger,<br \/>\nsimilar charge memo was issued and after enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted<br \/>\na report stating that charges were not proved. It was accepted by the Government<br \/>\nand he was exonerated.  It is not in dispute that the charges framed against the<br \/>\npetitioner and Chinnasamy are identical in nature.  A perusal of the proceedings<br \/>\nof the first respondent dated 30.6.2010 whereby Chinnasamy was exonerated makes<br \/>\nit clear that the charges were found to be not proved.  It was clearly found by<br \/>\nthe Enquiry Officer which was accepted by the Government that as per the<br \/>\ncircular of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests in  33198, the saplings<br \/>\nare to be counted in each block in respect of each region and the calculation<br \/>\nwas not done by the FEMAS Wing and it was found that the entire area was not<br \/>\nproperly inspected and the inspection was conducted nine months after the<br \/>\nplantation of the saplings and therefore, there would not be a correct picture.<br \/>\nOn that ground, the Enquiry Officer held that the charges were not proved.<br \/>\nTherefore, when in respect of same charges, one officer was exonerated on the<br \/>\nground that charges were not proved, in my opinion, no useful purpose would be<br \/>\nserved in proceeding against the other person.  On that ground also, the charges<br \/>\nlevelled against the petitioner can be dropped.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIn the result, the writ petition is allowed.  No costs.  The connected<br \/>\nmiscellaneous petitions are closed.\n<\/p>\n<p>ssk.\n<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>1. The Principal Chief Conservator<br \/>\n\tof Forests,<br \/>\n   Chennai 600 015.<\/p>\n<pre>\n\n2. The District Forest Officer,\n   Madurai Division,\n   Madurai. \t\t\t\t<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court B.Bagavathi vs The Principal Chief Conservator on 26 November, 2010 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATE: 26\/11\/2010 CORAM THE HON&#8217;BLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.RAMANATHAN W.P.(MD)No.5731 of 2009 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2009 B.Bagavathi &#8230; Petitioner vs. 1. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Chennai 600 015. 2. The District Forest [&hellip;]<\/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-228210","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>B.Bagavathi vs The Principal Chief Conservator on 26 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/b-bagavathi-vs-the-principal-chief-conservator-on-26-november-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"B.Bagavathi vs The Principal Chief Conservator on 26 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-bagavathi-vs-the-principal-chief-conservator-on-26-november-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-11-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-07-21T07:16:28+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-bagavathi-vs-the-principal-chief-conservator-on-26-november-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-bagavathi-vs-the-principal-chief-conservator-on-26-november-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"B.Bagavathi vs The Principal Chief Conservator on 26 November, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-21T07:16:28+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-bagavathi-vs-the-principal-chief-conservator-on-26-november-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1766,\"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\\\/b-bagavathi-vs-the-principal-chief-conservator-on-26-november-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-bagavathi-vs-the-principal-chief-conservator-on-26-november-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-bagavathi-vs-the-principal-chief-conservator-on-26-november-2010\",\"name\":\"B.Bagavathi vs The Principal Chief Conservator on 26 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-21T07:16:28+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-bagavathi-vs-the-principal-chief-conservator-on-26-november-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-bagavathi-vs-the-principal-chief-conservator-on-26-november-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-bagavathi-vs-the-principal-chief-conservator-on-26-november-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"B.Bagavathi vs The Principal Chief Conservator on 26 November, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"B.Bagavathi vs The Principal Chief Conservator on 26 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/b-bagavathi-vs-the-principal-chief-conservator-on-26-november-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"B.Bagavathi vs The Principal Chief Conservator on 26 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-bagavathi-vs-the-principal-chief-conservator-on-26-november-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-11-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-07-21T07:16:28+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-bagavathi-vs-the-principal-chief-conservator-on-26-november-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-bagavathi-vs-the-principal-chief-conservator-on-26-november-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"B.Bagavathi vs The Principal Chief Conservator on 26 November, 2010","datePublished":"2010-11-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-21T07:16:28+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-bagavathi-vs-the-principal-chief-conservator-on-26-november-2010"},"wordCount":1766,"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\/b-bagavathi-vs-the-principal-chief-conservator-on-26-november-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-bagavathi-vs-the-principal-chief-conservator-on-26-november-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-bagavathi-vs-the-principal-chief-conservator-on-26-november-2010","name":"B.Bagavathi vs The Principal Chief Conservator on 26 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-11-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-21T07:16:28+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-bagavathi-vs-the-principal-chief-conservator-on-26-november-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-bagavathi-vs-the-principal-chief-conservator-on-26-november-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-bagavathi-vs-the-principal-chief-conservator-on-26-november-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"B.Bagavathi vs The Principal Chief Conservator on 26 November, 2010"}]},{"@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\/228210","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=228210"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/228210\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=228210"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=228210"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=228210"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}