{"id":230737,"date":"1996-04-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1996-04-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-rt-rev-b-p-sugandharbishop-vs-smt-d-dorothy-on-12-april-1996"},"modified":"2015-04-10T17:20:01","modified_gmt":"2015-04-10T11:50:01","slug":"the-rt-rev-b-p-sugandharbishop-vs-smt-d-dorothy-on-12-april-1996","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-rt-rev-b-p-sugandharbishop-vs-smt-d-dorothy-on-12-april-1996","title":{"rendered":"The Rt. Rev. B.P. Sugandharbishop &#8230; vs Smt. D. Dorothy &#8230; on 12 April, 1996"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">The Rt. Rev. B.P. Sugandharbishop &#8230; vs Smt. D. Dorothy &#8230; on 12 April, 1996<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1996 SCC  (4) 406, \t  JT 1996 (6)\t221<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: N G.T.<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Nanavati G.T. (J)<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nTHE RT. REV. B.P. SUGANDHARBISHOP IN MEDAK\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSMT. D. DOROTHY DAYASHEELAEBENESER\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t12\/04\/1996\n\nBENCH:\nNANAVATI G.T. (J)\nBENCH:\nNANAVATI G.T. (J)\nAGRAWAL, S.C. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1996 SCC  (4) 406\t  JT 1996 (6)\t221\n 1996 SCALE  (3)701\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>\t\t      J U D G M E N T<br \/>\nNANAVATI, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The Diocese of Medak is running an institution known as<br \/>\nCSI  EVA  MAIR\tTechnical  Institute  at  Secunderabad.\t The<br \/>\nappellant  is\tthe  Chairman\tof  the\t Diocesan  Executive<br \/>\nCommittee and  respondent No. 1 is the Principal of the said<br \/>\ntechnical institute.  On the basis of the report made by the<br \/>\nSocio Economic\tBoard concerned\t with administration  of the<br \/>\ninstitutions within  the Diocese  of  Medak,  the  Executive<br \/>\nCommittee  resolved   on  12.6.95   to\tappoint\t an  Enquiry<br \/>\nCommission to  enquire into  the  acts\tof  commissions\t and<br \/>\nomissions of  Respondent No.1.\tIt also\t resolved to suspend<br \/>\nRespondent No.1.  Pursuant to  that resolution the appellant<br \/>\nby an  order dated  June 12,  1995 suspended Respondent No.1<br \/>\npending the  enquiry and  by  letter  of  the  same  date  a<br \/>\nCommission  of\t Enquiry  was\tconstituted.  The  terms  of<br \/>\nreference were as under:\n<\/p>\n<p>1. Wilful insubordination and non-cooperation\n<\/p>\n<p>2.  Leaving   headquarter  witnout   prior   permission\t  or<br \/>\nintimation.\n<\/p>\n<p>3. Unauthorised appointment of staff\n<\/p>\n<p>4. Admissions\n<\/p>\n<p>5. Purchases of furniture and equipment\n<\/p>\n<p>6.  Addressing\tletters\t against  the  Bishop  and  Diocesan<br \/>\nAdministration\n<\/p>\n<p>7. Using  derogatory remarks against the Bishop and Diocesan<br \/>\nAdministration; and\n<\/p>\n<p>8. Entire functioning of the Institution.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The Commission  of\t Enqiury  submitted  its  report  on<br \/>\n21.9.1995. The\tEnquiry\t Commission  found  that  there\t was<br \/>\nsufficient material  in support\t of the charges made against<br \/>\nRespondent  No.1.   Therefore,\ton  5.11.1995  the  Diocesan<br \/>\nExecutive Committee  issued  a\tnotice\tto  Respondent\tNo.1<br \/>\ncalling upon  her to  show  cause  why\tshe  should  not  be<br \/>\ndismissed from\tservice. Thereupon,  Respondent No.1 filed a<br \/>\nwrit petition  in the  Andhra Pradesh High Court challenging<br \/>\nthe order  of her  suspension and  also the  action  of\t the<br \/>\nappellant constituting an Enquiry Commission. In the counter<br \/>\nfiled by  the appellant\t it  was  stated  that\tthe  Enquiry<br \/>\nCommission was\tonly a\tfact-finding body,  that an  Enquiry<br \/>\nOfficer will  be appointed  to hold  an enquiry\t and that  a<br \/>\ndetailed charge-sheet  will be issued based on the report of<br \/>\nthe Enquiry  Commission. In  view of  this statement learned<br \/>\nSingle Judge of the High Court, on 13.11.1995, dismissed the<br \/>\npetition as  premature.\t The  first  respondent,  therefore,<br \/>\nfiled Writ  Appeal No.\t1746 of 1995 before a Division Bench<br \/>\nof that\t Court. Meanwhile,  as Respondent  No.1 did not give<br \/>\nany satisfactory explanation with respect to the allegations<br \/>\nmade against  her the appellant appointed an Enquiry Officer<br \/>\non 29.12.1995.\tThe Division Bench, on 1.2.1996, allowed the<br \/>\nappeal as  it was  of the  view that  the terms of reference<br \/>\nmade to\t the Enquiry  Commission were  vague and general and<br \/>\nthat there was an &#8216;element of mala fides&#8217; on the part of the<br \/>\nappellant in  initiating the  said proceedings\tand that the<br \/>\norder of suspension dated 12.6.1995 having come to an end on<br \/>\n12.10.1995 Respondent  No. 1  was entitled to be restored as<br \/>\nPrincipal. Aggrieved  by that  order the appellant has filed<br \/>\nthis appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>     What is  contended by  Mr. Soli  J.  Sorabjee,  learned<br \/>\nSenior Counsel\tfor the\t appellant is  that the\t Divis666ion<br \/>\nBench of  the High  Court completely  misdirected itself  as<br \/>\nregards the  correct legal position and, therefore, erred in<br \/>\nquashing the  action of\t the  appellant\t in  constituting  a<br \/>\nCommission of  Enquiry and  also the order of suspension. It<br \/>\nwas also  contended that  the Division\tBench  committed  an<br \/>\nerror in  directing the appellant to permit Respondent No. 1<br \/>\nto assume charge as Principal. It was submitted that in view<br \/>\nof the\tnature of  the allegations  made against  her and in<br \/>\nview of\t the subsequent\t conduct in delaying the proceedings<br \/>\nthe order of suspension should not have been quashed.\n<\/p>\n<p>     We find  it difficult  to appreciate  how the  Division<br \/>\nBench thought  it  fit\tto  quash  the\tpreliminary  enquiry<br \/>\nparticularly when  the appellant  had made  it clear, by the<br \/>\ntime the  Division Bench  disposed of  the appeal,  that the<br \/>\nformal enquiry\twas yet to be held. Obviously the purpose of<br \/>\nconstituting the  Commission of\t Enquiry was  to hold only a<br \/>\npreliminary enquiry  to ascertain  whether  there  was\tsome<br \/>\ntruth in  the complaints  made against\tRespondent No.1\t and<br \/>\nwhether there  was enough  material on\tthe basis  of  which<br \/>\nmisconduct of  Respondent No.1\tcould be proved. The learned<br \/>\nJudges failed  to appreciate  that at  that stage  no formal<br \/>\ncharge was  required to\t be framed nor even participation by<br \/>\nRespondent No.1\t was necessary.\t The Executive Committee had<br \/>\nonly broadly  indicated to  the Commission  of\tEnquiry\t the<br \/>\nnature and  scope of  enquiry which  they had  to make and a<br \/>\ncopy of\t the terms  of reference  was served upon Respondent<br \/>\nNo.1 only  to enable  her to  put forward her explanation so<br \/>\nthat that  also could be considered along with the report of<br \/>\nthe Commission\tof Enquiry  before taking  a decision  as to<br \/>\nwhether a  full-fledged regular\t enquiry was  required to be<br \/>\nmade against her. There was hardly any role for the court to<br \/>\nplay at\t that stage.  The learned  Single Judge\t had rightly<br \/>\ndismissed the  writ petition  as premature  and it  was\t not<br \/>\nproper for  the Division  Bench to  set aside that order and<br \/>\nquash the  constitution of  the Commission  of\tEnquiry\t and<br \/>\nholding of  a  preliminary  enquiry.  It  should  have\tbeen<br \/>\nappreciated that  it was futile to pass such an order as the<br \/>\nExecutive Committee  had already  taken a  decision by\tthat<br \/>\ntime to hold a regular full-fledged enquiry and appointed an<br \/>\nEnquiry Officer for that purpose.\n<\/p>\n<p>     It was  next  contended  by  learned  counsel  for\t the<br \/>\nappellant that in view of the two decisions of the same High<br \/>\nCourt in  M. Chandrasekhara  Rao vs.  Sri Sarvodaya  College<br \/>\n1988 (1)  ALT 651 and Dr. Philomena vs. Government of Andhra<br \/>\nPradesh 1994  (2) ALT 665 the Division Bench should not have<br \/>\ndirected the  appellant, by  issuing a\twrit of mandamus &#8220;to<br \/>\narrange for  the petitioner  to assume charge as Principal&#8221;,<br \/>\nin view\t of the\t serious irregularities\t found to  have been<br \/>\ncommitted by  her. In  M. Chandrasekhara  Rao&#8217;s case (supra)<br \/>\nthe High Court after considering the effect of Section 79(3)<br \/>\nof the\tA.P. Education\tAct has\t held that  in a  case where<br \/>\nthere are  grave charges  of misconduct, whatever may be the<br \/>\nreason for  not completing the enquiry within the prescribed<br \/>\ntime, the interest of the institution and the employee would<br \/>\nbe best\t served if a direction is given to the management to<br \/>\ncontinue to pay to the employee the salary and allowances of<br \/>\nthe   post    held   by\t   him\t  instead    of\t   directing<br \/>\nreinstatement\/restoration of  the employee into the service.<br \/>\nThe said view was reiterated by a Division Bench of the High<br \/>\nCourt in  Dr. Philomena&#8217;s  case\t (supra)  and  it  has\tbeen<br \/>\nobserved therein  that though Section 79(3) is mandatory and<br \/>\non the\texpiry of the specified period the employee would be<br \/>\nentitled to  be restored  to the same position and status as<br \/>\nhe  or\tshe  occupied  as  on  the  date  of  the  order  of<br \/>\nsuspension, but\t such restoration cannot be automatic in all<br \/>\ncircumstances and  court may  in view  of the peculiar facts<br \/>\nand  circumstances   of\t the   case,  instead  of  directing<br \/>\nrestoration or reinstatement, strike an equi-balance between<br \/>\nthe right  of  the  employee  vis-a-vis\t the  right  of\t the<br \/>\ninstitution\/society  and   the\tdiscipline   among  the\t co-<br \/>\nemployees. Unfortunately,  the High  Court did\tnot consider<br \/>\nthis aspect  and has  ordered restoration of Respondent No.1<br \/>\non the post of the Principal. From the material on record we<br \/>\nfind that  the charges\tlevelled against Respondent No.1 are<br \/>\nquite serious.\tThey  pertain  not  only  to  administrative<br \/>\nirregularities\tbut   also  financial\tirregularities\t and<br \/>\ndisobedience.  In   view   of\tthe   peculiar\t facts\t and<br \/>\ncircumstances of the case we think it just and proper to set<br \/>\naside the  direction for  restoration of  Respondent No.1 on<br \/>\nthe post of Principal and instead direct the appellant to go<br \/>\non paying  the full  salary and\t allowances to\ther till the<br \/>\nenquiry is  over. We  also direct  the appellant to conclude<br \/>\nthe enquiry  within four  months from today. Respondent No.1<br \/>\nshall also  cooperate with  the enquiry in order to see that<br \/>\nit is  completed within the time fixed by us. This appeal is<br \/>\nallowed accordingly. No order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India The Rt. Rev. B.P. Sugandharbishop &#8230; vs Smt. D. Dorothy &#8230; on 12 April, 1996 Equivalent citations: 1996 SCC (4) 406, JT 1996 (6) 221 Author: N G.T. Bench: Nanavati G.T. (J) PETITIONER: THE RT. REV. B.P. SUGANDHARBISHOP IN MEDAK Vs. RESPONDENT: SMT. D. DOROTHY DAYASHEELAEBENESER DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12\/04\/1996 BENCH: [&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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-230737","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>The Rt. Rev. B.P. Sugandharbishop ... vs Smt. D. Dorothy ... on 12 April, 1996 - 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\/the-rt-rev-b-p-sugandharbishop-vs-smt-d-dorothy-on-12-april-1996\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Rt. Rev. B.P. Sugandharbishop ... vs Smt. D. Dorothy ... on 12 April, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-rt-rev-b-p-sugandharbishop-vs-smt-d-dorothy-on-12-april-1996\" \/>\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=\"1996-04-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-04-10T11:50:01+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\\\/the-rt-rev-b-p-sugandharbishop-vs-smt-d-dorothy-on-12-april-1996#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-rt-rev-b-p-sugandharbishop-vs-smt-d-dorothy-on-12-april-1996\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Rt. Rev. B.P. Sugandharbishop &#8230; vs Smt. D. Dorothy &#8230; on 12 April, 1996\",\"datePublished\":\"1996-04-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-10T11:50:01+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-rt-rev-b-p-sugandharbishop-vs-smt-d-dorothy-on-12-april-1996\"},\"wordCount\":1340,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-rt-rev-b-p-sugandharbishop-vs-smt-d-dorothy-on-12-april-1996#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-rt-rev-b-p-sugandharbishop-vs-smt-d-dorothy-on-12-april-1996\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-rt-rev-b-p-sugandharbishop-vs-smt-d-dorothy-on-12-april-1996\",\"name\":\"The Rt. Rev. B.P. Sugandharbishop ... vs Smt. D. Dorothy ... on 12 April, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1996-04-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-10T11:50:01+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-rt-rev-b-p-sugandharbishop-vs-smt-d-dorothy-on-12-april-1996#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-rt-rev-b-p-sugandharbishop-vs-smt-d-dorothy-on-12-april-1996\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-rt-rev-b-p-sugandharbishop-vs-smt-d-dorothy-on-12-april-1996#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Rt. Rev. B.P. Sugandharbishop &#8230; vs Smt. D. Dorothy &#8230; on 12 April, 1996\"}]},{\"@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":"The Rt. Rev. B.P. Sugandharbishop ... vs Smt. D. Dorothy ... on 12 April, 1996 - 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\/the-rt-rev-b-p-sugandharbishop-vs-smt-d-dorothy-on-12-april-1996","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Rt. Rev. B.P. Sugandharbishop ... vs Smt. D. Dorothy ... on 12 April, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-rt-rev-b-p-sugandharbishop-vs-smt-d-dorothy-on-12-april-1996","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1996-04-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-04-10T11:50:01+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\/the-rt-rev-b-p-sugandharbishop-vs-smt-d-dorothy-on-12-april-1996#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-rt-rev-b-p-sugandharbishop-vs-smt-d-dorothy-on-12-april-1996"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Rt. Rev. B.P. Sugandharbishop &#8230; vs Smt. D. Dorothy &#8230; on 12 April, 1996","datePublished":"1996-04-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-10T11:50:01+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-rt-rev-b-p-sugandharbishop-vs-smt-d-dorothy-on-12-april-1996"},"wordCount":1340,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-rt-rev-b-p-sugandharbishop-vs-smt-d-dorothy-on-12-april-1996#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-rt-rev-b-p-sugandharbishop-vs-smt-d-dorothy-on-12-april-1996","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-rt-rev-b-p-sugandharbishop-vs-smt-d-dorothy-on-12-april-1996","name":"The Rt. Rev. B.P. Sugandharbishop ... vs Smt. D. Dorothy ... on 12 April, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1996-04-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-10T11:50:01+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-rt-rev-b-p-sugandharbishop-vs-smt-d-dorothy-on-12-april-1996#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-rt-rev-b-p-sugandharbishop-vs-smt-d-dorothy-on-12-april-1996"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-rt-rev-b-p-sugandharbishop-vs-smt-d-dorothy-on-12-april-1996#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Rt. Rev. B.P. Sugandharbishop &#8230; vs Smt. D. Dorothy &#8230; on 12 April, 1996"}]},{"@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\/230737","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=230737"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/230737\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=230737"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=230737"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=230737"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}