{"id":231620,"date":"1995-09-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1995-09-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-ajoy-kumar-patnaik-on-8-september-1995"},"modified":"2016-01-09T16:24:20","modified_gmt":"2016-01-09T10:54:20","slug":"union-of-india-vs-ajoy-kumar-patnaik-on-8-september-1995","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-ajoy-kumar-patnaik-on-8-september-1995","title":{"rendered":"Union Of India vs Ajoy Kumar Patnaik on 8 September, 1995"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Union Of India vs Ajoy Kumar Patnaik on 8 September, 1995<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1996 AIR  280, \t\t  1995 SCC  (6) 442<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: K Ramaswamy<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Ramaswamy, K.<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nUNION OF INDIA\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nAJOY KUMAR PATNAIK\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT08\/09\/1995\n\nBENCH:\nRAMASWAMY, K.\nBENCH:\nRAMASWAMY, K.\nHANSARIA B.L. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1996 AIR  280\t\t  1995 SCC  (6) 442\n JT 1995 (7)\t30\t  1995 SCALE  (5)490\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>\t\t\t O R D E R<br \/>\n     Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n<p>     This appeal  by special  leave arises from the order of<br \/>\nthe Central Administrative Tribunal, Bombay Bench dated July<br \/>\n19, 1991 made in O.A. No.425 of 1986. The respondent&#8217;s case,<br \/>\nwhile workings\tas Collector of Customs (Appeals) at Bombay,<br \/>\nafter completing  50 years  of service, had come up before a<br \/>\nscreening committee  consisting of senior officers to review<br \/>\nthe respondent&#8217;s performance for continuance in service. The<br \/>\ncommittee met  on February 11, 1984. On consideration of the<br \/>\nentire\tmaterial   placed  before   it,\t it  recommended  to<br \/>\ncompulsorily  retire   the  respondent\tfrom  service  under<br \/>\nFundamental  Rule   56(j)  on\t&#8220;doubtful  integrity&#8221;.\t The<br \/>\ncompetent authority  passed the\t order on  February 10, 1986<br \/>\nunder  F.R.56(j)   of  the  Fundamental\t Rules\tcompulsorily<br \/>\nretiring him  in public\t interest. As  stated  earlier,\t the<br \/>\nrespondent had\tquestioned the\tcorrectness thereof  in\t the<br \/>\nAdministrative Tribunal which by its order had set aside the<br \/>\norder on  the ground  that there are no adverse entry in the<br \/>\nCharacter Rolls\t of &#8220;doubtful  integrity&#8221; of  the respondent<br \/>\nand that,  therefore, the  two instances should not be taken<br \/>\ninto consideration  in compulsorily  retiring the respondent<br \/>\nfrom service.\n<\/p>\n<p>     To\t satisfy   ourselves  whether\tthe  action  of\t the<br \/>\nappellant is  based on\tany material, since the Tribunal had<br \/>\ngiven finding  that it\thad perused  the record\t and was not<br \/>\nsatisfied, we  had directed  Shri N.N.\tGoswami, the learned<br \/>\nsenior counsel\tfor the\t appellant, to keep the record ready<br \/>\nand place  before us  the Character  Rolls as  well  as\t the<br \/>\nreport submitted  to the  Review  Committee,  views  of\t the<br \/>\nReview Committee made in that behalf. This has been done. We<br \/>\nhave perused  the proceedings  of the Review Committee dated<br \/>\nDecember 24, 1985, stating :\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>     &#8220;The  Review  Committee  considered  the<br \/>\n     report  of\t  the  Screening   Committee,<br \/>\n     forwarded to  us under  Chairman  CBEC&#8217;s<br \/>\n     note  dated   18.12.1985.\t The   Review<br \/>\n     Committee considered  the report and the<br \/>\n     records\tand\tagrees\t  with\t  the<br \/>\n     recommendation that  Shri D.P.  Arya and<br \/>\n     Shri  A.K.\t  Patnaik  are\t fit  to   be<br \/>\n     prematurely retired under FR 56(j).&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>     We have  seen the\tmaterial placed before the Screening<br \/>\nCommittee, the\tReview Committee and the competent Authority<br \/>\nin the\tproceedings referred  to hereinbefore.\tIt is stated<br \/>\nthat the  department had  given classification\tguidance for<br \/>\nclassifying  Dodecyl   Benzene\tunder  Heading\t17.10(1)  as<br \/>\nagainst Heading\t 38.01\/19. The Collector of Customs, Bombay,<br \/>\nhad issued  a Departmental Tariff Advice on the basis of the<br \/>\nminutes of  the\t Tariff\t Conference  held  at  Mangalore  in<br \/>\nSeptember, 1984 according to which Dodecyl Benzene was to be<br \/>\nclassified under  Heading 38.19.  The Advice  of the  C.C.C.<br \/>\nNomenclature Directorate was mentioned in the Tariff Advice.<br \/>\nThe date  of this  advice is  28.12.1984 and the date of the<br \/>\nappellate decision  bears dated\t 31.12.1984  which  is\tvery<br \/>\nclose to  the date  of the  advice. Even as late as October,<br \/>\n1985, Shri  Patnaik (the  respondent  herein)  continued  to<br \/>\nclassify Dodecyl  Benzena as  before the issue of the Tariff<br \/>\nAdvice. They concluded that by the wrong classification, the<br \/>\nrespondent had given benefit to a single party, namely, M\/s.<br \/>\nRajesh &amp; Sons of Bombay alone to the tune of more than Rs. 2<br \/>\ncrores. Similarly,  in 32  appeals which  the respondent has<br \/>\ndisposed of,  he classified  Saccharine to  be cleared under<br \/>\nREP Licence  as &#8220;Electroplating Brightener&#8221;, in spite of the<br \/>\nfact that  the Import  Policy in condition No. 5 of Appendix<br \/>\n17 is  clear that this cannot be done, as Sacchrine has been<br \/>\nspecifically banned under Appendix 4, and an item allowed on<br \/>\nan REP Licence under Appendix 17 of the Policy should either<br \/>\nbe one\twhich has  been specifically  named in that Appendix<br \/>\nwhich, Saccharine  was not,  or it  should not\tbe a  banned<br \/>\nitem, which  Saccharine was.  On the basis of this material,<br \/>\nthey doubted  the integrity  of the respondent and had taken<br \/>\ndecision to compulsorily retire the officer from service.\n<\/p>\n<p>     It is  contended by the counsel for the respondent that<br \/>\nhe was not communicated the instructions regarding the first<br \/>\nitem. It  is also  contended with  regard to the second item<br \/>\nthat he\t was entitled to dispose of the matter on merits and<br \/>\nhad taken  judicial decision  on the  basis of\tthe material<br \/>\nplaced before  him as  an appellate authority and he was not<br \/>\nresponsible for the clearance of the goods.\n<\/p>\n<p>     We are  not concerned  with the merits in the matter of<br \/>\ndisposal  or   manner  of   disposal  of   the\tappeals\t  or<br \/>\nclassification.\t We   are  concerned   with  regard  to\t the<br \/>\nintegrity of  the officer  in the  decision making  process.<br \/>\nWhen the authorities had material before them and considered<br \/>\nthat material to be sufficient to doubt the integrity of the<br \/>\nofficer, it  is settled\t law that the authority competent to<br \/>\ntake the  decision to  compulsorily retire  the officer\t can<br \/>\nform an\t opinion whether  continuance of  such officer is in<br \/>\nthe public  interest. It  has gone  into the  conduct of the<br \/>\nofficer and  that his  conduct in  the manner of disposal of<br \/>\nthe appeals  as quasi judicial authority does encompass into<br \/>\nmisconduct for taking disciplinary action.\n<\/p>\n<p>     <a href=\"\/doc\/1345052\/\">In S.  Govinda Menon v. Union of India &amp; Anr.<\/a> [AIR 1967<br \/>\nSC 1274],  the appellant, an ICS officer was Commissioner of<br \/>\nHindu Religious\t and Charitable\t Endowments. He\t disposed of<br \/>\ngrant of  lease of  the\t endowment  lands  contrary  to\t the<br \/>\nstatute. He  was charged  for misconduct.  He questioned the<br \/>\nshow cause  notice by  filing a\t writ petition. Pending writ<br \/>\npetition,  the\t enquiry  officer   submitted  his   report.<br \/>\nThereafter, he\tamended and  writ of prohibition was sought.<br \/>\nThe principal  contention raised  therein was that his order<br \/>\nwas quasi  judicial. Mathew, J. as he then was negatived the<br \/>\ncontention while  S.V. Pillai,\tJ. accepted  the  contention<br \/>\nthat  quasi   judicial\tdecision  having  become  final\t and<br \/>\nconclusive, the\t conduct of  quasi judicial orders cannot be<br \/>\nthe subject  of an  enquiry for\t misconduct.  On  reference,<br \/>\nGovinda Menon,\tJ. agreed  with Justice Mathew and dismissed<br \/>\nthe writ  petition. When  appeal was  filed, this Court held<br \/>\nthat although  the Commissioner\t acted as an authority under<br \/>\nthe Hindu  Religious &amp; Endowment Acts and was not subject to<br \/>\nadministrative control\tof the\tGovernment as  a master\t and<br \/>\nservant,  still\t  the  proceeding   for\t such  acts  can  be<br \/>\ninstituted against  him, if there is prima facie material to<br \/>\nshow recklessness  or misconduct  on his  part.\t It  is\t not<br \/>\nnecessary that\tthe  appellant\tshould\thave  committed\t the<br \/>\nalleged act  or omission  in the  course of discharge of his<br \/>\nduties as  a servant  of the Government in order that it may<br \/>\nform the  subject matter of disciplinary proceedings. If the<br \/>\nact or\tomission is  such as to reflect on the reputation of<br \/>\nthe officer  or his  integrity or  good faith or devotion to<br \/>\nduty, there  is no reason why disciplinary proceeding should<br \/>\nnot be\ttaken against  him for that act or omission relating<br \/>\nto an  activity in regard to which there is no actual master<br \/>\nand servant  relationship. To put it differently, this Court<br \/>\nsaid that  the test  is not  whether the act or omission was<br \/>\ncommitted by the appellant in the course of his discharge of<br \/>\nhis duties as servant of the Government. The test is whether<br \/>\nthe act\t or omission has some reasonable connection with the<br \/>\nnature and  condition of  his service  or whether the act or<br \/>\nomission has  cast any reflection upon the reputation of the<br \/>\nmember of  the service for doubting integrity or devotion to<br \/>\nduty as a public servant.\n<\/p>\n<p>     <a href=\"\/doc\/47493\/\">In V.R. Katarki v. State of Karnataka<\/a> [C.A. No.4392\/86,<br \/>\ndated March 22, 1990], a Bench of this Court to which one of<br \/>\nus (K.\tRamaswamy, J.)\twas  a\tmember,\t the  appellant\t was<br \/>\nimputed with  misconduct in fixing, in his capacity as Civil<br \/>\nJudge at  Baglkot, &#8220;higher  valuation than was legitimate of<br \/>\nthe lands.&#8221;  After conducting  an enquiry and finding guilty<br \/>\nof misconduct,\the was\tdismissed  from\t service  which\t was<br \/>\nconfirmed by  the High\tCourt on  judicial  side.  When\t the<br \/>\nappeal had  come up, this Court was requested not to go into<br \/>\nthe question  of the valuation since that was subject matter<br \/>\nof an  appeal in  the High Court. This Court disposed of the<br \/>\nappeal holding\tthus: &#8220;We  would  like\tto  make  a  special<br \/>\nmention of  the position  that even  if\t the  assessment  of<br \/>\nvaluation is  modified or affirmed in an appeal as a part of<br \/>\nthe judicial  process, the  conduct of\tthe judicial officer<br \/>\ndrawable from  an overall picture of the matter would yet be<br \/>\navailable to be looked into. &#8220;In appropriate cases it may be<br \/>\nopened to draw inferences even from judicial acts&#8221;. Thus the<br \/>\nappeal was dismissed confirming dismissal from service. This<br \/>\nratio was followed in <a href=\"\/doc\/1559215\/\">Periyar and Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd. v.<br \/>\nState of  Kerala<\/a> [AIR  1990 SC 2192 at 2198] to which one of<br \/>\nus (K.\tRamaswamy,J.) was a member, and this Court held that<br \/>\n&#8220;The rule  of conduct spurned by this Court squarely put the<br \/>\nnail on\t the official  act as  a refuge to fix arbitrary and<br \/>\nunreasonable market value and the person concerned shall not<br \/>\ncamouflage the\tofficial act  to a  hidden  conduct  in\t the<br \/>\nfunction of fixing arbitrary or unreasonable compensation to<br \/>\nthe acquired land.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>     It would  thus be clear that an officer though performs<br \/>\nofficial  quasi\t judicial  functions,  his  conduct  in\t the<br \/>\ndischarge of  the quasi\t judicial act or omission relates to<br \/>\nthe activity in the course of the discharge of his duties as<br \/>\na servant of the Government and bears reasonable relation or<br \/>\nnexus with the nature and conduct of the service and when it<br \/>\ncasts reflection  upon his reputation, integrity or devotion<br \/>\nto  duty  as  a\t public\t servant,  that\t would\tbe  squarely<br \/>\nreferable to  the conduct  of the public servant amenable to<br \/>\ndisciplinary  proceeding.  When\t it  is\t a  misconduct,\t the<br \/>\ncompetent authority  is equally\t entitled to take a decision<br \/>\nwhether an  officer has\t impeccable integrity  and  absolute<br \/>\ndevotion to  duty for  further continuation  in service. The<br \/>\ncompetent authority  would be free to consider the material,<br \/>\nparticularly the  latest one,  and form a bona fide decision<br \/>\nin the\tpublic interest\t to compulsorily  retire an  officer<br \/>\nfrom service.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Since the competent authorities at different levels had<br \/>\nconsidered  the\t material  and\tultimately  had\t decided  to<br \/>\ncompulsorily retire  the respondent  from service, it cannot<br \/>\nbe said\t that it  is an\t arbitrary decision. It is true that<br \/>\npending the  proceedings the  respondent has already retired<br \/>\nfrom service  on attaining  the age  of superannuation,\t but<br \/>\nthat would  not provide\t a ground  nor to  dispose  of\tthis<br \/>\nmatter without giving any finding on the action taken by the<br \/>\ncompetent authority.  Otherwise, in all cases it would cause<br \/>\ngrave damage  to public justice. The employee would get away<br \/>\nwith it\t due to\t pending proceedings. Therefore, it needs to<br \/>\nbe considered  and decision  rendered  thereon\twhether\t the<br \/>\naction taken by the Government or the competent authority is<br \/>\nvalid in  law. In  that perspective,  mere retirement of the<br \/>\nofficer by efflux of time pending proceedings would not be a<br \/>\nground to close the matter.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The appeal\t is accordingly allowed and the order of the<br \/>\nTribunal is  set aside\tand that of the appellant is upheld.<br \/>\nBut in the circumstances without costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Union Of India vs Ajoy Kumar Patnaik on 8 September, 1995 Equivalent citations: 1996 AIR 280, 1995 SCC (6) 442 Author: K Ramaswamy Bench: Ramaswamy, K. PETITIONER: UNION OF INDIA Vs. RESPONDENT: AJOY KUMAR PATNAIK DATE OF JUDGMENT08\/09\/1995 BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. HANSARIA B.L. (J) CITATION: 1996 AIR 280 [&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-231620","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>Union Of India vs Ajoy Kumar Patnaik on 8 September, 1995 - 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\/union-of-india-vs-ajoy-kumar-patnaik-on-8-september-1995\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Union Of India vs Ajoy Kumar Patnaik on 8 September, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-ajoy-kumar-patnaik-on-8-september-1995\" \/>\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=\"1995-09-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-01-09T10:54:20+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\\\/union-of-india-vs-ajoy-kumar-patnaik-on-8-september-1995#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-ajoy-kumar-patnaik-on-8-september-1995\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Union Of India vs Ajoy Kumar Patnaik on 8 September, 1995\",\"datePublished\":\"1995-09-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-09T10:54:20+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-ajoy-kumar-patnaik-on-8-september-1995\"},\"wordCount\":1836,\"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\\\/union-of-india-vs-ajoy-kumar-patnaik-on-8-september-1995#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-ajoy-kumar-patnaik-on-8-september-1995\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-ajoy-kumar-patnaik-on-8-september-1995\",\"name\":\"Union Of India vs Ajoy Kumar Patnaik on 8 September, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1995-09-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-09T10:54:20+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-ajoy-kumar-patnaik-on-8-september-1995#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-ajoy-kumar-patnaik-on-8-september-1995\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-ajoy-kumar-patnaik-on-8-september-1995#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Union Of India vs Ajoy Kumar Patnaik on 8 September, 1995\"}]},{\"@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":"Union Of India vs Ajoy Kumar Patnaik on 8 September, 1995 - 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\/union-of-india-vs-ajoy-kumar-patnaik-on-8-september-1995","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Union Of India vs Ajoy Kumar Patnaik on 8 September, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-ajoy-kumar-patnaik-on-8-september-1995","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1995-09-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-01-09T10:54:20+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\/union-of-india-vs-ajoy-kumar-patnaik-on-8-september-1995#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-ajoy-kumar-patnaik-on-8-september-1995"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Union Of India vs Ajoy Kumar Patnaik on 8 September, 1995","datePublished":"1995-09-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-09T10:54:20+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-ajoy-kumar-patnaik-on-8-september-1995"},"wordCount":1836,"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\/union-of-india-vs-ajoy-kumar-patnaik-on-8-september-1995#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-ajoy-kumar-patnaik-on-8-september-1995","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-ajoy-kumar-patnaik-on-8-september-1995","name":"Union Of India vs Ajoy Kumar Patnaik on 8 September, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1995-09-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-09T10:54:20+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-ajoy-kumar-patnaik-on-8-september-1995#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-ajoy-kumar-patnaik-on-8-september-1995"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-ajoy-kumar-patnaik-on-8-september-1995#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Union Of India vs Ajoy Kumar Patnaik on 8 September, 1995"}]},{"@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\/231620","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=231620"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/231620\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=231620"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=231620"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=231620"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}