{"id":233161,"date":"2004-03-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-03-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-s-nagaraj-on-8-march-2004"},"modified":"2014-12-24T06:48:29","modified_gmt":"2014-12-24T01:18:29","slug":"the-state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-s-nagaraj-on-8-march-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-s-nagaraj-on-8-march-2004","title":{"rendered":"The State Of Tamil Nadu vs S. Nagaraj on 8 March, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
The State Of Tamil Nadu vs S. Nagaraj on 8 March, 2004<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDated: 08\/03\/2004\n\nCoram\n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.JAYASIMHA BABU\nand\nTHE HONOURABLE  MR.JUSTICE  M.KARPAGAVINAYAGAM\n\nWrit Petition No.1910  of 2001 and Writ Petition No. 1911 of 2001\n\n\nW.P.No.1910 of 2001:\n\n1.The State of Tamil Nadu\nrep. by its Secretary to Government,\nHome (Police.1A) Department.\nFort St. George, Chennai-9.\n\n2.The Director General of Police,\n  Chennai-4.                            ..Petitioners\n\n\n-Vs-\n\n1. S. Nagaraj\n\n2. The Registrar,\n   Tamil Nadu Administrative\n   Tribunal, High Court Buiding,\n   Chennai-104.                                 .. Respondents\n\n\nW.P.No.1911 of 2001:\n\nThe State of Tamil Nadu\nrep. by the Secretary to Government,\nHome Department,\nFort St. George,\nChennai-9.                                      .. Petitioner\n\n\nVs.\n\n1.S. Nagaraj\n2. The Commissioner\n Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings\n Tirunelveli-2.\n\n3. The Registrar,\n   Tamil Nadu Administrative\n   Tribunal,\n   Chennai.                                     .. Respondents\n\n\n\n        Writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the  Constitution  of  India\nfor issuance of a Writ of Certiorari as stated therein.\n\nFor Petitioners :  Mr.S.T.S.  Moorthy,\n                Spl.G.P.\n\n\nFor Respondent-1 :  Mr.A.  Amalraj\n\n                                ----\n:C O M M O N O R D E R\nM.KARPAGAVINAYAGAM, J.\n<\/pre>\n
        The  State,  the  petitioner  herein,  aggrieved  by the orders of the
\nTribunal reinstating the first respondent,Deputy Superintendent of Police  and
\ndirecting the State to give notional promotion as Additional Superintendent of
\nPolice  in  O.A.No.6229  of 1999 and O.A.No.3838 of 2000 , has filed these two
\nwrit petitions in W.P.Nos.1910 of 2001 and 1911 of 2001 respectively.\n<\/p>\n
        2.  The facts in brief are as follows:\n<\/p>\n
        (a)S.Nagaraj, the first respondent herein joined police service as Sub
\nInspector of  Police  on 23.11.1965.  In 1977, he was promoted as Inspector of
\nPolice.  In 1991, he was promoted as Deputy Superintendent of Police.  He  was
\nworking  as  Deputy  Superintendent  of Police (Law and Order) at Aruppukottai
\nfrom 14.11.1997 to 21.8.1998.  During that period,  he  organised  prohibition
\nraids to  curtail  illicit  sale  of  arrack.    Queens Rathnavel, a native of
\nAruppukottai owning 9 Wine  Shops  and  2  Cinema  Theatres,  met  the  D.S.P.
\nNagaraj  and  requested  him to put down the illicit sale of arrack around his
\narea.\n<\/p>\n
        (b) On 13.7.1998, the D.S.P.  demanded Rs.15,000\/- as  monthly  Mamool
\nfor the  9  Wine  Shops.   Queens Rathnavel expressed his inability to pay the
\namount.  The D.S.P.  threatened him that if the amount is not paid,  he  would
\nbook cases against  him.    On  21.7.1998,  Rs.10,000\/- was paid.  The balance
\namount of Rs.5,000\/- was not paid.  So, on 21.7.199 8, the  Sub  Inspector  of
\nPolice  booked  cases  against the Theatres as well as the Wine Shops owned by
\nhim.\n<\/p>\n
        (c) On 23.7.1998, Queens Rathnavel and his men came to the station and
\nshouted at the D.S.P.  about the arrest of his men.  He was pacified and sent.
\nOn 26.7.1998, the D.S.P.  contacted Queens Rathnavel over phone  and  demanded
\nthe balance  of  Rs.5,000\/-.    As  he  was  not willing to pay the amount, on
\n28.7.1998, he lodged a complaint with the  Deputy  Superintendent  of  Police,
\nVigilance  and  Anti-corruption,  Virudhunagar  and  the  same  was registered
\nagainst the first respondent in Crime No.2 of 1998 under Sections 7 and  13(2)
\nread with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.\n<\/p>\n
        (d) A  trap  was  laid.  Even though the trap did not materialise, the
\ntainted notes of Rs.5,000\/- was recovered from the first  respondent  and  the
\nsame was sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate.\n<\/p>\n
        (e) On 19.8.1998, on the basis of the above case, the suspension order
\nwas issued.    Against  this order, the first respondent filed a writ petition
\nbefore the High Court in W.P.No.2742 of 1999.\n<\/p>\n
        (f) On 19.2.1999,  the  High  Court  disposed  of  the  writ  petition
\ndirecting  the  authorities  to  complete  the  enquiry within a period of six
\nmonths and if the enquiry is not completed within  the  stipulated  time,  the
\ndelinquent officer has to be reinstated.\n<\/p>\n
        (g) In the meantime, on 9.9.1998, a panel of D.S.Ps.  was prepared for
\npromotion as  AD.S.P.   On 16.9.1998, the delinquent officer was informed that
\nhis name for promotion has been deferred, since he is under suspension and his
\nclaim will be considered after proceedings are concluded.\n<\/p>\n
        (h) Despite the orders of the High Court directing the enquiry  to  be
\ncompleted within  six  months,  the  enquiry was not completed.  Therefore, on
\n30.8.1999,  the  suspension  order  was  revoked  and   he   was   reinstated.
\nAccordingly, he joined duty on 16.9.1999.\n<\/p>\n
        (i)  Thereafter,  on 25.9.1999, he filed an application in O.A.No.6229
\nof 1999 before the Tribunal for quashing the order  of  the  Government  dated
\n16.9.1998  deferring  his  promotion  till  the conclusion of the disciplinary
\nproceedings.\n<\/p>\n
        (j) On 28.3.2000,  the  charge  memo  was  issued  against  the  first
\nrespondent asking to come and appear before the Enquiry Officer on 27.4.20 00.\n<\/p>\n
        (k)  The  first  charge  would  relate to the demand of Rs.15,000\/- as
\nmamool from Queens Rathnavel to curtail illicit sale of arrack and accepted  a
\nportion  of the amount of Rs.10,000\/- from him and demanded the balance amount
\nof Rs.5,000\/-, thereby violated Rule 24 of the Tamil Nadu  Subordinate  Police
\nOfficers Conduct Rules.  32 witnesses were cited for proving this charge.\n<\/p>\n
        (l)  The  second  charge  would relate to the demand of Rs.1,000\/- per
\nmonth from December 1997 to July 1998 from one Ramamoorthy and the  demand  of
\nRs.3,000\/- and receipt of Rs.2,000\/- for the month of July 199 8 from one Bose
\nand  the  demand  of  Rs.2,000\/- per shop and receipt of bribe from Thavasiana
\nThevar for the month of July 1998 and the demand and receipt of Rs.1,500\/- per
\nshop from Ponnusamy, Sakthivel, Shanmugam and Singapuli to curtail the illicit
\nsale of arrack.  For proving this charge, 26 witnesses were cited.\n<\/p>\n
        (m) On the basis of this proceeding, on  18.7.2000,  suspension  order
\nwas issued.    On  24.7.2000,  on  the basis of the suspension, the Government
\nissued order that Nagaraj, the D.S.P.  shall not be permitted to  retire  from
\nservice on his reaching the date of superannuation, i.e.  on 31.7.2000.\n<\/p>\n
        (n)  In  the  meantime,  in June 2000, he filed an application in O.A.
\nNo.3838 of 2000 seeking for quashing of the charge memo dated 28.3.2000 and to
\npermit him to retire peacefully on 31.7.2000.\n<\/p>\n
        (o) On entertaining O.A.No.3838  of  2000,  the  Tribunal  ordered  on
\n13.6.2000 notice of motion returnable by 20.6.2000.  The case was subsequently
\nadjourned to 30.8.2000 for filing counter.  But, the Tribunal took up the case
\non  27.7.2000  itself  even  without the counter and decided the case by going
\nthrough the files and hearing the arguments of the counsel for the  delinquent
\nofficer and the Government Advocate and quashed the charge memo.  The Tribunal
\nfurther  as  a  consequential  order  in  O.A.No.6229  of  1999  gave notional
\npromotion as AD.S.P.  through the common order dated 27.7.2000.\n<\/p>\n
        3.  As noted above, these two orders are under challenge in these  two
\nwrit petitions filed by the State.\n<\/p>\n
        4.  Mr.S.T.S.     Moorthy,  the  learned  Special  Government  Pleader
\nappearing for the State would mainly attack the impugned orders passed by  the
\nTribunal  contending  that  quashing  of  the charge memo without allowing the
\nDepartment to conduct enquiry on the ground of  malice  is  clearly  wrong  as
\nthere  is  no  material  whatsoever  for  such  conclusion  and  as  such, the
\nreasonings given in the impugned orders are perverse and the same  are  liable
\nto be  set  aside.    He  would cite number of authorities to substantiate his
\ncontention.\n<\/p>\n
        5.  Arguing contra, Mr.A.Amalraj, the learned counsel  for  the  first
\nrespondent  in  justification  of  the  impugned orders would refer to several
\njudgments including the judgment of the Calcutta High Court referred to in the
\nimpugned orders would submit that the charge was a motivated one and there  is
\nan  enormous delay for framing charges and as such, the writ petitions have to
\nbe dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
        6.  We have heard the counsel for the parties and  also  gone  through
\nthe impugned orders.\n<\/p>\n
        7.  Before going into the merits of the rival contentions urged by the
\ncounsel  for the parties, it would be worthwhile to refer to the guidelines in
\nthe matter of appreciation of the issue and analysis of the materials  by  the
\nTribunal,  while  dealing  with  the  prayer  to quash the charge memo without
\nenquiry.\n<\/p>\n
        8.  Those guidelines are as follows:\n<\/p>\n
        (A) The truth or  otherwise  of  the  charges  is  a  matter  for  the
\ndisciplinary authority  to  go into.  The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to look
\ninto the truth of the charges or into the correctness of the findings recorded
\nby the disciplinary authority.\n<\/p>\n
        (B) The Tribunal should not interfere at an interlocutory stage.    It
\ncannot  choose  to  interfere  on the basis of the material which is yet to be
\nproduced at the inquiry.  The Tribunal cannot undertake an inquiry which ought
\nto be held by the disciplinary authority and find that  the  charges  are  not
\ntrue.\n<\/p>\n
        (C)  The  Tribunal  cannot  go  into  the  exercise of finding out the
\ncorrectness or otherwise of the charges levelled against the delinquents.   It
\nis  not permissible under law for the Tribunal to re-evaluate and reassess the
\nevidence and to come to the finding that  the  charges  levelled  against  the
\ndelinquents are  not  proved.   The Tribunal cannot take over the functions of
\nthe disciplinary authority.\n<\/p>\n
        (D) At the stage of framing of the charge, the statement of facts  and
\nthe  charge  sheet  alone are required to be looked into by the Tribunal as to
\nthe nature of the charges, i.e., whether the statement of facts  and  material
\nin  support  thereof  supplied  to  the  delinquent officer would disclose the
\nalleged misconduct.  The Tribunal cannot go beyond that.\n<\/p>\n
        (E) When on a perusal of charges, it is found  that  the  charges  are
\nvery  serious,  the  Tribunal  cannot  incline to close the matter only on the
\nground that about 16 years have elapsed since  the  date  of  commencement  of
\ndisciplinary  proceedings,  more particularly when the department alone cannot
\nbe held responsible for the delay.\n<\/p>\n
        (F) It is not  possible  to  lay  down  any  predetermined  principles
\napplicable  to  all  cases  and  in  all  situations  where  there is delay in
\nconcluding the  disciplinary  proceedings.    Whether  on  that   ground   the
\ndisciplinary proceedings are to be terminated, each case has to be examined on
\nthe facts and circumstances in that case.\n<\/p>\n
        (G)  The  essence  of  the  matter  is that the court has to take into
\nconsideration all the relevant factors and balance and weigh them to determine
\nif it is  in  the  interest  of  clean  and  honest  administration  that  the
\ndisciplinary   proceedings   should  be  allowed  to  terminate  after  delay,
\nparticularly when the delay is abnormal and there is no  explanation  for  the
\ndelay.\n<\/p>\n
        (H)  In  considering  whether  delay  has  vitiated  the  disciplinary
\nproceedings, the  court  has  to  consider  the  nature  of  the  charge,  its
\ncomplexity and  on  what  account  the  delay  has  occurred.  If the delay is
\nunexplained, prejudice to the delinquent employee is writ large on the face of
\nit.  It could also be seen as  to  how  much  the  disciplinary  authority  is
\nserious in pursuing the charges against its employee.\n<\/p>\n
        9.   These guidelines have been propounded by the Supreme Court in the
\nfollowing decisions:\n<\/p>\n
1)In UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS v.  UPENDRA SINGH<\/a> (1994(3) S.C.C.357 );\n<\/p>\n
2) In DISTRICT FOREST OFFICER v.  R.  RAJAMANICKAM<\/a> (2000(9) S.C.C.284 );\n<\/p>\n
3)In THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE v.  K.S.   SWAMINATHAN<\/a>  (19  97(1)
\nS.L.R.176);\n<\/p>\n
4)In DEPUTY REGISTRAR,  COOP.    SOCIETIES v.  SACHINDRA NATH PANDEY<\/a> (19 95(3)
\nS.C.C.134);\n<\/p>\n
5)STATE OF A.P.  v.  RADHAKISHAN (1998(4) S.C.C.154).\n<\/p>\n
        10.  Bearing these guidelines in mind, if we look at the present facts
\nof the case, we are constrained to express our shock and displeasure over  the
\nimpugned orders  passed  by  the Tribunal.  It is quite agonising to note that
\nthe Tribunal has thrown all these guidelines into the wind while  arriving  at
\nthe hasty conclusion that the charge memo is liable to be quashed.\n<\/p>\n
        11.  The imputations made against the delinquent officer are extremely
\nserious.   The  facts  alleged,  if  proved would establish the misconduct and
\ncorrupt activities of the delinquent officer.  It is surprising to  note  that
\neven  without a counter being filed, and even without considering the question
\nwhether the contents of the charges deserved to be enquired into or  not,  the
\nTribunal hastened  to  quash the charges.  We could only say rather with pain,
\n“it is quite unfortunate”.  If the disciplinary proceedings  in  such  serious
\nmatters  are  quashed so lightly as it has been done in this case, it would be
\nextremely difficult to bring any wrong-doer to book.\n<\/p>\n
        12.  It is settled law that quashing of the charge memo  with  serious
\nallegations  of  misconduct  and corruption without allowing the Department to
\nconduct enquiry is not at all justifiable.  In this case, in the words of  the
\nSupreme  Court,  apparently,  the  Tribunal  proceeded in haste in passing the
\nimpugned orders quashing the charge memo even before the ink is dried  on  the
\norders passed by the appointing authority.\n<\/p>\n
        13.   The monstrous feature that we could notice in the impugned order
\nis that although Tribunal has in clear terms observed in the instant case that
\nit is not for the Tribunal to analyse the facts leading to  the  charge  memo;
\nand  the  power  of  judicial  review  which is very much restricted has to be
\nexercised judiciously and  reasonably,  unfortunately,  it  has  accepted  the
\ndefence theory blindly.  How can there be the appreciation and analysis of the
\nmaterials  of  the defence alone without considering the materials through the
\nwitnesses to be produced by the prosecuting officer for proving  the  charges?
\nIt is quite amazing.\n<\/p>\n
        14.   In  the  case  of  charges framed in a disciplinary inquiry, the
\nTribunal can interfere only if on the charges framed no  misconduct  or  other
\nirregularity  alleged  can be said to have been made out or the charges framed
\nare contrary to any law.  At the early stage, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction
\nto go into the correctness or truth of the charges.  The Tribunal cannot  take
\nover the  functions  of the disciplinary authority.  The truth or otherwise of
\nthe charges is a matter for the disciplinary authority to go into.      But,
\nthe reading of the orders impugned would go to  show  that  the  Tribunal  has
\npassed  the  orders  which would indicate that they are the classic example to
\nshow how the justice could be made a casuality.\n<\/p>\n
15.  Let us now quote the reasonings given by the Tribunal  for  quashing  the
\ncharge memo and giving direction for promotion.  The reasonings are these:\n<\/p>\n
        (A)  The  corruption case on the complaint of Queens Rathnavel against
\nthe D.S.P., the first respondent was registered on  28.7.1998.    Even  before
\nthat date,  i.e.    on  22.7.1998,  six  days earlier, Queens Rathnavel and 10
\nothers came to the Station and warned the D.S.P.    that  he  would  face  the
\nconsequences  for having registered cases against his Theatres and Wine Shops.
\nFor this occurrence, the relevant G.D.  entries have been  made  on  22.7.1998
\nand 23.7.1998  and  report  also  has  been sent to the S.P.  on 23.7.1998 and
\n27.7.1998.  These entries would show that in order to wreak vengeance  on  the
\nD.S.P.,  a  false case has been registered at the instance of Queens Rathnavel
\non 28.7.1998.  Admittedly, there is no trap in  this  case.    The  suspension
\norder was  passed  within  a month after registration of the case.  Therefore,
\nthe entire proceedings have been wrongly initiated only at the instance of the
\nfalse complaint given by Queens Rathnavel who  is  indulging  in  illegal  and
\nunlawful activities.\n<\/p>\n
        (B)  Though  the  suspension was ordered on 19.8.1998, the charge memo
\ncame to be issued only on 28.3.2000.  This delay would show that  there  is  a
\nprima facie  case  of  mala  fide.  The delinquent officer who is a honest and
\ndisciplined public servant has been victimised and harassed at the instance of
\na disgruntled element, the complainant who is interested in  perpetuating  the
\nillegal and unlawful activities.\n<\/p>\n
        (C) As against the suspension order, the first respondent filed a writ
\npetition  in  W.P.No.2742  of 1999 and direction was issued on 19.2.1 999 that
\nthe enquiry must be completed within a period of six  months.    Despite  that
\ndirection, the  enquiry  was  not  completed.  The charges were framed only on
\n28.3.2000, after lapse of more than a year.  When the direction  of  the  High
\nCourt has not been obeyed, it would be proper to quash the charge memo.\n<\/p>\n
        16.   These  reasonings  and findings, in our view, are patently wrong
\nand without any basis.  The Tribunal had not gone into  the  question  whether
\nthese  entries  mentioned  in  the  General  Diary were made by the respective
\nofficers at the relevant time and whether any report has been sent  by  D.S.P.
\nto S.P.   As  a  matter  of fact, the G.D.  entries as produced by the defence
\ndated 22.7.1998 and 23.7.1998 are quite contradictory.  The G.D.   entries  by
\nthe  Sub  Inspector  and  the  Inspector  would  vary  in  respect  of various
\nparticulars with the contents of the alleged report and weekly  report  stated
\nto have been sent  by D.S.P.  to S.P.  How could then accept the G.D.  entries
\nwhich are self serving documents produced by the delinquent officer before the
\nTribunal without allowing the Department for conducting enquiry  to  find  out
\nthe truth?\n<\/p>\n
        17.   The  peculiar feature which could be noticed is that the alleged
\nthreatening incident took place on 23.7.1998, but the entry has been made with
\nreference to the said incident in the G.D.  maintained  by  the  Inspector  of
\nPolice on  22.7.1998  itself.  In such a situation, it is quite strange to see
\nthat  the  Tribunal  accepted  the  defence  documents  which  are  admittedly
\ncontradictory  and  jumped to the conclusion that Queens Rathnavel and his men
\ncame and threatened the D.S.P.  for having booked cases against  his  Theatres
\nand  Wine  Shops  and therefore, he made a false complaint to the Vigilance on
\n28.7.1998.  Simply because Queens Rathnavel is owning  10  Wine  Shops  and  2
\nCinema  Theatres,  the Tribunal would hasten to conclude that Queens Rathnavel
\nis a disgruntled element dealing  in  illegal  activities  and  as  such,  the
\ndelinquencies are doubtful, in the absence of any other material.\n<\/p>\n
        18.   It is the specific case of the Department that he demanded Rs.15
\n,000\/- as mamool from  the  complainant  Queens  Rathnavel  and  out  of  that
\nRs.15,000\/-, Rs.10,000\/-  was  paid.  When he persisted for the balance amount
\nof Rs.5,000\/-, Queens Rathnavel gave a complaint to the Vigilance and  a  case
\nunder  Corruption  Act  has  been  registered  on 28.7.19 98 against the first
\nrespondent.\n<\/p>\n
        19.  According to the Department, the amount has been  recovered  from
\nthe first  respondent during a trap.  But strangely, the Tribunal has observed
\nthat trap has not been organised.  Further, the Tribunal has given encomium to
\nthe first respondent as a honest and disciplined public servant.
\nWe are at a loss to understand as to how could the Tribunal  to  give  such  a
\nclean  certificate  to  the  first respondent who has been facing very serious
\ncharges.\n<\/p>\n
        20.  The Tribunal has referred to the non-compliance of the High Court
\norder and the delay in completion of the  enquiry  without  understanding  the
\nfactual position.   On 19.8.1998, on the basis of a corruption case, the first
\nrespondent, the D.S.P.  was suspended.  Against the said suspension order,  he
\nfiled a  writ  petition  in  W.P.No.2742  of 1999.  When the writ petition was
\ndisposed of by the order dated 19.2.1999 , the High Court directed to complete
\nthe enquiry within six months and if the Department is not able to finish  the
\nenquiry within  six  months,  he must be reinstated.  This order was obeyed by
\nthe Department  by  reinstating  the  first  respondent  by  the  order  dated
\n30.8.1999 since  the  enquiry was not completed within six months.  As per the
\nsaid order, the first respondent joined on 16.9.1999.    How  could  then  the
\nquestion of non-compliance of the High Court order would arise?\n<\/p>\n
        21.  Then, by G.O.Ms.No.1300 dated 28.9.1999, the first respondent was
\nplaced  on  his  defence before the Commissioner for Disciplinary Proceedings.
\nAccordingly, on  28.3.2000,  the  Commissioner  for  Disciplinary  Proceedings
\nframed two  charges.   This was served on the delinquent officer on 16.5.2000.
\nThereafter, the first respondent filed O.A.No.3 838 of 2000 for  quashing  the
\ncharge memo.    Further,  the  Vigilance Department instead of prosecuting the
\nmatter before the  Court  of  law  after  investigation,  recommended  to  the
\nDepartment for   initiating   disciplinary   proceedings.    Accordingly,  the<\/p>\n
Commissioner for Disciplinary Proceedings framed the charges on 28.3.2000.  As
\nsuch, there is no delay.  Even if there is some  delay,  the  delay  has  been
\nproperly explained.\n<\/p>\n
        22.   As held by the Supreme Court, it is not possible to lay down any
\npredetermined principles where the delay is caused.  Whether on the ground  of
\ndelay,  the disciplinary proceedings are to be terminated, each case has to be
\nexamined on the facts and circumstances in that case.   The  essence  of   the
\nmatter  is  that  the  Court  has  to take into consideration all the relevant
\nfactors and balance and weigh them to determine if it is in  the  interest  of
\nclean  and honest administration that the disciplinary proceedings are allowed
\nto be terminated after delay.\n<\/p>\n
        23.  In  considering  whether  delay  has  vitiated  the  disciplinary
\nproceedings,  the  Court  has  to  consider  the  nature  of  the  charge, its
\ncomplexity and on what account the delay has occurred.  It could also be  seen
\nas  to  how much the disciplinary authority is serious in pursuing the charges
\nagainst its employee.   It is the basic principle  of  administrative  justice
\nthat  an  officer  entrusted  with  a particular job has to perform his duties
\nhonestly, efficiently and in accordance with the rules.  If he  deviates  from
\nthis path, he is to suffer a penalty prescribed.  It is true that delay causes
\nprejudice  to  the  charged officer unless it is shown that he is to blame for
\nthe delay or when there is proper explanation  for  the  delay  in  conducting
\ndisciplinary proceedings.\n<\/p>\n
        24.   But  in  this case, due to the so-called ‘delay’, the delinquent
\nofficer cannot claim prejudice.  It cannot also  be  said  that  there  is  an
\ninordinate delay  which  would  vitiate the disciplinary proceedings.  In this
\ncase, we have to take note of the serious nature of the charge, namely regular
\nreceipt of mamool (bribe) from several persons.  As such, mere delay would not
\nbe a ground to hold that the  disciplinary  proceedings  are  vitiated.    The
\nTribunal  without considering these things rushed to the conclusion that it is
\na mala fide simply because there is a delay.  As  noted  above,  there  is  no
\nbasis for such conclusion.\n<\/p>\n
        25.   As  a  matter  of  fact,  the Apex Court in 1995 (3) S.C.C.134 (
\nsupra), has held that mere elapsing of a long period of 16 years from the date
\nof commencement of departmental enquiry would not be a  sufficient  ground  to
\nclose the matter.\n<\/p>\n
        26.  The impugned orders can be looked at from yet another angle.  The
\nentire  reasonings  given  by  the  Tribunal  would relate to the first charge
\nalone.  The Tribunal has conveniently forgotten the second charge.   As  noted
\nabove, there  are  two  charges.    The  first charge is with reference to the
\ncomplaint of Queens Rathnavel.  The charge  memo  contains  the  names  of  32
\nwitnesses.   With  reference  to  the second charge, four incidents were shown
\nwhere the D.S.P., the delinquent officer received the bribe amounts on various
\noccasions from four persons.  To prove the second charge,  26  witnesses  were
\ncited.   Admittedly,  the  Tribunal neither referred to this second charge nor
\nconcluded that the contents of this charge would not show any misconduct.   As
\nsuch,  without allowing the authorities to examine the witnesses cited in both
\nthe charges, the Tribunal concluded that the  proceedings  are  mala  fide  by
\nsimply observing that the complainant Rathnavel is a disgruntled element.\n<\/p>\n
        27.   As indicated above, this observation against Queens Rathnavel is
\nnot supported by any material.  Further, the Tribunal has  completely  omitted
\nthe  second charge which would relate to the complaints by four other persons.
\nThus, it is evident that the impugned orders would reflect the perversity  and
\nas such, conclusion is the outcome of lack of application of mind.\n<\/p>\n
        28.  The counsel for the respondent lastly contended that even if this
\nCourt  finds  that  the impugned order is not valid in law, fresh enquiry need
\nnot be ordered in view of the fact  that  the  first  respondent  had  already<\/p>\n
superannuated.  He has cited the decisions in BHUPINDER PAL SINGH v.  DIRECTOR
\nGENERAL OF  CIVIL  AVIATION<\/a>  (2003(3) S.C.C.633) and UNION OF INDIA v.  RAJBIR
\nSINGH KHANNA<\/a> (2001(7) S.C.C.113).\n<\/p>\n
        29.  The facts of these cases would not  help  the  first  respondent.
\nThe first case would deal with the order of removal after departmental enquiry
\nwhich  was  held  to  be clear violation of the principles of natural justice.
\nTherefore, the Apex Court in that case would hold  that  de  novo  inquiry  is
\nunnecessary.   In the latter case, the Supreme Court taking into consideration
\nthe matter travelled up to the Supreme Court as a third  round  of  litigation
\nand  keeping  in  view of the totality of the circumstances of the case, would
\nhold that the general court marshal proceedings shall stand dropped.\n<\/p>\n
        30.  These observations have been made by  the  Supreme  Court  taking
\ninto  consideration  the  various  other  factors  and  also the nature of the
\nallegations.  But, in  this  case,  the  nature  of  the  allegations,  namely
\nmisconduct  and  corruption  are so serious and his superannuation was in 2000
\nand only four years have elapsed.\n<\/p>\n
        31.  Considering the impugned order in any angle, we are  to  conclude
\nthat  the  same  is illegal and consequently, we have no hesitation in setting
\naside the impugned order of the Tribunal.  We  direct  that  the  disciplinary
\nproceedings  against  the delinquent officer in terms of the charge memo dated
\n28.3.2000 shall be proceeded with in accordance with law.    The  disciplinary
\nproceedings  should be proceeded with immediately on receipt of this order and
\nthe same should be finished within twelve months thereafter.\n<\/p>\n
        32.  It is made clear that the Enquiry Officer is required to give his
\nfinding  on  the  basis  of  the  materials  produced  by  both  the   parties
\nuninfluenced  by  any of the observations made by this Court with reference to
\nthe defence.\n<\/p>\n
        33.  To sum up:\n<\/p>\n
i)The common  order  passed  by  the  Tribunal  in  O.A.No.6229  of  1999  and
\nO.A.No.3838 of 2000 is set aside.\n<\/p>\n
ii)The  disciplinary  proceedings against the first respondent, the delinquent
\nofficer in terms of the  charge  memo  dated  28.3.2000  are  directed  to  be
\nproceeded with in accordance with law.\n<\/p>\n
iii)The  disciplinary  proceedings  should  be  proceeded  with immediately on
\nreceipt of this order and the same should be  finished  within  twelve  months
\nthereafter.\n<\/p>\n
Index :Yes
\nInternet:Yes<\/p>\n
mam<\/p>\n
Copy to:\n<\/p>\n
1.  The State of Tamil Nadu
\nrep.  by its Secretary to Government,
\nHome (Police.1A) Department.\n<\/p>\n
Fort St.  George, Chennai-9.\n<\/p>\n
2.  The Director General of Police,
\nChennai-4.\n<\/p>\n
3.  The Commissioner
\nTribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings
\nTirunelveli-2.\n<\/p>\n
4.  The Registrar,
\nTamil Nadu Administrative
\nTribunal, High Court Building,
\nChennai-104.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court The State Of Tamil Nadu vs S. Nagaraj on 8 March, 2004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 08\/03\/2004 Coram THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.JAYASIMHA BABU and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.KARPAGAVINAYAGAM Writ Petition No.1910 of 2001 and Writ Petition No. 1911 of 2001 W.P.No.1910 of 2001: 1.The State of Tamil […]<\/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-233161","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThe State Of Tamil Nadu vs S. Nagaraj on 8 March, 2004 - 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\/the-state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-s-nagaraj-on-8-march-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The State Of Tamil Nadu vs S. Nagaraj on 8 March, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-s-nagaraj-on-8-march-2004\" \/>\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=\"2004-03-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-12-24T01:18:29+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=\"22 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-state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-s-nagaraj-on-8-march-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-s-nagaraj-on-8-march-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The State Of Tamil Nadu vs S. Nagaraj on 8 March, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-03-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-12-24T01:18:29+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-s-nagaraj-on-8-march-2004\"},\"wordCount\":4211,\"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\\\/the-state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-s-nagaraj-on-8-march-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-s-nagaraj-on-8-march-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-s-nagaraj-on-8-march-2004\",\"name\":\"The State Of Tamil Nadu vs S. Nagaraj on 8 March, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-03-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-12-24T01:18:29+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-s-nagaraj-on-8-march-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-s-nagaraj-on-8-march-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-s-nagaraj-on-8-march-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The State Of Tamil Nadu vs S. Nagaraj on 8 March, 2004\"}]},{\"@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 State Of Tamil Nadu vs S. Nagaraj on 8 March, 2004 - 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\/the-state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-s-nagaraj-on-8-march-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The State Of Tamil Nadu vs S. Nagaraj on 8 March, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-s-nagaraj-on-8-march-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-03-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-12-24T01:18:29+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":"22 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-s-nagaraj-on-8-march-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-s-nagaraj-on-8-march-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The State Of Tamil Nadu vs S. Nagaraj on 8 March, 2004","datePublished":"2004-03-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-12-24T01:18:29+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-s-nagaraj-on-8-march-2004"},"wordCount":4211,"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\/the-state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-s-nagaraj-on-8-march-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-s-nagaraj-on-8-march-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-s-nagaraj-on-8-march-2004","name":"The State Of Tamil Nadu vs S. Nagaraj on 8 March, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-03-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-12-24T01:18:29+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-s-nagaraj-on-8-march-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-s-nagaraj-on-8-march-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-s-nagaraj-on-8-march-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The State Of Tamil Nadu vs S. Nagaraj on 8 March, 2004"}]},{"@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\/233161","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=233161"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/233161\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=233161"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=233161"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=233161"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}