{"id":234176,"date":"2008-09-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-09-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-s-vs-chairman-on-12-september-2008"},"modified":"2016-10-17T13:53:25","modified_gmt":"2016-10-17T08:23:25","slug":"n-s-vs-chairman-on-12-september-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-s-vs-chairman-on-12-september-2008","title":{"rendered":"N.S vs Chairman on 12 September, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">N.S vs Chairman on 12 September, 2008<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Rajesh H.Shukla,&amp;Nbsp;<\/div>\n<pre>   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nSCA\/986820\/2008\t 8\/ 8\tORDER \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 9868 of 2008\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n=========================================\n \n\nN.S.\nDESAI - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nCHAIRMAN\n&amp; MANAGING DIRECTOR- BANK OF BARODA &amp; 2 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n========================================= \nAppearance\n: \nMR MS TRIVEDI for Petitioner(s)\n: 1, \nNone for\nRespondent(s) : 1 - 3. \n=========================================\n \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 12\/09\/2008 \n\n \n\n \nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n<p>\tThe<br \/>\npresent petition has been filed by the petitioner for the prayer to<br \/>\nissue writ of mandamus, certiorari or appropriate writ or directions<br \/>\nfor quashing and setting aside impugned orders dated 17.12.2004,<br \/>\n31.3.2005 and 17.10.2007 passed by the respondents on various<br \/>\ngrounds, inter alia, that the said order imposing punishment of<br \/>\ndismissal from the bank&#8217;s service is arbitrary, illegal and also<br \/>\ncontrary to the statutory rules and regulations of Bank of Baroda<br \/>\nOfficers (Discipline &amp; Appeal) Regulations, 1976.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.\tThe<br \/>\nshort facts of the case, briefly stated are, that the petitioner had<br \/>\nwithheld the letter of authorization to Bank of Baroda, Pardi Branch,<br \/>\nand had demanded and accepted Rs. 25,000\/- as and by way of illegal<br \/>\ngratification from Shri Harish J. Rawal, proprietor of M\/s. Raval<br \/>\nEarthmovers, and on the basis thereof, disciplinary proceedings were<br \/>\ninitiated under the statutory rules known as Bank of Baroda Officers<br \/>\n(Discipline &amp; Appeal) Regulations, 1976 (hereinafter referred to<br \/>\nas &#8216;the Regulations&#8217;).   A full fledged inquiry was conducted and on<br \/>\nthe basis of the material, the inquiry officer made a report at<br \/>\nAnnexure B that the allegation that Mr. Desai (petitioner) had<br \/>\ndemanded and accepted Rs. 25,000\/- is not proved and, therefore, he<br \/>\ngave the finding that allegations 1 and 2 has not been proved.  The<br \/>\ndisciplinary authority disagreed with the findings of the inquiry<br \/>\nauthority as per the order at Annexure C and found that the<br \/>\ndelinquent viz., the petitioner, had demanded and accepted the<br \/>\nillegal gratification and he was also given an opportunity to remain<br \/>\npresent before the disciplinary authority to make his submission<br \/>\nincluding the written submissions within 7 days.  The petitioner also<br \/>\nmade written submissions at Annexure D and ultimately the impugned<br \/>\ndecision was taken at Annexure A dated 31.3.2005 dismissing the<br \/>\npetitioner from service.  It is against this order dated 31.3.2005<br \/>\nthat the review petition was filed, which was also rejected vide<br \/>\norder dated 17.10.2007  by the Chairman &amp; Managing Director<br \/>\nwhich is challenged in the present petition, on various grounds,<br \/>\nnarrated in detail in the petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.\tLearned<br \/>\nadvocate Mr. Trivedi for the petitioner submitted that the<br \/>\ndisciplinary authority has expressed his disagreement, but has not<br \/>\ngiven valid and justifiable reasons for not agreeing with the report<br \/>\nof the inquiry officer and, therefore, it is bad and violative of<br \/>\nrules of natural justice.   It has also been contended that the<br \/>\nreport of the inquiry officer is  a fact finding report and if there<br \/>\nis any adverse remark or a different view, then it has to be<br \/>\njustified by reasons.  Learned advocate Mr. Trivedi has also<br \/>\nsubmitted that no motive has been established for making the demand<br \/>\ninasmuch as there was no question of withholding of the letter of<br \/>\nauthorization of the proprietor of M\/s. Raval Earthmovers.  The<br \/>\nlearned advocate has also referred to the pleadings as well as the<br \/>\nRegulations. He also referred to p. 63 para 10 of Annexure D, which<br \/>\nis the submission made by the petitioner, to emphasise the point that<br \/>\nit was specifically the case of the petitioner that Mr. Raval had<br \/>\nentered his cabin , threw a file and rushed out.  This aspect was<br \/>\nalso specifically contended and yet it has been misconstrued, which<br \/>\nhas been quoted in this para.  Therefore, learned advocate Mr.<br \/>\nTrivedi submitted that the impugned order is bad and violative of<br \/>\nArt. 14 of the Constitution as well as the rules of natural justice.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.\tHe<br \/>\nalso emphasized that when the disciplinary officer himself has a<br \/>\nreport holding that the charges are not proved and when the<br \/>\ndisciplinary authority has not accepted or disagreed with those<br \/>\nfindings, he should have given valid reasons and should have<br \/>\nconducted some inquiry before reversing the findings,  but he should<br \/>\nnot have substituted his own views.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.\tThough<br \/>\nthe submissions have been made by the learned advocate, it is not in<br \/>\ndispute that there was a demand made as and by way of illegal<br \/>\ngratification and there was a CBI raid for the incident. However, the<br \/>\nreport made by the inquiry officer referring to these very charges<br \/>\nhave not been accepted by the disciplinary authority for which there<br \/>\nis a detailed discussion as to why the observations and the findings<br \/>\nare not accepted by the disciplinary authority.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.\tIn<br \/>\nany view of the matter, the submission that there does not exist a<br \/>\nmotive and there is no proof of the motive, or the contention that<br \/>\nMr. Raval had barged into the petitioner&#8217;s chamber and threw the<br \/>\nfile, are all defences which have been considered and may be the<br \/>\ninquiry officer has submitted his report on that basis. However, the<br \/>\npoint which is required to be considered is whether the disciplinary<br \/>\nauthority is bound to accept the recommendations of the inquiry<br \/>\nofficer or can give his own conclusion based on the report and<br \/>\nmaterial.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.\tIt<br \/>\nis well-settled that the disciplinary authority can come to his own<br \/>\nindependent conclusion based on the material or evidence on record<br \/>\nand as reflected in the impugned decision by the disciplinary<br \/>\nauthority for disagreement with the findings of the inquiry officer<br \/>\nat Annexure C, it has been discussed in detail the reasons for not<br \/>\naccepting the findings given by the inquiry officer.  There is a<br \/>\nspecific case which cannot be disputed that there was a CBI raid or a<br \/>\ntrap for the purpose of illegal gratification, the file and the<br \/>\nenvelope were found on his table and the seizure memo, panchnama etc.<br \/>\nhave been drawn and it is well accepted that the standard of proof in<br \/>\na prosecution case for the purpose of establishment of guilt for the<br \/>\noffence under a particular statute stands on a different footing than<br \/>\nthe standard in a departmental inquiry as it does not require proof<br \/>\nbeyond reasonable doubt and it has to be decided with preponderance<br \/>\nof probabilities.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.\tIn<br \/>\nthese circumstances and in background and gravity of charges levelled<br \/>\nagainst the delinquent on the basis of the powers conferred under the<br \/>\nRegulations, if the disciplinary has disagreed with the findings of<br \/>\nthe inquiry officer, can this Court under Art. 226 of the<br \/>\nConstitution interfere with these findings? Further, the moot<br \/>\nquestion which is required to be considered is, once the the findings<br \/>\nand the guilt of the delinquent in the inquiry has been established,<br \/>\nwhether this court can interfere with the quantum of punishment as in<br \/>\nthe facts of the present case?\n<\/p>\n<p>9.\tFor<br \/>\nthat purpose, it is required to be appreciated that the regulations<br \/>\nclearly provide for disagreement with the report of the inquiry<br \/>\nofficer. Regulation 7 referring to action on the inquiry report<br \/>\nclearly suggest and provide, <\/p>\n<p>(1)\t the<br \/>\nDisciplinary Authority, if it is not itself the Inquiring Authority,<br \/>\nmay, for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, remit the case to<br \/>\nthe Inquiring Authority for fresh or further inquiry and report and<br \/>\nthe Inquiring Authority shall thereupon proceed to hold the further<br \/>\ninquiry according to the provisions of regulation 6 as far as may<br \/>\nbe.\n<\/p>\n<p>(2)\tThe Disciplinary<br \/>\nAuthority, shall if it disagrees with the findings of the Inquiring<br \/>\nAuthority on any article of charge, record its reasons for such<br \/>\ndisagreement and record its own findings on such charge, if the<br \/>\nevidence on record is sufficient for the purpose.\n<\/p>\n<p>(3)\tIf the<br \/>\nDisciplinary Authority having regard to its findings on all or any of<br \/>\nthe articles of charge, is of the opinion that any of the penalties<br \/>\nspecified in regulation 4 should be imposed on the officer employee<br \/>\nit shall, notwithstanding anything contained in regulation 8, make an<br \/>\norder imposing such penalty.\n<\/p>\n<p>10.\tTherefore,<br \/>\nsub-clause(2)  of Regulation 7 clearly empower the disciplinary<br \/>\nauthority to record the findings on the basis of the evidence on<br \/>\nrecord and on that basis may proceed to make further order imposing<br \/>\npenalty, which has been done in the present case. The disciplinary<br \/>\nauthority has given an opportunity to the petitioner to make a<br \/>\nrepresentation and also gave personal hearing and thereafter passed<br \/>\nthe impugned order of dismissal. Therefore, it cannot be said that<br \/>\nthe impugned decision is in any way arbitrary or violative of Art. 14<br \/>\nor the rules of natural justice.\n<\/p>\n<p>11.\tAnother facet of<br \/>\nthe argument is that if the procedure followed for the purpose of<br \/>\ninquiry and reaching the conclusion is in accordance with the<br \/>\nregulations, can the quantum of punishment be interfered with by this<br \/>\ncourt?\n<\/p>\n<p>12.\tThe Hon&#8217;ble Apex<br \/>\nCourt has in its pronouncement made the position more than clear and<br \/>\nit leaves very little scope for interference. Th Hon&#8217;ble Apex Court<br \/>\nin the case of Bharat Forge Co. Ltd. v. Uttam Manohar Nakate<br \/>\nreported in 2005(2) SCC 489 has observed, quoting the earlier<br \/>\njudgment of the Apex Court in the case of <a href=\"\/doc\/228328\/\">Regional Manager,<br \/>\nRajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Sohan Lal<\/a> reported<br \/>\nin 2004(8) SCC 218 as under:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t &#8230;In our opinion,<br \/>\nthe High Court failed to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226<br \/>\nof the Constitution and did not correct the erroneous order of the<br \/>\nLabour Court, which if allowed to stand, would certainly result in a<br \/>\nmiscarriage of justice.\n<\/p>\n<p>Further,<br \/>\nit has also been quoted,<\/p>\n<p>\t it<br \/>\nhas been held that it is not the normal jurisdiction of the superior<br \/>\ncourts to interfere with the quantum of sentence unless it is wholly<br \/>\ndisproportionate to the misconduct proved. Such is not the case<br \/>\nherein. In the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard<br \/>\nto the past conduct of the respondent, as also his conduct during the<br \/>\ndomestic inquiry proceedings, we cannot say that the quantum of<br \/>\npunishment imposed upon the respondent was wholly disproportionate<br \/>\nto his act of misconduct or otherwise arbitrary.\n<\/p>\n<p>13.\tTherefore,<br \/>\nin view of the above observations and also in light of the facts<br \/>\ndiscussed hereinabove in the present case referring to the charges<br \/>\nand the reasons for the disagreement by the disciplinary authority in<br \/>\ndetail, it cannot be said that the impugned decision is any way<br \/>\narbitrary or in violation of the rules of natural justice and it does<br \/>\nnot call or any interference with regard to either the findings or<br \/>\nwith the quantum of punishment as it cannot be said to be harsh or<br \/>\nperverse.\n<\/p>\n<p>14.\tTherefore,<br \/>\nthis court is of the opinion that there is no ground made out for<br \/>\ninterference in this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of<br \/>\nIndia.\n<\/p>\n<p>15.\tIn<br \/>\nthe result, the present petition deserves to be dismissed and is<br \/>\naccordingly dismissed in limine.\n<\/p>\n<p>(Rajesh<br \/>\nH. Shukla, J.)<\/p>\n<p>(hn)<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court N.S vs Chairman on 12 September, 2008 Author: Rajesh H.Shukla,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/986820\/2008 8\/ 8 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9868 of 2008 ========================================= N.S. DESAI &#8211; Petitioner(s) Versus CHAIRMAN &amp; MANAGING DIRECTOR- BANK OF BARODA &amp; 2 &#8211; [&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":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-234176","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.6 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>N.S vs Chairman on 12 September, 2008 - 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\/n-s-vs-chairman-on-12-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"N.S vs Chairman on 12 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-s-vs-chairman-on-12-september-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-09-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-10-17T08:23:25+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\\\/n-s-vs-chairman-on-12-september-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-s-vs-chairman-on-12-september-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"N.S vs Chairman on 12 September, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-17T08:23:25+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-s-vs-chairman-on-12-september-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1717,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-s-vs-chairman-on-12-september-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-s-vs-chairman-on-12-september-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-s-vs-chairman-on-12-september-2008\",\"name\":\"N.S vs Chairman on 12 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-17T08:23:25+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-s-vs-chairman-on-12-september-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-s-vs-chairman-on-12-september-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-s-vs-chairman-on-12-september-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"N.S vs Chairman on 12 September, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"N.S vs Chairman on 12 September, 2008 - 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\/n-s-vs-chairman-on-12-september-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"N.S vs Chairman on 12 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-s-vs-chairman-on-12-september-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-09-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-10-17T08:23:25+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\/n-s-vs-chairman-on-12-september-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-s-vs-chairman-on-12-september-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"N.S vs Chairman on 12 September, 2008","datePublished":"2008-09-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-17T08:23:25+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-s-vs-chairman-on-12-september-2008"},"wordCount":1717,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-s-vs-chairman-on-12-september-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-s-vs-chairman-on-12-september-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-s-vs-chairman-on-12-september-2008","name":"N.S vs Chairman on 12 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-09-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-17T08:23:25+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-s-vs-chairman-on-12-september-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-s-vs-chairman-on-12-september-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-s-vs-chairman-on-12-september-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"N.S vs Chairman on 12 September, 2008"}]},{"@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\/234176","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=234176"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/234176\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=234176"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=234176"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=234176"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}