{"id":234255,"date":"2006-06-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-06-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-of-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-29-june-2006"},"modified":"2016-05-21T03:26:57","modified_gmt":"2016-05-20T21:56:57","slug":"the-management-of-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-29-june-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-of-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-29-june-2006","title":{"rendered":"The Management Of vs The Presiding Officer on 29 June, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">The Management Of vs The Presiding Officer on 29 June, 2006<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           \n\nDated: 29\/06\/2006 \n\nCoram \n\nThe Hon'ble Mr.Justice N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR        \n\nWrit Petition No.6640 of 1998\n\nThe Management of  \nTamil Nadu State \nTransport Corporation\n(Coimbatore Division II) Limited\nFormerly known as \nJeeva Transport Corporation\nrepresented b its Managing Director\nErode.                                  ...Petitioner\n\n-Vs-\n\n1.The Presiding Officer\nLabour Court\nSalem. \n\n2.K.S.Palaniswamy                       ...Respondents\n\n\n        This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of Constitution of\nIndia, praying this Court to issue a  writ  of  Certiorari,  calling  for  the\nrecords  pertaining  to  the  award  passed  by  the first respondent, made in\nI.D.No.16 of 1997 dated 28.7.1997 and quash the same. \n\n\n!For Petitioner  :Mr.V.R.Kamalanathan\nFor 1st Respondent :Court \n For 2nd Respondent :Mr.D.Hariparanthaman  \n\n:ORDER  \n<\/pre>\n<p>        This writ petition is filed by the management  challenging  the  award<br \/>\npassed  in  I.D.No.16 of 1997 dated 28.7.1997 on the file of the Labour Court,<br \/>\nSalem, viz., the first respondent herein.\n<\/p>\n<p>        2.      The brief facts of the case as stated  in  the  affidavit  are<br \/>\nthat  the second respondent was working as Assistant in the Revenue Department<br \/>\nof the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Coimbatore DivisionII)  Limited<br \/>\nfrom 1983.    The  second respondent took leave from 6.3.19 96 to 8.3 .1996 by<br \/>\nsending telegrams stating that he was  not  doing  well.    According  to  the<br \/>\nmanagement,  it  rejected the leave and informed the second respondent to join<br \/>\nduty.  The second respondent having failed to join duty, he was issued with  a<br \/>\nshow cause  notice  on 19.3.1996.  As the second respondent failed to give any<br \/>\nexplanation, an enquiry was ordered, after framing of charge, which  reads  as<br \/>\nunder,<br \/>\n        &#8220;You,  while working as Assistant in the Headquarters Collection Audit<br \/>\nUnit, continuously absented from duty  from  6.3.1996,  resulting  in  delayed<br \/>\nauditing of  the  Collection  sheet  in  the  said  Unit.  You have sent leave<br \/>\napplications through two telegrams for 6.3.1996, 7.3.1996 and  8.3.199  6  and<br \/>\nthe  Assistant  Manager,  Collection  Audit  Unit has complained that the said<br \/>\nleave applications have been rejected.  Your above action is an offence  under<br \/>\nModel Standing Order No.16(e).&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>The  crux  of  the  charge  is  that the petitioner failed to attend duty from<br \/>\n6.3.1996 to 8.3.1996.  An  enquiry  was  conducted  and  the  charge  levelled<br \/>\nagainst the  second  respondent  was  held  to be proved.  A second show cause<br \/>\nnotice was issued on 9.5.1996,  for  which  the  second  respondent  submitted<br \/>\nexplanation  and  after  considering  the  same,  the  second  respondent  was<br \/>\ndismissed from service from 5.6.1996 by order  dated  4.6.1996.    The  second<br \/>\nrespondent  aggrieved  by  that  raised  I.D.No.16  of  1997  and  the  Labour<br \/>\nCourt\/first  respondent  herein,  awarded  reinstatement  with  continuity  of<br \/>\nservice  and  also  held  that the second respondent is entitled to get 50% of<br \/>\nbackwages.  The said award of the Labour court  is  challenged  in  this  writ<br \/>\npetition by the management.\n<\/p>\n<p>        3.      The  learned  counsel  for  the  petitioner  argued  that  the<br \/>\npetitioner&#8217;s intimation for leave was rejected by the management and the  same<br \/>\nwas  communicated to the second respondent with a direction to rejoin duty and<br \/>\nthe same was proved by the management during enquiry,  based  on  which  final<br \/>\norder  of  dismissal  was  passed,  but  the Labour Court, on the basis of not<br \/>\nmarking the communication sent to the second respondent, interfered  with  the<br \/>\nfindings  of the Enquiry Officer and held that the Enquiry Officer&#8217;s report is<br \/>\nbad and consequently set aside the order of dismissal.\n<\/p>\n<p>        4.      The  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  second  respondent<br \/>\nsubmitted  that  the  rejection  of leave application was not intimated to the<br \/>\nsecond respondent and no direction was issued  to  the  second  respondent  to<br \/>\nrejoin duty and no document to that effect was marked either during enquiry or<br \/>\nin  the  Labour  Court and the Labour Court having come to the conclusion that<br \/>\nthe enquiry was not properly conducted and held that the petitioner  ought  to<br \/>\nhave  proved the guilt of the second respondent by adducing fresh evidence and<br \/>\nby filing documents before the Labour Court\/first respondent and having failed<br \/>\nto do so, it is not open to the petitioner  to  challenge  the  award  of  the<br \/>\nLabour court.    The  learned counsel also submitted that the charge itself is<br \/>\nonly absence for three days and for that the extreme penalty of  dismissal  is<br \/>\ndisproportionate  and  therefore  the Labour Court is justified in interfering<br \/>\nwith the award and ordering 50% backwages.\n<\/p>\n<p>        5.      I have considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel<br \/>\nappearing for the petitioner as well as the second respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>        6.      The finding of the Labour Court is that the management  failed<br \/>\nto  send  the  petitioner  to  the  Medical  Board  and  therefore  the second<br \/>\nrespondent&#8217;s absence cannot be treated as willful absence and that the  second<br \/>\nrespondent  was  not  served  with  the  order  rejecting  the  leave,  by the<br \/>\nmanagement.  The failure on the part of the management to file the document to<br \/>\nshow rejection of leave was served on the second respondent and the acceptance<br \/>\nof two telegrams for the grant of leave by the management are also the finding<br \/>\nof the Labour Court.  It is also found that there was no proof  to  show  that<br \/>\nthe  second respondent refused to obey the order after receiving the direction<br \/>\ngiven by the management to rejoin the duty.  The Labour  Court,  after  giving<br \/>\nsuch  a  finding came to the conclusion that the allegation against the second<br \/>\nrespondent is not proved.  Further the Labour Court held  that  even  assuming<br \/>\nthat  the  charge is proved, dismissal from service is disproportionate to the<br \/>\ngravity of the delinquency.  Failure to send the second respondent before  the<br \/>\nMedical Board  by  the  management vitiates the entire proceeding.  The second<br \/>\nrespondent also could have  verified  from  the  management  about  his  leave<br \/>\napplication submitted  by  him.    Taking  note of the said factual aspect the<br \/>\nLabour court set aside the order of dismissal from  service  and  ordered  50%<br \/>\nbackwages with continuity of service.\n<\/p>\n<p>        7.      The  said  factual  finding cannot be found illegal in view of<br \/>\nthe fact that the rejection of  leave  was  not  communicated  to  the  second<br \/>\nrespondent by the management and hence the petitioner&#8217;s refusal to rejoin duty<br \/>\ncannot be  treated  as  willful  disobedience.  The failure on the part of the<br \/>\nmanagement to send the second respondent to Medical Board is also fatal to the<br \/>\ncase of the management.  Since the second respondent also failed to verify  as<br \/>\nto  whether  his  leave was sanctioned 50% backwages was denied to him and the<br \/>\nsame was also accepted by the second respondent as no appeal was filed against<br \/>\nthe said decision.\n<\/p>\n<p>        8.      The  allegation  against  the  second  respondent  is  absence<br \/>\nwithout leave  for  three days.  For the said allegation even assuming that it<br \/>\nwas proved, dismissal from service is too harsh and it is  to  be  treated  as<br \/>\ndisproportionate  to  the  gravity  of  the  offence  committed  by the second<br \/>\nrespondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>        9.      The Honourable Supreme Court in the decision reported  in  AIR<br \/>\n1997 SC  3387 <a href=\"\/doc\/107483\/\">(Union of India v.  G.Ganayutham),<\/a> in paragraph 28 explained the<br \/>\nproportionality in punishment as under,<br \/>\n        &#8220;The current position of  proportionality  in  administrative  law  in<br \/>\nEngland and India can be summarised as follows:-\n<\/p>\n<p>        (1)  To  judge  the  validity of any administrative order or statutory<br \/>\ndiscretion, normally the Wednesbury test is to be applied to find out  if  the<br \/>\ndecision  was  illegal  or  suffered  from procedural improprieties or was one<br \/>\nwhich no sensible decision-maker could, on the material before him and  within<br \/>\nthe framework  of  the law, have arrived at.  The Court would consider whether<br \/>\nrelevant matters had not been taken into account or whether irrelevant matters<br \/>\nhad been taken into account or whether the action was  not  bona  fide.    The<br \/>\nCourt would  also  consider  whether the decision was absurd or perverse.  The<br \/>\nCourt would not however go into the correctness of  the  choice  made  by  the<br \/>\nadministrator amongst  the  various  alternatives  open to him.  Nor could the<br \/>\nCourt substitute its decision to that of  the  administrator.    This  is  the<br \/>\nWednesbury test.\n<\/p>\n<p>        (2)     The   Court  would  not  interfere  with  the  administrator&#8217;s<br \/>\ndecision unless it was illegal or suffered from procedural impropriety or  was<br \/>\nirrational  in  the sense that it was in outrageous defiance of logic or moral<br \/>\nstandards.  The possibility of other tests,  including  proportionality  being<br \/>\nbrought into English Administrative Law in future is not ruled out.  These are<br \/>\nthe CCSU principles.\n<\/p>\n<p>        (3)(a) As per Bugdaycay, Brind and Smith, as long as the Convention is<br \/>\nnot  incorporated  into  English  Law,  the  English  Courts merely exercise a<br \/>\nsecondary judgment to find out if  the  decision  maker  could  have,  on  the<br \/>\nmaterial  before  him,  arrived  at  the primary judgment in the manner he has<br \/>\ndone.\n<\/p>\n<p>        (3)(b) If the Convention is incorporated in England  making  available<br \/>\nin  principle  of proportionality, then the English Courts will render primary<br \/>\njudgment on the validity of the administrative action  and  find  out  if  the<br \/>\nrestriction  is  disproportionate  or  excessive  or  is not based upon a fair<br \/>\nbalancing of  the  fundamental  freedom  and  the  need  for  the  restriction<br \/>\nthereupon.\n<\/p>\n<p>        (4)(a)  The  position  in our country, in administrative law, where no<br \/>\nfundamental freedoms as aforesaid are involved, is that the Courts\/  Tribunals<br \/>\nwill   only   play   a  secondary  role  while  the  primary  judgment  as  to<br \/>\nreasonableness will remain with the  executive  or  administrative  authority.<br \/>\nThe  secondary  judgment  of  the  Court is to be based on Wednesbury and CCSU<br \/>\nprinciples as stated by Lord Greene and Lord Diplock respectively to  find  if<br \/>\nthe  executive  or  administrative  authority  has  reasonably  arrived at his<br \/>\ndecision as the primary authority.\n<\/p>\n<p>        (4)(b) Whether in the  case  of  administrative  or  executive  action<br \/>\naffecting  fundamental  freedoms,  the  Courts  in  our country will apply the<br \/>\nprinciple of &#8216;proportionality&#8217; and assume a primary role, if left open, to  be<br \/>\ndecided  in  an  appropriate  case  where  such  action  is  alleged to offend<br \/>\nfundamental freedoms.  It will be then necessary to decide whether the  Courts<br \/>\nwill  have a primary role only if the freedoms under Articles 19, 21 etc., are<br \/>\ninvolved and not for Article 14.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>In the said Judgment,  the  Honourable  Supreme  Court  referred  its  earlier<br \/>\ndecisions  reported  in  (1997)  3  SCC  72  = JT 1997 (2) SC 367 ( <a href=\"\/doc\/908197\/\">Indian Oil<br \/>\nCorporation Ltd &amp; Another v.  Ashok Kumar Arora) and<\/a> (1995) 6 SCC 7  49  =  JT<br \/>\n1995 (8) SC 65 <a href=\"\/doc\/1508554\/\">(B.C.Chaturvedi v.  Union of India and Others).  In the<\/a> case of<br \/>\nB.C.Chaturvedi, in paragraph 18, the Supreme Court held as under,<br \/>\n        &#8220;A  review  of  the  above  legal  position  would  establish that the<br \/>\ndisciplinary  authority,  and  on  appeal  the  appellate   authority,   being<br \/>\nfact-finding  authorities have exclusive power to consider the evidence with a<br \/>\nview to maintain discipline.  They are invested with the discretion to  impose<br \/>\nappropriate  punishment  keeping  in  view  the  magnitude  or  gravity of the<br \/>\nmisconduct.  The High Court\/Tribunal, while exercising the power  of  judicial<br \/>\nreview,  cannot  normally  substitute its own conclusion on penalty and impose<br \/>\nsome other penalty.  If the punishment imposed by the  disciplinary  authority<br \/>\nor  the  appellate authority shocks the conscience of the High Court\/Tribunal,<br \/>\nit would appropriately mould the relief, either  directing  the  disciplinary\/<br \/>\nappellate  authority  to  reconsider  the  penalty  imposed, or to shorten the<br \/>\nlitigation, it may itself, in exceptional and rare cases,  impose  appropriate<br \/>\npunishment with cogent reasons in support thereof.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>        9.      In  the  light  of the above cited decisions, the award of the<br \/>\nLabour Court cannot be treated as perverse in any manner and the writ petition<br \/>\nfiled by the management is liable to the dismissed and accordingly  dismissed.<br \/>\nThe award of the Labour Court is confirmed.  No costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>The Presiding Officer,<br \/>\nLabour Court,<br \/>\nSalem.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court The Management Of vs The Presiding Officer on 29 June, 2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 29\/06\/2006 Coram The Hon&#8217;ble Mr.Justice N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR Writ Petition No.6640 of 1998 The Management of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Coimbatore Division II) Limited Formerly known as Jeeva Transport Corporation represented b [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-234255","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>The Management Of vs The Presiding Officer on 29 June, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-of-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-29-june-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Management Of vs The Presiding Officer on 29 June, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-of-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-29-june-2006\" \/>\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=\"2006-06-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-05-20T21:56:57+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\\\/the-management-of-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-29-june-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-management-of-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-29-june-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Management Of vs The Presiding Officer on 29 June, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-06-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-20T21:56:57+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-management-of-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-29-june-2006\"},\"wordCount\":1758,\"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-management-of-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-29-june-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-management-of-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-29-june-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-management-of-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-29-june-2006\",\"name\":\"The Management Of vs The Presiding Officer on 29 June, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-06-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-20T21:56:57+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-management-of-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-29-june-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-management-of-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-29-june-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-management-of-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-29-june-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Management Of vs The Presiding Officer on 29 June, 2006\"}]},{\"@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 Management Of vs The Presiding Officer on 29 June, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-of-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-29-june-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Management Of vs The Presiding Officer on 29 June, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-of-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-29-june-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-06-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-05-20T21:56:57+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\/the-management-of-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-29-june-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-of-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-29-june-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Management Of vs The Presiding Officer on 29 June, 2006","datePublished":"2006-06-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-20T21:56:57+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-of-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-29-june-2006"},"wordCount":1758,"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-management-of-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-29-june-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-of-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-29-june-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-of-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-29-june-2006","name":"The Management Of vs The Presiding Officer on 29 June, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-06-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-20T21:56:57+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-of-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-29-june-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-of-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-29-june-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-of-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-29-june-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Management Of vs The Presiding Officer on 29 June, 2006"}]},{"@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\/234255","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=234255"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/234255\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=234255"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=234255"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=234255"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}