{"id":236864,"date":"2002-03-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-03-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-gunasekaran-vs-the-executive-director-on-8-march-2002"},"modified":"2015-01-18T01:50:18","modified_gmt":"2015-01-17T20:20:18","slug":"u-gunasekaran-vs-the-executive-director-on-8-march-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-gunasekaran-vs-the-executive-director-on-8-march-2002","title":{"rendered":"U. Gunasekaran vs The Executive Director on 8 March, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">U. Gunasekaran vs The Executive Director on 8 March, 2002<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           \n\nDATED: 08\/03\/2002  \n\nCORAM:   \n\nTHE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. SAMPATH        \n\nW.P.No. 1879 Of 2002 and W.P.M.P.No. 2600 of 2002 and W.V.M.P.No. 106 of 2002     \n\n\nU. Gunasekaran                         ...             Petitioner\n\n                                                Vs.\n\nThe Executive Director,\n  Tamil Nadu Science and \n  Technology Centre,\n  Guindy, Chennai  600 0025.   ...             Respondent\n\n\n\n!For Petitioner in W.P.\nAnd for Respondent in WVMP: ...  Mr.M.K. Hidayathullah \n For Respondent in W.P. &amp; \n Petitioner in MVMP: ...  Mr.Vijaynarayan\n\n\n                This writ petition is filed  under  Article  226  of  the\nConstitution  for  the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call\nfor the records of the respondent in Memo No.36\/E1\/2002  dated  4-1-2002,        \nquash  the  same  as  illegal  and  unlawful  and consequently direct the\nrespondent to reinstate the petitioner with  continuity  of  service  and\nother benefits.\n\n\n:ORDER  \n<\/pre>\n<p>                By consent the main writ petition itself was taken up and<br \/>\narguments heard.\n<\/p>\n<p>                2.  The case of the petitioner is as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>                He  joined the office of the respondent on 9.11.1990 on a<br \/>\ntemporary basis and  his  services  were  regularised  with  effect  from<br \/>\n2-7-1994.  He  has  been designated as Scientific Assistant.  He has been<br \/>\nvery sincere and dutiful in discharging his job.  There was no allegation<br \/>\nof any  insubordination  or  misconduct  against  him.    In  1998   some<br \/>\ndisciplinary proceedings  were  initiated  against one Rajaboopathy.  The<br \/>\npetitioner was called upon to give statement in the enquiry  proceedings.<br \/>\nHe gave  his statement, which was true.  However, since he did not comply<br \/>\nwith the  extraneous  order  of  the  respondent,  the  latter  developed<br \/>\nanimosity with him and he was found fault with whatever act he was doing.<br \/>\nHe was  abused and scolded in a most derogatory and filthy language.  The<br \/>\npetitioner&#8217;s wife fell sick and was operated for hernia.  He has two sons<br \/>\nand a daughter.  The petitioner was put to great hardship because of  the<br \/>\nill-health  of  his  wife  and  he had to do all the routine work both in<br \/>\ntaking care of his children  and  his  ailing  wife.    On  3-1-2002  the<br \/>\npetitioner gave a letter to the respondent seeking permission to have his<br \/>\nlunch outside in  a hotel.  He sought for lunch break of 30 minutes.  The<br \/>\nrespondent refused permission.  He also directed the petitioner to go  to<br \/>\nVillupuram  on  4-1-2002 to conduct the mobile exhibition for three days.<br \/>\nThe petitioner expressed his inability to go to Villupuram since his wife<br \/>\nwas bed-ridden.  The respondent took serious note of this and immediately<br \/>\non 4-1-2002 he passed orders of suspension and it was approved under  sub<\/p>\n<p>rule  (e)  of  Rule  17  of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Classification,<br \/>\nControl and Appeals) Rules, vide Memo No.36\/E1\/2002.   Challenging  this,<br \/>\nthe present writ petition has been filed.\n<\/p>\n<p>                3.   The  order  impugned  states  that the petitioner is<br \/>\nsuspended with effect from 4-1-2002 afternoon,  pending  enquiry  on  his<br \/>\nmisbehaviour in the Chamber of the Executive Director and disobedience as<br \/>\nper   sub   rule  (e)  of  Rule  17  of  the  Tamil  Nadu  Civil  Service<br \/>\n(Classification, Control and appeals) Rules until further  orders.    The<br \/>\nwrit  petition  was  admitted and interim stay for a period of four weeks<br \/>\nwas granted on 30-1-2002.\n<\/p>\n<p>                4.  A counter has been  filed  by  the  first  respondent<br \/>\ndenying  the  various  allegations and further stating that the power has<br \/>\nbeen exercised with bona fide intention as per the  Rules  and  the  writ<br \/>\npetition is not maintainable.  On merits the counter states as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>                There  is  a  Museo  Bus  with  24 built-in exhibits with<br \/>\nPortable Planetarium  which  is  travelling  all  parts  of  Tamil  Nadu,<br \/>\nparticularly  schools  and  colleges in the rural places for popularising<br \/>\nscience and technology concepts among the  general  public,  particularly<br \/>\nstudents.   On rotation basis, the scientific and technical staff working<br \/>\nin the Centre are posted to  look  after  the  duty.    Accordingly,  one<br \/>\nManoharan  was posted in the Museo Bus for discharging duties at Elumalai<br \/>\nPolytechnic from 4-1-2002 to 6-1-2002  and  from  7-1-2002  to  9-1-2002.<br \/>\nStating  that  his  mother-in-law  was  seriously  ill  he  requested the<br \/>\nExecutive Director to relieve him by posting a substitute in  his  place.<br \/>\nThe   petitioner  was  posted  to  look  after  the  duties  of  Elumalai<br \/>\nPolytechnic, Villupuram, in the Executive Director&#8217;s Memo No.457\/P1\/2001,<br \/>\ndated 4 -1-2002.  Instead of attending to the duty, the petitioner rushed<br \/>\ninto the Executive Director&#8217;s Chamber at 5.20 p.m.,  when  officers  were<br \/>\ndiscussing about   the   financial   and   other  policy  matters.    The<br \/>\nSuperintendent of Accounts Section was also waiting to get the  signature<br \/>\nof  the  Executive  Director  in  the  bills  and cheques to be disbursed<br \/>\nimmediately.  Without getting the permission of the  Executive  Director,<br \/>\nhe  pulled  the chair and sat on it and shouted at the Executive Director<br \/>\nthat he would not attend  his  duty.    He  further  told  the  Executive<br \/>\nDirector that  his  wife  was  ill and he could not go to Villupuram.  He<br \/>\ndisturbed the work in the Executive Director&#8217;s Chambers for sometime.  He<br \/>\nbehaved in a more indisciplined manner unbecoming of a responsible  staff<br \/>\nmember.   At  the  time of his misbehaviour, four staff members were also<br \/>\npresent and they had also given complaints  against  him.    Due  to  his<br \/>\nmisbehaviour  the  petitioner  was  suspended from duty and the order was<br \/>\nsent to him by registered post.  On 6-1-2002  the  suspension  order  was<br \/>\nalso handed  over  to  the  petitioner in person.  It was not true to say<br \/>\nthat the respondent developed animosity with the petitioner  or  that  he<br \/>\nwas harassed and put to great hardship.  It was equally false to say that<br \/>\nthe  respondent abused powers and scolded the petitioner in derogatory or<br \/>\nfilthy language.  The permission  to  have  lunch  outside  was  rejected<br \/>\nbecause  the  respondent  being  a public oriented enterprise, there were<br \/>\nequipment worth about Rs.30 lakhs in the custody of the petitioner and if<br \/>\nhe left the premises, there was a possibility that the equipment might be<br \/>\nstolen or damaged.  In fact, on one past  occasion  when  the  petitioner<br \/>\nleft  the premises, a transistor worth approximately Rs.700\/- was stolen.<br \/>\nThe petitioner had committed grave misconducts and the charges are likely<br \/>\nto be framed shortly.  A domestic enquiry is also likely to be conducted.<br \/>\nThe suspension order had been passed properly and  no  exception  can  be<br \/>\ntaken to this.\n<\/p>\n<p>                5.   A  reply  has been filed setting out the events that<br \/>\nhad happened subsequent to the petitioner obtaining  the  interim  order,<br \/>\nbesides  denying  the  case  set  out  in the counter and reiterating the<br \/>\ncontentions in the main writ petition.  It is further stated in the reply<br \/>\nthat he obtained the copy of the order from this Court  on  4.2.2002  and<br \/>\nfurnished a  copy  of the same to the respondent.  Immediately on receipt<br \/>\nof the order from this Court, the respondent called  the  petitioner  and<br \/>\ninformed  him  that  he would revoke the order of suspension provided the<br \/>\npetitioner withdrew the writ petition.  On 6-2-2002 the petitioner sent a<br \/>\nletter to the Counsel for the respondent through  his  Counsel  narrating<br \/>\nthe above  facts  and  sought  for amicable settlement in the matter.  In<br \/>\nfact, on 6-2-2002 he met the respondent  accompanied  by  his  uncle  Mr.<br \/>\nRangaraj.   On  that  day  the respondent started abusing the petitioner.<br \/>\nThese facts have been suppressed in the counter.  The  incumbent  Officer<br \/>\nis  bent  on  removing the petitioner from service on some pretext or the<br \/>\nother.\n<\/p>\n<p>                6.  This is a case  of  suspension  pending  departmental<br \/>\nenquiry.   From  the narration, I do not find any mala fides in the order<br \/>\nof suspension passed by the respondent.  I had occasion to  consider  the<br \/>\nquestion   regarding   stay   of   suspension   in   W.P.No.4724\/98   and<br \/>\nW.M.P.Nos.7312 and 7313 of 1998 and held that  there  was  no  scope  for<br \/>\ninterference  by  this  Court  under Article 226 of the Constitution when<br \/>\nserious allegations of misconduct are made against the aggrieved party.\n<\/p>\n<p>                7.  In STATE OF ORISSA VS.  BIMAL KUMAR MOHANTY (AIR 1997<br \/>\nSC 2290 = 1 994(4) SCC 126) the Supreme Court referred  to  a  number  of<br \/>\nearlier decisions and ultimately held as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;It is thus settled law that normally when an appointing authority or the<br \/>\ndisciplinary  authority  seeks to suspend an employee, pending inquiry or<br \/>\ncontemplated inquiry or  pending  investigation  into  grave  charges  of<br \/>\nmisconduct  or  defalcation  of  funds  or  serious  acts of omission and<br \/>\ncommission, the order of suspension would be  passed  after  taking  into<br \/>\nconsideration the gravity of the misconduct sought to be inquired into or<br \/>\ninvestigated  and the nature of the evidence placed before the appointing<br \/>\nauthority and on application  of  the  mind  by  disciplinary  authority.<br \/>\nAppointing  authority or disciplinary authority should consider the above<br \/>\naspects and decide whether it is expedient  to  keep  an  employee  under<br \/>\nsuspension pending   aforesaid   action.      It   would  not  be  as  an<br \/>\nadministrative routine or an automatic order to suspend an employee.   It<br \/>\nshould  be  on  consideration of the gravity of the alleged misconduct or<br \/>\nthe nature of the allegations imputed to the delinquent  employee.    The<br \/>\nCourt  or  the  Tribunal  must consider each case on its own facts and no<br \/>\ngeneral law could be laid down in that  behalf.    Suspension  is  not  a<br \/>\npunishment  but  is  only  one  of forbidding or disabling an employee to<br \/>\ndischarge the duties of office or post held by him.  In other words it is<br \/>\nto refrain him to avail further opportunity  to  perpetrate  the  alleged<br \/>\nmisconduct  or to remove the impression among the members of service that<br \/>\ndereliction of duty would pay fruits and the offending employee could get<br \/>\naway even pending  enquiry  without  any  impediment  or  to  prevent  an<br \/>\nopportunity   to  the  delinquent  officer  to  scuttle  the  enquiry  or<br \/>\ninvestigation or to win over the witnesses or the delinquent  having  had<br \/>\nthe  opportunity in office to impede the progress of the investigation or<br \/>\nenquiry, etc.  But as  stated  earlier,  each  case  must  be  considered<br \/>\ndepending  on the nature of the allegations, gravity of the situation and<br \/>\nthe indelible impact it creates on the service for the continuance of the<br \/>\ndelinquent employee in a service pending enquiry or contemplated  enquiry<br \/>\nor investigation.  It would be another thing if the action is actuated by<br \/>\nmala fides,  arbitrary or for ulterior purpose.  The suspension must be a<br \/>\nstep in aid to the ultimate result of the investigation or enquiry.   The<br \/>\nauthority  also  should keep in mind public interest of the impact of the<br \/>\ndelinquent&#8217;s continuance in office while facing departmental  enquiry  or<br \/>\ntrial of a criminal charge.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>To  the  same effect is the decision of the Supreme Court in SECRETARY TO<br \/>\nGOVERNMENT, PROHIBITION AND EXCISE DEPARTMENT VS.   SRINIVASAN  (199  6-3<br \/>\nSCC 157).\n<\/p>\n<p>                8.  In the latest decision of the Supreme Court NEW<br \/>\nINDIA ASSURANCE CO.  LTD.  VS.  S.M.I.  KAZIM AND OTHERS (2001-1 LLJ 1700<br \/>\n) it has been held that,<br \/>\n&#8220;an  order of suspension during the pendency of a departmental inquiry is<br \/>\nordinarily not interfered with by the  High  Court  in  exercise  of  its<br \/>\njurisdiction  under  Article 226 of the Constitution until and unless the<br \/>\nCourt comes to a conclusion that the order has been mala  fidely  passed;<br \/>\nor   that   the  appropriate  authority  has  not  passed  the  order  of<br \/>\nsuspension.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>                9.  In as much as no mala fides have been shown  in  this<br \/>\nmatter,  it  is  not  possible to invoke Article 226 of the Constitution.<br \/>\nThe writ petition fails  and  the  same  is  dismissed.    The  connected<br \/>\nmiscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.  There will be no order as to<br \/>\ncosts.   However, there will be a direction to the respondent to complete<br \/>\nthe enquiry within a period of three months from the date of  receipt  or<br \/>\nproduction of a copy of the order in the writ petition.\n<\/p>\n<pre>Index:  Yes                                                     8-3-2002\nIGP \n\n\nTo\nThe Executive Director,\nTamil Nadu Science and Technology  \nCentre,\nGuindy, \nChennai  600 025.        \n\nK.  SAMPATH, J.  \n\n\nW.P.No.1879\/2002 &amp;   \n\nW.P.M.P.No.2600\/2002   \nand \nW.V.M.P.No.106\/2002   \n8-3-2002\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court U. Gunasekaran vs The Executive Director on 8 March, 2002 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 08\/03\/2002 CORAM: THE HON&#8217;BLE MR. JUSTICE K. SAMPATH W.P.No. 1879 Of 2002 and W.P.M.P.No. 2600 of 2002 and W.V.M.P.No. 106 of 2002 U. Gunasekaran &#8230; Petitioner Vs. The Executive Director, Tamil Nadu Science [&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-236864","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>U. Gunasekaran vs The Executive Director on 8 March, 2002 - 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\/u-gunasekaran-vs-the-executive-director-on-8-march-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"U. Gunasekaran vs The Executive Director on 8 March, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-gunasekaran-vs-the-executive-director-on-8-march-2002\" \/>\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=\"2002-03-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-01-17T20:20:18+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/u-gunasekaran-vs-the-executive-director-on-8-march-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/u-gunasekaran-vs-the-executive-director-on-8-march-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"U. Gunasekaran vs The Executive Director on 8 March, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-03-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-01-17T20:20:18+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/u-gunasekaran-vs-the-executive-director-on-8-march-2002\"},\"wordCount\":1777,\"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\\\/u-gunasekaran-vs-the-executive-director-on-8-march-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/u-gunasekaran-vs-the-executive-director-on-8-march-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/u-gunasekaran-vs-the-executive-director-on-8-march-2002\",\"name\":\"U. Gunasekaran vs The Executive Director on 8 March, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-03-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-01-17T20:20:18+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/u-gunasekaran-vs-the-executive-director-on-8-march-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/u-gunasekaran-vs-the-executive-director-on-8-march-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/u-gunasekaran-vs-the-executive-director-on-8-march-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"U. Gunasekaran vs The Executive Director on 8 March, 2002\"}]},{\"@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":"U. Gunasekaran vs The Executive Director on 8 March, 2002 - 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\/u-gunasekaran-vs-the-executive-director-on-8-march-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"U. Gunasekaran vs The Executive Director on 8 March, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-gunasekaran-vs-the-executive-director-on-8-march-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-03-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-01-17T20:20:18+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-gunasekaran-vs-the-executive-director-on-8-march-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-gunasekaran-vs-the-executive-director-on-8-march-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"U. Gunasekaran vs The Executive Director on 8 March, 2002","datePublished":"2002-03-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-01-17T20:20:18+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-gunasekaran-vs-the-executive-director-on-8-march-2002"},"wordCount":1777,"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\/u-gunasekaran-vs-the-executive-director-on-8-march-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-gunasekaran-vs-the-executive-director-on-8-march-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-gunasekaran-vs-the-executive-director-on-8-march-2002","name":"U. Gunasekaran vs The Executive Director on 8 March, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-03-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-01-17T20:20:18+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-gunasekaran-vs-the-executive-director-on-8-march-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-gunasekaran-vs-the-executive-director-on-8-march-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-gunasekaran-vs-the-executive-director-on-8-march-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"U. Gunasekaran vs The Executive Director on 8 March, 2002"}]},{"@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\/236864","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=236864"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/236864\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=236864"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=236864"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=236864"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}