{"id":247543,"date":"2009-11-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-11-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kedar-ram-kedar-mochi-anr-vs-ms-b-c-c-l-ors-on-6-november-2009"},"modified":"2015-09-22T06:34:36","modified_gmt":"2015-09-22T01:04:36","slug":"kedar-ram-kedar-mochi-anr-vs-ms-b-c-c-l-ors-on-6-november-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kedar-ram-kedar-mochi-anr-vs-ms-b-c-c-l-ors-on-6-november-2009","title":{"rendered":"Kedar Ram @ Kedar Mochi &amp; Anr vs M\/S. B.C.C.L. &amp; Ors. on 6 November, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Jharkhand High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Kedar Ram @ Kedar Mochi &amp; Anr vs M\/S. B.C.C.L. &amp; Ors. on 6 November, 2009<\/div>\n<pre id=\"pre_1\">               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI\n                                 W.P. (S) No. 2321 of 2004\n                                            ---\n         1. Kedar Ram @ Kedar Mochi\n         2. Hirday Ram @ Hirdaya Pd. Ravidas                               Petitioners\n                                           Versus\n         1. Bharat Coking Coal Limited\n         2. Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Bharat Coking\n            Coal Limited, Dhanbad\n         3. General Manager (Personnel), Bharat Coking\n            Coal Limited, Dhanbad\n         4. General Manager, Lodna Area, Bharat Coking Coal\n             Limited, Dhanbad\n         5. Project Officer\/Manager, Lodna Area, Bharat Coking\n             Coal Limited, Dhanbad                                        Respondents\n                                            ---\n         CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.G.R. PATNAIK\n                                            ---\n         For the Petitioners: Mr. Mahesh Tiwari, Advocate\n         For the Respondents: Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta and Mr. Ananda Sen, Advocates\n                                            ---\n                                        CAV ORDER\n                                            ---\n         Reserved On: 15.10.2009                                Pronounced On: 6.11.2009\n                                               ---\n5. 6.11.2009<\/pre>\n<p id=\"p_1\">    Though both the writ petitioners were employed under the respondent BCCL at<br \/>\n         Lodna Colliery, but during the pendency of their services, both of them were<br \/>\n         remanded to judicial custody in connection with a police case registered against them<br \/>\n         for alleged offences under <a href=\"\/doc\/1560742\/\" id=\"a_1\">sections 302<\/a>\/<a href=\"\/doc\/37788\/\" id=\"a_1\">34<\/a> of the Indian Penal Code. Both of them<br \/>\n         were tried and were convicted for the aforesaid offences by the judgment of the Trial<br \/>\n         Court dated 27.5.2003 and sentenced to under imprisonment for life.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_1\">                The petitioners challenged the judgment of their conviction and sentence<br \/>\n         before the High Court by filing a Criminal Appeal No. 787 of 2003. Upon the<br \/>\n         admission of the appeal, and pending final disposal, both of them were granted bail by<br \/>\n         the High Court.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_2\">                Upon their release from jail, the petitioners reported at their respective places<br \/>\n         of work for joining duty. They were not allowed to join and on the other hand, they<br \/>\n         were served with a charge sheet dated 10.7.2003 and 12.9.2003 respectively on the<br \/>\n         charge that they had unauthorizedly absented themselves from their respective duties<br \/>\n         on and from 29.03.2003.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_3\">                The petitioners filed their show-cause replies but the same was not found<br \/>\n         satisfactory and a departmental proceeding was initiated against them. The petitioners<br \/>\n         participated in the departmental proceeding.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_4\">                During the pendency of the proceeding, both the petitioners preferred an<br \/>\n         application before the High Court in the aforesaid criminal appeal for suspension of<br \/>\n         their conviction. The prayer for suspension of their conviction was rejected, though<br \/>\n         with the following observations.\n<\/p>\n<blockquote id=\"blockquote_1\"><p>                       &#8220;There is nothing on record to suggest that a person cannot rejoin the<br \/>\n                       duty if convicted in a criminal case. There is nothing on the record to<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\" id=\"span_1\">                                         2<\/span><\/p>\n<p>               show that M\/s BCCL has framed any Rule similar to proviso to <a href=\"\/doc\/1674593\/\" id=\"a_2\">Article<br \/>\n               311(2)<\/a> of the Constitution of India&#8221;.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p id=\"p_5\">2.     At the conclusion of the departmental proceeding, each of the petitioners was<br \/>\nserved with the impugned letter of his dismissal from service (Annexures-5 and 5A).<br \/>\nThe petitioners have challenged the impugned orders of their dismissal from service<br \/>\nand have prayed for quashing the same and also for issuance of a direction upon the<br \/>\nrespondents to allow the petitioners to resume their duties at their original post and to<br \/>\npay them their full back wages.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_6\">3.     A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_7\">4.     Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the<br \/>\nrespondent BCCL.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_8\">5.     Assailing the impugned orders of dismissal, Shri Mahesh Tiwari, learned<br \/>\ncounsel for the petitioners, would argue that the impugned orders of dismissal suffers<br \/>\nfrom miscarriage of justice in as much as, even without adopting the procedure laid<br \/>\ndown by law, the petitioners have been terminated from service. Learned counsel<br \/>\nexplains that the disciplinary proceeding against the petitioners was conducted on the<br \/>\nbasis of a single charge namely, that they had unauthorizedly absented themselves<br \/>\nfrom duty for the period indicated in the charge sheet. Yet, without appreciating the<br \/>\nexplanation offered by the petitioners for the reasons of their absence from duty, and<br \/>\nwithout considering as to whether such absence could be adjusted against permissible<br \/>\nleave to which the petitioners were eligible, the respondents have proceeded to<br \/>\nterminate the petitioners&#8217; service on an additional charge that both of them were<br \/>\nconvicted for criminal offences. Learned counsel argues further that such additional<br \/>\ncharge was never framed, nor was any inquiry conducted in respect of the same<br \/>\nagainst the petitioners and furthermore, before proceeding to impose the extreme<br \/>\npunishment on the basis of such extraneous considerations, the respondents have<br \/>\nneither supplied any copy of the inquiry report, nor had served any show-cause notice<br \/>\nto the petitioners to enable them to explain as to why they should not be warded the<br \/>\nextreme punishment of dismissal from service.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_9\">       Learned counsel adds further that, as observed in the order of this court in the<br \/>\ncriminal appeal, the respondent BCCL had never produced any such Rule<br \/>\ncorresponding to the provisions of <a href=\"\/doc\/1674593\/\" id=\"a_3\">Article 311(2)<\/a> of the Constitution of India and<br \/>\ntherefore, the petitioners could neither be prevented from resuming duty, nor can their<br \/>\nservices be terminated on the purported ground of their conviction for criminal<br \/>\noffences.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_10\">6.     Per contra, explaining the stand taken by the respondents, Shri A.K. Mehta,<br \/>\nlearned counsel for the respondents would argue that admittedly the departmental<br \/>\nproceeding against the petitioners was conducted on the basis of a single charge that<br \/>\nthey had unauthorizedly absented themselves from duty. In their show-cause relies,<br \/>\nsubmitted by the petitioners respectively, while explaining the reasons for their<br \/>\nabsence, they had also admitted that they were convicted for the offences under<br \/>\n<a href=\"\/doc\/1560742\/\" id=\"a_4\">sections 302<\/a>\/<a href=\"\/doc\/37788\/\" id=\"a_5\">34<\/a> of the Indian Penal Code and since such offence involves moral<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\" id=\"span_1\">                                          3<\/span><\/p>\n<p>turpitude, it was within the competence of the respondent BCCL, as per the framed<br \/>\nRule which guides the service condition of the employee, to terminate the services of<br \/>\nthe petitioners and therefore, in this view of the matter, the impugned order of<br \/>\ndismissal do not suffer from any illegality or perversity.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_11\">          Referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court passed in the case of <a href=\"\/doc\/937001\/\" id=\"a_6\">Union of<br \/>\nIndia and others vs. Ramesh Kumar<\/a> [(1997) 7 SCC 514, learned counsel argues<br \/>\nthat it has been held by the Apex Court that the employer is entitled to dismiss the<br \/>\nGovernment Servant who has been convicted on a criminal charge and the employee<br \/>\nhas no right to be reinstated in service without an order of suspension of his conviction<br \/>\nand execution of sentence being passed in the Appeal. As such, as long as the<br \/>\nconviction continues to remain operative, disciplinary action such as dismissal or<br \/>\nremoval from service on the basis of such conviction, cannot be assailed.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_12\">7.        Facts as appearing from the rival submissions, reflects two outstanding<br \/>\nfeatures. The first is that both the petitioners, upon their being remanded to judicial<br \/>\ncustody, could not attend to their duties as long as they were under detention. Both of<br \/>\nthem were convicted and sentenced for the offences under <a href=\"\/doc\/1560742\/\" id=\"a_7\">sections 302<\/a>\/<a href=\"\/doc\/37788\/\" id=\"a_8\">34<\/a> of the<br \/>\nIndian Penal Code. Pending appeal against the order of their conviction and sentence,<br \/>\nthe petitioners were released on bail. Where-after, they had reported for duty, but they<br \/>\nwere refused to join duty.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_13\">          The second aspect is that the disciplinary proceeding was conducted against<br \/>\nboth the petitioners on the solitary charge that they had unauthorizedly absented<br \/>\nthemselves from their duty. Though the petitioners had sought to explain the reasons<br \/>\nfor their absence, but at the conclusion of the inquiry, a finding was recorded by the<br \/>\nInquiry Officer that the charge relating to unauthorized absence from duty against the<br \/>\npetitioners, was proved. While accepting the findings of the Inquiry Officer, the<br \/>\nDisciplinary Authority appears, however, to have adverted also to the judgment of the<br \/>\ncriminal court passed against the petitioners and recorded his observation that the<br \/>\npetitioners were convicted and sentenced for criminal offences involving moral<br \/>\nturpitude, which was in violation of the provisions of the certified standing orders of<br \/>\nthe Respondent Company under Para-26.1.19, which appears to have compounded the<br \/>\ngravity of the charge perceived to be highly serious and deserving the punishment of<br \/>\ntermination of the services of the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_14\">8.        Apparently, the conviction of an employee for any criminal offence involving<br \/>\nmoral turpitude, is deemed to be in violation of certain specific clauses contained in<br \/>\nthe certified standing orders of the Respondent Company. If this was so, and conduct<br \/>\nof the employees were considered to be a misconduct under the certified standing<br \/>\norders, then no doubt, the employer had the authority to take appropriate disciplinary<br \/>\naction which such violation of the provisions of the certified standing orders, would<br \/>\ninvite.    However, the proposed disciplinary action has always to be made in<br \/>\naccordance with the stipulated Rules of Procedure. The substance of accusation<br \/>\nrelating to such misconduct has to be stated by way of a specific charge and the<br \/>\ndelinquent employee has to be given adequate opportunity to defend himself by<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\" id=\"span_2\">                                                4<\/span><\/p>\n<p>      offering his explanation, which in this case, does not appear to have been done.<br \/>\n      Furthermore, had any proposed disciplinary action been confined to the proof of the<br \/>\n      solitary charge of absenteeism for which the petitioners were proceeded against, then<br \/>\n      the matters for consideration would have been confined only to such charge and to the<br \/>\n      explanation offered by the proceedee, thereto. As it appears, while considering the<br \/>\n      findings of the Inquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority had allowed himself to be<br \/>\n      influenced by the additional fact beyond the charge framed, that the petitioners were<br \/>\n      convicted for criminal offence involving moral turpitude. It also appears that before<br \/>\n      proceeding to inflict the extreme punishment, the petitioners were neither served with<br \/>\n      a copy of the inquiry report, nor was any show-cause notice served upon them to<br \/>\n      explain as to why they should not be awarded extreme punishment of dismissal from<br \/>\n      service. The plea of the respondents that no separate charge was needed to be framed<br \/>\n      in respect of the conviction of the petitioners for criminal offence involving moral<br \/>\n      turpitude in view of their own admission, in my opinion, is not correct. As stated<br \/>\n      above, conviction of the employee for any criminal offence involving moral turpitude,<br \/>\n      may, in itself, be an act of misconduct under the provisions of the certified standing<br \/>\n      orders of the respondent BCCL, but before proceeding to take any disciplinary action<br \/>\n      on such acts of misconduct, the mandatory procedure has to be adopted and the same<br \/>\n      cannot be dispensed merely on the ground that the employee had admitted certain<br \/>\n      facts.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_15\">      9.       In the light of the above discussions, I am of the view that the impugned orders<br \/>\n      of dismissal from service have been passed without adherence to the principles of<br \/>\n      natural justice and without following the procedure laid down under the law as well as<br \/>\n      the Rules applicable to the employees of the respondent BCCL. As such, both the<br \/>\n      impugned orders (Annexures-5 and 5A) are hereby quashed. The matter is remitted<br \/>\n      back to the concerned authorities of the respondents to record a fresh decision on the<br \/>\n      basis of the findings in the inquiry report relating to the charge for which the<br \/>\n      disciplinary proceeding was conducted against the petitioners. Such decision must be<br \/>\n      taken within two months from the date of receipt \/ production of a copy of this order.<br \/>\n      The Disciplinary Authority shall be at liberty to take any appropriate action in<br \/>\n      accordance with the Rules of Procedure for any other acts of misconduct on the part of<br \/>\n      the petitioners, if found in violation of the provisions of certified standing orders. Such<br \/>\n      action if contemplated, shall be taken and concluded within four months from the date<br \/>\n      of this order.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_16\">               With these observations, this writ application is disposed of.<br \/>\n               Let a copy of the order be given to the learned counsel for the respondents.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_17\">                                                                        (D.G.R. Patnaik, J)<\/p>\n<p>Ranjeet\/A.F.R.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Jharkhand High Court Kedar Ram @ Kedar Mochi &amp; Anr vs M\/S. B.C.C.L. &amp; Ors. on 6 November, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No. 2321 of 2004 &#8212; 1. Kedar Ram @ Kedar Mochi 2. Hirday Ram @ Hirdaya Pd. Ravidas Petitioners Versus 1. Bharat Coking Coal Limited 2. [&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":[8,18],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-247543","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-jharkhand-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Kedar Ram @ Kedar Mochi &amp; Anr vs M\/S. B.C.C.L. &amp; Ors. on 6 November, 2009 - 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\/kedar-ram-kedar-mochi-anr-vs-ms-b-c-c-l-ors-on-6-november-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Kedar Ram @ Kedar Mochi &amp; Anr vs M\/S. B.C.C.L. &amp; Ors. on 6 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kedar-ram-kedar-mochi-anr-vs-ms-b-c-c-l-ors-on-6-november-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-11-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-09-22T01:04:36+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\\\/kedar-ram-kedar-mochi-anr-vs-ms-b-c-c-l-ors-on-6-november-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kedar-ram-kedar-mochi-anr-vs-ms-b-c-c-l-ors-on-6-november-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Kedar Ram @ Kedar Mochi &amp; Anr vs M\\\/S. B.C.C.L. &amp; Ors. on 6 November, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-22T01:04:36+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kedar-ram-kedar-mochi-anr-vs-ms-b-c-c-l-ors-on-6-november-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1798,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Jharkhand High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kedar-ram-kedar-mochi-anr-vs-ms-b-c-c-l-ors-on-6-november-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kedar-ram-kedar-mochi-anr-vs-ms-b-c-c-l-ors-on-6-november-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kedar-ram-kedar-mochi-anr-vs-ms-b-c-c-l-ors-on-6-november-2009\",\"name\":\"Kedar Ram @ Kedar Mochi &amp; Anr vs M\\\/S. B.C.C.L. &amp; Ors. on 6 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-22T01:04:36+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kedar-ram-kedar-mochi-anr-vs-ms-b-c-c-l-ors-on-6-november-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kedar-ram-kedar-mochi-anr-vs-ms-b-c-c-l-ors-on-6-november-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kedar-ram-kedar-mochi-anr-vs-ms-b-c-c-l-ors-on-6-november-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Kedar Ram @ Kedar Mochi &amp; Anr vs M\\\/S. B.C.C.L. &amp; Ors. on 6 November, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"Kedar Ram @ Kedar Mochi &amp; Anr vs M\/S. B.C.C.L. &amp; Ors. on 6 November, 2009 - 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\/kedar-ram-kedar-mochi-anr-vs-ms-b-c-c-l-ors-on-6-november-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Kedar Ram @ Kedar Mochi &amp; Anr vs M\/S. B.C.C.L. &amp; Ors. on 6 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kedar-ram-kedar-mochi-anr-vs-ms-b-c-c-l-ors-on-6-november-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-11-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-09-22T01:04:36+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\/kedar-ram-kedar-mochi-anr-vs-ms-b-c-c-l-ors-on-6-november-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kedar-ram-kedar-mochi-anr-vs-ms-b-c-c-l-ors-on-6-november-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Kedar Ram @ Kedar Mochi &amp; Anr vs M\/S. B.C.C.L. &amp; Ors. on 6 November, 2009","datePublished":"2009-11-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-22T01:04:36+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kedar-ram-kedar-mochi-anr-vs-ms-b-c-c-l-ors-on-6-november-2009"},"wordCount":1798,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Jharkhand High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kedar-ram-kedar-mochi-anr-vs-ms-b-c-c-l-ors-on-6-november-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kedar-ram-kedar-mochi-anr-vs-ms-b-c-c-l-ors-on-6-november-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kedar-ram-kedar-mochi-anr-vs-ms-b-c-c-l-ors-on-6-november-2009","name":"Kedar Ram @ Kedar Mochi &amp; Anr vs M\/S. B.C.C.L. &amp; Ors. on 6 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-11-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-22T01:04:36+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kedar-ram-kedar-mochi-anr-vs-ms-b-c-c-l-ors-on-6-november-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kedar-ram-kedar-mochi-anr-vs-ms-b-c-c-l-ors-on-6-november-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kedar-ram-kedar-mochi-anr-vs-ms-b-c-c-l-ors-on-6-november-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Kedar Ram @ Kedar Mochi &amp; Anr vs M\/S. B.C.C.L. &amp; Ors. on 6 November, 2009"}]},{"@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\/247543","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=247543"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/247543\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=247543"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=247543"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=247543"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}