{"id":250038,"date":"2009-11-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-11-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-suresh-kumar-ias-kl-89-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-its-on-26-november-2009"},"modified":"2015-09-02T21:11:13","modified_gmt":"2015-09-02T15:41:13","slug":"k-suresh-kumar-ias-kl-89-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-its-on-26-november-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-suresh-kumar-ias-kl-89-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-its-on-26-november-2009","title":{"rendered":"K.Suresh Kumar Ias (Kl-89) vs State Of Kerala Represented By Its on 26 November, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
K.Suresh Kumar Ias (Kl-89) vs State Of Kerala Represented By Its on 26 November, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C).No. 23806 of 2009(S)\n\n\n1. K.SURESH KUMAR IAS (KL-89),S\/O.\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS\n\n3. ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO\n\n4. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.O.V.RADHAKRISHNAN (SR.)\n\n                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice KURIAN JOSEPH\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice C.T.RAVIKUMAR\n\n Dated :26\/11\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n          KURIAN JOSEPH & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ.\n            -----------------------------------------\n                 W.P(C)No.23806 of 2009\n            -----------------------------------------\n       Dated this the 26th day of November, 2009\n\n                          JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
Kurian Joseph, J.\n<\/p>\n
             Discipline decides the destiny of life and<\/p>\n
destination in service. Discipline is the core and cornerstone<\/p>\n
of service.   However, discipline as understood in common<\/p>\n
parlance is different from the discipline as defined in the<\/p>\n
service rules though the latter has the trappings of the<\/p>\n
former.    As far as the government servant is concerned,<\/p>\n
disciplinary action can be initiated only in case the officer<\/p>\n
concerned is liable to be proceeded against for his<\/p>\n
indisciplined conduct.   Suspension from service is a prelude<\/p>\n
to the disciplinary action.        But suspension is not a<\/p>\n
precondition    or   unavoidable     accompaniment     for   a<\/p>\n
disciplinary action. It is required, nay warranted, only if as<\/p>\n
W.P(C)No.23806 of 2009
\n                                -:2:-<\/span><\/p>\n
part of the action and in overall public interest the officer is to<\/p>\n
be temporarily kept out of service for a free and fair enquiry.<\/p>\n
No doubt, suspension is not a punishment, unless of course<\/p>\n
prescribed as such in the relevant Rules. But merely because<\/p>\n
suspension is not a punishment, the employer cannot take a<\/p>\n
casual approach and after a few days or months reinstate the<\/p>\n
officer, even with backwages. The stigma cannot be washed<\/p>\n
away or wiped out, though in the legal parlance it is possible.<\/p>\n
For an honest officer, a baseless or motivated action is<\/p>\n
certainly painful.  That is why the law and procedure on<\/p>\n
suspension   call  for  strict  interpretation.      Of   course,<\/p>\n
justification for suspension is different from validity of<\/p>\n
suspension. This introduction would help us as a prologue in<\/p>\n
analysing the question of law raised in this writ petition.<\/p>\n
      2. Short facts. The writ petition is filed by the applicant<\/p>\n
(hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) before the Central<\/p>\n
Administrative Tribunal, Kochi, in O.A.No.12\/2009. The said<\/p>\n
W.P(C)No.23806 of 2009
\n                                  -:3:-<\/span><\/p>\n
application was filed challenging order dated 11-12-2008 of<\/p>\n
the Government of Kerala whereby the petitioner was<\/p>\n
suspended from service. The impugned order Annexure A7<\/p>\n
(Ext.P1) reads as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
                 “It has come to the notice of the<\/p>\n
          Government that Shri.K.Suresh Kumar, IAS<\/p>\n
          (KL:    1989)   on  deputation    as  Managing<\/p>\n
          Director,    Kerala       State    Co-operative<\/p>\n
          Agricultural Rural Development Bank has<\/p>\n
          appeared before the press and media channels<\/p>\n
          from    6-12-2008    onwards    and   adversely<\/p>\n
          criticised the office of the Hon’ble Chief<\/p>\n
          Minister of Kerala, making allegations like<\/p>\n
          piling up of files, absence of support system<\/p>\n
          and ignorance of Government procedures in<\/p>\n
          the Chief Minister’s office and thereby violated<\/p>\n
          the All India Service (Conduct) Rules which<\/p>\n
          caused embarrassment to the Government.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n
                 2. Government after having examined<\/p>\n
          the matter in detail considers it necessary to<\/p>\n
          place Shri.K.Suresh Kumar, IAS, Managing<\/p>\n
          Director,    Kerala       State    Co-operative<\/p>\n
          Agricultural Rural Development Bank under<\/p>\n
W.P(C)No.23806 of 2009
\n                                  -:4:-<\/span><\/p>\n
          suspension as per Rule 3 of All India Service<\/p>\n
          (Discipline   &   Appeal)    Rules, 1969   with<\/p>\n
          immediate effect pending further enquiry.<\/p>\n
                 3.   Shri.K.Suresh Kumar, IAS, will be<\/p>\n
          eligible for subsistence allowance under Rule 4<\/p>\n
          of All India Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules<\/p>\n
          1969.\n<\/p>\n
                 4. Shri.K.Suresh Kumar, IAS will hand<\/p>\n
          over charge to Shri.T.Thankappan, IAS (KL:<\/p>\n
          1989), Secretary, Co-operation Department.”<\/p>\n
Before the Central Administrative Tribunal the following reliefs<\/p>\n
were sought:-\n<\/p>\n
         “i.    to call for the records leading to<\/p>\n
                Annexure             A-7          GO(Rt)<\/p>\n
                No.9528\/2008\/GAD dated         11-12-08<\/p>\n
                and Annexure A-11 GO dated 11-03-<\/p>\n
                2009 and to set aside the same;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n
         ii.    to declare that Annexure A-7 Order of<\/p>\n
                suspension ceased to be valid and<\/p>\n
                operative by reason of not initiating<\/p>\n
                disciplinary   proceedings   before   the<\/p>\n
                expiry of the period of 90 days from the<\/p>\n
                date of suspension and in the absence of<\/p>\n
                permission      from       the   Central<\/p>\n
W.P(C)No.23806 of 2009
\n                                -:5:-<\/span><\/p>\n
               Government as contemplated by the 2nd<\/p>\n
               proviso to Rule 3(1) of the All India<\/p>\n
               Servgice (Discipline and Appeal) Rules,<\/p>\n
               1969;\n<\/p>\n
         iii.  to issue appropriate direction or order<\/p>\n
               directing the respondents to allow the<\/p>\n
               applicant to continue in the post of<\/p>\n
               Managing Director, Kerala State Co-<\/p>\n
               operative    Agricultural  and     Rural<\/p>\n
               Development Bank without regard to<\/p>\n
               Annexure A7 GO dated 11-12-2008;\n<\/p>\n
         iv.   to issue appropriate direction or order<\/p>\n
               directing  the   respondents   to  pass<\/p>\n
               appropriate order treating the period of<\/p>\n
               suspension as duty for all purposes and<\/p>\n
               to  grant   him   full service  benefits<\/p>\n
               including arrears of pay and allowances<\/p>\n
               for the period he has been kept under<\/p>\n
               suspension unlawfully;\n<\/p>\n
         v.    to grant such other reliefs which this<\/p>\n
               Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and<\/p>\n
               proper in the circumstances of the<\/p>\n
               case.”\n<\/p>\n
     3. The Tribunal dismissed the application. Hence the<\/p>\n
W.P(C)No.23806 of 2009
\n                               -:6:-<\/span><\/p>\n
writ petition.\n<\/p>\n
      4.   At the outset we make it clear that we are not<\/p>\n
embarking upon an enquiry on the merits of the cases, on the<\/p>\n
justification for the suspension; our enquiry is to the limited<\/p>\n
area of challenge on the validity of the suspension order, in<\/p>\n
view of the non-compliance with the requirement prescribed<\/p>\n
under the Rules.      The main contention, which alone we<\/p>\n
propose to deal with in this case and since that would render<\/p>\n
consideration of other questions unnecessary, is that the<\/p>\n
suspension has become invalid since before the expiry of the<\/p>\n
period of 90 days from the date of suspension, disciplinary<\/p>\n
proceedings are not initiated.    There is no dispute on two<\/p>\n
facts: (1) disciplinary proceedings have not been initiated<\/p>\n
against the applicant before the expiry of the 90 days from<\/p>\n
the date of suspension; and (2) the Central Government has<\/p>\n
not allowed the continuance of the suspension beyond the<\/p>\n
period of 90 days.\n<\/p>\n
W.P(C)No.23806 of 2009
\n                                 -:7:-<\/span><\/p>\n
     5. In order to appreciate the contention on the validity<\/p>\n
of suspension order it is necessary to refer to the Rules.<\/p>\n
Rule 3 of the All India Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules<\/p>\n
1969 deals with suspension and the procedure to be followed<\/p>\n
thereon. The Rule reads as follows:-<\/p>\n
                “3.    Suspension.– (1)     If, having<\/p>\n
          regard to the circumstances in any case and<\/p>\n
          where articles of charge have been drawn<\/p>\n
          up,   the    nature  of    the  charges, the<\/p>\n
          Government of a State or the Central<\/p>\n
          Government, as the case may be, is satisfied<\/p>\n
          that it is necessary or desirable to place<\/p>\n
          under suspension a member of the service,<\/p>\n
          against whom disciplinary proceedings are<\/p>\n
          contemplated      or   are    pending,   that<\/p>\n
          Government may, —\n<\/p>\n
            (a)    if the member of the service is\n\n                   serving under that Government,\n\n                   pass an order placing him under\n\n                   suspension, or\n\n            (b)    if the member of the service is\n\n                   serving      under       another\n\n                   Government,       request   that\n\nW.P(C)No.23806 of 2009\n                                 -:8:-<\/span>\n\n\n                   Government to place him under\n\n                   suspension,\n\n<\/pre>\n
          pending the conclusion of the disciplinary<\/p>\n
          proceedings and the passing of the final<\/p>\n
          order in the case:\n<\/p>\n
                 Provided that, in cases, where there is<\/p>\n
          a difference of opinion, —\n<\/p>\n
             (i)    between two State Governments, the<\/p>\n
                    matter shall be referred to Central<\/p>\n
                    Government for its decision;\n<\/p>\n
             (ii)   between a State Government and the<\/p>\n
                    Central Government, the opinion of the<\/p>\n
                    Central Government shall prevail;\n<\/p>\n
                 Provided further that, where a member<\/p>\n
          of the service against whom disciplinary<\/p>\n
          proceedings are contemplated is suspended,<\/p>\n
          such suspension shall not be valid, unless<\/p>\n
          before the expiry of a period of ninety days<\/p>\n
          from the date from which the member was<\/p>\n
          suspended,    disciplinary   proceedings    are<\/p>\n
          initiated against him;\n<\/p>\n
                 Provided   also    that    the   Central<\/p>\n
          Government may, at any time before the<\/p>\n
          expiry of the said period of ninety days and<\/p>\n
          after considering the special circumstances<\/p>\n
          for not initiating disciplinary proceeding, to<\/p>\n
W.P(C)No.23806 of 2009
\n                                  -:9:-<\/span><\/p>\n
          be recorded in writing allow continuance of<\/p>\n
          the suspension order beyond the period of<\/p>\n
          ninety    days      without    the    disciplinary<\/p>\n
          proceedings being initiated.\n<\/p>\n
                 (1-A) If the Government of a State or<\/p>\n
          the Central Government, as the case may<\/p>\n
          be, is of the opinion that a member of the<\/p>\n
          Service has engaged himself in activities<\/p>\n
          prejudicial to the interests of the security of<\/p>\n
          the State, that Government may —\n<\/p>\n
                 (a)   if the member of the Service<\/p>\n
                       is   serving    under    that<\/p>\n
                       Government, pass an order<\/p>\n
                       placing      him       under<\/p>\n
                       suspension, or<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                 (b)   if the member of the Service<\/p>\n
                       is serving under another<\/p>\n
                       Government request, that<\/p>\n
                       Government to place him<\/p>\n
                       under suspension,<\/p>\n
          till the passing of the final order in the case :<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                 Provided that, in cases, where there is<\/p>\n
          a difference of opinion —\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          (i)    between two State Governments, the<\/p>\n
          matter shall be referred to the Central<\/p>\n
          Government for its decision;\n<\/p>\n
W.P(C)No.23806 of 2009
\n                                -:10:-<\/span><\/p>\n
          (ii)  between a State Government and the<\/p>\n
          Central Government, the opinion of the<\/p>\n
          Central Government shall prevail.\n<\/p>\n
                (2)   A member of the Service, who is<\/p>\n
          detained in official custody whether on a<\/p>\n
          criminal charge or otherwise for a period<\/p>\n
          longer than forty-eight house, shall be<\/p>\n
          deemed to have been suspended by the<\/p>\n
          Government concerned under this rule.<\/p>\n
                (3)    A member of the Service in\n\n          respect    of,   or   against,    whom      an\n\n<\/pre>\n
          investigation, inquiry or trial relating to a<\/p>\n
          criminal charge is pending may, at the<\/p>\n
          discretion of the Government be placed<\/p>\n
          under suspension until the termination of all<\/p>\n
          proceedings relating to that charge, if the<\/p>\n
          charge is connected with his position as a<\/p>\n
          member of the service or is likely to<\/p>\n
          embarrass him in the discharge of his duties<\/p>\n
          or involves moral turpitude.<\/p>\n
\n
                (4) A member of the Service shall be<\/p>\n
          deemed     to   have   been    placed    under<\/p>\n
          suspension by the Government concerned<\/p>\n
          with effect from the date of conviction, of, in<\/p>\n
          the event of conviction for a criminal offence,<\/p>\n
W.P(C)No.23806 of 2009
\n                                 -:11:-<\/span><\/p>\n
          he is not forthwith dismissed or removed or<\/p>\n
          compulsorily retired consequent on such<\/p>\n
          conviction   provided    that  the  conviction<\/p>\n
          carries   a     sentence     of imprisonment<\/p>\n
          exceeding fortyeight hours.\n<\/p>\n
                Explanation.– The period of forty-<\/p>\n
          eight hours referred to in sub-rule (4) shall<\/p>\n
          be commuted from the commencement of<\/p>\n
          the imprisonment after the conviction and for<\/p>\n
          this   purpose,     intermittent  periods   of<\/p>\n
          imprisonment, if any, shall be taken into<\/p>\n
          account.\n<\/p>\n
                (5)    Where a penalty of dismissal,<\/p>\n
          removal or compulsory retirement from<\/p>\n
          service imposed upon a member of the<\/p>\n
          Service under suspension is set aside in<\/p>\n
          appeal or on review under these rules and<\/p>\n
          the case is remitted for further inquiry or<\/p>\n
          action or with any other directions, the order<\/p>\n
          of his suspension shall be deemed to have<\/p>\n
          continued in force on and from the date of<\/p>\n
          the original order of dismissal, removal or<\/p>\n
          compulsory retirement and shall remain in<\/p>\n
          force until further orders.\n<\/p>\n
                (6)    Where a penalty of dismissal,<\/p>\n
W.P(C)No.23806 of 2009
\n                                -:12:-<\/span><\/p>\n
          removal or compulsory retirement from<\/p>\n
          service imposed upon a member of the<\/p>\n
          Service is set aside or declared or rendered<\/p>\n
          void in consequence of or by a decision of a<\/p>\n
          Court of Law, and the disciplinary authority,<\/p>\n
          on a consideration of the circumstances of<\/p>\n
          the case, decides to hold further inquiry<\/p>\n
          against him on the allegations on which the<\/p>\n
          penalty of dismissal, removal or compulsory<\/p>\n
          retirement   was    originally  imposed,   the<\/p>\n
          member of the Service shall be deemed to<\/p>\n
          have been placed under suspension by the<\/p>\n
          Central Government from the date of original<\/p>\n
          order of dismissal, removal or compulsory<\/p>\n
          retirement and shall continue to remain<\/p>\n
          under suspension until further orders:<\/p>\n
                Provided that no such further inquiry<\/p>\n
          shall be ordered unless it is intended to meet<\/p>\n
          a situation where the Court has passed an<\/p>\n
          order purely on technical grounds without<\/p>\n
          going into the merits of the case.\n<\/p>\n
                (6-A) Where an order of suspension is<\/p>\n
          made, or deemed to have been made, by the<\/p>\n
          Government of a State under this rule,<\/p>\n
          detailed report of the case shall be forwarded<\/p>\n
W.P(C)No.23806 of 2009
\n                                -:13:-<\/span><\/p>\n
          to the Central Government ordinarily within a<\/p>\n
          period of fifteen days of the date on which<\/p>\n
          the member of the Service is suspended or is<\/p>\n
          deemed to have been suspended, as the<\/p>\n
          case may be.\n<\/p>\n
                (7)(a) An order of suspension made or<\/p>\n
          deemed to have been made under this rule<\/p>\n
          shall continue to remain in force until it is<\/p>\n
          modified   or   revoked    by  the  authority<\/p>\n
          competent to do so.\n<\/p>\n
                (b) Where a member of the Service is<\/p>\n
          suspended or is deemed to have been<\/p>\n
          suspended, whether in connection with any<\/p>\n
          disciplinary proceeding or otherwise, and any<\/p>\n
          other disciplinary proceeding is commenced<\/p>\n
          against him during the continuance of that<\/p>\n
          suspension, the authority competent to place<\/p>\n
          him under suspension may, for reasons to be<\/p>\n
          recorded by him in writing, direct that the<\/p>\n
          member of the Service shall continue to be<\/p>\n
          under suspension subject to sub-rule (8);<\/p>\n
W.P(C)No.23806 of 2009
\n                               -:14:-<\/span><\/p>\n
                (c)   An order of suspension made or<\/p>\n
          deemed to have been made under this rule<\/p>\n
          may at any time be modified or revoked by<\/p>\n
          the authority which made or is deemed to<\/p>\n
          have made the order.\n<\/p>\n
                (8)(a)  An order of suspension made<\/p>\n
          under this rule which has not been extended<\/p>\n
          shall be valid for a period not exceeding<\/p>\n
          ninety days and an order of suspension<\/p>\n
          which has been extended shall remain valid<\/p>\n
          for a further period not exceeding one<\/p>\n
          hundred eighty days at a time, unless<\/p>\n
          revoked earlier.\n<\/p>\n
                (b) An order of suspension made or<\/p>\n
          deemed to have been made or continued,<\/p>\n
          shall be reviewed by the competent authority<\/p>\n
          on the recommendations of the concerned<\/p>\n
          Review Committee.\n<\/p>\n
                (c) The composition and functions of<\/p>\n
          the Review Committees and the procedure to<\/p>\n
          be followed by them shall be as specified in<\/p>\n
          the Schedule annexed to these rules.<\/p>\n
                (d)  The period of suspension under<\/p>\n
          sub-rule (1) may, on the recommendations<\/p>\n
          of the concerned     Review Committee, be<\/p>\n
W.P(C)No.23806 of 2009
\n                                -:15:-<\/span><\/p>\n
           extended for a further period not exceeding<\/p>\n
           one hundred and eighty days at a time:<\/p>\n
                Provided that where no order has been<\/p>\n
           passed under this clause, the order of<\/p>\n
           suspension shall stand revoked with effect<\/p>\n
           from the date of expiry of the order being<\/p>\n
           reviewed.\n<\/p>\n
                (9)   Every order of suspension and<\/p>\n
           every order of revocation shall be made, as<\/p>\n
           nearly as practicable, in the appropriate<\/p>\n
           standard form appended to these rules.”<\/p>\n
It may be seen that sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 has three provisos:<\/p>\n
(1) dealing with the conflicting stands likely to be taken by the<\/p>\n
State Government and the Central Government; (2) dealing<\/p>\n
with the mandatory requirement of initiation of disciplinary<\/p>\n
action before the expiry of 90 days from the date of<\/p>\n
suspension; and (3) dealing with a provision enabling the<\/p>\n
Central Government to extend the period of suspension<\/p>\n
beyond 90 days even without initiating the disciplinary<\/p>\n
proceedings.\n<\/p>\n
     6. Disciplinary proceedings can be said to be initiated<\/p>\n
W.P(C)No.23806 of 2009
\n                                -:16:-<\/span><\/p>\n
only with the service of memo of charges.        That is a well<\/p>\n
settled principle and there is no serious dispute on that.   In<\/p>\n
the instant case the memo of charges has not been served on<\/p>\n
the petitioner within 90 days and hence it is the undisputed<\/p>\n
factual and legal position that disciplinary proceedings have<\/p>\n
not been initiated against the petitioner within 90 days of the<\/p>\n
suspension.\n<\/p>\n
     7.   Learned Additional Director General of Prosecution<\/p>\n
Sri.Raveendranath contends that the rule enables the<\/p>\n
Government to suspend an employee having regard to the<\/p>\n
circumstances of any case and it is not necessary that<\/p>\n
suspension can be made only having regard to the nature of<\/p>\n
the charges.      There is no quarrel with that position,<\/p>\n
suspension pending enquiry, suspension in contemplation of<\/p>\n
disciplinary proceedings and suspension having regard to the<\/p>\n
circumstances of any case is permissible under the rules.<\/p>\n
Only thing is that the authority suspending the member of the<\/p>\n
W.P(C)No.23806 of 2009
\n                                -:17:-<\/span><\/p>\n
service should be satisfied that it is either necessary or<\/p>\n
desirable to place the member under suspension. Needless to<\/p>\n
say that the satisfaction must have regard to the nature and<\/p>\n
gravity of the indiscipline or misconduct alleged against the<\/p>\n
member of the service. The contention of the State is that<\/p>\n
when a member of the service is suspended having regard to<\/p>\n
the circumstances of any case it is not necessary that the<\/p>\n
memo of charges is served initiating the disciplinary<\/p>\n
proceedings before the expiry of the 90 days and the<\/p>\n
suspension can be continued provided the suspension          is<\/p>\n
reviewed in exercise of the power under sub-rule (8)(b) read<\/p>\n
with sub-rule 8(d) and based on the recommendation of the<\/p>\n
Review Committee the suspension can be continued.          Yet<\/p>\n
another vehement contention is that in any case a suspension<\/p>\n
made having regard to the circumstances of a case is valid for<\/p>\n
a period of 90 days in view of the provision under sub-rule (8)<\/p>\n
(a).\n<\/p>\n
W.P(C)No.23806 of 2009
\n                               -:18:-<\/span><\/p>\n
      8.   We are afraid both the contentions cannot be<\/p>\n
appreciated.    While interpreting the All India Services<\/p>\n
(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 it has to be borne in mind<\/p>\n
that the rule applies only to members of the All India Service<\/p>\n
as defined in Section 2<\/a> of the All India Services Act, 1951.<\/p>\n
All India Services originally conceived of only Indian<\/p>\n
Administrative Service and Indian Police Service. Thereafter<\/p>\n
by amendment introduced in the year 1963 certain other All<\/p>\n
India Services were also included. Suffice to specially note<\/p>\n
that the officers dealt with under the rules are not ordinary<\/p>\n
government servants, but members of All India Service,<\/p>\n
entrusted with highly responsible offices. Suspension of such<\/p>\n
officers should be resorted to only in situations warranting<\/p>\n
such grave action.    That is why the Rule has provided for<\/p>\n
detailed procedure, both in the matter of suspension for the<\/p>\n
initial period of 90 days and continuance thereof, with<\/p>\n
sufficient safeguards in order to avoid arbitrariness.    The<\/p>\n
W.P(C)No.23806 of 2009
\n                                -:19:-<\/span><\/p>\n
second proviso to Rule 3(1) of the Rules makes it mandatory<\/p>\n
that a member of service suspended in contemplation of<\/p>\n
disciplinary proceedings has to be served with memo of<\/p>\n
charges, initiating disciplinary proceedings before the expiry<\/p>\n
of the period of 90 days from the date of the suspension. The<\/p>\n
requirement is not directory as contended by the learned<\/p>\n
Additional Director General of Prosecution.        Since the<\/p>\n
consequence of the requirement is provided in the Rule itself,<\/p>\n
the compliance is mandatory. A provision in a rule, no doubt,<\/p>\n
can be directory in nature; however, when the grave<\/p>\n
consequence of non-compliance is prescribed in the rule itself,<\/p>\n
the procedure becomes mandatory. Thus in the instant case<\/p>\n
the second proviso to Rule 3(1) mandates that unless the<\/p>\n
disciplinary proceedings are initiated within 90 days of the<\/p>\n
date of suspension, the suspension becomes invalid.       The<\/p>\n
other contention is that the said rule is subject to the<\/p>\n
operation of sub-rule 8(a) of Rule 3(1). That contention also<\/p>\n
W.P(C)No.23806 of 2009
\n                                 -:20:-<\/span><\/p>\n
cannot be appreciated. The very opening words of sub-rule 8<\/p>\n
(a) would give a definite indication otherwise. It states that<\/p>\n
“an order of suspension made under this rule which has not<\/p>\n
been extended shall be valid for a period not exceeding ninety<\/p>\n
days …”. ‘Suspension under this rule’ is suspension under<\/p>\n
Rule 3.      Suspension in contemplation of disciplinary<\/p>\n
proceedings   under     Rule   3(1)    becomes  invalid unless<\/p>\n
disciplinary proceedings are initiated by serving memo of<\/p>\n
charges within 90 days of the date of suspension or unless the<\/p>\n
Central Government after considering special circumstances<\/p>\n
recorded in writing allows the continuance of suspension<\/p>\n
beyond the period of 90 days without initiating disciplinary<\/p>\n
proceedings. In the statement filed by the learned Assistant<\/p>\n
Solicitor General it is stated that the Central Government has<\/p>\n
not allowed the continuance of the suspension beyond 90<\/p>\n
days. The operation of sub-rule (8) is subject to the validity<\/p>\n
of the order of suspension in terms of the second or third<\/p>\n
W.P(C)No.23806 of 2009
\n                              -:21:-<\/span><\/p>\n
proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 3. A suspension which has<\/p>\n
been rendered invalid on the operation of the second proviso<\/p>\n
of Rule 3(1) cannot be sustained or resurrected under sub-<\/p>\n
rule (8). That would certainly lead to a casual, and if not<\/p>\n
abusive, exercise of power whereby without any safeguards<\/p>\n
an officer belonging to an All India Service can be placed<\/p>\n
under suspension for 90 days.    Law does not even dream of<\/p>\n
such a dis-honourable treatment to a member belonging to All<\/p>\n
India Service.\n<\/p>\n
     9.    The third contention of the learned Additional<\/p>\n
Director General of Prosecutions is that in any case the<\/p>\n
suspension under Rule 3(1) in contemplation of the<\/p>\n
proceedings can be continued under sub-rule 8(b) read with<\/p>\n
sub-rule 8(d) in case the Review Committee recommends the<\/p>\n
continuation of the suspension and the said recommendation<\/p>\n
is accepted by the State Government and orders are passed<\/p>\n
on the recommendation.      That contention also cannot be<\/p>\n
W.P(C)No.23806 of 2009
\n                                -:22:-<\/span><\/p>\n
appreciated.    No doubt, under sub-rule 8(b) the order of<\/p>\n
suspension is liable to be reviewed by the competent authority<\/p>\n
on the recommendation of the concerned Review Committee<\/p>\n
and the suspension can thus be extended for a further period<\/p>\n
not exceeding 180 days at a time. But it has to be specifically<\/p>\n
noted that the suspension that can be extended on the basis<\/p>\n
of recommendation is the suspension made under sub-rule (1)<\/p>\n
of Rule 3. Sub-rule (8)(d) of Rule 3 makes it unambiguously<\/p>\n
clear – “the period of suspension under sub-rule (1) may, on<\/p>\n
the recommendations of the concerned Review Committee, be<\/p>\n
extended for a further period not exceeding one hundred and<\/p>\n
eighty days at a time”. The suspension under sub-rule (1) in<\/p>\n
contemplation of disciplinary proceedings becomes invalid<\/p>\n
after the expiry of 90 days in case disciplinary proceedings are<\/p>\n
not initiated within 90 days from the date of suspension and if<\/p>\n
not extended by the Central Government under third proviso<\/p>\n
to sub-rule (1) of Rule 3. Sub-rule (7)(b) and sub-rule (8)(d)<\/p>\n
W.P(C)No.23806 of 2009
\n                                -:23:-<\/span><\/p>\n
of Rule 3 are subject to the operation of the second and third<\/p>\n
provisos of sub-rule (1) of Rule 3. A suspension which has<\/p>\n
otherwise become invalid by the operation of the second<\/p>\n
proviso to Rule 3(1) cannot be reviewed since there remains<\/p>\n
nothing to be reviewed, since the suspension has become<\/p>\n
invalid.  Therefore, there is no basis for the contention on<\/p>\n
plurality of authorities.\n<\/p>\n
      10.    Learned Senior Counsel for the writ petitioner<\/p>\n
submits that since the suspension has become invalid the<\/p>\n
petitioner is entitled to reinstatement in service in the same<\/p>\n
post. We are afraid that contention has absolutely no basis.<\/p>\n
Reinstatement is to the service and not to the post. It is for<\/p>\n
the Government to deploy a member of All India Service in<\/p>\n
any post.     We are informed that the writ petitioner has<\/p>\n
already been reinstated in service.<\/p>\n
      In the above circumstances the writ petition is allowed<\/p>\n
declaring that Annexure 7 (Ext.P1) order of suspension is<\/p>\n
W.P(C)No.23806 of 2009
\n                                -:24:-<\/span><\/p>\n
invalid and therefore, it has no effect or impact on the<\/p>\n
petitioner in the eye of law. Petitioner is entitled to continuity<\/p>\n
of service for all purposes with effect from the date of<\/p>\n
suspension to the date of reinstatement. In that view of the<\/p>\n
matter it is not necessary to consider various other<\/p>\n
contentions raised by the counsel on both sides and hence the<\/p>\n
rest of the contentions are left open.<\/p>\n
                                  (KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE)<\/p>\n
                                  (C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE)
\nahg.\n<\/p>\n
  KURIAN JOSEPH &
\nC.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ.\n<\/p>\n
—————————\n<\/p>\n
W.P(C)No.23806 of 2009\n<\/p>\n
—————————-\n<\/p>\n
\n
       JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
 26th November, 2009<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court K.Suresh Kumar Ias (Kl-89) vs State Of Kerala Represented By Its on 26 November, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 23806 of 2009(S) 1. K.SURESH KUMAR IAS (KL-89),S\/O. … Petitioner Vs 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS … Respondent 2. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS 3. […]<\/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":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-250038","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nK.Suresh Kumar Ias (Kl-89) vs State Of Kerala Represented By Its on 26 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-suresh-kumar-ias-kl-89-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-its-on-26-november-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"K.Suresh Kumar Ias (Kl-89) vs State Of Kerala Represented By Its on 26 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-suresh-kumar-ias-kl-89-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-its-on-26-november-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-11-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-09-02T15:41:13+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=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-suresh-kumar-ias-kl-89-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-its-on-26-november-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-suresh-kumar-ias-kl-89-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-its-on-26-november-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"K.Suresh Kumar Ias (Kl-89) vs State Of Kerala Represented By Its on 26 November, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-02T15:41:13+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-suresh-kumar-ias-kl-89-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-its-on-26-november-2009\"},\"wordCount\":3707,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-suresh-kumar-ias-kl-89-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-its-on-26-november-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-suresh-kumar-ias-kl-89-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-its-on-26-november-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-suresh-kumar-ias-kl-89-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-its-on-26-november-2009\",\"name\":\"K.Suresh Kumar Ias (Kl-89) vs State Of Kerala Represented By Its on 26 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-02T15:41:13+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-suresh-kumar-ias-kl-89-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-its-on-26-november-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-suresh-kumar-ias-kl-89-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-its-on-26-november-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-suresh-kumar-ias-kl-89-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-its-on-26-november-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"K.Suresh Kumar Ias (Kl-89) vs State Of Kerala Represented By Its on 26 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":"K.Suresh Kumar Ias (Kl-89) vs State Of Kerala Represented By Its on 26 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-suresh-kumar-ias-kl-89-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-its-on-26-november-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"K.Suresh Kumar Ias (Kl-89) vs State Of Kerala Represented By Its on 26 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-suresh-kumar-ias-kl-89-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-its-on-26-november-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-11-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-09-02T15:41:13+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":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-suresh-kumar-ias-kl-89-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-its-on-26-november-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-suresh-kumar-ias-kl-89-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-its-on-26-november-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"K.Suresh Kumar Ias (Kl-89) vs State Of Kerala Represented By Its on 26 November, 2009","datePublished":"2009-11-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-02T15:41:13+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-suresh-kumar-ias-kl-89-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-its-on-26-november-2009"},"wordCount":3707,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-suresh-kumar-ias-kl-89-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-its-on-26-november-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-suresh-kumar-ias-kl-89-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-its-on-26-november-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-suresh-kumar-ias-kl-89-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-its-on-26-november-2009","name":"K.Suresh Kumar Ias (Kl-89) vs State Of Kerala Represented By Its on 26 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-11-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-02T15:41:13+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-suresh-kumar-ias-kl-89-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-its-on-26-november-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-suresh-kumar-ias-kl-89-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-its-on-26-november-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-suresh-kumar-ias-kl-89-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-its-on-26-november-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"K.Suresh Kumar Ias (Kl-89) vs State Of Kerala Represented By Its on 26 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\/250038","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=250038"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/250038\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=250038"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=250038"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=250038"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}