{"id":25679,"date":"2007-11-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-11-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-pitchai-namassivayam-vs-the-divisional-security-on-23-november-2007"},"modified":"2017-09-08T05:53:46","modified_gmt":"2017-09-08T00:23:46","slug":"s-pitchai-namassivayam-vs-the-divisional-security-on-23-november-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-pitchai-namassivayam-vs-the-divisional-security-on-23-november-2007","title":{"rendered":"S.Pitchai Namassivayam vs The Divisional Security … on 23 November, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
S.Pitchai Namassivayam vs The Divisional Security … on 23 November, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n                              \n                    DATED :  23\/11\/2007\n                              \n                            CORAM\n                              \n         THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ELIPE DHARMA RAO\n                             AND\n           THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.PALANIVELU\n                              \n                 WRIT APPEAL No.392 of 2002\n\n\n\n\nS.Pitchai Namassivayam \t\t\t\t..Appellant\n\n\n           Vs\n\n\n1.   \tThe Divisional Security Commissioner\n   \tRailway Protection Force\n   \tSouthern Railway\n   \tPalghat Division\n   \tPalghat.\n\n2.\tThe Chief Security Commissioner\n   \tRailway Protection Force\n   \tSouthern Railway\n   \tMoore Market Complex\n   \tMadras 600 003.            \t\t..Respondents\n\n\n\n\n       Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.\n\n\n\n       \t\tFor appellant   : Mr.N.G.R.Prasad for M\/s.Row & Reddy.\n       \t\tFor respondents : Mr.M.Vellaisamy\n\n\n\n\n                       J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
S.PALANIVELU,J.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        This  appeal is filed by the writ petitioner against<\/p>\n
the  order, dated 21.09.2000, made in W.P.No.11687 of  1993,<\/p>\n
wherein  his  prayer  for  reinstatement  into  service  was<\/p>\n
rejected.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        2.  According  to the appellant, he  joined  Railway<\/p>\n
Protection Force (RPF) as a Constable in the year  1963;  he<\/p>\n
was  promoted as Assistant Sub-Inspector of RPF (ASIRPF)  in<\/p>\n
the  year  1984  and posted at Coimbatore Railway  Junction,<\/p>\n
under the control of one Govindarajan, Inspector of RPF. One<\/p>\n
Krishnamoorthy  was  the Sub-Inspector of  RPF  and  another<\/p>\n
Krishnamoorthy was the Head Constable of R.P.F., attached to<\/p>\n
Special   Intelligence  Wing;  that  there   were   numerous<\/p>\n
anonymous petitions against the said Govindarajan, regarding<\/p>\n
purchase  of  motorcycle without permission and construction<\/p>\n
of  a  building  in  his native place and there  were  other<\/p>\n
complaints also to the effect that he used to consume liquor<\/p>\n
with  two Constables at Guru Travels, Raja Travels etc.,  at<\/p>\n
Coimbatore;   while  so, Govindarajan smelt  a  rat  on  the<\/p>\n
appellant that anonymous complaints might have been shot  at<\/p>\n
him,   only   at   the  behest  of  the  appellant;   hence,<\/p>\n
Govindarajan threatened the appellant and was waiting for an<\/p>\n
opportunity to cook up a case against the appellant  and  to<\/p>\n
see  that he would be sent out from service; in the backdrop<\/p>\n
of the above circumstances, the appellant was proceeded with<\/p>\n
the charges and the said Govindarajan was the mastermind for<\/p>\n
the false charges against the appellant.<\/p>\n
       3. The allegations against the appellant go thus :<\/p>\n
         On   29.12.1991,  from  08.00  hours  onwards,  the<\/p>\n
appellant  was  on  duty.  At 14.00  hours,  some  outsiders<\/p>\n
brought  in  a  lorry bearing registration No.MDB  2569  and<\/p>\n
parked  the same near Foot Over Bridge on a road leading  to<\/p>\n
telephone  exchange  near  RPF Post.  The  individuals,  who<\/p>\n
alighted  from  the lorry had a talk with one Ramasamy,  who<\/p>\n
was  a  Watchman, appointed by the contractor, to  safeguard<\/p>\n
the stores in the Railway Junction.  About 3000 old released<\/p>\n
railway  tiles were stacked in the store, which  were  under<\/p>\n
the  custody of Ramasamy. After a conversation with the said<\/p>\n
Ramasamy, the occupants of the lorry loaded about 2000  such<\/p>\n
tiles kept in the store and the lorry was about to leave the<\/p>\n
spot.   At  that point of time, the appellant  came  to  the<\/p>\n
place and asked Ramasamy about his authority for removal  of<\/p>\n
the  railway property.  The Watchman was brought to RPF Post<\/p>\n
by  the  appellant, for further interrogation.  The Watchman<\/p>\n
promised and offered money to the appellant.  He collected a<\/p>\n
sum  of  Rs.900\/- from the occupants of the lorry  and  paid<\/p>\n
Rs.750\/- to the appellant, keeping the remaining amount with<\/p>\n
him.  After  collecting Rs.750\/-, the appellant allowed  the<\/p>\n
vehicle  to  proceed  with 2000 stolen railway  tiles.   One<\/p>\n
David,  Supervisor of GS & Company, which is  a  Contractor,<\/p>\n
reported  about the missing of 2000 railway tiles  from  the<\/p>\n
railway  old retiring room.  The said complaint  was  lodged<\/p>\n
with RPF Inspector on 03.01.1992.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        4.  On  getting  information through  some  sources,<\/p>\n
Govindarajan,   IPF,  on  30.12.1991,  made  a   preliminary<\/p>\n
enquiry and found that there were prima facie materials  for<\/p>\n
framing   charges  and  to  conduct  enquiry.   Hence,   the<\/p>\n
following charges were framed against the appellant :<\/p>\n
            “Charge    No.1:    Shri    S.Pitchai
\n            Namasivayam,  ASIPF\/CBE   is   hereby
\n            charged  under Rule 153 of RPF  Rules
\n            1987 for failure to maintain absolute
\n            integrity  and devotion  to  duty  in
\n            that  he  has unlawfully and wilfully
\n            permitted   the   removal   of   2000
\n            released Railway tiles stocked in the
\n            Contractor’s  Store  nearby  to   RPF
\n            Post\/CBE  in  lorry  No.MDB  2569  ON
\n            29.12.91 for monetary benefit.\n<\/p>\n
            Charge    No.2   :   ASIPF    Pitchai
\n            Namasivayam having abetted an offence
\n            against  the Rly.property on 29.12.91
\n            as stated above failed to prevent the
\n            unlawful  removal of  released  tiles
\n            belonging     to     Railway     from
\n            Rly.premises and also to  inform  his
\n            superior  officer about the  incident
\n            which  he was bound to do as a member
\n            of a disciplined force.”\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        5. One P.K.Anandan, Assistant Security Commissioner,<\/p>\n
was  appointed as the Enquiry Officer, who, on enquiry, gave<\/p>\n
a  finding that the appellant was guilty of the charges.  It<\/p>\n
was  communicated to the appellant along with a  show  cause<\/p>\n
notice, for which, the appellant, on 11.06.1992, submitted a<\/p>\n
representation,  denying  the  charges  and  explaining  the<\/p>\n
incidents  and other connected circumstances.   Not  content<\/p>\n
with the said representation,  on 29.06.1992, the Divisional<\/p>\n
Security  Commissioner,  RPF, Palghat,  issued  proceedings,<\/p>\n
removing  the  appellant  from  service  with  effect   from<\/p>\n
01.07.1992,   treating  the  period   of   suspension   from<\/p>\n
16.01.1992  to 30.06.1992 as the period of suspension  only.<\/p>\n
The  Writ  Petition filed by the appellant was dismissed  by<\/p>\n
the learned single Judge and hence he filed this appeal.<\/p>\n
         6.   Mr.N.G.R.Prasad,  learned  counsel   for   the<\/p>\n
appellant, would vehemently contend that the Enquiry Officer<\/p>\n
had woefully failed to appreciate the materials on record in<\/p>\n
their proper perspective and had he analysed and scanned the<\/p>\n
available  factors  consciously, he might  have  come  to  a<\/p>\n
different conclusion, that the appellant was not guilty.<\/p>\n
        7.  Repelling the said argument, learned counsel for<\/p>\n
the respondents would submit that the conduct of the enquiry<\/p>\n
was  proper and the findings rendered by the Enquiry Officer<\/p>\n
were more appropriate.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        8. The core of contention of the learned counsel for<\/p>\n
the  appellant  is  that  the version  of  Ramasamy  is  not<\/p>\n
corroborated by other two witnesses, namely, Mohammed, lorry<\/p>\n
driver,  and  A.Ali,  an  iron  scrap  merchant,  who   were<\/p>\n
reportedly  present at the time of occurrence in the  place,<\/p>\n
and   if   the  statements  given  by  them  are   carefully<\/p>\n
scrutinised,  it  would come to light  that  they  have  not<\/p>\n
mentioned  anything about the presence of the  appellant  at<\/p>\n
the  place  of occurrence, who merely stated that Rs.1,000\/-<\/p>\n
was given to the Watchman and lorry driver got Rs.100\/- from<\/p>\n
Ali.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        9.  During the course of preliminary enquiry by  the<\/p>\n
Inspector, though both Mohammed and Ali did not speak  about<\/p>\n
the  role  played by the appellant, one K.K.Anand  Kumar,  a<\/p>\n
Constable, who was on shift duty, during the relevant  point<\/p>\n
of  time  on  29.12.1991 from 08.00 hours  to  16.00  hours,<\/p>\n
specifically  mentioned that the appellant was talking  with<\/p>\n
an  old  man,  who  was a well known person  to  RPF  Staff,<\/p>\n
however, he could not understand what they were talking.<\/p>\n
        10.  On a perusal of the statements recorded by  the<\/p>\n
Enquiry  Officer  and his findings, it  is  found  that  the<\/p>\n
enquiry was conducted properly.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
         11.  In  the  recent  judgment  delivered  by   the<\/p>\n
Honourable Apex Court in MATHURA PRASAD vs. UNION  OF  INDIA<\/a><\/p>\n
[(2007) 1 SCC 437], considering the entire case law  on  the<\/p>\n
subject  of judicial review, the Honourable Apex  Court  has<\/p>\n
categorically and in no uncertain terms has ruled:<\/p>\n
    “When  an employee, by reason of an alleged act  of<\/p>\n
    misconduct,  is  sought  to  be  deprived  of   his<\/p>\n
    livelihood, the procedures laid down under the sub-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    rules  are  required  to be strictly  followed.   A<\/p>\n
    judicial  review  would lie even  if  there  is  an<\/p>\n
    error  of  law apparent on the face of the  record.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    If  statutory authority uses its power in a  manner<\/p>\n
    not  provided for in the statute or passes an order<\/p>\n
    without application of mind, judicial review  would<\/p>\n
    be   maintainable.   Even  an  error  of  fact  for<\/p>\n
    sufficient  reasons may attract the  principles  of<\/p>\n
    judicial review.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        12. The Supreme Court, in State of A.P. v. Rama Rao,<\/p>\n
1964  (2) L.L.J. 150 : AIR 1963 SC 1723 : 1964 (3)  SCR  25,<\/p>\n
has  observed  that the findings recorded  in  the  domestic<\/p>\n
enquiry  can  be characterised as perverse, if it  is  shown<\/p>\n
that  such  findings are not supported by  any  evidence  on<\/p>\n
record  or  are  not based on the evidence  adduced  by  the<\/p>\n
parties  or  no reasonable person could have come  to  those<\/p>\n
findings on the basis of that evidence.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        13. If the Court finds that the Enquiry Officer  has<\/p>\n
arrived  at erroneous findings, resulting in miscarriage  of<\/p>\n
justice  and deprival of his livelihood, it could very  well<\/p>\n
interfere with them as has been held by the Honourable  Apex<\/p>\n
Court in Mathura Prasad case, cited supra.<\/p>\n
         14.   Learned  counsel  for  the  appellant  placed<\/p>\n
reliance  upon a decision of the Apex Court in Hardwari  Lal<\/p>\n
v.  State  of U.P. and others<\/a>, 1999 (8) Supreme Court  Cases<\/p>\n
582, in which it was held thus :\n<\/p>\n
            “3.  Before us, the sole ground  urged
\n            is  as  to the non-observance  of  the
\n            principles of natural justice  in  not
\n            examining   the   complainant,    Shri
\n            Virender   Singh,  and  the   witness,
\n            Jagdish  Ram. The Tribunal as well  as
\n            the  High Court have brushed aside the
\n            grievance  made by the appellant  that
\n            the   non-examination  of  those   two
\n            persons   has  prejudiced  his   case.
\n            Examination  of  these  two  witnesses
\n            would have revealed as to whether  the
\n            complaint  made by Virender Singh  was
\n            correct  or not and to establish  that
\n            he  was  the best person to  speak  to
\n            its  veracity.  So also,  Jadish  Ram,
\n            who  had accompanied the appellant  to
\n            the  hospital for medical examination,
\n            would  have been an important  witness
\n            to  prove  the state or the  condition
\n            of  the  appellant.  We do  not  think
\n            the  Tribunal and the High Court  were
\n            justified   in  thinking   that   non-
\n            examination   of  these  two   persons
\n            could   not  be  material.   In  these
\n            circumstances,  we  are  of  the  view
\n            that  the  High Court and the Tribunal
\n            erred  in not attaching importance  to
\n            this contention of the appellant.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        15.  In the above said case discussed by the Supreme<\/p>\n
Court, the complainant and another material witness were not<\/p>\n
examined.   Hence, it was concluded that those  two  persons<\/p>\n
should  have  been  examined and their  non-examination  was<\/p>\n
vital.   But,  in the case on hand, material witnesses  have<\/p>\n
been  examined and they have also mentioned about  the  role<\/p>\n
played  by  the appellant. In addition, the Enquiry  Officer<\/p>\n
has  rendered  his  findings, on  the  basis  of  convincing<\/p>\n
materials.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        16.  Yet  another aspect put forth  by  the  learned<\/p>\n
counsel  for  the appellant is that in Crime No.4  of  1999,<\/p>\n
Mohammed  and  Ali were the accused, however, the  appellant<\/p>\n
was not on the array as accused and that very fact would  be<\/p>\n
sufficient  to  conclude that the appellant is  not  guilty.<\/p>\n
The learned counsel would further submit that the High Court<\/p>\n
is  fully  competent to interfere with the findings  of  the<\/p>\n
domestic enquiry officer.  For the said submission, he cited<\/p>\n
a  Division Bench decision of this Court in State of  Madras<\/p>\n
v.  Kandaswamy, 1972 MLJR 374, in which it was held that the<\/p>\n
High  Court  is justified under Article 226 to  examine  the<\/p>\n
evidence  to  satisfy itself whether the conclusion  of  the<\/p>\n
Tribunal  is  correct.  In the said decision,  it  was  also<\/p>\n
observed that adequacy or inadequacy of evidence to  support<\/p>\n
a  finding is not within the jurisdiction of the High  Court<\/p>\n
under  Article 226; but when a complaint is made that  there<\/p>\n
is  no  acceptable evidence at all to support  the  impugned<\/p>\n
conclusion of the Tribunal or that no Tribunal with  a  duty<\/p>\n
to  weigh  the  evidence could possibly have  come  to  that<\/p>\n
conclusion, it is the duty of the Court under Article 226 to<\/p>\n
find out whether the complaint so made is justified or not.<\/p>\n
        17.  The learned counsel also drew attention of this<\/p>\n
Court  to  a decision of the Apex Court in Kuldeep Singh  v.<\/p>\n
Commissioner  of Police and others<\/a>, 1999 (2)  Supreme  Court<\/p>\n
Cases 10, in which it was held as below :\n<\/p>\n
           “6.  It is no doubt true that the High
\n           Court  under Article 226 or this Court
\n           under  Article 32 would not  interfere
\n           with  the  findings  recorded  at  the
\n           departmental    enquiry     by     the
\n           disciplinary authority or the  enquiry
\n           officer  as  a matter of course.   The
\n           Court  cannot sit in appeal over those
\n           findings  and assume the role  of  the
\n           appellate  authority.  But  this  does
\n           not  mean that in no circumstance  can
\n           the  Court  interfere.  The  power  of
\n           judicial review available to the  High
\n           Court as also to this Court under  the
\n           Constitution takes in its  stride  the
\n           domestic  enquiry as well and  it  can
\n           interfere with the conclusions reached
\n           therein  if  there was no evidence  to
\n           support  the findings or the  findings
\n           recorded  were such as could not  have
\n           been  reached  by an ordinary  prudent
\n           man  or the findings were perverse  or
\n           made  at  the dictates of the superior
\n           authority.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        18.  We have bestowed our careful attention  to  the<\/p>\n
entire features in the enquiry report, whereupon we conclude<\/p>\n
that they are neither perverse nor based on no evidence.<\/p>\n
        19.  Adverting to the proposition of law with regard<\/p>\n
to  the  contention of the appellant that he is not indulged<\/p>\n
in  criminal  case, this Court follows the decision  of  the<\/p>\n
Supreme  Court in G.M.Tank v. State of Gujarat and<\/a>  another,<\/p>\n
2006  (3) CTC 494 : 2006 (5) SCALE 582, in which it is  held<\/p>\n
that  though the degree of proof before the domestic enquiry<\/p>\n
officer   and  the  criminal  court  is  with  a  chain   of<\/p>\n
difference, still, the honourable acquittal by the  criminal<\/p>\n
court has to be taken note of.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        20. It is also a settled law that merely because the<\/p>\n
accused  is acquitted, the power of the authority  concerned<\/p>\n
to  continue the departmental enquiry is not taken away  nor<\/p>\n
is its discretion in any way fettered.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        21.  In  G.M.Tank’s  case (supra),  it  was  further<\/p>\n
observed   that   the   two   proceedings,   criminal    and<\/p>\n
departmental,  are  entirely  different;  they  operate   in<\/p>\n
different fields and have different objectives and while the<\/p>\n
object   of   criminal  trial  is  to  inflict   appropriate<\/p>\n
punishment   on  the  offender,  the  purpose   of   enquiry<\/p>\n
proceedings  is  to deal with the delinquent  departmentally<\/p>\n
and to impose penalty in accordance with Service Rules.<\/p>\n
        22.  Hence, it is to be observed in this  case  that<\/p>\n
though  the  appellant  was not  shown  as  accused  in  the<\/p>\n
criminal proceedings, initiation of departmental proceedings<\/p>\n
against him is not barred at all.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        23. As an epilogue, one more point to be noticed  in<\/p>\n
this  matter  is,  the conduct of the appellant  during  the<\/p>\n
pendency  of departmental proceedings against him, which  is<\/p>\n
such  that  while the witness Ramasamy was coming to  attend<\/p>\n
the   departmental  proceedings  enquiry,   the   appellant,<\/p>\n
accompanied  by  two  persons,  threatened  him  with   dire<\/p>\n
consequences, besides pushing him down, to which effect  the<\/p>\n
said Ramasamy also gave a statement on 01.04.1992, which was<\/p>\n
forwarded to the Enquiry Officer by the IPF.<\/p>\n
        24.  We  have gone through the entire records,  with<\/p>\n
rapt attention, which makes us to conclude that the guilt of<\/p>\n
the  appellant has been proved in the domestic enquiry  and,<\/p>\n
on the basis of which, he has been removed from service.<\/p>\n
        25. As regards the quantum of punishment imposed  on<\/p>\n
the  appellant,  learned counsel for the appellant  garnered<\/p>\n
support from a decision of the Supreme Court in U.P.SRTC  v.<\/p>\n
Ram Kishan Arora,<\/a> 2007 (4) Supreme Court Cases 627, wherein,<\/p>\n
referring to an earlier decision in U.P.SRTC v. Suresh  Pal,<\/a><\/p>\n
2006 (8) SCC 108 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 1905,  it was  observed as<\/p>\n
under :\n<\/p>\n
           “9.  In  U.P.SRTC v. Suresh  Pal,<\/a>  2006
\n           (8)  SCC  108  : 2006 SCC  (L&S)  1905,
\n           this  Court stated the law, thus :  SCC
\n           pp.110-11, paras 8-9)<\/p>\n
                   ‘8. Normally, the courts
\n                   do  not  substitute  the
\n                   punishment unless it  is
\n                   shockingly
\n                   disproportionate and  if
\n                   the    punishment     is
\n                   interfered            or
\n                   substituted  lightly  in
\n                   the    punishment     in
\n                   exercise    of     their
\n                   extraordinary
\n                   jurisdiction   then   it
\n                   will amount to abuse  of
\n                   the  process  of  court.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   If    such    kind    of\n                   misconduct is dealt with\n                   lightly  and the  courts\n                   start  substituting  the\n                   lighter  punishment   in\n                   exercising           the\n                   jurisdiction       under\n                   Article   226   of   the\n                   Constitution   then   it\n                   will give a wrong signal\n                   in the society.  All the\n                   State   Road   Transport\n                   Corporations   in    the\n                   country have gone in red\n                   because      of      the\n                   misconduct of such  kind\n                   of           incumbents,\n                   therefore,  it  is  time\n                   that  misconduct  should\n                   be  dealt with  an  iron\n                   hand  and not leniently.\n                   \"\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
         26.  There  is  no  quarrel  with  regard  to   the<\/p>\n
proposition  laid down by the Honourable Apex Court  in  the<\/p>\n
above  judgment.  However, in the case on hand, the  charges<\/p>\n
levelled  against the appellant, who is expected to maintain<\/p>\n
complete  devotion and diligence, are very grave in  nature.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Since  it  has  already been held that  all  the  procedures<\/p>\n
contemplated under law have duly been complied with  by  the<\/p>\n
Enquiry   Officer,  affording  sufficient   and   reasonable<\/p>\n
opportunities  to  the  delinquent and  has  arrived  at  an<\/p>\n
unerring  conclusion that the charges  are  proved  and  the<\/p>\n
disciplinary authority has also inflicted a just  and  quite<\/p>\n
proportionate  punishment  on the  delinquent,  we  find  no<\/p>\n
ground  to  cause our interference into such  well  reasoned<\/p>\n
findings  arrived  at  by  the  Enquiry  Officer   and   the<\/p>\n
punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority.<\/p>\n
         In the light of the above discussions, we hold that<\/p>\n
the  order of the learned single Judge is quite in order and<\/p>\n
it  deserves to be confirmed, consequent to which, this Writ<\/p>\n
Appeal stands dismissed.  No costs.\n<\/p>\n
dixit\/Rao<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1.\tThe Divisional Security Commissioner,
\n   \tRailway Protection Force,
\n   \tSouthern Railway,
\n   \tPalghat Division,
\n   \tPalghat.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tThe Chief Security Commissioner,
\n   \tRailway Protection Force,
\n   \tSouthern Railway,
\n   \tMoore Market Complex,
\n   \tMadras 600 003.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court S.Pitchai Namassivayam vs The Divisional Security … on 23 November, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 23\/11\/2007 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ELIPE DHARMA RAO AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.PALANIVELU WRIT APPEAL No.392 of 2002 S.Pitchai Namassivayam ..Appellant Vs 1. The Divisional Security Commissioner Railway Protection Force Southern […]<\/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-25679","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nS.Pitchai Namassivayam vs The Divisional Security ... on 23 November, 2007 - 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\/s-pitchai-namassivayam-vs-the-divisional-security-on-23-november-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"S.Pitchai Namassivayam vs The Divisional Security ... on 23 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-pitchai-namassivayam-vs-the-divisional-security-on-23-november-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-11-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-09-08T00:23:46+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=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-pitchai-namassivayam-vs-the-divisional-security-on-23-november-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-pitchai-namassivayam-vs-the-divisional-security-on-23-november-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"S.Pitchai Namassivayam vs The Divisional Security … on 23 November, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-11-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-08T00:23:46+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-pitchai-namassivayam-vs-the-divisional-security-on-23-november-2007\"},\"wordCount\":2649,\"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\/s-pitchai-namassivayam-vs-the-divisional-security-on-23-november-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-pitchai-namassivayam-vs-the-divisional-security-on-23-november-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-pitchai-namassivayam-vs-the-divisional-security-on-23-november-2007\",\"name\":\"S.Pitchai Namassivayam vs The Divisional Security ... on 23 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-11-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-08T00:23:46+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-pitchai-namassivayam-vs-the-divisional-security-on-23-november-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-pitchai-namassivayam-vs-the-divisional-security-on-23-november-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-pitchai-namassivayam-vs-the-divisional-security-on-23-november-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"S.Pitchai Namassivayam vs The Divisional Security … on 23 November, 2007\"}]},{\"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"S.Pitchai Namassivayam vs The Divisional Security ... on 23 November, 2007 - 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\/s-pitchai-namassivayam-vs-the-divisional-security-on-23-november-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"S.Pitchai Namassivayam vs The Divisional Security ... on 23 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-pitchai-namassivayam-vs-the-divisional-security-on-23-november-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-11-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-09-08T00:23:46+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":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-pitchai-namassivayam-vs-the-divisional-security-on-23-november-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-pitchai-namassivayam-vs-the-divisional-security-on-23-november-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"S.Pitchai Namassivayam vs The Divisional Security … on 23 November, 2007","datePublished":"2007-11-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-08T00:23:46+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-pitchai-namassivayam-vs-the-divisional-security-on-23-november-2007"},"wordCount":2649,"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\/s-pitchai-namassivayam-vs-the-divisional-security-on-23-november-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-pitchai-namassivayam-vs-the-divisional-security-on-23-november-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-pitchai-namassivayam-vs-the-divisional-security-on-23-november-2007","name":"S.Pitchai Namassivayam vs The Divisional Security ... on 23 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-11-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-08T00:23:46+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-pitchai-namassivayam-vs-the-divisional-security-on-23-november-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-pitchai-namassivayam-vs-the-divisional-security-on-23-november-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-pitchai-namassivayam-vs-the-divisional-security-on-23-november-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"S.Pitchai Namassivayam vs The Divisional Security … on 23 November, 2007"}]},{"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/25679","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=25679"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25679\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=25679"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=25679"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=25679"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}