{"id":269015,"date":"2002-04-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-04-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-veerraju-vs-commissioner-of-endowments-on-26-april-2002"},"modified":"2018-08-04T05:43:39","modified_gmt":"2018-08-04T00:13:39","slug":"n-veerraju-vs-commissioner-of-endowments-on-26-april-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-veerraju-vs-commissioner-of-endowments-on-26-april-2002","title":{"rendered":"N. Veerraju vs Commissioner Of Endowments, … on 26 April, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"
Andhra High Court<\/div>\n
N. Veerraju vs Commissioner Of Endowments, … on 26 April, 2002<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 2002 (3) ALD 512, 2002 (4) ALT 337, 2002 (94) FLR 809<\/div>\n
Author: B S Reddy<\/div>\n
Bench: B S Reddy, V Eswaraiah<\/div>\n

JUDGMENT<\/p>\n

B. Sudershan Reddy, J.\n<\/p>\n

1. The
\npetitioner while working as Deputy Executive Engineer in the Endowments Department at Kakinada was subjected to a raid by the officials of the Anti-Corruption Bureau on 4-7-1997. Certain documents pertaining to moveable and immovable properties were seized from the residence of the petitioner. It is not necessary to notice the details of the allegations levelled against the petitioner. Suffice it to notice that the Anti-Corruption Bureau found the petitioner to have acquired disproportionate assets.\n<\/p>\n

2. The petitioner was transferred from Kakinada to Simhachalam of Visakhapatnam District with effect from 13-6-1998.\n<\/p>\n

3. The Anti-Corruption Bureau issued notice to the petitioner on 7-11-1998 requiring his explanation in the matter for having assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. The petitioner accordingly submitted his explanation, inter alia denying the allegations levelled against him. It is<\/p>\n

also not necessary to notice the details of explanation submitted by the petitioner in this regard. The Government issued proceedings dated 9-7-2001 asking the petitioner to submit a written statement to the articles of charges to which the petitioner submitted a representation on 8-8-2001 requesting the Government to supply certain documents relevant to the articles of charges. Be that as it may, the Commissioner of Endowments passed orders dated 27-9-2001 placing the petitioner under suspension pending enquiry. The order passed by the Commissioner, Endowments Department is self-explanatory.\n<\/p>\n

4. There is no dispute whatsoever that the Government of Andhra Pradesh by its Memo dated 24-9-2001 requested the Commissioner of Endowments Department to keep the petitioner under suspension immediately as per the rules in vogue.\n<\/p>\n

5. It is also required to notice that the Government by its order dated 12-3-2001 accorded sanction for prosecuting the petitioner in the Court of competent jurisdiction. The Anti-Corruption Bureau having investigated the crime registered against the petitioner filed charge-sheet against the petitioner in the Court of Special Judge for ACB cases, Visakhapatnam on 22-6-2001.\n<\/p>\n

6. The petitioner challenged the order passed by the Commissioner, Endowments placing him under suspension in OA No.7155 of 2001 in the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal after an elaborate consideration of the matter found the order of suspension passed by the Commissioner of Endowments to be in order and accordingly dismissed the O.A. Hence this writ petition.\n<\/p>\n

7. Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Tribunal committed an error in upholding the order passed by the<\/p>\n

Commissioner of endowments. It is contended that an order of suspension pending enquiry can be passed only in cases where the Government servants facing grave charges and in the public interest. The order has been passed in a very casual and mechanical manner and under the dictation of the Government as well as the Anti-Corruption Bureau. It is submitted that the order of suspension passed against the petitioner is totally vitiated for non-application of mind. Learned Counsel levelled serious criticism against the impugned order contending that the power of suspension pending enquiry should be with reference to the immediate urgency of keeping the Government servant away from his place of work so that the evidence cannot be tampered with. The order of suspension has been passed against the petitioner after almost about a period of four years and therefore, the same is vitiated.\n<\/p>\n

8. In the counter-affidavit, it is stated that the Government has issued instructions in Memo No.554\/Serv. C\/9B-6 GA., Services-Ill Department dated 26-12-1994 laying guidelines for placing the officers involved in Trap\/ACB\/Disproportionate Assets cases under suspension. The order of suspension has been passed in accordance with those guidelines. Reliance is placed upon Clause (iii) of the instructions which is to the following effect:\n<\/p>\n

“In case other than these mentioned above, the disciplinary Authority should consider and decide on the desirability of placing the Accused Officer under suspension, if he is not already under suspension as and when a charge-sheet is filed against him by a Court of Law or where, after investigation, it is decided to initiate regular Departmental action for imposing the major penalties and a charge memo is served in mis regard”\n<\/p>\n

9. It is further submitted that the order passed placing the petitioner under<\/p>\n

suspension is in conformity with law. It is submitted that the Anti-Corruption Bureau having investigated the case against the petitioner filed charge-sheet in the Court of law and accordingly communicated the said information to the Government and the competent authority. These factors have been taken into consideration before placing the petitioner under suspension.\n<\/p>\n

10. The record discloses that the Anti-Corruption Bureau has filed charge-sheet against the petitioner in the Court of Special Judge for ACB cases, Visakhapatnam on 22-6-2001. The Department has also initiated the disciplinary action against the petitioner vide G.O. Rt. No.1131, dated 31-5-2001 calling upon the petitioner to submit a written statement as against the charges framed against him. No doubt there appears to be some delay in the investigation and filing the charge-sheet against the petitioner in the Court of law as well as initiating disciplinary enquiry. But the fact remains that after a detailed investigation, the Anti-Corruption Bureau filed charge-sheet against the petitioner. There cannot be any dispute that a prima facie case is made out against the petitioner for his having disproportionate assets. The validity of the order of suspension passed against the petitioner may have to be considered in the aforementioned backward and circumstances.\n<\/p>\n

11. The record discloses that the Commissioner of Endowments had the advantage of not only the instructions from the Government but also the information furnished by the Anti-Corruption Bureau about the involvement of the petitioner in a disproportionate assets case.\n<\/p>\n

12. It is clear from the record that as on the date of the order placing the petitioner under suspension there is a definite information and material available on record against the petitioner of his involvement in a disproportionate assets case. The<\/p>\n

disciplinary authority having considered the desirability of placing the petitioner under suspension exercised his power in a fair and reasonable manner and accordingly placed the petitioner under suspension. The Commissioner of Endowments is bound by the instructions dated 26-12-1994 issued by the Government structuring the discretion of the disciplinary authorities in the matter of exercise of power in the matter of placing the employees who are involved in Trap\/ ACB\/Disproportionate assets cases. The instructions which are in the nature of guidelines in no manner interfered with the discretion of the disciplinary authority to place an employee involved in Trap\/ACB\/ Disproportionate Assets cases under suspension. It is no doubt true that it is ultimately the competent authority who is required to make a reasonable assessment as to the need and desirability of placing such officer under suspension and accordingly decide for himself depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case. In the instant case, the relevant material was available with the Commissioner of Endowments including the instructions issued by the Government to place the petitioner under suspension. It is not as if the Commissioner passed orders placing the petitioner under suspension on the mere instructions of the Government and without adverting to any material available on record. The complete information relating to the involvement of the petitioner in a disproportionate assets case is evidently available with the Commissioner of Endowments and the same has been taken into consideration by the Commissioner. Therefore, it is not a case of non-application of mind by the Commissioner.\n<\/p>\n

13. Learned Counsel for the petitioner however, would place reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Orissa v. Bimal Kumar Mohanty<\/a>, , in support of his contention that an order of suspension cannot be passed as<\/p>\n

an administrative routine. In our considered opinion, the decision upon which reliance is placed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in no manner supports the case of the petitioner in the instant case for more than one reason. The order of suspension passed against the petitioner by the competent authority in the instant case is not routine administrative order. The allegations levelled against the petitioner as is evident from the charge-sheet and other material are grave. In the very said decision, it is observed by the Supreme Court that “Appointing authority or disciplinary authority should consider…..\n<\/p>\n

aspects and decide whether it is expedient to keep an employee under suspension pending …….action. It should be on
\nconsideration of the gravity of the alleged misconduct or the nature of the allegations imputed to the delinquent employee……..\n<\/p>\n

Suspension is not a punishment but is only one of forbidding or disabling an employee to discharge the duties of office or post held by him. In other words it is to refrain him to avail farther opportunity to perpetrate the alleged misconduct……” The learned
\nCounsel for the petitioner contends that there is no opportunity to the petitioner in the instant case to perpetrate any further misconduct as such for the reason that a charge-sheet had already been filed in the criminal case and disciplinary action has already been initiated. It is contended that his continuation in the office would be in no manner detrimental either to the investigation or to the disciplinary enquiry already initiated. In the instant case, the order of suspension would amount to punishment is the submission. We do not find any merit in the submission. In the very said decision, upon which reliance is placed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Supreme Court observed that an employee can be placed under suspension order to “remove the impression among the members of service that dereliction of duty would pay fruits and the offending employee could get<\/p>\n

away even pending enquiry without any impediment……. ” (Emphasis is of ours). In
\nthe very said case, the Supreme Court found fault with the Tribunal for having interfered with the impugned order of suspension pending enquiry, since serious allegations of misconduct have been alleged against the employee in the said case. The Supreme Court observed that the Tribunal proceeded in haste in passing the order “even before the ink is dried on the orders passed by the appointing authority.”\n<\/p>\n

14. The next question that falls for consideration is as to whether the order of suspension is vitiated for the reason that the same has been passed at a belated stage. Had the competent authority passed the order of suspension against the petitioner even before the completion of the investigation, the complaint would have been that the competent authority passed orders in an hasty manner even before any prima facie case could be made out against the petitioner. Now the complaint is that the order of suspension has been passed at a belated stage. It is required to notice that the Anti-Corruption Bureau has filed charge-sheet in the Court of Special Judge for ACB cases, Visakhapatnam on 22-6-2001. The departmental action has been initiated vide G.O. Rt. No. 1131, dated 31-5-2001. These are the crucial stages where some prima facie case against the employee is made out.\n<\/p>\n

15. The order of suspension has been passed by the competent authority on 29-7-2001 within three months from the date of filing of the charge-sheet against the petitioner. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the order of suspension has been passed at a belated stage.\n<\/p>\n

16. No doubt the Tribunal made some observations against the petitioner herein as if he made an attempt to bring any<\/p>\n

political or outside influence to gear upon superior authority to further his interest. The reference to Rule 24 of the A.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 by the Tribunal is irrelevant. No doubt the petitioner appears to have approached one particular Minister requesting him to see that he is continued in service at the same place at Kakinada. The Minister appears to have addressed letter to the Minister for Endowments who in turn marked the copy to the Commissioner of Endowments. That has nothing to do with the disciplinary action initiated against the petitioner nor is it relevant for judicially reviewing the order of suspension passed by the competent authority. Those letters may at the most reveal the bureaucrats — political nexus. It would have been a different matter altogether had the Commissioner of Endowments obliged the Minister concerned and continued the petitioner at Kakinada. In such view of the matter, it would not be necessary to make any farther probe or observation in this regard. But the observations not so relevant made by the Tribunal itself would not vitiate the conclusions reached by the Tribunal to uphold the impugned order of suspension passed by the competent authority. No other point is urged.\n<\/p>\n

17. We are in agreement with the conclusions reached by the Tribunal and accordingly confirm the same. In the result, we hold that the impugned order of suspension dated 27-9-2001 passed by the Commissioner of Endowments is not vitiated for any reason requiring any correction as such by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226<\/a> of the Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n

18. We may however, hasten to make it clear that none of the observations made in this order shall have any bearing whatsoever either upon the criminal case already lodged against the petitioner or<\/p>\n

the disciplinary enquiry. The observations are confined for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition. The petitioner shall be entitled for all his defence in both the proceedings. Both the said proceedings may have to be disposed of on their own merits uninfluenced by the dismissal of this writ petition.\n<\/p>\n

19. The writ petition fails and shall
\naccordingly stand dismissed. With costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Andhra High Court N. Veerraju vs Commissioner Of Endowments, … on 26 April, 2002 Equivalent citations: 2002 (3) ALD 512, 2002 (4) ALT 337, 2002 (94) FLR 809 Author: B S Reddy Bench: B S Reddy, V Eswaraiah JUDGMENT B. Sudershan Reddy, J. 1. The petitioner while working as Deputy Executive Engineer in the Endowments […]<\/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":[10,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-269015","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-andhra-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nN. Veerraju vs Commissioner Of Endowments, ... on 26 April, 2002 - 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\/n-veerraju-vs-commissioner-of-endowments-on-26-april-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"N. Veerraju vs Commissioner Of Endowments, ... on 26 April, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-veerraju-vs-commissioner-of-endowments-on-26-april-2002\" \/>\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=\"2002-04-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-08-04T00:13:39+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-veerraju-vs-commissioner-of-endowments-on-26-april-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-veerraju-vs-commissioner-of-endowments-on-26-april-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"N. Veerraju vs Commissioner Of Endowments, … on 26 April, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-04-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-04T00:13:39+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-veerraju-vs-commissioner-of-endowments-on-26-april-2002\"},\"wordCount\":2287,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Andhra High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-veerraju-vs-commissioner-of-endowments-on-26-april-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-veerraju-vs-commissioner-of-endowments-on-26-april-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-veerraju-vs-commissioner-of-endowments-on-26-april-2002\",\"name\":\"N. Veerraju vs Commissioner Of Endowments, ... on 26 April, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-04-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-04T00:13:39+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-veerraju-vs-commissioner-of-endowments-on-26-april-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-veerraju-vs-commissioner-of-endowments-on-26-april-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-veerraju-vs-commissioner-of-endowments-on-26-april-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"N. Veerraju vs Commissioner Of Endowments, … on 26 April, 2002\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"N. Veerraju vs Commissioner Of Endowments, ... on 26 April, 2002 - 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\/n-veerraju-vs-commissioner-of-endowments-on-26-april-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"N. Veerraju vs Commissioner Of Endowments, ... on 26 April, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-veerraju-vs-commissioner-of-endowments-on-26-april-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-04-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-08-04T00:13:39+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-veerraju-vs-commissioner-of-endowments-on-26-april-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-veerraju-vs-commissioner-of-endowments-on-26-april-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"N. Veerraju vs Commissioner Of Endowments, … on 26 April, 2002","datePublished":"2002-04-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-04T00:13:39+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-veerraju-vs-commissioner-of-endowments-on-26-april-2002"},"wordCount":2287,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Andhra High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-veerraju-vs-commissioner-of-endowments-on-26-april-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-veerraju-vs-commissioner-of-endowments-on-26-april-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-veerraju-vs-commissioner-of-endowments-on-26-april-2002","name":"N. Veerraju vs Commissioner Of Endowments, ... on 26 April, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-04-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-04T00:13:39+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-veerraju-vs-commissioner-of-endowments-on-26-april-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-veerraju-vs-commissioner-of-endowments-on-26-april-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-veerraju-vs-commissioner-of-endowments-on-26-april-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"N. Veerraju vs Commissioner Of Endowments, … on 26 April, 2002"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/269015","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=269015"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/269015\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=269015"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=269015"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=269015"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}