{"id":27149,"date":"2009-02-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-02-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-satveer-singh-anr-on-12-february-2009"},"modified":"2015-07-06T07:41:10","modified_gmt":"2015-07-06T02:11:10","slug":"union-of-india-ors-vs-satveer-singh-anr-on-12-february-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-satveer-singh-anr-on-12-february-2009","title":{"rendered":"Union Of India & Ors vs Satveer Singh & Anr on 12 February, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur<\/div>\n
Union Of India & Ors vs Satveer Singh & Anr on 12 February, 2009<\/div>\n
                                                 1\n\n\n                          1. Union of India & Ors. Vs. Kali Ram & Anr.\n                          (D.B CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1302\/2000)\n                          2. Union of India & Ors. Vs. Satveer Singh & Anr.\n                          (D.B CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1303\/2000)\n                          3. Union of India & Ors. Vs. LRs of Kartar Singh & Anr.\n                          (D.B CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1304\/2000)\n\n                              Date of Order ::   12.02.2009\n\n                              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KAPADIA\n                             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA\n\n\n             Mr. Vinit Kumar Mathur, for the petitioners.\n             Mr. V.K. Agarwal, for the respondent No.1.\n\n             BY THE COURT : (PER HON'BLE MR. SANGEET LODHA, J.)<\/pre>\n
Reportable<\/p>\n
             1.    These writ petitions are directed against order dated 20.1.2000<\/p>\n
             passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (in short ‘the CAT’<\/p>\n
             hereinafter), Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur, whereby the original applications<\/p>\n
             preferred by the original applicants (the respondent no.1 herein in all<\/p>\n
             the three petitions), assailing the validity of the orders passed by the<\/p>\n
             Disciplinary Authority dated 3.4.89, dismissing them from service have<\/p>\n
             been partly allowed and accordingly, the petitioners have been directed<\/p>\n
             to reinstate them in service on the same post from which they were<\/p>\n
             dismissed with 50% back wages. The        period of dismissal has been<\/p>\n
             directed to be counted for the purposes of calculation of pension but<\/p>\n
             not for any kind of leave and increments in the regular pay scale. That<\/p>\n
             apart, while observing that for the alleged misconduct the minor<\/p>\n
             penalty like stoppage of grade increment or such similar punishment
\n                                         2<\/span><\/p>\n
could be awarded to meet the ends of justice, the petitioners have been<\/p>\n
further directed to reconsider the matter for imposition of the penalty<\/p>\n
upon the respondents.\n<\/p>\n
2.    The relevant facts in nutshell are that the respondents were<\/p>\n
employed with the petitioners as Conservancy Safaiwala. On 26.8.87,<\/p>\n
one Shri Phoola Ram got seriously injured in an accident with a Military<\/p>\n
truck and later on died. The respondents along with other staff members<\/p>\n
assemble at the accident site and did not allow the authorities to take<\/p>\n
the injured immediately to the hospital. Consequently, he succumbed to<\/p>\n
the injuries after a few hours.\n<\/p>\n
3.    The respondents were served with a memorandum dated 16.3.88<\/p>\n
with a charge sheet and statement of allegations proposing an inquiry<\/p>\n
under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control &<\/p>\n
Appeal) Rules, 1965. All the respondents were charge sheeted for the<\/p>\n
following acts of misconduct :\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       “That, the said Shri……………… while functioning as
\n       Safaiwala with Station Headquarters, Sri Ganganagar
\n       during the period from Aug 87 to Oct 87, on 26 Aug 87
\n       between 0830 hours and 1000 hours caused to delay the
\n       evacuation of injured Shri Phoola Ram S\/o Shri Hari Ram
\n       to 176 Military Hospital by NTS-17438Y Lt TD Bhatt. This
\n       has been established by a staff court of inquiry held vide
\n       Headquarters     15   Infantry       Brigade   convening   order
\n       No.4813\/PR\/A dated 26 Aug 87.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                       3<\/span><\/p>\n
4.      The charge levelled against the respondents was found duly<\/p>\n
proved, therefore, vide order dated 10.4.89 passed by the Disciplinary<\/p>\n
Authority, the respondents were dismissed from service with immediate<\/p>\n
effect. The validity of dismissal orders was assailed by all the three<\/p>\n
respondents by way of separate original applications before the CAT,<\/p>\n
Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh. After due consideration, the original<\/p>\n
applications preferred by the respondents were dismissed by the CAT,<\/p>\n
Chandigarh Bench vide a common order dated 22.2.90. Thus, the order<\/p>\n
passed by the Disciplinary Authority attained finality.<\/p>\n
5.      Simultaneously, an FIR was also lodged by Major Shri P.K. Bali<\/p>\n
with the Superintendent of Police against Shri Kali Ram (respondent<\/p>\n
no.1 in writ petition no.1302\/2000), Shri Kartar Singh (since deceased<\/p>\n
respondent no.1 in writ petition no.1304\/2000) and one Shri Darmveer<\/p>\n
Singh. After investigation, the Investigating Officer filed charge sheet<\/p>\n
against the above named officials under Section 441 & 323 IPC in the<\/p>\n
Court    of   Additional   Chief   Judicial   Magistrate   (in   short   ‘ACJM’<\/p>\n
hereinafter), Sri Ganganagar. The learned ACJM, Sri Ganganagar<\/p>\n
acquitted all of them vide his order dated 22.4.95, by giving them<\/p>\n
benefit of doubt.\n<\/p>\n
6.      On acquittal by the court of ACJM, the respondents through a<\/p>\n
notice of      demand of justice served on the petitioners, claimed<\/p>\n
reinstatement in service. The petitioners vide letter dated 20.7.95
\n                                       4<\/span><\/p>\n
informed the counsel for the respondents that since the respondents<\/p>\n
have been dismissed from service as a result of disciplinary action,<\/p>\n
therefore, they are not entitled for reinstatement on acquittal in<\/p>\n
criminal case. In these circumstances, the respondents preferred<\/p>\n
original applications as aforesaid before the CAT, Jodhpur Bench,<\/p>\n
Jodhpur, which have been allowed as aforesaid vide order dated<\/p>\n
20.1.2000 impugned in these writ petitions.\n<\/p>\n
7.      A perusal of the order impugned goes to show that relying upon<\/p>\n
the findings of the learned ACJM, the learned CAT, Jodhpur Bench has<\/p>\n
observed that the penalty imposed upon the respondents is not<\/p>\n
commensurate with their alleged misconduct. It is further observed that<\/p>\n
the misconduct of the respondents can at the best be considered as<\/p>\n
obstruction in discharge of the duties of the concerned officers,<\/p>\n
therefore, for such an alleged misconduct the penalty of dismissal is<\/p>\n
highly shocking, perverse and vindictive. Accordingly, the CAT, Jodhpur<\/p>\n
Bench    has   allowed   the   original   applications   preferred   by the<\/p>\n
respondents in the terms referred supra.\n<\/p>\n
8.      It is pertinent to note that while seeking direction for<\/p>\n
reinstatement in service by way of fresh original applications before the<\/p>\n
Jodhpur Bench of the CAT, the factum of dismissal of earlier original<\/p>\n
applications preferred by the respondents assailing the validity of their<\/p>\n
dismissal from service by the Chandigarh Bench of the CAT was not<\/p>\n
disclosed in the fresh original applications filed. It is also relevant to
\n                                        5<\/span><\/p>\n
mention here that specific objection was taken by the petitioners by<\/p>\n
way of replies to the original applications regarding concealment of the<\/p>\n
facts. That apart, an objection was also taken by the petitioners that in<\/p>\n
view of dismissal of the original applications assailing validity of order of<\/p>\n
dismissal from service by the Chandigarh Bench of the CAT, the<\/p>\n
subsequent    original   application       preferred   as   aforesaid   by   the<\/p>\n
respondents are barred by principle of res judicata. However, a perusal<\/p>\n
of the order impugned goes to show that these aspects of the matter<\/p>\n
have simply not been taken note of by the CAT, Jodhpur Bench while<\/p>\n
allowing the original applications partly vide order impugned in these<\/p>\n
writ petitions.\n<\/p>\n
9.    It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the<\/p>\n
order impugned passed by the CAT, Jodhpur Bench is ex facie contrary<\/p>\n
to the settled principles of law. The learned counsel submitted that the<\/p>\n
respondents having been dismissed from service as a result of<\/p>\n
disciplinary proceedings, the CAT could not have interfere with the<\/p>\n
order of punishment on the basis of findings arrived at by the ACJM on<\/p>\n
the basis of the evidence led before him in a criminal case. The learned<\/p>\n
counsel submitted that the original applications preferred by the<\/p>\n
respondents having been dismissed by the Chandigarh Bench of CAT vide<\/p>\n
order dated 22.2.90, the fresh original applications preferred assailing<\/p>\n
the validity of findings recorded by the Disciplinary Authority and the<\/p>\n
consequential orders passed, relying upon the findings of the criminal
\n                                     6<\/span><\/p>\n
court were ex facie barred by principle of res judicata. That apart, it is<\/p>\n
submitted by the learned counsel that in view of suppression of the<\/p>\n
material facts by the respondents i.e. the facts with regard to the<\/p>\n
dismissal of original applications by the Chandigarh Bench of the CAT,<\/p>\n
the original applications preferred by the respondents before the<\/p>\n
Jodhpur Bench of the CAT for relief of reinstatement in service were<\/p>\n
liable to be dismissed on this count alone.\n<\/p>\n
10.   Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the<\/p>\n
respondents submitted that the respondents are barely literate and do<\/p>\n
not understand niceties of law, therefore, under the legal advise<\/p>\n
tendered by the counsel, the factum of filing of the original applications<\/p>\n
earlier was not disclosed in the fresh original applications filed before<\/p>\n
the Jodhpur Bench of the CAT. The learned counsel submitted that the<\/p>\n
respondents having been acquitted by the court of competent<\/p>\n
jurisdiction in the criminal case lodged against them, they were well<\/p>\n
within their right to claim reinstatement in service and it was fresh<\/p>\n
cause of action, therefore, the principle of res judicata is not attracted<\/p>\n
in the matter. The learned counsel submitted that in view of the<\/p>\n
categorical findings recorded by the criminal court, the         CAT has<\/p>\n
committed no error in interfering with the order of punishment. The<\/p>\n
learned counsel submitted that if the CAT has found the punishment<\/p>\n
imposed upon the respondents to be shockingly disproportionate to the<\/p>\n
gravity of misconduct proved, then, there is no reason why this Court
\n                                        7<\/span><\/p>\n
should interfere with the order in exercise of its extra ordinary<\/p>\n
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.<\/p>\n
11.   We have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.<\/p>\n
12.   It is settled law that acquittal in the criminal case cannot be<\/p>\n
made basis for setting aside the order passed in disciplinary proceedings<\/p>\n
on the basis of evidence adduced in the departmental inquiry conducted<\/p>\n
into the charges of misconduct levelled against a delinquent employee.<\/p>\n
Admittedly, in the criminal case, the respondents have been acquitted<\/p>\n
by the learned ACJM giving them benefit of doubt. Indisputably, the<\/p>\n
standard of proof in the departmental proceedings is not same as that<\/p>\n
required to prove a criminal charge. In the departmental proceedings<\/p>\n
the finding of guilt can even be based on preponderance of probabilities<\/p>\n
and the rule of strict proof does not apply to such proceedings. In this<\/p>\n
view of the matter, in our considered opinion, the CAT, Jodhpur Bench<\/p>\n
has seriously erred in interfering with the orders passed by the<\/p>\n
Disciplinary Authority dismissing the respondents from service on the<\/p>\n
charge of misconduct being proved against them, solely relying upon the<\/p>\n
alleged findings recorded by the learned ACJM, while acquitting the<\/p>\n
respondents from the criminal charge.\n<\/p>\n
13.   Admittedly,    the    original       applications   preferred   by   the<\/p>\n
respondents assailing the validity of dismissal orders, were dismissed by<\/p>\n
the CAT, Chandigarh Bench after due consideration on merits. In this<\/p>\n
view of the matter, it was not open for the respondents to assail the
\n                                     8<\/span><\/p>\n
validity of the dismissal orders all over again on the basis of the alleged<\/p>\n
findings recorded by the court of ACJM, acquitting them from the<\/p>\n
criminal charge giving benefit of doubt. In our opinion, the dispute<\/p>\n
raised by the respondents by way of fresh original applications before<\/p>\n
CAT, Jodhpur Bench was ex facie barred by principle of res judicata and<\/p>\n
the same were liable to be dismissed on this count alone.<\/p>\n
14.   That apart, a perusal of the original applications preferred by the<\/p>\n
respondents reveals that in the column no.7 thereof the respondents<\/p>\n
have made a specific declaration that they have not preferred any<\/p>\n
application, writ petition, suit regarding the matter in respect of which<\/p>\n
the original applications have been made before any court or any other<\/p>\n
authority or any bench of the Tribunal and nor such application, writ<\/p>\n
petition or suit is pending before any of them. Thus, it appears that the<\/p>\n
factum of dismissal of the original applications    assailing the order of<\/p>\n
dismissal from service was deliberately concealed by the respondents<\/p>\n
before the CAT, Jodhpur Bench. Therefore, as a matter of fact, the<\/p>\n
original applications preferred by the respondents were liable to be<\/p>\n
dismissed on account of their unbecoming conduct.\n<\/p>\n
15.   For the aforementioned reasons, in our considered opinion, the<\/p>\n
order impugned passed by the CAT, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur is not<\/p>\n
sustainable in eye of law.\n<\/p>\n
16.   In the result, the writ petitions succeed, the same are hereby<\/p>\n
allowed. The order impugned dated 20.1.2000 passed by the Central
\n                                               9<\/span><\/p>\n
           Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur is hereby quashed and<\/p>\n
           set aside and the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority dismissing<\/p>\n
           the respondents from service are restored. No order as to costs.<\/p>\n
           [SANGEET LODHA],J.                                  [A.M. KAPADIA],J.\n\n\n\n\nvijayant\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur Union Of India & Ors vs Satveer Singh & Anr on 12 February, 2009 1 1. Union of India & Ors. Vs. Kali Ram & Anr. (D.B CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1302\/2000) 2. Union of India & Ors. Vs. Satveer Singh & Anr. (D.B CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1303\/2000) 3. Union of […]<\/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":[8,19],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-27149","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-rajasthan-high-court-jodhpur"],"yoast_head":"\nUnion Of India & Ors vs Satveer Singh & Anr on 12 February, 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\/union-of-india-ors-vs-satveer-singh-anr-on-12-february-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Union Of India & Ors vs Satveer Singh & Anr on 12 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-satveer-singh-anr-on-12-february-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=\"2009-02-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-07-06T02:11:10+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-ors-vs-satveer-singh-anr-on-12-february-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-ors-vs-satveer-singh-anr-on-12-february-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Union Of India & Ors vs Satveer Singh & Anr on 12 February, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-02-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-06T02:11:10+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-ors-vs-satveer-singh-anr-on-12-february-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1838,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-ors-vs-satveer-singh-anr-on-12-february-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-ors-vs-satveer-singh-anr-on-12-february-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-ors-vs-satveer-singh-anr-on-12-february-2009\",\"name\":\"Union Of India & Ors vs Satveer Singh & Anr on 12 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-02-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-06T02:11:10+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-ors-vs-satveer-singh-anr-on-12-february-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-ors-vs-satveer-singh-anr-on-12-february-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-ors-vs-satveer-singh-anr-on-12-february-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Union Of India & Ors vs Satveer Singh & Anr on 12 February, 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":"Union Of India & Ors vs Satveer Singh & Anr on 12 February, 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\/union-of-india-ors-vs-satveer-singh-anr-on-12-february-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Union Of India & Ors vs Satveer Singh & Anr on 12 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-satveer-singh-anr-on-12-february-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-02-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-07-06T02:11:10+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-satveer-singh-anr-on-12-february-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-satveer-singh-anr-on-12-february-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Union Of India & Ors vs Satveer Singh & Anr on 12 February, 2009","datePublished":"2009-02-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-06T02:11:10+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-satveer-singh-anr-on-12-february-2009"},"wordCount":1838,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-satveer-singh-anr-on-12-february-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-satveer-singh-anr-on-12-february-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-satveer-singh-anr-on-12-february-2009","name":"Union Of India & Ors vs Satveer Singh & Anr on 12 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-02-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-06T02:11:10+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-satveer-singh-anr-on-12-february-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-satveer-singh-anr-on-12-february-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-satveer-singh-anr-on-12-february-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Union Of India & Ors vs Satveer Singh & Anr on 12 February, 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\/27149","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=27149"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27149\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=27149"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=27149"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=27149"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}