{"id":32503,"date":"2006-07-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-07-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-goparam-vs-the-inspector-general-on-13-july-2006"},"modified":"2014-10-24T17:17:17","modified_gmt":"2014-10-24T11:47:17","slug":"s-goparam-vs-the-inspector-general-on-13-july-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-goparam-vs-the-inspector-general-on-13-july-2006","title":{"rendered":"S.Goparam vs The Inspector General on 13 July, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
S.Goparam vs The Inspector General on 13 July, 2006<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           \n\nDated: 13\/07\/2006 \n\nCoram \n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.SATHASIVAM   \nand \nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.DHANAPALAN    \n\nWrit Petition No.23327 of 2001\n\nS.Goparam                              .. Petitioner\n\n-Vs-\n\n.The Inspector General\nCentral Industrial Security Force,\nSouth West Sector, \nRCF Complex, Chembur,   \nMumbai-400074.  \n\n2. The Deputy Inspector General,\nCentral Industrial Security Force,\nSouthern Zone, D Block, Rajaji Bhavan,\nBesant Nagar, \nChennai-600 090. \n\n3. The Commandant,  \nCISF Unit, NLC, \nNeyveli.                                .. Respondents\n\n        Petition  under  Article  226  of  the  Constitution  of India for the\nissuance of a writ of certiorari to call  for  the  records  relating  to  the\nimpugned   proceedings   of  the  first  respondent  in  No.V-11014\/(1)\/07\/WZ\/\nLC\/SWS\/01\/7583, dated 10.11.2001, and the order of the  second  respondent  in\nNo.V-15014(1)\/I\/2KI\/L&R (SZ)\/4328, dated 21.05.2001, and quash the same. \n\n!For Petitioner :   Mr.T.N.Sugesh\n\n^For Respondents:   Mr.K.Veeraraghavan  \n                    Senior Central Government Standing Counsel.\n\n:ORDER  \n<\/pre>\n
P.SATHASIVAM, J.\n<\/p>\n
                Aggrieved by the Order  of  the  second  respondent    Deputy
\nInspector  General,  Central  Industrial  Security  Force,  Chennai-90,  dated
\n21.05.2 001; and the  show  cause  notice,  dated  10.11.2001,  of  the  first
\nrespondent  Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force, Mumbai; the
\npetitioner  has  filed  the  above  Writ  Petition to quash both the orders on
\nvarious grounds.\n<\/p>\n
                2.  The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder,
\n                According to him, he was initially appointed as  Constable  on
\n01.07.1989 in  the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), NLC, Neyveli.  On
\n19.12.1999, he was on B shift duty from 13.00 hours to 21.00  hours  at  the
\nGWC Store  Gate,  Neyveli  Lignite  Corporation.  After completion of his duty
\nhours, he handed over the duty to his reliever who  was  on  C  shift  duty.
\nEverything was  in tact when he handed over duty.  The store key was kept with
\nthe officials of the NLC and not with the CISF.  Subsequently, on  20.12.1999,
\nwhen  the  store  was  opened by the Chief Engineer, Electrical, NLC, at 09.30
\nhours, theft of certain materials  was  noticed.    However,  all  the  doors,
\nwindows and the  locks  were  seen intact.  A police complaint was lodged.  No<\/p>\n
mention was made in the General Diary Entry that the theft had occurred during
\nthe duty hours of the petitioner on 19.12.1999.   The  stolen  materials  were
\nsubsequently recovered by the police.\n<\/p>\n
        Subsequently,  a  Charge Memo was issued to the petitioner on 15.05.20
\n00 and the same was later cancelled by order dated  17.07.2000.    Thereafter,
\nthe  third  respondent-Commandant,  CISF  Unit,  NLC,  Neyveli, issued another
\ncharge-memo dated 18.07.2000 containing a charge that he failed  to  safeguard
\nthe  NLC undertaking property while on B shift duty on 19.12.1999 from 13.00
\nhrs to 21.00 hrs, due to which, a theft of property  worth  Rs.6,20,000\/-  was
\nreported  on  20.12.1999  and  that  it  amounted  to  dereliction of duty and
\nirresponsibility towards  assignment.    The  petitioner  submitted  a  reply,
\ndenying the charge framed against him.  One R.Manavalan, Assistant Commandant,
\nwas appointed as Enquiry Officer to enquire into the charge framed against the
\npetitioner.   Though  there was no evidence to prove the charge framed against
\nthe petitioner, yet, the Enquiry  Officer  submitted  a  report,  holding  the
\ncharge as  proved.  Copy of the said report was furnished to the petitioner by
\nproceedings of the Disciplinary Authority dated  17.10.20  00,  whereupon,  he
\nsubmitted  his  explanation  against  the  findings  of the Enquiry Officer on
\n27.10.2000.  On receipt of the explanation and, after examining the  evidence,
\nthe  Disciplinary  Authority\/third respondent held that it was not established
\nthat the theft took place during his duty hours on 19.12.1999 while he was  on
\nB  shift duty; and concluded that the charge framed against him could not be
\nproved beyond doubt.  However, after observing that awarding a  major  penalty
\nwould  not  be  justified,  he  imposed a punishment of withholding of future
\nincrements for two years, which will not have the effect of postponing further
\nincrements of pay and regularised the period of suspension from 29.12.1999 to
\n16.10.2000 as on duty for all purposes in and by his order  dated  04.11.2000.
\nThe  petitioner  did  not prefer any appeal, however, the appellate authority,
\nviz., the Deputy Inspector General (R2)\/CISF took up the  case  for  suo  motu
\nreview  and  issued  a  show cause notice by his proceedings dated 14.03.2001,
\nstating that the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority is  lenient,
\nand  called upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the punishment already
\nimposed should not be enhanced to that of reduction in  pay  by  three  stages
\nfrom    Rs.3425\/-    to    Rs.3200\/-   in   the   time   scale   of   pay   of
\nRs.3150-75-3950-80-4590 for a period of two years, which will have the  effect
\nof postponing future increments, and to regularise the period of suspension as
\nDies-Non.   He  submitted  his  reply  to  the show cause notice on 31.3.2001.
\nHowever, the second  respondent,  by  order  dated  21.05.2001,  enhanced  the
\npunishment as  proposed  in  the  show  cause  notice.   Aggrieved by the said
\nenhancement  of  punishment,   he   preferred   an   appeal   to   the   first
\nrespondent\/Inspector General,   CISF,  on  05.07.2001.    However,  the  first
\nrespondent, instead of considering the appeal filed by the petitioner  against
\nthe  enhancement  of punishment, has issued show cause notice dated 10.11.2001
\n(impugned proceedings),  calling  upon  him  to  show  cause  as  to  why  the
\npunishment  should  not be further enhanced to that of dismissal from service.
\nQuestioning the same, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition.\n<\/p>\n
        3.  The third respondent filed a counter affidavit on  behalf  of  the
\nrespondents, wherein, he denied all the allegations made in the affidavit.  It
\nis  stated  that  the  respondents, by virtue of the power conferred under the
\nCentral Industrial Security  Force  Act,  1968;  and  the  Central  Industrial
\nSecurity  Force  Rules,  1969; after taking note of the gravity of the charge,
\nimposed an appropriate punishment, hence,  there  is  no  merit  in  the  Writ
\nPetition.\n<\/p>\n
        4.   Heard  Mr.T.N.Sugesh,  learned  counsel  for  the  petitioner and
\nMr.K.Veeraraghavan, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel.\n<\/p>\n
        5.  In order to understand the claim of both the parties, it is useful
\nto refer to the article of charge framed against the petitioner,  which  reads
\nas under:-\n<\/p>\n
  STATEMENT  OF  ARTICLE  OF  CHARGE  FRAMED  AGAINST No.89140079 0 CONSTABLE
\nS.GOPARAM OF CISF UNIT NLC NEYVELI (T.N.)        <\/p>\n
ARTICLE-1  <\/p>\n
No.891400790 Constable S.Goparam of CISF Unit NLC Neyveli was deployed in B
\nshift duty on 19.12.99 from 1300 hrs to 2100  hrs.,  at  GWC  (Electrical)  of
\nMines-I.   During his duty he failed to safeguard the Undertaking property due
\nto which a theft  of  Undertaking  property  worth  Rs.620,000\/-  reported  on
\n20.12.99 morning.    This act on his part tantamounts to severe dereliction of
\nduties, gross remiss and highly irresponsible towards his  assignment.  Hence
\nthe charge.\n<\/p>\n
Sd.\/- .\n<\/p>\n
                                        COMMANDANT,
\n                                        CISF UNIT NLC (N)<\/p>\n
        The petitioner submitted his reply, denying the charge.  Not satisfied
\nwith  the explanation, one R.Manavalan, Assistant Commandant, was appointed as
\nEnquiry Officer on 08.08.2000.  It is not in dispute that the  petitioner  was
\nafforded with  opportunity  in  the  enquiry proceedings.  The Enquiry Officer
\nsubmitted the Enquiry Report on 10.10.2000 holding that due to carelessness on
\nthe  part  of  the  petitioner  and  lack  of  responsibilities  towards   his
\nassignment, a theft of undertaking property worth Rs.620,000\/- was reported on
\n20.12.1999.   It  is also not in dispute that the Enquiry Report was forwarded
\nto him and the petitioner submitted his explanation to the same on 27.10.2000.
\nThe third respondent, by order dated 04.11.2000, after going into the  charge,
\nentire enquiry proceedings, explanation of the petitioner etc., concluded that
\nthe charge  levelled  against  him could not be proved beyond doubt.  However,
\nafter finding so and observing that awarding of a major penalty  will  not  be
\njustified;  in  exercise  of  the  powers  conferred upon him under Rule-29(A)
\nSchedule-II read with Rule-31(e) of CISF Rules,  1969;  the  third  respondent
\nimposed  a punishment of withholding of petitioner’s future increments for two
\nyears, which will not have the effect of postponing his further increments  of
\npay  and  also  ordered  that  the  period  of  suspension  from 29.12.1999 to
\n16.10.2000 will be treated as on duty for all purposes.  It is useful to refer
\nthe following conclusion arrived by the third respondent,<\/p>\n
         7.  After analysing both the side of prosecution and defence, I have
\nobserved that, the prosecution side failed to establish the charge as levelled
\nagainst the charged member.  ……….<\/p>\n
The following conclusion in para No.8 is also relevant:-\n<\/p>\n
         8.    Since the charge levelled against the charged member could not
\nbe proved beyond doubt, I am taking a lenient view this time.<\/p>\n
        6.  Having found that the charge levelled against the Officer has  not
\nbeen  proved,  it  is  not understandable as to how the third respondent armed
\nhimself  with  an  authority  to  impose  any  punishment  much  less   lesser
\npunishment.   Now, let us consider the action taken by the second respondent
\nDeputy Inspector  General,  CISF,  Southern  Zone,  Chennai.      The   second
\nrespondent, in his notice, dated 14.03.2001, suo motu reviewed the case of the
\npetitioner  and, after finding that the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary
\nAuthority is lenient and not  commensurate  to  the  gravity  of  the  offence
\ncommitted  by  him,  called upon the petitioner to show cause why reduction in
\npay by three stages from Rs.3425\/- to Rs.3200\/- in the time scale  of  pay  of
\nRs.3150-75-3950-80-4590  for a period of two years, which will have the effect
\nof postponing his future increment, should not be imposed to meet the ends  of
\njustice.   In  the  same  notice,  there was also a proposal to regularise the
\nsuspension period as Dies-non.\n<\/p>\n
                7.  Learned counsel appearing for  the  petitioner  questioned
\nthe action of the second respondent on two grounds, viz.,<\/p>\n
(a)  on  the  relevant  date,  he is not the authority competent to review and
\nenhance the punishment suo motu,\n<\/p>\n
(b) the show cause notice, dated 14.03.2001, refers only lesser punishment and<\/p>\n
proposes  to  impose  higher  punishment  forgetting  that  the   Disciplinary
\nAuthority  has  concluded  that  the only charge framed against the petitioner
\ncould not be proved\/substantiated.\n<\/p>\n
        8.  Coming to the first ground of attack, it is brought to our  notice
\nthat  on  the  date,  viz., 14.03.2001, when the second respondent took up the
\ncase for suo motu review under Section 9 (3) of the CISF Act, only the Central
\nGovernment had the power to review and not the second respondent.    The  said
\nprovision, viz., Section 9(3) of the CISF Act, 1968, reads as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
                \" 9.  Appeal and revision.--(1)         .........\n                ..........\n                (2) ......\n<\/pre>\n
                (3) The Central Government may call for and examine the record
\nof any proceeding under Sec.8 or under sub-section (2) of this section and may
\nmake  such  inquiry  or  cause  such  inquiry  to  be  made and subject to the
\nprovisions of this Act may, pass such order thereon as it thinks fit:’<\/p>\n
        9.   The  above  provision  makes  it  clear  that  only  the  Central
\nGovernment  has  the  power  to  review  and pass appropriate orders including
\nmodifying the order of the Disciplinary Authority.  Inasmuch as the petitioner
\nhad not preferred any appeal against the order of the Disciplinary  authority,
\nin  the  light  of sub-Section-3, the second respondent did not have the power
\nunder the said provision to take up suo motu review,  hence,  the  proceedings
\nwere without  jurisdiction.    To put it clear, on the relevant date, viz., on
\n14.3.2001, as per the provisions stood then, the Central Government alone  had
\nthe  power  to  take  up  suo motu review and the show cause notice issued for
\nenhancement of the punishment by the second respondent cannot be sustained.\n<\/p>\n
        10.  Coming to the second contention, we have  already  extracted  the
\nconclusion of the Disciplinary Authority holding that the only charge levelled
\nagainst  the  petitioner has not been proved, in such circumstances, we are of
\nthe view that there is no question of imposing punishment either leniently  or
\nmoderately.   Even  if  the  second  respondent  or any other authority having
\njurisdiction wants to impose a higher punishment, before setting at motion any
\nof their proceedings in that  regard,  the  petitioner  must  be  afforded  an
\nopportunity with  reference to the same by way of show cause notice.  Here, in
\nthe show cause notice issued by the second respondent, the  only  reason  made
\n(that is available at page 59 of the typed set) is that the punishment imposed
\nby  the  Disciplinary  authority  is  lenient  and  is not commensurate to the
\ngravity of the offence committed by the petitioner.  The same proceeds  as  if
\nthe  Disciplinary  Authority  has accepted the finding of the Enquiry Officer,
\ntook a lenient view and imposed a lesser punishment.  In the  absence  of  any
\nreason, based on which the second respondent differed from the decision of the
\nDisciplinary  Authority, the show cause notice, dated 14.03.2001, which speaks
\nonly about lesser punishment cannot be held to be a valid notice in the  eye
\nof law.    As  rightly pointed out, the second respondent failed to appreciate
\nthat the finding was in favour of  the  petitioner  and  the  charge  was  not
\nproved;  and  that  punishment cannot be enhanced merely because the charge is
\nserious.  Punishment can only be imposed on the basis of the material evidence
\nin support of the charge and inasmuch  as  the  finding  of  the  Disciplinary
\nAuthority  clearly  states  that  the charge is not proved, we are of the view
\nthat enhancement  of  the  punishment  by  the  second  respondent  cannot  be
\naccepted.   In  view  of  the  above  infirmities  in  the order of the second
\nrespondent, the subsequent order of the first respondent, proposing to enhance
\nthe punishment to that of dismissal from service, cannot be sustained.\n<\/p>\n
                11.  In these circumstances, the impugned proceedings  of  the
\nfirst respondent dated 10.11.2001 and the order of the second respondent dated
\n21.5.2001 are quashed.  The petitioner is entitled to all service and monetary
\nbenefits.  Writ Petition is allowed.  No costs.\n<\/p>\n
JI.\n<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1.  The Inspector General,
\nCentral Industrial Security Force,
\nSouth West Sector,
\nRCF Complex, Chembur,
\nMumbai-400 074.\n<\/p>\n
2.  The Deputy Inspector General,
\nCentral Industrial Security Force,
\nSouthern Zone, D Block, Rajaji Bhavan,
\nBesant Nagar, Chennai-600 090.\n<\/p>\n
3.  The Commandant,
\nCISF Unit, NLC,
\nNeyveli.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court S.Goparam vs The Inspector General on 13 July, 2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 13\/07\/2006 Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice P.SATHASIVAM and The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.DHANAPALAN Writ Petition No.23327 of 2001 S.Goparam .. Petitioner -Vs- .The Inspector General Central Industrial Security Force, South West Sector, RCF Complex, […]<\/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-32503","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nS.Goparam vs The Inspector General on 13 July, 2006 - 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-goparam-vs-the-inspector-general-on-13-july-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"S.Goparam vs The Inspector General on 13 July, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-goparam-vs-the-inspector-general-on-13-july-2006\" \/>\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=\"2006-07-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-10-24T11:47:17+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\\\/s-goparam-vs-the-inspector-general-on-13-july-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-goparam-vs-the-inspector-general-on-13-july-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"S.Goparam vs The Inspector General on 13 July, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-07-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-10-24T11:47:17+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-goparam-vs-the-inspector-general-on-13-july-2006\"},\"wordCount\":2112,\"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-goparam-vs-the-inspector-general-on-13-july-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-goparam-vs-the-inspector-general-on-13-july-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-goparam-vs-the-inspector-general-on-13-july-2006\",\"name\":\"S.Goparam vs The Inspector General on 13 July, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-07-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-10-24T11:47:17+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-goparam-vs-the-inspector-general-on-13-july-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-goparam-vs-the-inspector-general-on-13-july-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-goparam-vs-the-inspector-general-on-13-july-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"S.Goparam vs The Inspector General on 13 July, 2006\"}]},{\"@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":"S.Goparam vs The Inspector General on 13 July, 2006 - 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-goparam-vs-the-inspector-general-on-13-july-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"S.Goparam vs The Inspector General on 13 July, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-goparam-vs-the-inspector-general-on-13-july-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-07-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-10-24T11:47:17+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\/s-goparam-vs-the-inspector-general-on-13-july-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-goparam-vs-the-inspector-general-on-13-july-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"S.Goparam vs The Inspector General on 13 July, 2006","datePublished":"2006-07-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-10-24T11:47:17+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-goparam-vs-the-inspector-general-on-13-july-2006"},"wordCount":2112,"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-goparam-vs-the-inspector-general-on-13-july-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-goparam-vs-the-inspector-general-on-13-july-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-goparam-vs-the-inspector-general-on-13-july-2006","name":"S.Goparam vs The Inspector General on 13 July, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-07-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-10-24T11:47:17+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-goparam-vs-the-inspector-general-on-13-july-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-goparam-vs-the-inspector-general-on-13-july-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-goparam-vs-the-inspector-general-on-13-july-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"S.Goparam vs The Inspector General on 13 July, 2006"}]},{"@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\/32503","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=32503"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/32503\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=32503"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=32503"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=32503"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}