{"id":32777,"date":"2010-11-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-11-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-vs-union-on-3-november-2010"},"modified":"2018-04-21T19:08:45","modified_gmt":"2018-04-21T13:38:45","slug":"manoj-vs-union-on-3-november-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-vs-union-on-3-november-2010","title":{"rendered":"Manoj vs Union on 3 November, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Manoj vs Union on 3 November, 2010<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: M.R. Shah,&amp;Nbsp;<\/div>\n<pre>   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nSCA\/2115\/1997\t 9\/ 9\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 2115 of 1997\n \n\n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH\n \n=============================================================\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n1\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n2\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nTo\n\t\t\tbe referred to the Reporter or not ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n3\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n4\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the\n\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order\n\t\t\tmade thereunder ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n5\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil judge ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n=============================================================\n \n\nMANOJ\nH MISHRA - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\n\nUNION\nOF INDIA &amp; 3 - Respondent(s)\n \n\nAppearance\n: \nMR GIRISH PATEL for\nPetitioner(s) : 1, \nMR JD AJMERA for Respondent(s) : 1 -\n4. \n==============================================================\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 31\/1\/2007 \n\n \n\nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n<p>\tBy<br \/>\nway of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,<br \/>\nthe petitioner has prayed for an appropriate writ, direction and\/or<br \/>\norder declaring the order of revisional authority the respondent No.3<br \/>\ndated 20-8-1996 removing the petitioner from services, as illegal.<br \/>\nPetitioner has also challenged the order dated 20-8-1996 passed by<br \/>\nthe appellate authority confirming the order of removal dated<br \/>\n30-3-1996.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.\tFacts<br \/>\nleading to the present Special Civil Application as per the<br \/>\npetitioner are that the petitioner was working in the Nuclear Power<br \/>\nCorporation at Kakarapar Atomic Power Project (for short ?S the<br \/>\nKAPP??) in the post of Tradesman and was the President of Kakarapar<br \/>\nUnit Kendriya Sachivalaya Hindi Parishad. That he was selected as<br \/>\nGeneral Secretary of the recognized union of Class III and Class IV<br \/>\nof KAPP on 7-2-1993. It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that<br \/>\nmonsoon of 1994 was violent and there were heavy rains and water of<br \/>\nKakarapar dam was flowing beyond the danger level. As a result, the<br \/>\ndam authorities had to open the gates and let water flow. That the<br \/>\nKakarapar lake received the dam water through a canal which is an<br \/>\ninter-link. The water of the lake is used by the respondent<br \/>\nauthorities for power generation. On the night of 15-7-1994, the<br \/>\nflood water entered in the Kakarapar lake and within no time, the<br \/>\nflood water entered into the plant. Before the next morning, more<br \/>\nthan 25 ft. of the turbine which is adjacent to the Nuclear reactor<br \/>\nwas submerged into the water and entire record room and computer room<br \/>\nwere washed away. That apart, some of the barrels containing nuclear<br \/>\nwastes were also washed away by the flood water. On 16th<br \/>\nJuly, emergency was declared and the respondent authorities started<br \/>\ntaking preventive measures. It is the case on behalf of the<br \/>\npetitioner that every one raised questions as to why and how the<br \/>\nflood water could not be prevented by the engineers in charge and why<br \/>\nemergency measures were not taken in the night to prevent flood water<br \/>\nfrom entering into turbine and other areas of the plant in the<br \/>\noperation island. That the respondent authorities placed the<br \/>\npetitioner under suspension by an order dated 5-7-1994 intimating him<br \/>\nthat the disciplinary proceeding for major penalty was being<br \/>\ncontemplated. The petitioner was served with a charge sheet dated<br \/>\n4-8-1994 alleging inter alia that the petitioner while functioning as<br \/>\nTradesman\/B in KAAP established contacts with press correspondence<br \/>\nand fed him with information which might have come to his possession<br \/>\nin course of his duty and has thereby criticized the project<br \/>\nmanagement and cast aspersions on the authorities and has thus<br \/>\ncommitted breach of oath of secrecy warranting major penalty. An<br \/>\ninquiry officer was appointed by the disciplinary authority and the<br \/>\npreliminary hearing took place on 26-12-1994. It is the case on<br \/>\nbehalf of the petitioner that a assurance was given by the respondent<br \/>\nNo.2 that if the petitioner accepts the charges, in that case, a<br \/>\nlenient view will be taken of the entire matter and leniency would be<br \/>\nshown while imposing the punishment and therefore, the petitioner has<br \/>\nresigned on 23-9-1995 from the preliminary membership of the Union<br \/>\nand also admitted all the charges levelled against him and requested<br \/>\nthe inquiry officer to close the proceeding through his Defence<br \/>\nAssistant. The inquiry officer declared the inquiry as closed. It is<br \/>\nthe case on behalf of the petitioner that the inquiry officer<br \/>\nsubmitted the report and while concluding his report dated 20-12-1995<br \/>\nheld all the charges against the petitioner as proved on the basis of<br \/>\nadmission of all the charges by the petitioner. The inquiry officer<br \/>\nsubmitted his report on 20-12-1995 to the disciplinary authority. The<br \/>\npetitioner was served with the inquiry report on 4-1-1996 along with<br \/>\na letter from the disciplinary authority giving a petitioner a chance<br \/>\nto make representation in view of the report submitted by the inquiry<br \/>\nofficer. The petitioner made his representation on 16-3-1996. After<br \/>\nexamining all the records and the inquiry report, the disciplinary<br \/>\nauthority passed an order dated 30-3-1996 removing the petitioner<br \/>\nfrom service holding him guilty of charges framed against him. Being<br \/>\naggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of removal, the<br \/>\npetitioner preferred appeal before the respondent No.4 which came to<br \/>\nbe rejected by order dated 27-5-1996 against which the petitioner<br \/>\npreferred representation before the revisional authority which also<br \/>\ncame to be dismissed by order dated 20-8-1996. Against which, the<br \/>\npresent Special Civil Application has been preferred under Article<br \/>\n226 of the Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.\tShri<br \/>\nGirish Patel, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the<br \/>\npetitioner has only made one submission that looking to the<br \/>\nallegations and the charges proved against the petitioner, the order<br \/>\nof removal is too harsh and the penalty imposed upon the petitioner<br \/>\nis disproportionate. It is submitted that when in good faith the<br \/>\npetitioner admitted all the charges and on assurance by the<br \/>\nrespondent No.2 that if he admits all the charges, a lenient view<br \/>\nwill be taken while imposing the punishment and therefore, it is<br \/>\nrequested to consider the question of penalty.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.\tShri<br \/>\nJD Ajmera, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents<br \/>\nwhile opposing the present Special Civil Application has vehemently<br \/>\nsubmitted that looking to the allegations and the charges proved<br \/>\nagainst the petitioner and when all the charges have been admitted by<br \/>\nthe petitioner, the order passed by the respondents in removing the<br \/>\npetitioner is just and proper. It is submitted that looking to the<br \/>\nfacts and the charges admitted and proved against the petitioner,<br \/>\nthere is no question of taking any lenient view and the only penalty\/<br \/>\npunishment which is required to be imposed is removal from service.<br \/>\nIt is also specifically denied in the affidavit with regard to any<br \/>\nassurance given by the respondent No.2 as alleged by the petitioner<br \/>\nto the effect that if the petitioner accepts all the charges, a<br \/>\nlenient view will be taken. It is submitted that against the order of<br \/>\nremoval, appeal was preferred which was considered by the appellate<br \/>\nauthority and the appellate authority dismissed the appeal, against<br \/>\nwhich a further revision was filed and the same was also considered<br \/>\nby the revisional authority and the revisional authority also<br \/>\nconfirmed the order of removal. Therefore, when all the three<br \/>\nauthorities have taken a decision to remove the petitioner, it is<br \/>\nrequested to dismiss the present Special Civil Application.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.\tHeard<br \/>\nthe learned advocates appearing on behalf of the parties.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.\tThe<br \/>\npetitioner was the employee of the Nuclear Power Corporation which is<br \/>\nunder the department of Atomic Energy and which is a very sensitive<br \/>\ndepartment, where strict discipline, more particularly<br \/>\nconfidentiality is required to be maintained. The charge levelled<br \/>\nagainst the petitioner which has been subsequently admitted by the<br \/>\npetitioner are as under:\n<\/p>\n<p>Article I:\tThat Shri<br \/>\nManoj Mishra, while functioning as Tradesman\/B in the Kakrapar Atomic<br \/>\nPower Project, vide his letter on 18-6-1994 to the Editor, ?SGujarat<br \/>\nSamachar?? newspaper, Surat, unauthorisedly communicated with the<br \/>\nPress.\n<\/p>\n<p>Article II:\tThat the<br \/>\nsaid Shri Manoj Mishra, while  functioning as Tradesman\/B in the<br \/>\naforesaid project, in the letter dated 18-6-1994 written by him to<br \/>\nthe Editor, Gujarat Samachar made certain statement or expressed<br \/>\ncertain opinions, which amounted to criticism of the Project<br \/>\nmanagement or casting of aspersion on the integrity of its<br \/>\nauthorities.\n<\/p>\n<p>Article III:\tThat the<br \/>\nsaid Shri Manoj Mishra, while  functioning as Tradesman\/B in the<br \/>\naforesaid project, though his letter dated 18-6-1994, he wrote to the<br \/>\nEditor of the Gujarat Samachar unauthorisedly communicated to the<br \/>\nPress official information concerning the Kakrapar Atomic Power<br \/>\nProject.\n<\/p>\n<p>Article IV:\tThat the<br \/>\nsaid Shri Manoj Mishra, while  functioning as Tradesman\/B in the<br \/>\naforesaid project established contact with a Press correspondent to<br \/>\nfeed information enabling the press to create news story about the<br \/>\nProject containing inflammatory and misleading information causing<br \/>\nembarrassment to, and damaging the<br \/>\nreputation of the Project and the NPCIL.\n<\/p>\n<p>Article V:\tThat the<br \/>\nsaid Shri Manoj Mishra, while  functioning as Tradesman\/B in the<br \/>\naforesaid project, established contacts with the Press correspondent<br \/>\nand fed him with vital information which has come into his possession<br \/>\nin the course of his duty as Tradesman\/B in the Project, enabling the<br \/>\npress to create a news story about the Project creating embarrassment<br \/>\nto the Project as swell as to the State authorities. Shri Manoj<br \/>\nMishra has thus committed breach of oath of secrecy which he took at<br \/>\nthe time of joining the Project.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIt<br \/>\nis required to be noted that the petitioner admitted all the charges.<br \/>\nNow it is the contention on behalf of the petitioner that an<br \/>\nassurance was given by the respondents that if the petitioner admits<br \/>\nthe charges, a lenient view will be taken. However, the same has been<br \/>\ndenied by the respondents. As per the respondents, no such assurance<br \/>\nhas been given. Even, otherwise, assuming that the petitioner would<br \/>\nnot have accepted the charges, in that case also, looking to the<br \/>\ndocumentary evidence, more particularly, the press report, it was not<br \/>\npossible for the petitioner to get out of the same. The petitioner<br \/>\nwas serving in a department of Atomic Energy which is most sensitive<br \/>\ndepartment and where strict discipline, more particularly<br \/>\nconfidentiality is required to be maintained. The petitioner went to<br \/>\nthe press, shared the information with the press which was not<br \/>\nrequired to be shared and when considering the said, charges held and<br \/>\nproved and even admitted by the petitioner, when the order of removal<br \/>\nha been passed which has been confirmed by two higher authorities, it<br \/>\ncannot be said that the order of removal is disproportionate to the<br \/>\ncharges held and proved against the petitioner. It is required to be<br \/>\nnoted at this stage that the charges are very serious in nature, more<br \/>\nparticularly considering the department in which the petitioner was<br \/>\nserving. Petitioner came to be removed against which an appeal was<br \/>\nfiled which came to be dismissed, against which revision application<br \/>\nwas filed which also came to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>This Court is not sitting as an appellate authority against the<br \/>\ndecision of the disciplinary authority. At this stage, the judgment<br \/>\nof the Hon&#8217;ble Supreme Court in the case of Govt. of A.P. And<br \/>\nothers V. Mohd. Nasrullah Khan reported in (2006) 2 SCC 373 and<br \/>\nin the case of Syed T.A. Naqshbandi and others V. State of Jammu<br \/>\nand Kashmir and others reported in (2003) 9 SCC 592 are required<br \/>\nto be referred to and considered. It is observed by the Hon&#8217;ble<br \/>\nSupreme Court that the High Court exercising the power of judicial<br \/>\nreview under Article 226 of the  Constitution does not act as an<br \/>\nAppellate Authority. Its jurisdiction is circumscribed and confined<br \/>\nto correct errors of law or procedural error, if any, resulting in<br \/>\nmanifest miscarriage of justice or violation of principles of natural<br \/>\njustice. It is also observed by the Hon&#8217;ble Supreme Court in the case<br \/>\nof Damoh Panna Sagar Rural Regional Bank and another V. Munna Lal<br \/>\nJain reported in (2005) 10 SCC 84 that the Court would not go<br \/>\ninto the correctness of the choice made by the administrator open to<br \/>\nhim and the Court should not substitute its decision for that of the<br \/>\nadministrator. The scope of judicial review is limited to the<br \/>\ndeficiency in decision making process and not the decision. The Court<br \/>\nshould not interfere with the administrator&#8217;s decision unless it is<br \/>\nillogical or suffers from procedural impropriety or is shocking to<br \/>\nthe conscience of the Court, in the sense that it is in defiance of<br \/>\nlogic or moral standards. Unless the punishment imposed by the<br \/>\ndisciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the<br \/>\nconscience of the Court\/tribunal, there is no scope for interference.<br \/>\nFurther, to shorten litigations it may, in exceptional and rare<br \/>\ncases, impose appropriate punishment by recording cogent reasons in<br \/>\nsupport thereof. When a Court feels that the punishment is shockingly<br \/>\ndisproportionate, it must record reasons for coming to such a<br \/>\nconclusion. Mere expression that the punishment is shockingly<br \/>\ndisproportionate would not meet the requirement of law. In the normal<br \/>\ncourse, if the punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate it<br \/>\nwould be appropriate to direct the disciplinary authority or the<br \/>\nappellate authority to reconsider the penalty imposed.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.\tIn<br \/>\nview of the above and seriousness of the charges admitted by the<br \/>\npetitioner and thereafter held proved against the petitioner by the<br \/>\ndisciplinary authority and when the petitioner is removed from<br \/>\nservice, it cannot be said that there is any illegality committed by<br \/>\nthe respondents and that looking to the charges proved against the<br \/>\npetitioner, it cannot be said that order of removal is<br \/>\ndisproportionate to the charges. Even on the facts of the case and<br \/>\ncharges levelled against the petitioner, this Court is also of the<br \/>\nfirm opinion that except punishment of removal, no other punishment<br \/>\nis required to be imposed against the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.\tFor<br \/>\nthe reasons stated above, the petition fails and dismissed<br \/>\naccordingly. No costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>(M.R.SHAH,J.)<\/p>\n<p>shekhar\/-\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Manoj vs Union on 3 November, 2010 Author: M.R. Shah,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/2115\/1997 9\/ 9 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2115 of 1997 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH ============================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may [&hellip;]<\/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":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-32777","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Manoj vs Union on 3 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/manoj-vs-union-on-3-november-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Manoj vs Union on 3 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-vs-union-on-3-november-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-11-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-04-21T13:38:45+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manoj-vs-union-on-3-november-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manoj-vs-union-on-3-november-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Manoj vs Union on 3 November, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-21T13:38:45+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manoj-vs-union-on-3-november-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2184,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manoj-vs-union-on-3-november-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manoj-vs-union-on-3-november-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manoj-vs-union-on-3-november-2010\",\"name\":\"Manoj vs Union on 3 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-21T13:38:45+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manoj-vs-union-on-3-november-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manoj-vs-union-on-3-november-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manoj-vs-union-on-3-november-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Manoj vs Union on 3 November, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"Manoj vs Union on 3 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/manoj-vs-union-on-3-november-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Manoj vs Union on 3 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-vs-union-on-3-november-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-11-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-04-21T13:38:45+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-vs-union-on-3-november-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-vs-union-on-3-november-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Manoj vs Union on 3 November, 2010","datePublished":"2010-11-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-21T13:38:45+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-vs-union-on-3-november-2010"},"wordCount":2184,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-vs-union-on-3-november-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-vs-union-on-3-november-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-vs-union-on-3-november-2010","name":"Manoj vs Union on 3 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-11-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-21T13:38:45+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-vs-union-on-3-november-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-vs-union-on-3-november-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-vs-union-on-3-november-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Manoj vs Union on 3 November, 2010"}]},{"@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\/32777","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=32777"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/32777\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=32777"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=32777"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=32777"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}