{"id":328,"date":"1997-02-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1997-02-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanjay-kumar-bajpai-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-12-february-1997"},"modified":"2018-11-29T06:08:57","modified_gmt":"2018-11-29T00:38:57","slug":"sanjay-kumar-bajpai-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-12-february-1997","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanjay-kumar-bajpai-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-12-february-1997","title":{"rendered":"Sanjay Kumar Bajpai vs Union Of India &amp; Ors on 12 February, 1997"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Sanjay Kumar Bajpai vs Union Of India &amp; Ors on 12 February, 1997<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: S.C. Agrawal, K.S. Paripoornan<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nSANJAY KUMAR BAJPAI\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nUNION OF INDIA &amp; ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t12\/02\/1997\n\nBENCH:\nS.C. AGRAWAL, K.S. PARIPOORNAN\n\n\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>\t\t      J U D G M E N T<br \/>\n     This appeal  is directed  against the  judgment of\t the<br \/>\nAllahabad High\tCourt (Lucknow\tBench) dated  September\t 13,<br \/>\n1993 whereby  Writ Petition  No 10117  of 1989\tfiled by the<br \/>\nappellant has  been dismissed. In the said Writ Petition the<br \/>\nappellant had  assailed the  validity  of  the\torder  dated<br \/>\nSeptember 12,  1989 discharging\t him from  service as  M.E.R<br \/>\n(Technical)\/Nursing Assistant in the Army Medical Corps.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The   appellant\tappeared   in\tM.E.R.\t (Technical)<br \/>\nExamination  conducted\t by  Headquarters  Recruiting  Zone,<br \/>\nLucknow on  January 24,\t 1988. On the basis of the result of<br \/>\nthe said  examination he  was selected\tfor  recruitment  as<br \/>\nM.E.R.\t(Tech.)\/Nursing\t  Assistant  in\t  the  Army  Medical<br \/>\nCollege.  He  was  enrolled  as\t M.E.R.\t (Technical)\/Nursing<br \/>\nAssistant on  February 29,  1988. At the time of enrolment a<br \/>\nform is required to be filled on the basis of the answers to<br \/>\nquestion put  to  the  person  seeking\tenrolment.  For\t the<br \/>\npurpose of enrolment the enrolment form as prescribed by the<br \/>\nrelevant rules\twas filled.   It si not disputed that at the<br \/>\ntime of\t his enrolment\tthe appellant  was being  prosecuted<br \/>\nbefore the  Special Judicial Magistrate (pollution Control),<br \/>\nU.P., Lucknow  for offences under Sections 147, 452, 324 and<br \/>\n323 I.P.C.  The case  of the respondents is that at the time<br \/>\nof  enrolment\tthe  appellant\t was  asked   the  following<br \/>\nquestion:-\n<\/p>\n<p>     &#8220;Q.No. (8):    Have you  ever  been<br \/>\n     imprisoned by  the civil  power  or<br \/>\n     are you under trial for any offence<br \/>\n     or has any complaint or report been<br \/>\n     made against  you to the Magistrate<br \/>\n     or Police\tfor any offence ? If so,<br \/>\n     give details.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>     In the  enrolment form  it is  recorded that  the\tsaid<br \/>\nquestion was answered by the appellant by the word &#8220;No&#8221;. The<br \/>\nenrolment form of the appellant was sent for verification to<br \/>\nthe District  Magistrate, Lucknow,  After  verification\t the<br \/>\nDistrict Magistrate,  Lucknow, by  his letter dated December<br \/>\n21, 1988,  informed the\t A.M.C. Centre\tand School about the<br \/>\npendency of  the criminal  case against\t the appellant.\t  On<br \/>\nreceipt\t of   the  said\t  communication\t from  the  District<br \/>\nMagistrate, Lucknow,  a show-cause notice dated May 20, 1989<br \/>\nwas issued  to the appellant whereby he was informed that it<br \/>\nhad come  to the notice that the appellant was involved in a<br \/>\ncivil case  and he  had deliberately  given false answers to<br \/>\nthe question  put to  him by the enrolling officer regarding<br \/>\ninvolvement in\tany civil case at the time of enrolment. the<br \/>\nappellant was  required to  show cause\twhy he should not be<br \/>\ndischarged  from   service  on\taccount\t of  the  same.\t The<br \/>\nappellant in  his communication\t dated May 23, 1989 admitted<br \/>\nabout the  pendency of\tthe criminal  case against  him\t but<br \/>\nasserted that  he had  been falsely  implicated in the same.<br \/>\nAfter considering  the said  communication of  the appellant<br \/>\nthe impugned  order dated  September  12,  1989\t was  passed<br \/>\nwhereby he  was\t  discharged from  service under  Army\tRule<br \/>\n13(3) (IV)  of the  table appended below Rule 13 of the Army<br \/>\nRules which  contains three clauses. Clause (IV) of the said<br \/>\ntable enables  discharge of  a person enrolled under the Act<br \/>\nbut not\t attested who is considered as unlikely to become an<br \/>\nefficient  soldier   and  whose\t  services  are\t not  longer<br \/>\nrequired.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The case  of the  appellant is  that the enrolment form<br \/>\nwas not\t filled on  the basis of the answers given by him to<br \/>\nquestions put  to him  at the time of enrolment and that the<br \/>\nsignatures of  the appellant  were  obtained  on  the  blank<br \/>\nanrolment form and the same was filled later and, therefore,<br \/>\nthe appellant  cannot be  held responsible for any statement<br \/>\ncontained in the said enrolment form and the action that has<br \/>\nbeen taken  against him\t on the\t   basis  of  the  statement<br \/>\ncontained in  the enrolment form cannot be held to be valid.<br \/>\nIt has\talso been  asserted by\tthe appellant  that the show<br \/>\ncause notice  date May\t20, 1989 was never served on him and<br \/>\nonly an\t oral query  was made  by the Commanding Officer and<br \/>\nthat  in  response  to\tthe  said  query  he  had  sent\t the<br \/>\ncommunication dated May 23,1989 giving his explanation about<br \/>\nthe  criminal\tcase  that  was\t pending  against  him.\t The<br \/>\nsubmission of  the appellant  is that  he never made a false<br \/>\nstatement that\tnot case was pending against him at the time<br \/>\nof enrolment.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Shri  P.P.\t  Malhotra,  the   learned  senior   counsel<br \/>\nappearing for  the respondents,\t has placed  before  us\t the<br \/>\noriginal inrolment  from  regarding  the  enrolment  of\t the<br \/>\nappellant on  February 29,  1988. The said enrolment form is<br \/>\nrequired to  be filled\tunder Section  13 of  Army Act which<br \/>\nlays down :-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>     &#8220;Upon  the\t appearance  before  the<br \/>\n     prescribed enrolling officer of any<br \/>\n     person desirous  of being enrolled,<br \/>\n     the enrolling  officer  shall  read<br \/>\n     and explain  to him, or cause to be<br \/>\n     read and  explained to  him in  his<br \/>\n     presence,\tthe  conditions\t of  the<br \/>\n     service  for  which  he  is  to  be<br \/>\n     enrolled; and  shall put to him the<br \/>\n     questions\t set\tforth\tin   the<br \/>\n     prescribed form  of enrolment,  and<br \/>\n     shall, after  having cautioned  him<br \/>\n     that if  he makes a false answer to<br \/>\n     any such question he will be liable<br \/>\n     to\t punishment   under  this   Act,<br \/>\n     record or\tcause to be recorded his<br \/>\n     answer to each such question.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>     The enrolment  form of  the appellant contains question<br \/>\nNo. 8  referred to  above and the answer &#8220;No&#8221; against it. At<br \/>\nthe end\t there is  the\tfollowing  declaration\tbearing\t the<br \/>\nsignatures of the appellant:-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>     &#8220;I Sanjay\tKumar Bajpai do solemnly<br \/>\n     declare that the above answers made<br \/>\n     by me  to the  above questions  are<br \/>\n     true and  that  I\tand  willing  to<br \/>\n     fulfil the engagements made.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>     Having regard  to the  aforesaid provision contained in<br \/>\nSection 13  of the  Army Act  and the Answers that have been<br \/>\nrecorded in the Enrolment form as well as the declaration at<br \/>\nthe end\t of the\t form under Signatures of the appellant that<br \/>\nthe answers  made by  him to  the questions are true, we are<br \/>\nunable to  uphold the  contention of  the appellant that the<br \/>\nanswers recorded against the questions in the enrolment form<br \/>\nwere not  based on  the answers given b him at the time when<br \/>\nthe said  form was  filled  and\t that  his  signatures\twere<br \/>\nobtained on a blank form which was filled by the authorities<br \/>\nwithout the  appellant being required to give answers to the<br \/>\nquestions. Having  appended his signatures at the end of the<br \/>\nform it\t is not\t open to  the appellant to dis-own the same.<br \/>\nThe filling  of enrolment  form was an official act required<br \/>\nto be  performed under\tSection 13  of the  Army Act  and  a<br \/>\npresumption about  regularity of  such official\t act and  be<br \/>\ndrawn. There is not reason to assume that the enrolment form<br \/>\nwas  not   filled  in  the  manner  as\trequired.  We  must,<br \/>\ntherefore, proceed  on the  basis that\tthe answers that are<br \/>\nrecorded  against   the\t question   contained  in  the\tsaid<br \/>\nenrolment form\tare based  on  the  statement  made  by\t the<br \/>\nappellant at  the  time\t of  enrolment.\t Since\tas  per\t the<br \/>\nenrolment form\tquestion No. 8 was answered in the negative,<br \/>\nmust be held that at the time of enrolment the appellant did<br \/>\nnot disclose  that the criminal case was pending against him<br \/>\nand made  a false statement that no case was pending against<br \/>\nhim at the time.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Shri  Vikas   Singh,  the\t learned  counsel   for\t the<br \/>\nappellant, has\tlaid emphasis  on the averments contained in<br \/>\npara 8 of the counter affidavit of Major Kishan Lal filed on<br \/>\nBehalf of  the respondents  in the  High Court as well as in<br \/>\nPara F(i)  of  the  counter  affidavit\tof  Captain  Krishna<br \/>\nChander filed  in this\tCourt wherein  it is stated that the<br \/>\nappellant was  asked by\t the enrolling officer the following<br \/>\nquestion &#8220;is  any case\tpending against\t you in any court of<br \/>\nLaw&#8221; at\t the time of filing of enrolment form and that reply<br \/>\nwas &#8220;No&#8221;.  The submission is that the question as set out in<br \/>\nthe aforesaid  counter\taffidavits  is\tdifferent  from\t the<br \/>\nquestion No.  8 as  contained in the enrolment form produced<br \/>\nin this\t Court. It  is no  doubt true  that in the aforesaid<br \/>\nparagraphs of  the counter affidavits filed on behalf of the<br \/>\nrespondents in the High Court and in this Court the question<br \/>\nthat was  put to  the appellant\t at the time of enrolment is<br \/>\nnot in\tthe same  terms as  question No.  8 of the enrolment<br \/>\nform. But  we do  not  find  any  major\t difference  in\t the<br \/>\nquestion as  mentioned in the said paragraphs of the counter<br \/>\naffidavits and\tquestion No  8 in  the enrolment  form.\t The<br \/>\nsubstance of  the both is the same, namely, whether any case<br \/>\nwas pending  against him  in court.  All that can be said is<br \/>\nthat the  deponents of\tthe counter  affidavits filed in the<br \/>\nHigh Court  and in  this Court\tdid not\t bestow due care and<br \/>\nattention while\t preparing the\tcounter affidavits.  It\t was<br \/>\nexpected that  while  making  the  affidavit  the  deponents<br \/>\nshould have  carefully\texamined  the  record  of  the\tcase<br \/>\nincluding the enrolment form and , if they had dome so, this<br \/>\ndiscrepancy  would   not  have\t occurred.  The\t  additional<br \/>\naffidavit of  the Lt. Col. A.K. Mitra correctly mentions the<br \/>\nquestion as  contained in the enrolment form. The said error<br \/>\nin the\tcounter affidavits filled earlier cannot, therefore,<br \/>\nbe made\t a ground  for holding\tthat the  impugned order  of<br \/>\ndischarge of the appellant is vitiated.\n<\/p>\n<p>     It was next submitted by Shri Vikas Singh that the show<br \/>\ncause Notice  dated May\t 20,1989 was  never  served  on\t the<br \/>\nappellant and  action has  been taken  against\thim  without<br \/>\naffording a  reasonable opportunity  to him.  In this regard<br \/>\nthe learned  counsel has  urged that  no document  has\tbeen<br \/>\nproduced to  show that\tthe said  notice was received by the<br \/>\nappellant. This\t fact has  been disputed  by the respondents<br \/>\nand it\thas been  submitted that the communication dated May<br \/>\n23, 1989  was sent  by the  appellant in  reply to  the said<br \/>\nnotice. The  case of  the respondents.\tIs that\t the  record<br \/>\nrelating to  the service  of the  show cause  notice is\t not<br \/>\nlonger available  as it\t has been weeded out.  we do not any<br \/>\nground to  doubt the  correctness of  the statement  made on<br \/>\nbehalf of the respondents that the notice dated May 20, 1989<br \/>\nwas served  on the appellant. Moreover, the question whether<br \/>\nthe notice  dated May  20,1989 was received by the appellant<br \/>\nor not\tis not\tof much\t consequence because  the  appellant<br \/>\nsubmitted his explanation regarding the pendency of the case<br \/>\nagainst him  in his  reply dated  May 23,  1989 and the said<br \/>\nexplanation was considered by the authorities before passing<br \/>\nthe order of discharge dated September 12, 1989.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Shri Vikas\t has invited  out attention to the statement<br \/>\nmade in\t the counter  affidavit filed  by the respondents in<br \/>\nthis Court  wherein it is stated that the appellant had been<br \/>\nconvicted in  the criminal  case. It  is submitted  that the<br \/>\nsaid statement\tis a  false statement  because the appellant<br \/>\nhas actually been acquitted and the said false statement has<br \/>\nbeen  deliberately   made  to  prejudice  the  case  of\t the<br \/>\nappellant. We do not find any met in this contention.\n<\/p>\n<p>     No ground\tis thus\t made out  for interfering  with the<br \/>\nimpugned judgment  of the High Court. The appeal, therefore,<br \/>\nfails and it is accordingly dismissed. No Order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Sanjay Kumar Bajpai vs Union Of India &amp; Ors on 12 February, 1997 Bench: S.C. Agrawal, K.S. Paripoornan PETITIONER: SANJAY KUMAR BAJPAI Vs. RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA &amp; ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12\/02\/1997 BENCH: S.C. AGRAWAL, K.S. PARIPOORNAN ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T This appeal [&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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-328","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Sanjay Kumar Bajpai vs Union Of India &amp; Ors on 12 February, 1997 - 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\/sanjay-kumar-bajpai-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-12-february-1997\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sanjay Kumar Bajpai vs Union Of India &amp; Ors on 12 February, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanjay-kumar-bajpai-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-12-february-1997\" \/>\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=\"1997-02-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-11-29T00:38:57+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sanjay-kumar-bajpai-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-12-february-1997#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sanjay-kumar-bajpai-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-12-february-1997\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sanjay Kumar Bajpai vs Union Of India &amp; Ors on 12 February, 1997\",\"datePublished\":\"1997-02-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-29T00:38:57+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sanjay-kumar-bajpai-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-12-february-1997\"},\"wordCount\":1861,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sanjay-kumar-bajpai-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-12-february-1997#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sanjay-kumar-bajpai-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-12-february-1997\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sanjay-kumar-bajpai-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-12-february-1997\",\"name\":\"Sanjay Kumar Bajpai vs Union Of India &amp; Ors on 12 February, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1997-02-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-29T00:38:57+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sanjay-kumar-bajpai-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-12-february-1997#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sanjay-kumar-bajpai-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-12-february-1997\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sanjay-kumar-bajpai-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-12-february-1997#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sanjay Kumar Bajpai vs Union Of India &amp; Ors on 12 February, 1997\"}]},{\"@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":"Sanjay Kumar Bajpai vs Union Of India &amp; Ors on 12 February, 1997 - 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\/sanjay-kumar-bajpai-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-12-february-1997","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sanjay Kumar Bajpai vs Union Of India &amp; Ors on 12 February, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanjay-kumar-bajpai-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-12-february-1997","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1997-02-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-11-29T00:38:57+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanjay-kumar-bajpai-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-12-february-1997#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanjay-kumar-bajpai-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-12-february-1997"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sanjay Kumar Bajpai vs Union Of India &amp; Ors on 12 February, 1997","datePublished":"1997-02-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-29T00:38:57+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanjay-kumar-bajpai-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-12-february-1997"},"wordCount":1861,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanjay-kumar-bajpai-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-12-february-1997#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanjay-kumar-bajpai-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-12-february-1997","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanjay-kumar-bajpai-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-12-february-1997","name":"Sanjay Kumar Bajpai vs Union Of India &amp; Ors on 12 February, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1997-02-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-29T00:38:57+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanjay-kumar-bajpai-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-12-february-1997#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanjay-kumar-bajpai-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-12-february-1997"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanjay-kumar-bajpai-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-12-february-1997#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sanjay Kumar Bajpai vs Union Of India &amp; Ors on 12 February, 1997"}]},{"@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\/328","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=328"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/328\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=328"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=328"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=328"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}