{"id":36536,"date":"2003-06-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-06-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-regional-manager-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-20-june-2003"},"modified":"2014-01-16T15:47:46","modified_gmt":"2014-01-16T10:17:46","slug":"the-regional-manager-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-20-june-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-regional-manager-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-20-june-2003","title":{"rendered":"The Regional Manager vs The Presiding Officer on 20 June, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">The Regional Manager vs The Presiding Officer on 20 June, 2003<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED: 20\/06\/2003\n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. MISRA\n\nWRIT PETITION.NO.3692 OF 1996\nand\nWMP.NOs.5920,13579 to 13581 OF 1996\n\nThe Regional Manager,\nRegion No.III,\nState Bank of India,\nNo.43, Moore Street,\nMadras 600 001.                 ..  Petitioner\n\n-Vs-\n\n1. The Presiding Officer,\n   Industrial Tribunal,\n   Madras.\n\n2. P. Venkataraman                      ..     Respondents\n\n\n        Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for  the\nissuance of Writ of Certiorari as stated therein.\n\nFor Petitioner :  Mr.V.  Karthick for\n                M\/s.T.S.  Gopalan &amp; Co.\n\nFor Respondent-1       :  Mr.P.S.  Jayakumar\n\nRespondent-2 :  Mr.K.  Chandru\n                Senior Counsel for\n                Mr.R.  Thirugnanam\n\n:J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n<p>                This  is  a  shocking  instance of how the discretionary power<br \/>\nconferred under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act is abused  by  the<br \/>\nTribunal  to  interfere with the order of punishment on the pretext of alleged<br \/>\ndisproportionate nature of the punishment.\n<\/p>\n<p>                2.  The facts are no longer in dispute.  The  respondent  No.2<br \/>\nwas working  as  a clerk in State Bank of India.  The incident took place more<br \/>\nthan two decades back on 21.1.1983.  The second respondent reported  late  for<br \/>\nduty  and  therefore,  the  acting  chance was given to the next senior most<br \/>\nemployee.  The second respondent, who opposed such routine action, went to the<br \/>\nBranch Managers room and shouted at him and  used  derisive  language.    The<br \/>\nBranch Manager  tried  to  pacify  the  second  respondent.    When the second<br \/>\nrespondent demanded a written explanation from the acting Branch Manager,  the<br \/>\nlatter  cautioned  him and the second respondent retorted by saying that  Oh!<br \/>\nYou had the courage to issue me a memo.  I will break your teeth.  The acting<br \/>\nBranch  Manager  proceeded  to  the  Branch  Managers  room  and  the  second<br \/>\nrespondent  followed  him with a leave letter stating that as a protest he was<br \/>\ngoing on leave.  The acting Branch Manager asked him to place the leave letter<br \/>\non the table.  The acting Branch Manager got a memo typed to be issued to  the<br \/>\nsecond  respondent  and  when  he  returned  to his room, the leave letter was<br \/>\nmissing.  When the acting Branch Manager sought  to  serve  the  memo  on  the<br \/>\nsecond  respondent , the latter shouted at him as  you have guts to issue the<br \/>\nmemo.  I will beat you in the office itself and I will break your teeth.   So<br \/>\nsaying,  the  second  respondent tried to destroy the memo by lighting a match<br \/>\nstick.  Then the second respondent forcibly snatched the memo from the  acting<br \/>\nBranch Manager  and  tore  it.  The second respondent also took his chappal in<br \/>\nhis hand and raised the same with a view to beat the  acting  Branch  Manager,<br \/>\nbut  the  staff members intervened and led the second respondent away from the<br \/>\nscene.\n<\/p>\n<p>                3.  Subsequently, the second  respondent  was  served  with  a<br \/>\ncharge  memo  calling  upon  to  him  show  cause and after holding a domestic<br \/>\nenquiry, an order of dismissal was passed on 26.4.1983.\n<\/p>\n<p>                4.  The second respondent filed W.P.No.8583 of  1983  alleging<br \/>\nthat he  had  not  been  given sufficient opportunity.  On 2.12.1986, the writ<br \/>\npetition was allowed with a direction that the  second  respondent  should  be<br \/>\ngiven  reasonable  opportunity  to  file  written  statement  of  defence  and<br \/>\nthereafter the witnesses examined may be tendered for crossexamination.    The<br \/>\nenquiry  was  thus  resumed and 13 out of 15 witnesses were made available for<br \/>\ncross-examination.  Thereafter the enquiry officer gave his  findings  against<br \/>\nthe  second respondent and after service of second show cause notice and after<br \/>\ngiving personal hearing, a fresh order of dismissal was passed on 27.6.1988.\n<\/p>\n<p>                5.  The second  respondent  raised  Industrial  Dispute.    On<br \/>\nconsideration  of  the materials available on record, the Presiding Officer of<br \/>\nthe Industrial Tribunal found that there was  wordy  altercation  between  the<br \/>\nsecond respondent and the Branch Manager, the second respondent shouted at the<br \/>\nBranch  Manager twice which amounted to a misbehaviour towards a superior, the<br \/>\nmemo issued to the second respondent was torn and an attempt was made to  burn<br \/>\nit  with a match stick, the second respondent assaulted the Branch Manager and<br \/>\nnon-examination of two witnesses did not affect the case, the assault  on  the<br \/>\nBranch  Manager had been proved through other witnesses, the second respondent<br \/>\nhad been given reasonable opportunity to defend his case, the enquiry  officer<br \/>\nwas not biased, the charges levelled against the second respondent were proved<br \/>\nby  legal  evidence  and  the domestic enquiry was fair and proper, the second<br \/>\nrespondent had removed his chappal and attempted to beat  the  Branch  Manager<br \/>\nand that there is no question of victimisation.\n<\/p>\n<p>                6.   In  spite of all these findings rendered by the Tribunal,<br \/>\nit observed that the second respondent had rendered good service by mobilising<br \/>\ndeposits to the tune of Rs.3 lakhs  and  this  should  have  been  taken  into<br \/>\nconsideration  while  awarding  the punishment and the punishment of dismissal<br \/>\nwas shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of the charges.   The  Tribunal<br \/>\naccordingly  held that stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect would<br \/>\nmeet the ends of justice and the punishment was accordingly  modified.    This<br \/>\naward of the Tribunal is being challenged by the Management.\n<\/p>\n<p>                7.  After  the  award  was  passed,  reserving  the  right  to<br \/>\nchallenge  the  award,  the  petitioner  without prejudice to his contentions,<br \/>\npermitted the second respondent to rejoin and after filing the  writ  petition<br \/>\nhad prayed for stay of payment of backwages.  At that stage, after hearing the<br \/>\npetitioner  as  well  as  the  second  respondent,  an  order  was  passed  in<br \/>\nWMP.NOs.5920, 13579 and 1 3582 of 1996 holding that the second respondent  was<br \/>\nentitled  to  basic  pay  from  the date of reinstatement with other attendant<br \/>\nbenefits.  Since some amount had already been recovered, there was a direction<br \/>\nnot to deduct any further amount and to pay back the amount already recovered.<br \/>\nSo far as the backwages was concerned, it was observed  .  .  .   considering<br \/>\nthe  charges  levelled  and  which  were proved, it will not be justifiable to<br \/>\ndirect the bank to pay the entire  amount  of  the  backwages  to  the  second<br \/>\nrespondent in the writ petition.<\/p>\n<p>                8.   A  counter  affidavit  has  been  filed  by  the   second<br \/>\nrespondent wherein the second respondent has tried to justify the order passed<br \/>\nby the Tribunal.  It has been further stated that :\n<\/p>\n<p>          I  state that I have suffered the punishment of the stoppage of the<br \/>\ntwo increments with cumulative effect.  Further I was  also  promoted  to  the<br \/>\npost  of Senior Assistant on 31.3.2001 with retrospective effect from 1.4.1999<br \/>\nand I was permitted to retire from the post of Senior  Assistant  under  State<br \/>\nBank of  India,  Voluntary  Retirement  Scheme on 31-03-2001.  I state that in<br \/>\npursuance of the award, my service has been treated with continuity of service<br \/>\nand I was paid full salary and other allowances accordingly.   The  petitioner<br \/>\nhas  permitted  me to retire from the service without imposing any conditions.<br \/>\nHence the writ petition itself has become infructuous.<\/p>\n<p>                9.  From the aforesaid assertion, it is apparent that  in  the<br \/>\nmeantime  the  second  respondent  after  being reinstated has been allowed to<br \/>\nretire from the post of Senior  Assistant  under  the  State  Bank  of  India,<br \/>\nVoluntary Retirement Scheme on 31.3.2001.\n<\/p>\n<p>                10.   Learned  counsel for the second respondent has submitted<br \/>\nthat  in  view  of  the  subsequent  events,  the  writ  petition  has  become<br \/>\ninfructuous and has to be dismissed accordingly.\n<\/p>\n<p>                11.   Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it<br \/>\ncannot be said that the writ petition has become infructuous as  the  question<br \/>\nof  payment  of  backwages is inter-linked with the fate of the writ petition.<br \/>\nIn case the writ petition is dismissed, in view of the earlier  order  of  the<br \/>\nHigh Court, the bank will be forced to pay the entire backwages.\n<\/p>\n<p>                12.    Submission  of  the  learned  counsel  for  the  second<br \/>\nrespondent that the writ petition has become infructuous is not well  founded.<br \/>\nIf ultimately the order of tribunal would be sustained, it is obvious that all<br \/>\nconsequential  benefits  such  as  payment  of  backwages  are  to  be  given.<br \/>\nTherefore,  the  award  of  the  Tribunal  has  to  be  considered  on   merit<br \/>\nnotwithstanding the subsequent events.\n<\/p>\n<p>                13.    Learned   counsel  appearing  for  the  petitioner  has<br \/>\nsubmitted that in view of gross misconduct which has been found by the enquiry<br \/>\nofficer and confirmed by the Tribunal, there  is  no  scope  in  treating  the<br \/>\nsecond respondent with leniency as has been done by the Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n<p>                14.   Learned  counsel  for  the  petitioner has relied upon a<br \/>\ndecision of the Supreme Court reported in 2000(4) L.L.N.  562 <a href=\"\/doc\/1549054\/\">(MAHENDRA NISSAN<br \/>\nALLWYNS, LTD.  v.  M.P.  SIDDAPPA AND ANOTHER).  It<\/a> is profitable  to  extract<br \/>\nthe relevant portion from the aforesaid decision:\n<\/p>\n<p>         .  .  .  3.  The High Court found no fault with the finding that the<br \/>\ncharges had been proved.  It found that the charges were not serious in nature<br \/>\nand the punishment that was imposed was disproportionate.\n<\/p>\n<p>        4.  We do not agree with the High Court.  The charges are of a serious<br \/>\nnature.   The  first  respondent  was  found  to have led out workmen from the<br \/>\nfactory premises regardless of the challenge by the  security  guard.    Along<br \/>\nwith these workmen the first respondent entered the administrative building of<br \/>\nthe appellant  and the room of the Deputy General Manager.  The Deputy General<br \/>\nManager and Manager (Personnel) were abused in filthy language and threatened,<br \/>\nexamples of which have been given.  Misbehavior was also  proved  against  the<br \/>\nfirst respondent  in  his  conduct with five executives of the appellants.  If<br \/>\nthese are not serious charges against a workman worthy of his  dismissal  from<br \/>\nservice, we  do  not  know what can be.  The High Court was quite wrong in the<br \/>\nconclusion that it reached and in the order that it passed.    The  punishment<br \/>\nimposed against the respondent must remain unaltered.<\/p>\n<p>                15.   On  the other hand the learned counsel appearing for the<br \/>\nsecond respondent has relied upon several other decisions of the Supreme Court<br \/>\nand other High Courts.  Most of those decisions as well as the decision relied<br \/>\nupon by the petitioner had been considered by the learned single Judge of this<br \/>\nCourt reported in 2002(3) L.L.N.  314  (  DAMODARAN  v.    PRESIDING  OFFICER,<br \/>\nSECOND  ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT, MADRAS AND ANOTHER) wherein ultimately it was<br \/>\ndecided that the order of dismissal imposed upon the delinquent,  a  Secretary<br \/>\nof  the Labour Union, for using abusive words was grossly disproportionate and<br \/>\nshould be modified.\n<\/p>\n<p>                16.  A  perusal  of  various  decisions  referred  to  in  the<br \/>\naforesaid  decision  including  the  decisions relied upon by both the parties<br \/>\nwould show that question as to whether punishment is grossly  disproportionate<br \/>\nor  not  would  obviously depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case<br \/>\nand no inexorable principle can be laid down.   No  doubt  there  are  several<br \/>\ncases  where  the  Supreme  Court  and this Court have held that punishment of<br \/>\ndismissal for mere use of abusive  words  without  any  thing  more  would  be<br \/>\ngrossly disproportionate.  However, in my humble opinion the ratio of the said<br \/>\ndecision  would  not  be  applicable  to the facts of the facts of the present<br \/>\ncase.  It is already noticed that apart from  using  the  abusive  words,  the<br \/>\ndelinquent  in  the  present  case  had  torn  the charge memo prepared by the<br \/>\nsuperior officer and had threatened to assault him and also shown his  chappal<br \/>\nwith threatening  gesture.    Obviously  such an action cannot be equated with<br \/>\nmere use of abusive words as was the case in the matter decided by this  Court<br \/>\nand in  the  decision  of the Supreme Court relied upon by this Court.  To say<br \/>\nthe least, the action in the p resent case showed disrespect  for  the  lawful<br \/>\nauthority  accompanied with threatening gestures including showing of chappal.<br \/>\nTo borrow the words of the Supreme Court in 20 00(4) LLN 562 (cited  supra)<br \/>\nIf  these  are  not  serious charges against a workman worthy of his dismissal<br \/>\nfrom service, we do not know what can be.  From the  record  it  is  apparent<br \/>\nthat  the acting Branch Manager was saved from the assault with the chappal by<br \/>\nan inferior employee only with the timely intervention  of  the  co-employees.<br \/>\nTo  encourage such action by exercising jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the<br \/>\nIndustrial Disputes Act, obviously is a case of misplaced  sympathy.    It  is<br \/>\ntrue that  the  delinquent  has  mobilised  some  deposits  to  the bank.  The<br \/>\ndelinquent was reinstated by the Management, obviously with a  view  to  avoid<br \/>\npayment of  amount under Section 17B.  The delinquent has also been allowed to<br \/>\nretire.  But, these aspects are not sufficient to come to  a  conclusion  that<br \/>\nthe  award  passed  by  the  Tribunal  directing  reinstatement  and  imposing<br \/>\npunishment of stoppage  of  two  increments  was  justified.    Punishment  of<br \/>\ndismissal  from  service imposed by the disciplinary authority was apt and the<br \/>\npunishment suggested by the Tribunal  would  be  in  fact  grossly  inadequate<br \/>\nkeeping in  view  the  nature  of misdemeanor.  The Tribunal has obviously far<br \/>\nexceeded its jurisdiction in reducing  the  punishment  without  any  apparent<br \/>\njustification.\n<\/p>\n<p>                17.   The next question is as to what would be the order to be<br \/>\npassed in view of the subsequent events.  It has been already noted  that  the<br \/>\ndelinquent was reinstated in service and was subsequently given the benefit of<br \/>\nvoluntary retirement  scheme.    There  is  no question of recalling all these<br \/>\nsubsequent actions.  However, it would be most  unjust  to  allow  the  second<br \/>\nrespondent to  have  the  benefit  of  any of the backwages.  Therefore, while<br \/>\nsetting aside the award passed by the Tribunal, the writ petition is  disposed<br \/>\nof with an observation that the second respondent would not be entitled to any<br \/>\nother  amount  towards  backwages  and the order of retirement under voluntary<br \/>\nretirement scheme is allowed to stand.\n<\/p>\n<p>                18.   Subject  to the aforesaid observation, the writ petition<br \/>\nis disposed of.    No  costs.    Consequently,  the  connected   miscellaneous<br \/>\npetitions are closed.\n<\/p>\n<p>Index :  Yes<br \/>\nInternet :  Yes<br \/>\ndpk<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>The Presiding Officer,<br \/>\nIndustrial Tribunal,<br \/>\nMadras.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court The Regional Manager vs The Presiding Officer on 20 June, 2003 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 20\/06\/2003 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. MISRA WRIT PETITION.NO.3692 OF 1996 and WMP.NOs.5920,13579 to 13581 OF 1996 The Regional Manager, Region No.III, State Bank of India, No.43, Moore Street, Madras 600 [&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":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-36536","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>The Regional Manager vs The Presiding Officer on 20 June, 2003 - 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\/the-regional-manager-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-20-june-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Regional Manager vs The Presiding Officer on 20 June, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-regional-manager-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-20-june-2003\" \/>\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=\"2003-06-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-01-16T10:17:46+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\\\/the-regional-manager-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-20-june-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-regional-manager-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-20-june-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Regional Manager vs The Presiding Officer on 20 June, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-06-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-01-16T10:17:46+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-regional-manager-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-20-june-2003\"},\"wordCount\":2144,\"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\\\/the-regional-manager-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-20-june-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-regional-manager-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-20-june-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-regional-manager-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-20-june-2003\",\"name\":\"The Regional Manager vs The Presiding Officer on 20 June, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-06-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-01-16T10:17:46+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-regional-manager-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-20-june-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-regional-manager-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-20-june-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-regional-manager-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-20-june-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Regional Manager vs The Presiding Officer on 20 June, 2003\"}]},{\"@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":"The Regional Manager vs The Presiding Officer on 20 June, 2003 - 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\/the-regional-manager-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-20-june-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Regional Manager vs The Presiding Officer on 20 June, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-regional-manager-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-20-june-2003","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-06-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-01-16T10:17:46+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\/the-regional-manager-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-20-june-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-regional-manager-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-20-june-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Regional Manager vs The Presiding Officer on 20 June, 2003","datePublished":"2003-06-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-01-16T10:17:46+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-regional-manager-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-20-june-2003"},"wordCount":2144,"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\/the-regional-manager-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-20-june-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-regional-manager-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-20-june-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-regional-manager-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-20-june-2003","name":"The Regional Manager vs The Presiding Officer on 20 June, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-06-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-01-16T10:17:46+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-regional-manager-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-20-june-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-regional-manager-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-20-june-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-regional-manager-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-20-june-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Regional Manager vs The Presiding Officer on 20 June, 2003"}]},{"@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\/36536","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=36536"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/36536\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=36536"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=36536"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=36536"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}