{"id":38419,"date":"2006-03-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-03-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-university-of-madras-vs-dr-maa-selvaraasan-on-28-march-2006"},"modified":"2014-07-16T17:52:41","modified_gmt":"2014-07-16T12:22:41","slug":"the-university-of-madras-vs-dr-maa-selvaraasan-on-28-march-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-university-of-madras-vs-dr-maa-selvaraasan-on-28-march-2006","title":{"rendered":"The University Of Madras vs Dr.Maa.Selvaraasan on 28 March, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
The University Of Madras vs Dr.Maa.Selvaraasan on 28 March, 2006<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           \n\nDated: 28\/03\/2006 \n\nCoram \n\nTHE HON'BLE MR. A.P.SHAH, THE CHIEF JUSTICE         \nAND  \nTHE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE PRABHA SRIDEVAN           \n\nWrit Appeal No.3642 of 2002 \n\nThe University of Madras\nrep. by its Registrar,\nUniversity Building,\nChepauk, \nChennai-600 005.                                .. Appellant\n\n-Vs-\n\n\n1. Dr.Maa.Selvaraasan \n\n2.  Professors' Forum of\n   Madras University\n   rep. by its General Secretary\n   Prof. N.Deivasundaram,\n   University of Madras,\n   Chennai-5.\n\n(R2 impleaded as respondent \nas per order of Court\ndt. 6.3.2003 made in\nW.A.M.P.No.847 of 2003)                         .. Respondents\n\n        Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters  Patent  against  the\norder dated 14.11.2002 passed in Writ Petition No.35181 of 2002 on the file of\nthis Court.\n\n!For appellant :  Mr.N.R.Chandran\n                Senior Counsel\n                for Mr.Kandavadivel Doraisamy\n\n^For respondent 1:  Mr.R.Gandhi\n                Senior Counsel\n                for Mr.M.Meikandan\n\n\n:JUDGMENT   \n<\/pre>\n
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nThe Honourable The Chief Justice)<\/p>\n
        This   writ  appeal  has  been  filed  by  the  University  of  Madras
\nchallenging the order of the learned single Judge setting aside the  order  of
\ncompulsory  retirement passed by the appellant University by way of punishment
\nimposed on the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
        2.  Briefly stated the facts leading to this appeal are as follows:\n<\/p>\n
        The respondent was serving as a Professor in the Department  of  Tamil
\nLanguage of the appellant University.  When the appellant University created a
\nDepartment of Contemporary Tamil Literature, on 11.5.1998, he was appointed as
\nits Head.    By  order  dated  19.11.1999  the  respondent  was  placed  under
\nsuspension for various acts of indiscipline.  A  charge  memo  was  issued  in
\nrespect of the misconduct committed by him.  The charge against the respondent
\nwas  that  despite  written  instructions  issued in Letter No.D.1(A)\/TE\/99\/10
\ndated 24.2.1999 and also in the  Letter  No.D.1(A)\/TE\/99\/392  dated  24.2.1999
\nbased on the resolution of the Syndicate dated 12.2.1999, prohibiting any form
\nof demonstration,  fasting,  meeting,  etc.    by  the staff of the University
\ninside the campus, the respondent led the MUTA members to observe  a  fast  in
\nfront  of the Centenary Building in connection with certain demands of MUTA on
\n25.2.1999 on which date the Syndicate was scheduled to meet.   It  is  further
\nalleged  that  after the Syndicate meeting was over, the respondent along with
\nthe other members of MUTA  demanded  that  the  Vice-Chancellor  should  issue
\npromotion  orders  to the teachers based on the resolution of the Syndicate on
\nthe very same night (i.e.  on 25.2.19 99) however late it might be.  When  the
\nVice-Chancellor  expressed  his  inability to do so, the respondent threatened
\nthe Vice Chancellor that he would not allow the Vice Chancellor to  leave  the
\ncampus.  Acting on this threat, the respondent and about 25 teachers under his
\nleadership, blocked  the  exit  for  the  Vice-Chancellor’s  car.    The  Vice
\nChancellor was finally able to leave the premises only after  9.00  p.m.    by
\nwhich  time,  the  respondent  took the demonstrators to hold a meeting in the
\nSenate Hall.  The respondent and the demonstrators vacated the  premises  only
\nafter 11.30  p.m.    that  night after they succeeded in getting the promotion
\norders they wanted from the Registrar in-charge.  It was further alleged  that
\nconsequent   on   the   suspension  of  the  newly  instituted  Department  of
\nContemporary Tamil  Literature,  the  membership  of  the  respondent  in  the
\nAcademic  Council as well as in the Senate had ceased and he was also informed
\nof  this   fact   vide   letter   No.V.1   \/AC&SEN\/99\/426   dated   24.5.1999.
\nNotwithstanding    this,   on   13.11.1999,   the   respondent,   along   with
\nDr.S.Govindasamy, Professor, Department of  Economics,  PG  Extension  Centre,
\nVellore,  who  were  not  members  of  the  Senate, unauthorisedly entered the
\nmeeting hall of the  Senate  when  the  proceedings  of  the  Senate  were  in
\nprogress.   In  spite  of  the  repeated  directions  from  the Chair that the
\nnon-members of the Senate should withdraw from the hall, he did not do so  and
\ncaused adjournment of the rest of the proceedings of the Senate.\n<\/p>\n
        3.   As per the resolution of the Syndicate dated 22.10.1999, the Vice
\nChancellor appointed one Sri B.Vijayaraghavan,  Retired  I.A.S.    Officer  to
\nconduct an  enquiry  in  respect  of  the charges framed.  The Enquiry Officer
\nconducted a detailed enquiry wherein the respondent also  participated.    The
\nEnquiry  Officer  found  that  the  charges  had been proved and submitted the
\nenquiry report to the Syndicate.  The Syndicate considered the same  and  gave
\nopportunity to   the   respondent  to  submit  further  representation.    The
\nrespondent submitted a detailed representation.  The Syndicate considered  the
\nsame,  and  by  the impugned resolution, the Syndicate imposed a punishment of
\nCompulsory Retirement on the respondent.  This decision of the  Syndicate  was
\nduly approved by the Chancellor.\n<\/p>\n
4.   The  order  of  Compulsory Retirement was challenged by the respondent by
\nfiling the present writ petition under Article  226  of  the  Constitution  of
\nIndia.   In  the  writ  petition,  the  respondent  had not raised any factual
\ndispute about the details of the occurrence mentioned in the  charge  memo  or
\nassailed the  findings  of the Enquiry Officer.  In the light of the arguments
\nadvanced at the Bar, the learned single Judge framed the following issues:\n<\/p>\n
(i) Whether the mala fide attributed against the former  Vice  Chancellor  for
\nhaving  initiated  the  impugned  disciplinary  action  vitiates  the impugned
\ndecision of the compulsory retirement of the petitioner by the Syndicate?\n<\/p>\n
(ii) Whether the impugned disciplinary proceedings vitiates  with  respect  to
\nthe  charges,  namely Charge Nos.I, II and IV, as they were not placed for the
\nconsideration of the Syndicate for sanction  before  initiating  the  impugned
\ndisciplinary action and the enquiry thereunder?\n<\/p>\n
(iii)  Whether  the  impugned disciplinary action as well as the consequential
\ndecision of compulsory retirement by the Syndicate is bad as the same is based
\non the report of an Enquiry Officer, who is not a member of the Syndicate,  as
\nthe  very  appointment  of the Enquiry Officer is contrary to Section 19(y) of
\nthe Act?\n<\/p>\n
(iv) Whether or not the Senate is empowered to review the impugned act of  the
\nSyndicate exercising the powers conferred under Section 15 of the Act?, and<\/p>\n
(v) To what relief the petitioner is entitled to?”\n<\/p>\n
        5.  The learned single Judge decided the issue Nos.1 and 2 against the
\nrespondent,  but  on  issue  Nos.3  and 4 held in favour of the respondent and
\nconsequently, set aside the order  of  compulsory  retirement.    The  learned
\nsingle  Judge held that the decision of compulsory retirement by the Syndicate
\nwas bad as the same was based on the report of the Enquiry Officer who is  not
\na  member  of  the Syndicate as the very appointment of the Enquiry Officer is
\ncontrary to Section 19(y) of the Madras University Act  (hereinafter  referred
\nto as  the  ‘Act’).   The learned single Judge also held that the Senate being
\nthe Supreme Governing Body is empowered to review the action of the Syndicate,
\nif such action of the Syndicate is contrary to the powers conferred under  the
\nAct.\n<\/p>\n
        6.   The  principal  question  which  falls  for  our consideration is
\nwhether the appointment of an outsider viz.  Sri B.Vijayaraghavan,  a  Retired
\nI.A.S.,  who  is  not  a  member  of the Syndicate to hold an enquiry into the
\ncharges levelled against the respondent  is  contrary  to  the  provisions  of
\nSection 19(y)  of  the  Act.   The power to take disciplinary action is vested
\nwith the Syndicate under Section 19(h) of the Act which reads as follows:  –\n<\/p>\n
        19.  The Syndicate shall have the following powers, namely:-\n<\/p>\n
        (h) to suspend and dismiss  the  University  Professors,  Readers  and
\nLecturers, and the Teachers and servants of the University.\n<\/p>\n
19(y) of the Act reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
        To  delegate  any of its powers to the Vice Chancellor, to a Committee
\nfrom among its own members or to a Committee appointed in accordance with  the
\nStatutes.\n<\/p>\n
Pursuant  to  the  power  conferred by Section 19(y) of the Act, the Syndicate
\ndelegated its powers to the Vice Chancellor  as  a  delegate  vide  resolution
\ndated 22.10.1999.  The Resolution reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
”  RESOLVED  that  the  delegation of powers to the Vice Chancellor to conduct
\nenquiry in relation to the disciplinary proceedings against the Teaching Staff
\nby himself or through a Committee constituted by him in addition to the powers
\nalready granted to him by the Syndicate at its meeting held  on  17.2.1979  be
\napproved.”\n<\/p>\n
The  Vice  Chancellor  appointed Sri B.Vijayaraghavan as an Enquiry Officer to
\nmake enquiry and submit a  report,  and  on  the  basis  of  the  report,  the
\nSyndicate imposed the punishment of Compulsory Retirement on the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
        7.    Mr.N.R.Chandran,   learned  Senior  Counsel  appearing  for  the
\nappellant University strenuously contended that as  per  the  regulation,  the
\nentire  powers  of  the  Syndicate  had been delegated to the Vice Chancellor.
\nHence the Vice Chancellor assumes all  the  powers  of  the  Syndicate.    The
\nresolution  also  gives  option  to  take  disciplinary  proceedings through a
\ncommittee.  According to Mr.Chandran, when the  Vice  Chancellor  appoints  an
\nEnquiry  Officer,  it  is not further delegation, but exercising the powers of
\nthe Syndicate entrusted to him.  The delegation enjoins the Vice Chancellor to
\ninitiate action as a disciplinary authority and therefore, he can  appoint  an
\nEnquiry Officer for the purpose of conducting an enquiry.\n<\/p>\n
        8.   We  find  considerable substance in the submission of the learned
\nsenior counsel.  The statutes of the University do not deal with the procedure
\nto be followed in disciplinary proceedings.   In  Writ  Petition  No.17282  of
\n1994,  a  learned single Judge of this Court had observed that it is high time
\nthat the procedure  should  be  prescribed  (See  A.G.Venkataraman  vs.    The
\nUniversity of Madras<\/a>  rep.    by  its  Registrar,  Madras).    In  view of the
\njudgment, a resolution was passed by the Syndicate to follow  the  Tamil  Nadu
\nCivil  Service  Classification  (Control  and  Appeal) Rules applicable to the
\nGovernment servants while taking disciplinary action  against  the  University
\nemployees.  This  resolution  was  passed  on 22.8.1997.  Section 17(b) of the
\nTamil Nadu Civil Service Classification (Control and  Appeal)  Rules  provides
\nfor a  reasonable  opportunity  to  a charged employee to defend his case.  By
\nfollowing the procedure under  Rule  17(b),  the  University  has  provided  a
\nreasonable opportunity to the respondent.  There is nothing in the statutes of
\nthe University or in the University Act which prohibits the appointment of any
\nperson or  body  to  conduct  or  hold  the  enquiry.   As there is no express
\nprohibition, the normal rule applicable to such cases will come into play.\n<\/p>\n
        9.  In Pradyat Kumar Bose vs.  The Hon’ble Chief Justice  of  Calcutta
\nHigh  Court (AIR<\/a> 1956 SC 285), the question arose whether the Chief Justice of
\nthe High Court can delegate to another Judge an enquiry of charges  against  a
\nmember of  the  High  Court staff.  Answering the question in the affirmative,
\nthe Supreme Court said:\n<\/p>\n
        ” The first objection that has been urged is that even  if  the  Chief
\nJustice  had  the  power  to  dismiss, he was not, “in exercise of that power,
\ncompetent to delegate to another Judge the enquiry into the charges but should
\nhave made the enquiry himself.  This contention proceeds on a  misapprehension
\nof the nature of the power.\n<\/p>\n
As pointed  out in ‘Barnard v.  National Dock Labour Board, (1953) 2 Q.B.18 at
\n40(B), it is true that “no judicial tribunal can delegate its functions unless
\nit is enabled to do  so  expressly  or  by  necessary  implication.”  But  the
\nexercise  of the power to appoint or dismiss an officer is the exercise not of
\na judicial power but of an administrative power.  It  is  nonetheless  so,  by
\nreason of the fact that an opportunity to show cause and an enquiry simulating
\njudicial standards have to precede the exercise thereof.\n<\/p>\n
It  is  well-recognized  that  a statutory functionary exercising such a power
\ncannot  be  said  to  have  delegated  his  functions  merely  by  deputing  a
\nresponsible and  competent  official  to  enquire  and  report.    That is the
\nordinary mode of exercise  of  any  administrative  power.    What  cannot  be
\ndelegated  except  where  the  law  specifically  so  provides is the ultimate
\nresponsibility for the exercise of such power.  As pointed out by the House of
\nLords in Board of Education v.  Rice, 1911 A.C.  179 at 182(C), a  functionary
\nwho  has  to  decide an administrative matter, of the nature “involved in this
\ncase, can obtain the material on which he is to act in such manner as  may  be
\nfeasible  and  convenient,  provided  only  the  affected  party  “has  a fair
\nopportunity to correct or contradict any relevant and  prejudicial  material.”
\nThe  following  passage from the speech of Lord Chancellor in local Government
\nBoard v.  Arlidge, 1915 A.C.  120 at 133, is apposite and instructive.\n<\/p>\n
” My Lords, I concur in this view of the position of an administrative body to
\nwhich the  decision  of  a  question  in  dispute  between  parties  has  been
\nentrusted.   The  result of its inquiry must, as I have said, be taken, in the
\nabsence of directions in the statute to the contrary, to  be  intended  to  be
\nreached by  its ordinary procedure.  In the case of the Local Government board
\nit is not doubtful what this procedure is.  The Minister at the  head  of  the
\nBoard is  directly  responsible  to  Parliament  like  other Ministers.  He is
\nresponsible not only for what he himself does but for all that is done in  his
\ndepartment.   The  volume of work entrusted to him is very great and he cannot
\ndo the great bulk of it himself.  He  is  expected  to  obtain  his  materials
\nvicariously  through  his officials, and he has discharged his duty if he sees
\nthat they obtain these materials for him properly.\n<\/p>\n
” To try to extend his duty beyond this  and  to  insist  that  he  and  other
\nmembers  of  the  Board should do everything personally would be to impair his
\nefficiency.  Unlike a Judge in a court he  is  not  only  at  liberty  but  is
\ncompelled to rely on the assistance of his staff.”\n<\/p>\n
In  view of the above clear statement of the law the objection to the validity
\nof the dismissal on the ground that the delegation of the enquiry  amounts  to
\nthe  delegation  of  the  power  itself  is  without any substance and must be
\nrejected.” (emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n
        10.  The question was again considered in State of  Uttar  Pradesh  v.
\nBatuk Deo  Pati  Tripathi,<\/a>  1978 All.L.J 477.  The contention before the court
\nwas that the constitution of administrative  committees  for  the  purpose  of
\ndealing  with matters which the High Court is bound to deal with under Article
\n235 of the Constitution of India would itself be bad and it is the entire High
\nCourt which should exercise the powers vested in it under Article 235  of  the
\nConstitution.  Rejecting the said contention the Supreme Court said:  –
\n  The  relevant part of Art.235 of the Constitution provides that the control
\nover District Courts and Courts subordinate thereto shall  be  vested  in  the
\nHigh Court.    Since Art.216 provides that every High Court shall consist of a
\nChief Justice and such other Judges as the President may frame  from  time  to
\ntime deem  it necessary to appoint.  Art.23 5 has to be construed to mean that
\nthe control over District Courts and courts subordinate thereto is  vested  in
\nthe  entire  body  of Judges who together constitute the High Court and not in
\nthe Chief Justice as representing the High Court or an Administrative Judge or
\na smaller body of Judges acting as an Administrative Committee.    But  though
\nthe  control  over  subordinate  courts  is vested institutionally in the High
\nCourts by Art.235 it does not follow that the High Courts  have  no  power  to
\nprescribe the  manner  in which that control may in practice be exercised.  In
\nfact, the very circumstances that the  power  of  control,  which  comprehends
\nmatters of a wide-ranging variety, vests in the entire body of Judges makes it
\nimperative that rules must be framed to make the exercise of control feasible,
\nconvenient and  effective.    The  seeds  of  the  jurisdiction to frame rules
\nregulating the manner in which the control over subordinate courts  is  to  be
\nexercised are thus to be found in the very nature of the power and in the fact
\nthat the  power  vests  in  the  entire  body  of Judges.  The High Court has,
\ntherefore, the power under Art.235 itself to frame rules  for  regulating  the
\nmanner in  which the control vested in it may be exercised.  The power to do a
\nthing necessarily carries with it the power to regulate the  manner  in  which
\nthe things  may  be  done.   It is an incident of the power itself and indeed,
\nwithout it, the exercise  of  the  power  may  in  practice  be  fraught  with
\ndifficulties  which  will  frustrate,  rather  than  further the object of the
\npower.  It is undoubtedly true that  the  rules  framed  for  prescribing  the
\nmanner  in  which  a  power  may  be  exercised have to be truly regulatory in
\ncharacter.  The reason is that under the guise of framing rules,  the  essence
\nof the power cannot be permitted to be diluted.  But that is a separate matter
\nwhich we will consider later.  The limited object of the present discussion is
\nto  show  that  High  Courts  possess the power under Art.235 to prescribe the
\nmanner in which the control over subordinate courts vested  in  them  by  that
\narticle may  be  exercised.  That explains why the Allahabad High Court framed
\nRules of 1952 not only in the exercise of power possessed by it under Art.235,
\nbut in the exercise of all other powers enabling it in that behalf.    One  of
\nsuch  powers is to be found in Art.235 itself and therefore the abstract power
\nof the High Court to frame the impugned rules cannot be doubted  and  must  be
\nconceded.\n<\/p>\n
\nHaving  given  our close and anxious consideration to that question, we regret
\nthat we are unable to share the view of the majority of the  High  Court  Full
\nBench  that  by  leaving  the  decision  of  the  question of the respondents
\ncompulsory retirement to the administrative committee, the court had abdicated
\nits constitutional function.\n<\/p>\n
\nHere, the decision to compulsorily retire the  respondent  was  taken  by  the
\nJudges of  the  High  Court  itself,  though  not by all.  If some but not all
\nJudges of the High Court participate in a decision relating to a matter  which
\nfalls  within  the  High  Courts  controlling  jurisdiction  over subordinate
\nCourts, the High Court does not efface itself by surrendering its power to  an
\nextraneous authority.  The procedure adopted by the High Court under its Rules
\nis  not  subversive  of the independence of the subordinate judiciary which is
\nwhat Art.235 recognises and seeks to achieve.   The  true  question  then  for
\ndecision is not the one by which the majority of the Full Bench felt oppressed
\nbut  simply whether the procedure prescribed by the High Court Rules is in any
\nother manner inconsistent with the terms of Art.235 of the Constitution.<\/p>\n
16.  For answering this question it is necessary in the first place to bear in
\nmind that the power of control over the subordinate courts which is vested  in
\nthe High   Courts   comprises   such   numerous   matters.    Often  involving
\nconsideration of details of the minutest nature, that if the whole High  Court
\nis  required  to  consider  every one of those matters the exercise of control
\ninstead of becoming effective will tend to cause delay and  confusion  in  the
\nadministration of  justice  in the State.  A construction which will frustrate
\nthe very object of the salient provisions contained in Art.235 ought,  insofar
\nas possible,  to  be  avoided.   The control vested in the High Courts by that
\narticle comprehends, according to our decisions, a large  variety  of  matters
\nlike  transfers  subsequent  postings,  leave,  promotions  other than initial
\npromotions, imposition of minor penalities which do not fall  within  Art.311,
\ndecisions  regarding compulsory retirements, recommendations for imposition of
\nmajor penalities which fall within Art.311, entries in character rolls and  so
\nforth.   If  every  Judge is to be associated personally and directly with the
\ndecision on every one of these matters, several important  matters  pertaining
\nto  the  High Courts administrative affairs will pile into arrears like court
\narrears.  In fact, it is no exaggeration to  say  that  the  control  will  be
\nbetter and more effectively exercised if a smaller committee of Judges has the
\nauthority  of  the  court  to consider the manifold matters falling within the
\npurview of Art.235.  Bearing in mind therefore the nature of the  power  which
\nthat article confers on the High Court, we are of the opinion that it is wrong
\nto  characterise  as  delegation  the  process  whereby  the entire High Court
\nauthorizes a Judge or some of the Judges of the Court to act on  authorization
\neffectuates the purpose of Art.235 and indeed without it the control vested in
\nthe  High Courts over the subordinate courts will tend gradually to become lax
\nand ineffective.    Administrative  functions  are  only  a  part,  though  an
\nimportant part,  of  the  High  Courts  constitutional  functions.   Judicial
\nfunctions ought to occupy and do in fact consume the best part  of  a  Judges
\ntime.   For  balancing  these  two-fold  functions  it  is inevitable that the
\nadministrative duties should be left to be discharged by some on behalf of all
\nthe judges.  Judicial functions brook no such sharing of  responsibilities  by
\nany instrumentality.<\/p>\n
        11.  In Saradha Balakrishnan vs.  The Director of Collegiate Education<\/a>
\n(1995  (1)  MLJ  Reports  610),  a  Division  Bench of this Court rejected the
\nargument that it is  only  the  college  committee  which  is  bound  to  hold
\ndisciplinary  enquiry  from  the  beginning,  and  it  had no power to appoint
\nenquiry officer to conduct enq uiry.  Srinivasan, J  speaking  for  the  Bench
\nobserved:  –\n<\/p>\n
It  is  a  general  principle  of  law  that  in any disciplinary matter, the
\ndisciplinary authority is entitled to nominate an enquiry  officer,  who  will
\nonly record  the  evidence  and submit his finding.  Such finding is certainly
\nnot binding on the  disciplinary  authority.    It  is  for  the  disciplinary
\nauthority to go into the evidence and other materials collected by the enquiry
\nofficer and  come  to  a  conclusion  on  its  own.    This  position has been
\nrecognized by the Supreme Court in Union of India v.  H.C.Geol,  AIR<\/a>  1984  SC
\n364:  (1964) 1 S.C.W.R 28.  The contention in that case was that the report of
\nthe  enquiry  officer  was in favour of the delinquent officer and that should
\nhave been accepted  by  the  disciplinary  authority.    That  contention  was
\nrejected  and the Court held that the report of the enquiry officer is only to
\nhelp the  disciplinary  authority  to  consider  the  matter  and  come  to  a
\nconclusion and  there  is  no  rule that it should be accepted.  It is for the
\ndisciplinary authority to decide whether the  report  should  be  accepted  or
\nnot.<\/p>\n
        12.   In  the  light  of  the  established  legal  position, it is not
\npossible to agree with the view taken by the learned  single  Judge  that  the
\nVice Chancellor  had  delegated  his  power  to  the enquiry officer.  We have
\nalready pointed out that  the  Syndicate  delegated  its  power  to  the  Vice
\nChancellor  to  take disciplinary action, and the Vice Chancellor appointed an
\nindependent enquiry officer to  hold  an  enquiry  into  the  charges  leveled
\nagainst the  respondent  and  su bmit a report.  On the basis of the report of
\nthe enquiry officer, the Syndicate imposed punishment of compulsory retirement
\non the respondent.  Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that  the  Vice
\nChancellor  has  delegated  his  function  merely  by  deputing an independent
\nofficer to enquire and submit a report.  That is an ordinary mode of  exercise
\nof any  administrative  power.    When  the  enquiry officer is appointed, the
\ndisciplinary authority does not lose its power, and therefore the question  of
\ndelegation of power would not arise in this case.\n<\/p>\n
        13.  Mr.      R.Gandhi,  learned  Senior  Counsel  appearing  for  the
\nrespondent, however, urged that the Tamil Nadu Civil Service Classification  (
\nControl  and  Appeal)  Rules,  in particular Rule 17(b) ought not to have been
\napplied inasmuch as Rule 17(b) deals with procedure to be followed  for  major
\npunishment  only  and  the  same  ought  not  to  have been followed since the
\nincident referred to in the charge memo  warrants  only  a  minor  punishment.
\nMr.R.Gandhi,  submitted  that  the  punishment  imposed  by  the  Syndicate is
\nexcessive and disproportionate.  We are unable to accede to the submission  of
\nMr.R.Gandhi.   The  charges  pertain to an act of indiscipline especially by a
\nteacher, which is a serious charge.  In paragraph 47 of  the  enquiry  report,
\nthe enquiry officer has observed thus:  –\n<\/p>\n
        ” 47.  AO 1 is a senior member of the teaching faculty and having long
\nyears of  experience.    It is not as if his acts of gross misconduct could be
\nattributed to lack of knowledge or lack of experience.  On the  contrary,  his
\nvarious  explanations have only confirmed that all his acts of misconduct were
\ndeliberate and  in  open  defiance  of  Authority  and  established  norms  of
\ndiscipline  and  this  defiance  is reflected even in his present explanation.
\nThere are  absolutely  no  mitigating  circumstances.    Clearly,  he  has  no
\nintention of mending his ways.  The punishment to be imposed on AO1, has to be
\ndecided by the Syndicate.”\n<\/p>\n
A  perusal  of the charges framed against the respondent shows that the action
\nof the respondent was clearly in breach of the relevant rules and regulations.
\nThe respondent held demonstrations inside the  campus  of  the  University  in
\nviolation of  the  clear  directions  of  the  Syndicate.    He along with his
\ncolleagues gheraoed the Vice Chancellor and virtually compelled the  Registrar
\nto issue  promotion  orders under extreme duress.  We may also mention that in
\nthe past, in the year  1984,  the  respondent  had  involved  in  the  act  of
\nindiscipline  and was suspended and the order of suspension was confirmed by a
\nlearned single Judge of  this  Court,  though  subsequently  the  enquiry  was
\ndropped.  Under the circumstances, it is not possible to hold that the charges
\nagainst  the respondent were of minor in nature, and the punishment imposed is
\nharsh and excessive.\n<\/p>\n
        14.  Mr.R.Gandhi next argued that the suspension ought  to  have  been
\napproved  by  2\/3rd  of the members of the Syndicate and the same has not been
\ndone and consequently, the entire proceedings are vitiated.    The  submission
\nmade by  the  counsel is not borne by record.  This very submission was raised
\nby the respondent while challenging the suspension  order  and  the  order  of
\nsuspension,  even  though set aside by the learned single Judge, was confirmed
\nby a Division Bench which had upheld the order of suspension.  The very  point
\nwas  urged  before  the Division Bench and the Division Bench has rejected the
\nsame and has held that with regard to interim suspension,  Rule  5  would  not
\napply.   It  is  not now open to the respondent to challenge the suspension as
\nthe enquiry is completed and pursuant to the enquiry, the respondent has  been
\ncompulsorily retired  by  the  competent authority.  It is also required to be
\nnoted that the final order of compulsory retirement was approved by  2\/3rd  of
\nthe members  of  the  Syndicate.   Out of 22 members present in the Syndicate,
\nonly two members viz.  Mr.R.K.Balasubramanian and V.G.Shanmugam recorded their
\ndissent and all others supported the decision  to  impose  the  punishment  of
\ncompulsory retirement.\n<\/p>\n
        15.   The  learned  single  Judge  while  deciding  the issue No.4 has
\nobserved that the Senate  is  the  Supreme  Governing  Body  and  it  has  got
\njurisdiction to  review  the action of the Syndicate.  The Senate has power to
\nreview the action of the Syndicate or Academic Council only if they have acted
\noutside the powers conferred under the Act.  When there is no violation of the
\nstatutes in imposing the punishment and the report of the Enquiry Officer  has
\nbeen  duly  considered  and  the  punishment  was  imposed after giving a full
\nopportunity to the respondent, the question of exercise of power by the Senate
\ndoes not arise.  In any event, the punishment was imposed after giving a  full
\nopportunity  of  hearing  and  therefore,  we do not find any substance in the
\ncontention of the respondent that there was violation of the provisions of the
\nAct and the statutes framed by the University.\n<\/p>\n
        16.  In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the  opinion  that
\nthe  punishment  of  compulsory  retirement  imposed  on the respondent by the
\nSyndicate is legal and valid.  Consequently, the impugned order of the learned
\nsingle Judge is set aside.  The writ  petition  is  dismissed,  and  the  writ
\nappeal is allowed.   No order as to costs.  W.A.M.P.Nos.  6101 of 2002 and 719
\nof 2006 are closed.\n<\/p>\n
Vu\/pv<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court The University Of Madras vs Dr.Maa.Selvaraasan on 28 March, 2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 28\/03\/2006 Coram THE HON’BLE MR. A.P.SHAH, THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE PRABHA SRIDEVAN Writ Appeal No.3642 of 2002 The University of Madras rep. by its Registrar, University Building, Chepauk, Chennai-600 […]<\/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-38419","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThe University Of Madras vs Dr.Maa.Selvaraasan on 28 March, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-university-of-madras-vs-dr-maa-selvaraasan-on-28-march-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The University Of Madras vs Dr.Maa.Selvaraasan on 28 March, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-university-of-madras-vs-dr-maa-selvaraasan-on-28-march-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2006-03-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-07-16T12:22:41+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=\"23 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-university-of-madras-vs-dr-maa-selvaraasan-on-28-march-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-university-of-madras-vs-dr-maa-selvaraasan-on-28-march-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The University Of Madras vs Dr.Maa.Selvaraasan on 28 March, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-03-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-07-16T12:22:41+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-university-of-madras-vs-dr-maa-selvaraasan-on-28-march-2006\"},\"wordCount\":4537,\"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-university-of-madras-vs-dr-maa-selvaraasan-on-28-march-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-university-of-madras-vs-dr-maa-selvaraasan-on-28-march-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-university-of-madras-vs-dr-maa-selvaraasan-on-28-march-2006\",\"name\":\"The University Of Madras vs Dr.Maa.Selvaraasan on 28 March, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-03-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-07-16T12:22:41+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-university-of-madras-vs-dr-maa-selvaraasan-on-28-march-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-university-of-madras-vs-dr-maa-selvaraasan-on-28-march-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-university-of-madras-vs-dr-maa-selvaraasan-on-28-march-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The University Of Madras vs Dr.Maa.Selvaraasan on 28 March, 2006\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"The University Of Madras vs Dr.Maa.Selvaraasan on 28 March, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-university-of-madras-vs-dr-maa-selvaraasan-on-28-march-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The University Of Madras vs Dr.Maa.Selvaraasan on 28 March, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-university-of-madras-vs-dr-maa-selvaraasan-on-28-march-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-03-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-07-16T12:22:41+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":"23 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-university-of-madras-vs-dr-maa-selvaraasan-on-28-march-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-university-of-madras-vs-dr-maa-selvaraasan-on-28-march-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The University Of Madras vs Dr.Maa.Selvaraasan on 28 March, 2006","datePublished":"2006-03-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-07-16T12:22:41+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-university-of-madras-vs-dr-maa-selvaraasan-on-28-march-2006"},"wordCount":4537,"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-university-of-madras-vs-dr-maa-selvaraasan-on-28-march-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-university-of-madras-vs-dr-maa-selvaraasan-on-28-march-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-university-of-madras-vs-dr-maa-selvaraasan-on-28-march-2006","name":"The University Of Madras vs Dr.Maa.Selvaraasan on 28 March, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-03-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-07-16T12:22:41+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-university-of-madras-vs-dr-maa-selvaraasan-on-28-march-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-university-of-madras-vs-dr-maa-selvaraasan-on-28-march-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-university-of-madras-vs-dr-maa-selvaraasan-on-28-march-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The University Of Madras vs Dr.Maa.Selvaraasan on 28 March, 2006"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/38419","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=38419"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/38419\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=38419"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=38419"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=38419"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}