{"id":42902,"date":"2006-12-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-12-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-ramalingham-vs-the-managing-director-on-21-december-2006"},"modified":"2015-08-17T14:12:46","modified_gmt":"2015-08-17T08:42:46","slug":"s-ramalingham-vs-the-managing-director-on-21-december-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-ramalingham-vs-the-managing-director-on-21-december-2006","title":{"rendered":"S.Ramalingham vs The Managing Director on 21 December, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
S.Ramalingham vs The Managing Director on 21 December, 2006<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n                              \n                      DATED: 21.12.2006\n                              \n                            CORAM\n                              \n            THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN\n                              \n               Writ Petition No.44427 OF 2002\n                              \nS.Ramalingham                           .. Petitioner\n                              \n                              \n                        vs.\n\n\n1. The Managing Director,\n   Tamil Nadu State Transport\n     Corporation Ltd.,\n   (Villupuram Division III),\n   Kancheepuram District\n\n2. The General Manager,\n   Tamil Nadu State Transport\n     Corporation,\n   (Villupuram Division III),\n   Kancheepuram District.              .. Respondents\n\n\n\n       Writ   Petition  filed  under  Article  226  of   the\n\nConstitution   of  India  praying  to  issue   a   writ   of\n\ncertiorarified mandamus as stated therein.\n\n             For petitioner  :  Mr.P.I.Thirumoorthy\n\n             For respondents :  Mr.V.R.Kamalanathan\n                                for R1 and R2\n\n\n\n\n                          O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
      The writ petition has been filed for the issuance of a<\/p>\n
writ  of  certiorarified mandamus to call  for  the  records<\/p>\n
pertaining  to  the  order  of  the  second  respondent   in<\/p>\n
Ku.No.727\/6807\/cha11\/TPTC\/97,  dated  16.11.1998   and   the<\/p>\n
proceedings    of   the   first   respondent    in    Letter<\/p>\n
No.727\/6807\/Cha11\/TPTC\/97, dated  23.4.2002  and  quash  the<\/p>\n
same  and  consequently to direct the second  respondent  to<\/p>\n
reinstate  the  petitioner as Chief Cook with due  seniority<\/p>\n
and all attendant terminal and service benefits.<\/p>\n
      The  brief  facts  of  the  case,  as  stated  by  the<\/p>\n
petitioner, are as follows:\n<\/p>\n
     2. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Cook in<\/p>\n
the respondent Corporation, on 17.6.1989. Thereafter, he was<\/p>\n
promoted as the Chief Cook and posted at Vandavasi Bus Depot<\/p>\n
Canteen. While so, on 6.11.1997, charges were framed against<\/p>\n
the  petitioner for absence from work for the  periods  from<\/p>\n
5.10.1997  to 31.10.1997 and from 21.10.1997 to  31.10.1997,<\/p>\n
without prior permission. Another charge memo was issued, on<\/p>\n
20.1.1998,  for  absence  from work  for  the  periods  from<\/p>\n
4.12.1997  to 12.12.1997 and from 16.12.1997 to  24.12.1997.<\/p>\n
The  petitioner  had replied to the charges, explaining  the<\/p>\n
reasons  for  the  unauthorised  absence.  An  enquiry   was<\/p>\n
conducted  and  the report of the enquiry was submitted,  on<\/p>\n
10.3.1998.  Thereafter, a show cause notice was  issued,  on<\/p>\n
17.3.1998.  The  petitioner had replied to  the  show  cause<\/p>\n
notice,  on  21.3.1998. Accepting the reply, the  petitioner<\/p>\n
was directed to join duty, on 24.3.1998.  Thereafter, he had<\/p>\n
joined  in  service and was discharging his duties sincerely<\/p>\n
and  without  blemish. The petitioner  was  served  with  an<\/p>\n
order,  dated 16.11.1998, by the second respondent, removing<\/p>\n
him from service. Therefore, the petitioner had preferred an<\/p>\n
appeal,  which  was  rejected by the  first  respondent,  on<\/p>\n
23.4.2002.  Hence, the petitioner had preferred the  present<\/p>\n
writ  petition  challenging  the  order,  dated  16.11.1998,<\/p>\n
passed  by  the second respondent removing him from  service<\/p>\n
and   the   proceedings  of  the  first  respondent,   dated<\/p>\n
23.4.2002, confirming the order of removal.<\/p>\n
      3. The main contention putforth by the learned counsel<\/p>\n
appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that the petitioner<\/p>\n
was  not  given  sufficient opportunity  to  defend  himself<\/p>\n
during the enquiry. Further, he was not given the report  of<\/p>\n
the  Branch Manager, dated 7.11.1998, which was one  of  the<\/p>\n
main  documents  relied on by the second  respondent,  while<\/p>\n
passing  the impugned order, dated 16.11.1998. It  has  also<\/p>\n
been  pointed out that the second respondent had taken  into<\/p>\n
consideration the earlier incidents, when the petitioner  is<\/p>\n
alleged  to  have absented himself from duty.  However,  the<\/p>\n
petitioner had not been given an opportunity to explain  his<\/p>\n
position  with  regard to those incidents.  It  was  further<\/p>\n
contended  that the explanation submitted by the  petitioner<\/p>\n
was  not  considered by the second respondent, while passing<\/p>\n
the  impugned order of dismissal, dated 16.11.1998.  It  was<\/p>\n
also contended by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of<\/p>\n
the petitioner that the punishment of dismissal from service<\/p>\n
for   the   charge   of  unauthorised  absence   is   highly<\/p>\n
disproportionate in nature.\n<\/p>\n
      4.  The  learned counsel appearing on  behalf  of  the<\/p>\n
respondent Corporation has filed a counter-affidavit stating<\/p>\n
that according to clause 24(6) of the standing orders of the<\/p>\n
Corporation,  an employee of the Corporation  cannot  absent<\/p>\n
himself  from  the duty for more than 8 days  and  any  such<\/p>\n
unauthorised  absence would amount to serious misconduct  on<\/p>\n
the  part of the employee. The petitioner was unauthorisedly<\/p>\n
absent  from  5.10.1997 to 13.10.1997  and  from  21.10.1997<\/p>\n
without  prior intimation or permission from the authorities<\/p>\n
concerned. A report, dated 31.10.1997, was submitted by  the<\/p>\n
Superintendent of the concerned Depot, where the  petitioner<\/p>\n
was employed.\n<\/p>\n
      5. Based on the said report, a disciplinary action was<\/p>\n
initiated  against the petitioner by issuing a charge  memo,<\/p>\n
dated   6.11.1997.   The   petitioner   had   submitted    a<\/p>\n
representation, dated 4.11.1997, requesting  the  Management<\/p>\n
of  the  respondent Corporation to employee him in  service.<\/p>\n
Considering   the representation made by the petitioner,  he<\/p>\n
was  permitted  to  join duty by an order, dated  6.11.1997,<\/p>\n
without   prejudice  to  the  disciplinary  action   already<\/p>\n
initiated  against  him. The petitioner  had  submitted  his<\/p>\n
explanation to the charge memo and since his explanation was<\/p>\n
not  satisfactory,  an  enquiry was  conducted  against  the<\/p>\n
petitioner.  The  Enquiry  Officer  by  his  report,   dated<\/p>\n
10.3.1998, had found that the charges against the delinquent<\/p>\n
employee  were  proved. While so, the petitioner  had  again<\/p>\n
remained  absent, from 4.12.1997, unauthorisedly. Therefore,<\/p>\n
another charge memo, dated 20.1.1998, was issued to him. The<\/p>\n
petitioner  had  not offered his explanation  for  the  said<\/p>\n
charge.  However, an enquiry was conducted and  the  enquiry<\/p>\n
officer  by  his findings, dated 10.3.1998,  held  that  the<\/p>\n
charges  were proved. Based on the findings of  the  enquiry<\/p>\n
officer in both the cases, a second show cause notice, dated<\/p>\n
17.3.1998, was issued to the delinquent employee calling for<\/p>\n
an  explanation  as  to why he should not  be  removed  from<\/p>\n
service  for  his  habitual  absence  from  the  duty.   The<\/p>\n
petitioner had submitted his explanation, dated 21.3.1998.<\/p>\n
     6. Based on the explanation and his request made to the<\/p>\n
Management, the petitioner was permitted to join the duty by<\/p>\n
an order, dated 24.3.1998. However, since the petitioner had<\/p>\n
failed  to correct himself and again remained  absent,  from<\/p>\n
21.10.1998 to 28.10.1998 and from 2.11.1998 onwards, he  was<\/p>\n
dismissed from service by an order, dated 16.11.1998.<\/p>\n
      7. In such circumstances, it cannot be stated that the<\/p>\n
punishment of dismissal from service is disproportionate  in<\/p>\n
nature, nor can it be stated that the impugned order  passed<\/p>\n
by   the  second  respondent  and  confirmed  by  the  first<\/p>\n
respondent  is  arbitrary,  illegal  and  contrary  to   the<\/p>\n
principles of natural justice. The petitioner was given full<\/p>\n
opportunity   to   defend   himself   during   the   enquiry<\/p>\n
proceedings.  Further, he was also given repeated chances to<\/p>\n
redeem himself.  However, the petitioner had failed to  make<\/p>\n
use  of  the  opportunities  given  to  him.  Therefore,  he<\/p>\n
deserves no sympathy from this Court.\n<\/p>\n
      8.  Heard  the  learned  counsels  appearing  for  the<\/p>\n
petitioner as well as for the respondents.<\/p>\n
      9.  At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition,<\/p>\n
it  was stated by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of<\/p>\n
the  petitioner  that  the  petitioner  has  been  suffering<\/p>\n
without  any  work and he has been unable  to  maintain  his<\/p>\n
family.   Further,  the petitioner is  prepared  to  be  re-<\/p>\n
employed in the respondent Corporation without any backwages<\/p>\n
and  he is also prepared to suffer an increment cut for  two<\/p>\n
years,  without  cumulative effect. Further, the  petitioner<\/p>\n
would   also   submit  an  undertaking  to  the  authorities<\/p>\n
concerned  to  the effect that he would not  absent  himself<\/p>\n
unauthorisedly  in  future.  Since  there  were  no  serious<\/p>\n
objections from the respondents to the suggestions  made  by<\/p>\n
the  learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.  In  such<\/p>\n
circumstances, the respondents are directed to re-employ the<\/p>\n
petitioner  in  the  service of the respondent  Corporation,<\/p>\n
based  on his undertaking, which would be submitted  by  the<\/p>\n
petitioner in writing, within a period of six weeks from the<\/p>\n
date of receipt of a copy of this order.\n<\/p>\n
      10.  With  the above directions, the writ petition  is<\/p>\n
disposed of.  No costs.\n<\/p>\n
lan<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1. The Secretary,
\n   The Government of Tamil Nadu
\n   Tamil Development and Culture Department,
\n   Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.\n<\/p>\n
2. The Director of Tamil Development,
\n   Kuralagam, Chennai – 600 108.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court S.Ramalingham vs The Managing Director on 21 December, 2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 21.12.2006 CORAM THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Writ Petition No.44427 OF 2002 S.Ramalingham .. Petitioner vs. 1. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., (Villupuram Division III), Kancheepuram District 2. The General Manager, […]<\/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-42902","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nS.Ramalingham vs The Managing Director on 21 December, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-ramalingham-vs-the-managing-director-on-21-december-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"S.Ramalingham vs The Managing Director on 21 December, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-ramalingham-vs-the-managing-director-on-21-december-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=\"2006-12-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-08-17T08:42:46+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=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-ramalingham-vs-the-managing-director-on-21-december-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-ramalingham-vs-the-managing-director-on-21-december-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"S.Ramalingham vs The Managing Director on 21 December, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-12-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-17T08:42:46+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-ramalingham-vs-the-managing-director-on-21-december-2006\"},\"wordCount\":1142,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-ramalingham-vs-the-managing-director-on-21-december-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-ramalingham-vs-the-managing-director-on-21-december-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-ramalingham-vs-the-managing-director-on-21-december-2006\",\"name\":\"S.Ramalingham vs The Managing Director on 21 December, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-12-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-17T08:42:46+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-ramalingham-vs-the-managing-director-on-21-december-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-ramalingham-vs-the-managing-director-on-21-december-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-ramalingham-vs-the-managing-director-on-21-december-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"S.Ramalingham vs The Managing Director on 21 December, 2006\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"S.Ramalingham vs The Managing Director on 21 December, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-ramalingham-vs-the-managing-director-on-21-december-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"S.Ramalingham vs The Managing Director on 21 December, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-ramalingham-vs-the-managing-director-on-21-december-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-12-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-08-17T08:42:46+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-ramalingham-vs-the-managing-director-on-21-december-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-ramalingham-vs-the-managing-director-on-21-december-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"S.Ramalingham vs The Managing Director on 21 December, 2006","datePublished":"2006-12-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-17T08:42:46+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-ramalingham-vs-the-managing-director-on-21-december-2006"},"wordCount":1142,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-ramalingham-vs-the-managing-director-on-21-december-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-ramalingham-vs-the-managing-director-on-21-december-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-ramalingham-vs-the-managing-director-on-21-december-2006","name":"S.Ramalingham vs The Managing Director on 21 December, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-12-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-17T08:42:46+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-ramalingham-vs-the-managing-director-on-21-december-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-ramalingham-vs-the-managing-director-on-21-december-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-ramalingham-vs-the-managing-director-on-21-december-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"S.Ramalingham vs The Managing Director on 21 December, 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\/42902","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=42902"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/42902\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=42902"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=42902"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=42902"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}