{"id":48749,"date":"2008-08-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-08-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-ramasankar-vs-the-district-level-vigilance-on-14-august-2008"},"modified":"2014-06-04T22:09:12","modified_gmt":"2014-06-04T16:39:12","slug":"m-ramasankar-vs-the-district-level-vigilance-on-14-august-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-ramasankar-vs-the-district-level-vigilance-on-14-august-2008","title":{"rendered":"M.Ramasankar vs The District Level Vigilance … on 14 August, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
M.Ramasankar vs The District Level Vigilance … on 14 August, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 14\/08\/2008\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ELIPE DHARMARAO\nAND\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH\n\nW.P.(MD).No.9388 of 2007\nand\nM.P.(MD).No.2 of 2007\n\nM.Ramasankar\t\t\t\t\t\t ..  Petitioner\n\nVs\n\n1. The District Level Vigilance Committee,\n   for Verification of Community,\n   Tirunelveli District.\n\n2. The Revenue Divisional Officer,\n   Cheranmahadevi,\n   Tirunelveli District.\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t..  Respondents\n\n\n\tPetition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for\nissuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating\nto the proceeding of the first respondent in B4\/3652\/2005 dated 5.1.2007 and\nquash the same in so far as the petitioner is concerned and directing the second\nrespondent to issue the petitioner a Community Certificate as belonging to Hindu\nPallan.\n\n!For Petitioner\t... Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai\n\t\t\n^For Respondents... Mr.D.Gandhi Raj\n                    Government Advocate\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
(The order of the court was made by R.SUBBIAH, J.)<\/p>\n
\tThis writ petition is filed with the prayer of Certiorarified Mandamus to
\nquash the proceeding of the first respondent dated 5.1.2007 whereby the
\ncommunity certificates issued in favour of the writ petitioner in Certificate
\nNo.550 of 1994 dated 01.09.1994 and Certificate No.3949 of 2003 dated 11.11.2003
\nby the then Tahsildar of Ambasamudram are cancelled.\n<\/p>\n
\t2. It is the case of the writ petitioner that he belongs to Hindu Pallan
\nCommunity, which is recognized as a Scheduled Caste.  He was born to one
\nK.Marudhan and Chellam, who are the parents of the writ petitioner. His mother
\nchellam is the second wife to his father. She also belongs to the same
\ncommunity. Though his father belongs to Hindu Pallan Community, his mother was a
\nChristian by birth, converted into Hindu Religion after her marriage with the
\nfather of the petitioner. In fact, the marriage between his father and mother
\ntook place only in Hindu Temple. So far as the petitioner is  concerned, he was
\nembracing Hindu Religion and custom and traditionally professing only the Hindu
\npractices. He has no shade of Christian custom or rites.\n<\/p>\n
\t3. It is further submitted that he was born on 14.6.1976 and was
\noriginally named as M.Jothy.  Later his name was changed as M.Ram Sankar when he
\nwas 13 years old. The necessary Gazette Notification was also published by his
\nfather in Tamilnadu Government Gazette Notification dated 5.6.1989. In his
\nschool records, he was referred as ‘Hindu Pallan’ and even in his college
\nrecords his caste was mentioned only as ‘Hindu Pallan’. In other words, the
\ncontention of the writ petitioner is that he never followed any Christian
\npractice or considered himself as Christian. That apart, the writ petitioner
\nalso stated in the affidavit sworn by him and filed in support of his prayer for
\nissuance of the community certificate that he is a strong believer of Hindu
\nFaith. He was issued with a Community Certificate No.550 of 1994 dated
\n01.09.1994 as Hindu Pallan by the then Tahsildar, Ambasamudram. Once again, when
\nhe applied for certificate in the year 2003, the Tahsildar, Ambasamudram issued
\na Certificate No.3949 of 2003 dated 11.11.2003 as Hindu Pallan, and that he
\nbelongs to Scheduled Caste.\n<\/p>\n
\t4. However, a complicated problem arose when his father applied for a
\ncommunity certificate for his sister Mary Vanitha in the year 2005 and his
\nsister’s application, with a request for issuance of community certificate as
\n‘Hindu Pallan’ was rejected by the Tahsildar, Ambasamudram by order dated
\n19.1.2005. When his father made an appeal against the said rejection order with
\nthe second respondent, the second respondent passed an order dated 31.03.2005
\nrejecting the appeal filed by his father stating that his daughter (sister of
\nthe petitioner) was baptized in the Kooniyoor RC Church. Further, in the said
\norder, the second respondent had also observed that a report would be submitted
\nto the District Collector, Tirunelveli to examine the Community Certificate
\nalready issued in favour of the petitioner herein and to his other sister.
\nHence, the father of the petitioner had filed an appeal against the said order
\nbefore the first respondent stating that he had not brought up his children as
\nChristians. With reference to his appeal, the first respondent called for a
\nreport from the second respondent. Accordingly, a report dated 2.6.2005 was also
\nsent to the second respondent by the first respondent. On being summoned, the
\npetitioner has also attended the enquiry before the First respondent on
\n19.9.2005, since the father of the petitioner was not in a position to attend
\nthe enquiry. After completing the enquiry, the first respondent passed an order
\ndated 5.1.2007 in the appeal rejecting the same and cancelled the certificates
\nissued in favour of the writ petitioner by the then Tahsildar of Ambasamudram
\nand decided that the writ petitioner does not belong to Hindu Pallan Community.
\nAggrieved by the said order, the petitioner herein filed an appeal before the
\nState Level Scrutiny Committee at Madras challenging the order dated 05.01.2007
\npassed by the first respondent.\n<\/p>\n
\t5. In the meantime, he has also filed the present writ petition
\nchallenging the order of the first respondent. The main contention of the writ
\npetitioner  in the present writ petition is that his family is professing
\nHinduism and right from the days of his childhood, he is practising Hinduism
\nthough alleged to have been Baptized on 18.09.1976, when the petitioner was
\nthree months old and that his father by progeny belongs to Hindu Pallan
\nCommunity and that his mother, who was Christian by birth though belonging to
\nPallan community, but on the day of her marriage, to the father of the
\npetitioner she converted as Hindu from Christianity and changed her name from
\nStanzy to Chellam.  It is the further case of the petitioner that even in the
\nschool records and college records the petitioner was clearly mentioned only as
\nbelonging to Hindu Pallan Community. When he applied for the Community
\ncertificate in the year 1994 as well as in the year 2003, before issuing the
\ncommunity certificate a detailed enquiry was conducted by the then Tahsildar,
\nAmbasamudram by examining the persons from his village both from his community
\nas well as from the other community and the  village headman and also the Parish
\nPriest of a Church on two occasions who had stated that the petitioner is not a
\nChristian and he did not become the member of the Church at any point of time,
\nand issued a certificate that the petitioner is not a Christian. Based on those
\nevidence the then Tahsildar, Ambasamudram issued certificate in favour of writ
\npetitioner stating that he belongs to Hindu Pallan Community While the situation
\nstood thus, the order dated 31.03.2005 came to be passed by the second
\nrespondent herein rejecting the appeal filed his father against the order dated
\n19.1.2005 rejecting the application of the petitioner’s sister filed for
\nissuance of the community certificate, in which order the second respondent had
\nobserved that a report would be submitted to the District Collector, Tirunelveli
\nto examine the community certificate already issued to the petitioner and to his
\nother sister by the then Tahsildar of Ambasamudram. Subsequently, pursuant to
\nthe observation made in the order dated 31.3.2005, the second respondent had
\nalso submitted a report dated 02.06.2005 stating that the then Tahsildar,
\nAmbasamudram had issued community certificate to the writ petitioner as Hindu
\nPallan community wrongly. Based on the report of the second respondent, enquiry
\nwas conducted by the first respondent.  The writ petitioner had also appeared in
\nthe enquiry and after completing the enquiry, the first respondent had cancelled
\nthe community certificate of the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
\t6. By assailing the order dated 5.1.2007, the learned counsel for the writ
\npetitioner contended that the first respondent while passing the said order, has
\nnot met all the points which were raised by the father of the petitioner, and
\nthe said order was passed without application of mind. Further, the learned
\ncounsel for the petitioner took this Court to the report dated 2.6.2007
\nforwarded by the second respondent to the first respondent which had become the
\nbase for the first respondent to pass the order of cancellation of the community
\ncertificates issued in favour of the petitioner and pointed out the various
\ninfirmities found in the said report.\n<\/p>\n
\t7. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the second
\nrespondent prepared the said report on the following assumptions:\n<\/p>\n
\t (i) the petitioner was baptized in the Church (ii) the mother of the
\npetitioner is only following Christianity (iii) Christian symbols are found in
\nthe house of the petitioner. On going through the said report, we find that the
\nsecond respondent has come to the conclusion that the petitioner is not a Hindu
\nand he is following Christianity, and as such, he cannot be considered to belong
\nHindu Pallan Community as stated in the Certificates issued by the then
\nTahsildar of Ambasamudram. Hence, based on the earlier report of the then Zonal
\nDeputy Tahsildar who made an enquiry in the village by examining the people of
\nthe petitioner’s case and also people belongs to other caste, the second
\nrespondent has come to the conclusion that the community certificate issued in
\nfavour of the writ petitioner as Hindu Pallan is wrong. Further, a careful
\nscrutiny of the said report reveals that the second respondent has come to the
\nsaid conclusion, mainly based on the statement given by the Parish Priest of the
\nChurch and also based on the extract of the Baptism Register of the RC Church
\nCheranmahadevi. Further it is found from the report of the second respondent,
\nthat the Parish Priest in his statement had admitted that an earlier occasion he
\nhas given a certificate to the effect that the petitioner does not belong to
\nChristian community only to oblige the request made by the father of the
\npetitioner, without verifying the Baptism Register, and further in the said
\nstatement he had accepted the particulars given by him on the earlier occasion
\nin favour of the writ petitioner are incorrect and thereby prevaricated his
\nversions and stated that the writ petitioner belongs to Christianity and he was
\nBaptized in the Church on 18.09.1976 in the name of Marie Joei. Further in the
\nsaid statement,  he had also stated that from the father of writ petitioner he
\ncame to know that writ petitioner Ram Sankar was also called as Marie Joei,
\nwhich name was found in the Baptism Register. Hence, by placing a strong
\nreliance on the statement of the Priest and also on the Baptism Register,
\nrespondent No.2 sent a report to the respondent No.1, stating that the writ
\npetitioner is a Christian and does not belong to Hindu Pallan community which
\nhave influenced the first respondent to cancel the earlier community certificate
\nissued in favour of the writ petitioner by the then Tahsildar, Ambasamudram.\n<\/p>\n
\t8. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate made his submission that
\nthe report sent by the respondent No.2 could not be found fault with and as
\nsuch, the cancellation made by the respondent No.1 based on the said report is a
\nwell considered order and the writ petition has got to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
\t9. Now the question to be decided in this writ petition is whether the
\norder dated 5.01.2007, passed by the first respondent cancelling the earlier
\ncommunity certificate of the writ petitioner based on the second respondent’s
\nreport dated 2.6.2005 is proper.\n<\/p>\n
\t10. It is not in dispute that the writ petitioner belongs to Pallan
\ncommunity.  The issue is only with regard to which religion the petitioner
\nbelongs to. A perusal of order dated 5.01.2007, clearly shows that the Baptism
\nRegister issued by R.C.Church, Cheranmadevi and the statement of Parish Priest
\nof R.C.Church have become the main reasons for the cancellation of community
\ncertificate.\n<\/p>\n
\t11. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner the same
\nPriest on earlier occasion had stated that the petitioner does not belong to
\nChristian Community. Further more, the earlier certificate was issued by the
\nTahsildar after making a detailed enquiry through his Zonal Deputy Tahsildar
\nwith the residents of the village from where the petitioner is hails by
\nexamining the persons from his community and also from the other community and
\nalso based on the report of Zonal Deputy Tahsildar. In the said circumstances,
\nin our considered view the cancellation made by the first respondent by giving
\nimportance to the statement of Parish Priest, who has given contradictory
\nstatement on two different occasions is not correct. Moreover, the said Parish
\nPriest has stated in his statement, he knows that only from the father of the
\npetitioner that the writ petitioner was also called as Maria Joie. That portion
\nof statement clearly shows that he was not making any definite statement.
\nMoreover, even assuming for a moment, that the writ petitioner was Baptized on
\n18.9.1976 in the name of Marie Joie he was only 3 months old child, at the time
\nof the said Baptism.  In the said circumstances there should be a conclusive
\nevidence that the writ petitioner was following only Christianity  right from
\nhis childhood especially in the circumstances when he was born to a Father who
\nbelongs to Hindu Pallan community and whose mother also belongs to the same
\ncommunity after conversion from Christianity to Hindu at the time of her
\nMarriage. Hence, as argued by the counsel for appellant by relying upon the
\njudgement reported in AIR  1984 Supreme Court case 600 in the case of Kailash
\nSonkar vs. Smt.Maya Devi<\/a> performing of ceremonies without the child knowing what
\nis being done but after the child has grown up and becomes fully mature and also
\nhas to decide his future, is fully acceptable one considering the facts of the
\ngiven case. In the instant case, no such conclusive evidence was available on
\nrecords whether the petitioner was following only Christianity, even if the
\nBaptism is taken as true. Therefore, the cancellation made by the first
\nrespondent based on the report of the second respondent is not proper since the
\nsecond respondent had formed an opinion based on the statement of the Parish
\nPriest who was giving a frequently changing stance with regard to the Religion
\nof writ petitioner and also not making any definite statement with regard to the
\nname found in the Baptism Register. Further more, the learned counsel also
\nvehemently contended that the writ petitioner was  practicing only Hinduism and
\nhe is strong believer of Hinduism and in such circumstances, no significance can
\nbe given to the Baptism given to him when he was a 3 months old  child, even if
\nit is assumed to be true.\n<\/p>\n
\t12. In this regard, the reliance was also placed by the learned counsel
\nfor the petitioner in the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in AIR
\n1984 S.C. (411) (S.Anbalagan vs. B.Devarajan),<\/a> a dictum which  squarely applies
\nto the facts of the present case. In the said case, it has been held as follows:
\n\t“The birth extract of the first respondent, Devarajan shows his parents as
\nHindu Adi Dravidas. Throughout his educational career, he was treated as a Hindu
\nstudent belonging to the Scheduled Castes and was awarded scholarships on that
\nbasis. The school records relating to his children also show them as Hindu Adi
\nDravidas. On one occasion in the admission register of a school, he was wrongly
\nshown as Adi Dravida Christian, but it was corrected as Adi Dravida as far back
\nas in 1948. He never attended a church. On the other hand, there is acceptable
\nevidence to show that he was offering worship to Hindu deities in Hindu temples
\nand that his marriage was performed according to Hindu custom and rites. Our
\nattention was however, drawn to the finding of the Tribunal that the sisters of
\nthe first respondent professed Christianity as revealed by their service
\nregisters. Our attention was further invited to certain evidence indicating that
\nthe parents of the first respondent had become Christians and that the first
\nrespondent himself had been baptised when he was seven months old. Even assuming
\nthat the parents and sisters of the first respondent had become Christians and
\nthat the first respondent himself had been baptized when he was seven months
\nold, we see no difficulty in holding, on the evidence in the case, that the
\nfirst respondent had long since reverted to Hinduism and to the Adi Dravida
\ncaste. There is not a scrap of acceptable evidence to show that he ever
\nprofessed Christianity after he came of age. On the other hand, every bit of
\nevidence in the case shows that from his childhood, he was always practicing
\nHinduism and was treated by everyone concerned as an Adi Dravida. There is then
\nthe outstanding circumstance that the voters of the Rasipuram Parliamentary
\nConstituency reserved for the Scheduled Castes accepted his candidature for the
\nreserved seat and elected him to the Lok Sabha twice. We have no doubt
\nwhatsoever that at all relevant times, he was a Hindu Adi Dravida and professed
\nno religion other than Hinduism. The case was rightly decided by the Election
\nTribunal and the appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs.”\n<\/p>\n
\t13. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents relied
\nupon a judgment reported in AIR 1996 SC 1182, S.Swvigaradoss vs. Zonal Manager,
\nF.C.I.,<\/a> wherein it has been held that,
\n\t “In view of the admitted position that the petitioner was born of
\nChristian parents and his parents also were converted prior to his birth and no
\nlonger remained to be Adi Dravida, a Scheduled Caste for the purpose of
\nTirunelveli District in Tamil Nadu as notified by the President, petitioner
\ncannot claim to be a Scheduled Caste.  In the light of the Constitutional Scheme
\nCivil Court has no jurisdiction under Section 9 of C.P.C to entertain the suit.
\nThe Suit, therefore, is not maintainable.  The High Court, therefore, was right
\nin dismissing the suit as not maintainable and also not giving any declaration
\nsought for.”\n<\/p>\n
\t14. We are of the opinion that the case relied upon by the learned counsel
\nfor the respondents is not  applicable to the facts of the given case, since in
\nthe case on hand, there is abundant material to hold that the father of the
\npetitioner is a Hindu by birth and was professing the same till date and even
\nthough the mother of the petitioner was a Christian, she also converted to
\nHinduism after her marriage. At this juncture, it is also to be pointed out that
\na caste to which a Hindu belongs is essentially determined by birth. When a
\nperson is converted to Christian or some other religion, the original caste
\nremains under eclipse and as soon as during his\/her lifetime the person is
\nreconverted to the original religion, the eclipse disappears and the caste
\nautomatically revives. For this, we draw support from the judgment of the
\nHonourable Apex Court in KAILASH SONKAR vs. MAYA DEVI<\/a> [(1984) 2 SCC 91]. Even
\nearlier, in C.M.ARUMUGAM vs. S.RAJAGOPAL [(1976) 1 SCC 863], a Three Judge Bench
\nof the Honourable Apex Court has held:\n<\/p>\n
\t“On reconversion to Hinduism, a person can once again become a member of
\nthe caste in which he was born and to which he belonged before conversion to
\nanother religion, if the members of the caste accept him as a member. Hence, on
\nreconversion to Hinduism, a person can once again become a member of the
\nScheduled Caste to which he belonged prior to his conversion for the social and
\neconomic disabilities once again revive and become attached to him.\n<\/p>\n
\tSince a caste is a social combination of persons governed by its rules and
\nregulations, it may, if its rules and regulations so provide, admit a new member
\njust as it may expel an existing member. The rules and regulations of the caste
\nmay not have been formalised; they may not exist in black and white; they may
\nconsist only of practices and usages. If, according to the practices and usages
\nof the caste, any particular ceremonies are required to be performed for
\nreadmission to the caste, a reconvert to Hinduism would have to perform those
\nceremonies if he seeks readmission to the caste. But, if no rites or ceremonies
\nare required to be performed for readmission of a person as a member of the
\ncaste, the only thing necessary for readmission would be the acceptance of the
\nperson concerned by the other members of the caste.”\n<\/p>\n
\tFor all the above reasons, the judgment relied on by the learned counsel
\nfor the respondents has no application to the facts of the case on hand.\n<\/p>\n
   15. The case relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner reported
\nin AIR 1984 S.C. (411)(cited supra) has clearly discussed about the effect of
\nthe Baptism given to a child, who is not knowing what is being done but after
\nthe child has grown up and become fully matured, and can decide its future and
\nalso the consequent by following another religion and its social status. In the
\nlight of the above, we are of the opinion, first of all the report sent by the
\nsecond respondent is not based on any conclusive proof when already a community
\ncertificate was issued by the then Tahsildar of Ambasamudram by making a
\ndetailed enquiry. Secondly even assuming for a moment, the baptism is true, the
\nbaptism given to the writ petitioner, when he was three months old child have
\nany bearing in changing his social status. Subsequently, when he practiced
\nHinduism  from the childhood which is a vital issue to be decided, especially,
\nin the circumstances, when he was born to a father belonging to Hindu Pallan
\nCommunity and mother, who though by progeny  belong to Pallan Community and
\nembraced Christianity and got converted from Christianity to Hinduism at the
\ntime of her marriage. But in the report submitted by the second respondent, no
\ndetailed discussion was made with regard to the above aspects.\n<\/p>\n
\t16. At this juncture, we also feel it apt to quote a Constitutional Bench
\njudgment of the Honourable Apex Court in E.V.CHINNAIAH vs. STATE of A.P. [(2005)
\n1 SCC 394, wherein it has been held as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t“Scheduled Caste is not a caste in terms of its definition as contained in
\nArticle 366(24) of the Constitution. They also brought within the purview of the
\nsaid category by reason of their abysmal backwardness. Scheduled Caste consists
\nof not only the people who belong to some backward caste but also race or tribe
\nor part of or groups within caste, races or tribes. They are not merely backward
\nbut the backwardmost. A person does not even cease to be a Scheduled Caste
\nautomatically even on his conversion to another religion”.\n<\/p>\n
\t17. In the said circumstances, we are of the view that the cancellation
\nmade by an order dated 5.01.2007 issued by the first respondent is not proper
\nand hence we do not hesitate to set aside the said order. Accordingly, the said
\norder is quashed and consequently we are referring this matter to the first
\nrespondent Committee. The first respondent Committee is directed to
\nindependently conduct an enquiry by giving an opportunity to both the parties
\nand also summoning and examining all the relevant records, which the committee
\nfeels necessary to decide the issue covering the entire points raised for
\ndiscussion in this order, in the light of the legal principle enunciated by the
\njudicial pronouncements and the test to be followed to decide the caste of a
\nperson as referred to above. Hence, the Writ petition is disposed of
\naccordingly. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petition is also closed. No
\ncosts.\n<\/p>\n
akv<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1. The District Level Vigilance Committee,
\n   for Verification of Community,
\n   Tirunelveli District.\n<\/p>\n
2. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
\n   Cheranmahadevi,
\n   Tirunelveli District.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court M.Ramasankar vs The District Level Vigilance … on 14 August, 2008 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 14\/08\/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ELIPE DHARMARAO AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH W.P.(MD).No.9388 of 2007 and M.P.(MD).No.2 of 2007 M.Ramasankar .. Petitioner Vs 1. The District Level Vigilance Committee, for Verification of […]<\/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-48749","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nM.Ramasankar vs The District Level Vigilance ... on 14 August, 2008 - 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\/m-ramasankar-vs-the-district-level-vigilance-on-14-august-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M.Ramasankar vs The District Level Vigilance ... on 14 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-ramasankar-vs-the-district-level-vigilance-on-14-august-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-08-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-06-04T16:39:12+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=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-ramasankar-vs-the-district-level-vigilance-on-14-august-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-ramasankar-vs-the-district-level-vigilance-on-14-august-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M.Ramasankar vs The District Level Vigilance … on 14 August, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-08-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-06-04T16:39:12+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-ramasankar-vs-the-district-level-vigilance-on-14-august-2008\"},\"wordCount\":3769,\"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\\\/m-ramasankar-vs-the-district-level-vigilance-on-14-august-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-ramasankar-vs-the-district-level-vigilance-on-14-august-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-ramasankar-vs-the-district-level-vigilance-on-14-august-2008\",\"name\":\"M.Ramasankar vs The District Level Vigilance ... on 14 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-08-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-06-04T16:39:12+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-ramasankar-vs-the-district-level-vigilance-on-14-august-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-ramasankar-vs-the-district-level-vigilance-on-14-august-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-ramasankar-vs-the-district-level-vigilance-on-14-august-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M.Ramasankar vs The District Level Vigilance … on 14 August, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"M.Ramasankar vs The District Level Vigilance ... on 14 August, 2008 - 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\/m-ramasankar-vs-the-district-level-vigilance-on-14-august-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M.Ramasankar vs The District Level Vigilance ... on 14 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-ramasankar-vs-the-district-level-vigilance-on-14-august-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-08-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-06-04T16:39:12+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":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-ramasankar-vs-the-district-level-vigilance-on-14-august-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-ramasankar-vs-the-district-level-vigilance-on-14-august-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M.Ramasankar vs The District Level Vigilance … on 14 August, 2008","datePublished":"2008-08-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-06-04T16:39:12+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-ramasankar-vs-the-district-level-vigilance-on-14-august-2008"},"wordCount":3769,"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\/m-ramasankar-vs-the-district-level-vigilance-on-14-august-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-ramasankar-vs-the-district-level-vigilance-on-14-august-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-ramasankar-vs-the-district-level-vigilance-on-14-august-2008","name":"M.Ramasankar vs The District Level Vigilance ... on 14 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-08-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-06-04T16:39:12+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-ramasankar-vs-the-district-level-vigilance-on-14-august-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-ramasankar-vs-the-district-level-vigilance-on-14-august-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-ramasankar-vs-the-district-level-vigilance-on-14-august-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M.Ramasankar vs The District Level Vigilance … on 14 August, 2008"}]},{"@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\/48749","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=48749"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/48749\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=48749"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=48749"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=48749"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}