{"id":55547,"date":"2006-01-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-01-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balagovinda-rao-vs-the-deputy-chairman-on-30-january-2006"},"modified":"2014-02-25T03:12:02","modified_gmt":"2014-02-24T21:42:02","slug":"balagovinda-rao-vs-the-deputy-chairman-on-30-january-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balagovinda-rao-vs-the-deputy-chairman-on-30-january-2006","title":{"rendered":"Balagovinda Rao vs The Deputy Chairman on 30 January, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Balagovinda Rao vs The Deputy Chairman on 30 January, 2006<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           \n\nDATED 30.01.2006   \n\nCORAM   \n\nTHE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D. MURUGESAN          \n\nW.P.No.2192 of 2006  \nand \nW.P.M.P.Nos.2458 and 2459 of 2006   \n\n\nBalagovinda Rao                                           .. Petitioner\n\n-Vs-\n\n1.  The Deputy Chairman \n    Chennai Port Trust\n    Rajaji Salai, Chennai-1.\n\n2.  The Chief Engineer\n    Chennai Port Trust\n    Rajaji Salai, Chennai-1.                       .. Respondents\n\n        Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying\nthis Court for the issue of a Writ of  Certiorari,  calling  for  the  records\nrelating  to  the  2nd  respondent's  proceedings  made  in E6\/5302\/96\/E dated\n11.8.2005 and quash the same.  \n\n!For Petitioner ...  Mr.L.  Chandrakumar\n\n^For Respondents ...  Mr.Jagadeesan \n\n:ORDER  \n<\/pre>\n
        The petitioner hails from  Dharmavaram  in  Vizianaragam  District  of
\nAndhra Pradesh.    According  to  the  petitioner, he belongs to “Konda kappu”
\ncommunity, which is notified to be a Scheduled Tribe.  On  the  strength  that
\nthe  petitioner  was issued with a community certificate dated 1.7.1983 issued
\nby the Tahsildar, S-Kotta, certifying himself to be belonged to “Konda  Kappu”
\ncommunity,  which  is notified to be a Scheduled Tribe, he secured appointment
\nas Mazdoor (PW)  in  Chennai  Port  Trust  on  17.7.1984.    It  appears  that
\nthereafter  he  was  promoted  to  higher  post and presently he is working as
\nMaistry.\n<\/p>\n
        2.  Chennai Port Trust, on verification of the certificate produced by
\nthe petitioner, came to a prima facie conclusion that the said certificate was
\nbogus\/fake, called for a report from the District Collector,Vizianagaram as to
\nthe fact whether  such  certificate  was  issued  to  the  petitioner  by  the
\nauthority competent  to issue the same in the letter dated 23.11.1995.  By the
\nproceedings dated 24.02.1996 the District  Collector,  Vizianagaram  sent  the
\ncommunication to the Chennai Port Trust which reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
        “(M) D.Dis.2473\/95C7 dt.24.2.96.  Collector’s Office
\n                        Vizianagaram<\/p>\n
        From To
\n        Sri T.Vijkaykumar IAS The Secretary
\nCollector,Vizianagaram Port Trust,Madras
\n        Sir,
\n        Sub:  Establishment-Verification of the
\n                community certificate produced by
\n                Sri Balagovinda Rao, Asst.Maistry
\n                T.No.2840 Dept.,-Information-reg.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        Ref:  Your Lr.No.SCT2\/13371\/93 dt.23.11.95
\n        With reference to your letter cited, the
\n        required information is given below:-<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        i.Whether an enquiry was There is no such
\n        conducted and the indivi person in Dharmavaram
\n        dual given opportunity as (V)of S.  Kota(M) as per
\nis being done by Tamilnadu the enquiry of the Mandal
\nGovernment.  Revenue Officer, S.Kota <\/p>\n
        ii.Whether cancellation According to the report
\n        of the community certi- of the Mandal Revenue
\nficate dt.  has ordered Officer,S.Kota no S.T.\n<\/p>\n
                                        Caste certificate was
\n                                        issued.  Hence issue of
\n                                        cancel orders does not
\n                                        arise.\n<\/p>\n
        iii.Whether the original Since the certificate
\n        community certificate produced by the candi-
\nof the individual for date might be a fake
\n        cancellation one, the Port Trust
\n                                        authorities Madras may
\n                                        take further action
\n                                        after giving an oppor-\n<\/p>\n
                                        tunity to the individual
\n                                        for being heard.\n<\/p>\n
                                        Yours faithfully,
\n                                        S\/d.  Pardhasaradhi
\n                                        for Collector
\n                                        Vizianagaram.\n<\/p>\n
        3.   On  the  basis  of  the  above communication, a charge memo dated
\n9.7.1996 was issued to the petitioner asking him to show cause as to the bogus
\ncommunity certificate.  Questioning  the  same,  the  petitioner  had  earlier
\napproached this  Court  in  W.P.No.2737\/1998.   It was argued on behalf of the
\npetitioner that the  report  sent  by  the  District  Collector,  Vizianagaram
\nstating  that  the  certificate  produced  by  the petitioner is fake and that
\naction has to be taken cannot be relied upon  nor  it  could  be  a  basis  or
\nfoundation to  initiate disciplinary proceedings.  It was also argued that the
\nrespondent Port Trust was not at all justified in accepting the  said  report,
\nas  such,  a  reply  has  been  sent  behind the back of the petitioner by the
\nDistrict Collector, Vizianagaram without enquiry.  It was argued that  enquiry
\ncould  have  been  conducted as to the social status claimed by the petitioner
\nand an opportunity ought to have been given to the petitioner.  All the  above
\ncontentions  were  considered  and  ultimately,  this  Court  by  order  dated
\n18.02.2003, passed the following order:\n<\/p>\n
        ” The charges have been framed and the petitioner
\n        It is well open to the petitioner to raise all
\nthe objections with respect to the contents of
\nthe report received from the third respondent
\n        and also rely upon the various pronouncements
\nreferred to before this Court by Mr.P.K.Raja-\n<\/p>\n
        gopal,learned counsel.  It is equally well open
\nto the petitioner to get fresh certificate or
\ndeclaration as the case may be, with respect
\n        to the social status claimed by him and produce
\n        the same before the Domestic Enquiry Officer,
\n        As and when such materials are placed, the
\nEnquiry Officer shall take into the materials
\n        into consideration and also consider the law<\/p>\n
        laid down by this Court as well as Supreme
\n        Court in such matters and thereafter, further
\n        appropriate action should be proceeded.  Further,
\n        if still the respondents are of the opinion
\n        that action has to be taken with respect to
\n        the alleged bogus claim of social status it is
\n        open to them to proceed according to law.  This
\n        is not a fit case, where this Court could be
\n        justified in interfering with the disciplinary
\n        proceedings initiated by the competent authority
\n        at the stage of enquiry and it cannot be stated
\n        that the authorities initiated proceedings
\n        without any basis or authority.\n<\/p>\n
        In the circumstances, the Writ Petition is
\n        dismissed while giving liberty to the petitioner
\n        to raise all objections including legal objections
\n        as well before respondents 1 and 2.  Consequently,
\n        W.M.P.no.4070 of 1998 is also dismissed.  No
\n        costs”.\n<\/p>\n
        4.  Pursuant to the said order, present  impugned  notice  of  enquiry
\ndated 11.8.2005 has been issued which is as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
                                Chennai Port Trust
\n        E6\/5302\/96\/E                                            Dt.  11.8.05
\n        Memo
\nSub:  Establishment-Alleged production of
\n        Bogus community certificate by Shri
\nBalagovinda Rao, Maistry (PW)-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Disciplinary action-Fresh enquiry
\nto be conducted-reg.\n<\/p>\n
        It is informed that the Hon’ble Justice
\n        Shri E.  Padmanabhan of High Court of Madras vide
\n        his judgment dated 18.02.2003, on the Writ
\n        Petition No.2737\/1998 filed by Shri Balagovinda
\nRao against the Chairman, Chennai Port Trust
\nand the chief Engineer, Chennai Port Trust had
\ndismissed the petition while giving liberty to
\n        the petitioner to raise all objections including
\nlegal objections, as well as before the Chairman
\nChennai Port Trust and the Chief Engineer,Chennai
\nPort Trust.  In this connection, a fresh enquiry
\nis ordered to be conducted by Shri S.C.Shankar
\nEngineer of D.C.’s Department and Shri Pitchai
\nJr.A.O.  as Presiding Officer on the following
\ncharges:\n<\/p>\n
        ” That at the time of his initial appointment
\nas Mazdoor(PW) in the Trust he had produced
\nBogus Scheduled Tribe Community Certificate
\nand gained employment in the Trust”\n<\/p>\n
        The above act is a serious misconduct under
\nregulation 4(4) of Madras Port Trust Employees
\n(Conduct) Regn.1987.  The date, time and place
\nof enquiry will be informed to him by Enquiry
\nOfficer in due course.\n<\/p>\n
        In case the charges are proved he is liable
\nfor severe disciplinary action under Madras
\nPort Trust Employees CCA Regulation,1988.\n<\/p>\n
        He may file a written statement before the
\nEnquiry Officer on the charges framed against
\nhim, if he desires, within seven days from
\nthe date of receipt of this memo.  If his
\nwritten statement is not filed within the
\nspecified period it will be assumed that
\nhe has no statement to make and the enquiry
\nwill be proceeded with.\n<\/p>\n
A form of questionaire is enclosed, which
\nis to be filed in, signed and returned to
\nthis office along with his statement.\n<\/p>\n
        If he desires to avail the assistance, which
\nis to be filled in, signed and returned to
\nthis office along with his statement.\n<\/p>\n
        If he desires to avail the assistance of his
\nco-workers to defence in the enquiry he may
\nsubmit a panel of three names of his co-\n<\/p>\n
workers of this department, who are not
\nconnected with any other enquiry duly obtaining
\ntheir concurrence in writing.  Any one in the
\npanel as found convenient to the administration
\nwill be allowed to assist him in his defence.
\nIn case he fails to submit the panel as
\nmentioned above, it will be assumed that he
\ndoes not wish to avail the opportunity for
\nhis defence.\n<\/p>\n
        If he fails to attend the enquiry on the dates
\nto be notified, the enquiry will be conducted
\nex parte and further action will be taken as
\ndeemed fit.\n<\/p>\n
        Encl:  One Questionaire Sd..x.x.x.x.x.x.\n<\/p>\n
                                                Chief Engineer<\/p>\n
        To
\n        Shri Balagovinda Rao
\n        Maistry, T.No.2840
\nP.W.Engineering <\/p>\n
        5.   Mr.L.Chandrakumar,  learned  counsel appearing for the petitioner
\nhas submitted that in challenging the impugned Notice  that  inasmuch  as  the
\ngenuineness  of the certificate of the petitioner has not been verified by the
\ncommittee constituted, as per the directions  of  the  Supreme  Court  in  the
\njudgment   reported  in  MADHURI  PATIL  VS  ADDITIONAL  COMMISSIONER,  TRIBAL
\nDEVELOPMENT (A.I.R.  1995 Supreme Court 94), the respondent Port Trust has  no
\nright to proceed with the enquiry.\n<\/p>\n
        6.   I  have  heard  Mr.Jegadeesan,  learned counsel appearing for the
\nrespondent Port Trust.\n<\/p>\n
        7.  The issue relates to  community  status  and  genuineness  of  the
\ncommunity  certificate  came  up for consideration before the Supreme Court in
\nthe decision referred to above and the Supreme Court had issued the  following
\ndirections:\n<\/p>\n
        ” 4.  All the State Governments shall constitute
\n        a Committee of three officers, namely, (1)
\nan Additional or Joint Secretary or any
\nOfficer higher in rank of the Director
\nof the concerned department, (II) the
\n        Director, Social Welfare\/Tribal Welfare\/
\nBackward Class Welfare, as the case may be,
\nand (III) in the case of Scheduled Castes
\nanother Officer who has intimate knowledge
\nin the verification and issuance of the
\n        social status certificates.  In the case of
\nthe Scheduled Tribes, the Research Officer
\nwho has intimate knowledge in identifying
\nthe tribes, tribal communities, parts of
\ngroups of tribes or tribal communities”\n<\/p>\n
        8.   As per the judgment of the Supreme Court, the community status of
\na person with reference to the community certificate already issued  can  only
\nbe  verified by the committee constituted in accordance with the directions of
\nthe Supreme Court in the above Judgment.  There cannot be any dispute to  this
\nextent.   However,  on  the  facts of the present case, whether the petitioner
\nwould be justified in relying upon the  judgment  of  the  Supreme  Court  and
\nchallenging  the  action  of  the  respondent on the ground that the community<\/p>\n
certificate issued to the petitioner has not been so far  either  verified  or
\ncancelled  by the committee constituted in accordance with the judgment of the
\nSupreme Court.\n<\/p>\n
9.  In my opinion, while the Supreme Court had laid  down  thelaw  by  issuing
\ndirections  to  the  State Governments to constitute committees to go into the
\ngenuineness of the community certificates, it only directed that such of those
\ncertificates issued either by the authority who was competent to issue  or  by
\nthe  authority who was incompetent to issue to go into the genuineness of such
\ncertificates if it is so warranted.  The said  judgment  would  be  applicable
\nonly  when  issuance  of  such  certificate  is not in dispute and whether the
\nindividual in whose favour such certificate was issued would  be  entitled  to
\nthe same  or  not.    On  the other hand, when the Officer who is said to have
\nissued  the  community  certificate  himself  disown  the  issuance  of   such
\ncertificate  on  the verification of the records from the office, the question
\nof verification of the genuineness of the certificate  may  not  arise.    For
\napplying  the  judgment  of  the  Supreme  Court  the  factum  of  issuance of
\ncertificate from the office must be first satisfied and  thereafter  only  the
\ngenuineness of  the  said certificate would be verified.  When the issuance of
\nsuch certificate itself is disowned by the  authority  who  is  said  to  have
\nissued,  it  must  be  presumed  that the same is either bogus or fake and the
\nquestion of verification of the genuineness of such certificate does not arise
\nand consequently, the judgment of the Supreme Court may not be  applicable  to
\nthe said case.\n<\/p>\n
        10.   On  the above principle, the facts of this case should be looked
\ninto.  In the communication dated 24.2.1996, the District  Collector  has  not
\nonly reported  that  there is no such person in Dharmavaram (V) of S.  Kota(M)
\nas per the enquiry of the Ma Revenue Officer, S.    Kotta  but  also  that  no
\nScheduled  Tribe  caste certificate was issued to the petitioner from the said
\noffice.  The District Collector has also  said  that  as  there  was  no  such
\ncertificate issued, the certificate produced by the petitioner might be a fake
\none and the Port Trust Authority was entitled to take action.  From the report
\nit  is  clear that no such certificate was issued by the office from which the
\npetitioner claims to have obtained the same.  In fact, while the proceeding of
\nthe District Collector was sought to be relied upon  by  the  respondent  Port
\nTrust, this Court after considering the same, negatived all the contentions by
\nholding  that”  though  the  argument  is  attractive,  this Court will not be
\njustified in examining such a contention in this Writ Petition at this stage”.
\nIn my opinion, considering the facts of the case, the judgment of the  Supreme
\nCourt  in KUMARI MADHURI PATEIL will not be applicable to contend that so long
\nas the certificate is cancelled by the  authority  competent,  the  respondent
\ncannot proceed  on  the  ground  that  the  certificate is false.  Under these
\ncircumstances, it would not be correct  to  say  that  the  respondent  cannot
\nproceed with the enquiry.\n<\/p>\n
        11.   The enquiry which is sought to be conducted is in respect of the
\nfact as to whether the petitioner has got employment by furnishing  bogus\/fake
\ncertificate  or  not and the issue does not relate to whether such certificate
\nwas genuine or not.   As  already  referred,  the  power  to  enquire  by  the
\ncommittee  constituted  in terms of the guidelines framed by the Supreme Court
\nin the judgment referred to above, could be exercised only in respect  of  the
\ngenuineness of  the  certificate  is  sought  to  be made.  In the event, such
\nissuance of certificate itself is denied,  the  question  of  verification  of
\ngenuineness of  the  same  does not arise.  In such event, the respondent Port
\nTrust is entitled to conduct enquiry to find out as to whether the  petitioner
\nhas got employment by producing bogus\/fake certificate.  Of course, as already
\ndirected  by  this  Court,  the  petitioner  is entitled to participate in the
\nenquiry and satisfy the respondent that the certificate produced  by  him  was
\nnot  a fake one and it was a genuine one and in such event, till such time, no
\naction can be taken by the respondent Port  Trust.    When  such  a  right  is
\navailable to the petitioner, I am not inclined to entertain the Writ Petition.\n<\/p>\n
        12.  In  view of the above, the Writ Petition is dismissed.  No costs.
\nConsequently, W.P.M.P.Nos.2458 and 2459 of 2006 are also dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
vbs<\/p>\n
To\n<\/p>\n
1.  The Deputy Chairman
\nChennai Port Trust
\nRajaji Salai, Chennai-1.\n<\/p>\n
2.  The Chief Engineer
\nChennai Port Trust
\nRajaji Salai, Chennai-1.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Balagovinda Rao vs The Deputy Chairman on 30 January, 2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED 30.01.2006 CORAM THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE D. MURUGESAN W.P.No.2192 of 2006 and W.P.M.P.Nos.2458 and 2459 of 2006 Balagovinda Rao .. Petitioner -Vs- 1. The Deputy Chairman Chennai Port Trust Rajaji Salai, Chennai-1. 2. […]<\/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-55547","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nBalagovinda Rao vs The Deputy Chairman on 30 January, 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\/balagovinda-rao-vs-the-deputy-chairman-on-30-january-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Balagovinda Rao vs The Deputy Chairman on 30 January, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balagovinda-rao-vs-the-deputy-chairman-on-30-january-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=\"2006-01-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-02-24T21:42:02+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balagovinda-rao-vs-the-deputy-chairman-on-30-january-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balagovinda-rao-vs-the-deputy-chairman-on-30-january-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Balagovinda Rao vs The Deputy Chairman on 30 January, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-01-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-02-24T21:42:02+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balagovinda-rao-vs-the-deputy-chairman-on-30-january-2006\"},\"wordCount\":2364,\"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\\\/balagovinda-rao-vs-the-deputy-chairman-on-30-january-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balagovinda-rao-vs-the-deputy-chairman-on-30-january-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balagovinda-rao-vs-the-deputy-chairman-on-30-january-2006\",\"name\":\"Balagovinda Rao vs The Deputy Chairman on 30 January, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-01-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-02-24T21:42:02+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balagovinda-rao-vs-the-deputy-chairman-on-30-january-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balagovinda-rao-vs-the-deputy-chairman-on-30-january-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balagovinda-rao-vs-the-deputy-chairman-on-30-january-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Balagovinda Rao vs The Deputy Chairman on 30 January, 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":"Balagovinda Rao vs The Deputy Chairman on 30 January, 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\/balagovinda-rao-vs-the-deputy-chairman-on-30-january-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Balagovinda Rao vs The Deputy Chairman on 30 January, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balagovinda-rao-vs-the-deputy-chairman-on-30-january-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-01-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-02-24T21:42:02+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balagovinda-rao-vs-the-deputy-chairman-on-30-january-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balagovinda-rao-vs-the-deputy-chairman-on-30-january-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Balagovinda Rao vs The Deputy Chairman on 30 January, 2006","datePublished":"2006-01-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-02-24T21:42:02+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balagovinda-rao-vs-the-deputy-chairman-on-30-january-2006"},"wordCount":2364,"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\/balagovinda-rao-vs-the-deputy-chairman-on-30-january-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balagovinda-rao-vs-the-deputy-chairman-on-30-january-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balagovinda-rao-vs-the-deputy-chairman-on-30-january-2006","name":"Balagovinda Rao vs The Deputy Chairman on 30 January, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-01-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-02-24T21:42:02+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balagovinda-rao-vs-the-deputy-chairman-on-30-january-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balagovinda-rao-vs-the-deputy-chairman-on-30-january-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balagovinda-rao-vs-the-deputy-chairman-on-30-january-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Balagovinda Rao vs The Deputy Chairman on 30 January, 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\/55547","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=55547"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/55547\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=55547"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=55547"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=55547"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}