{"id":59541,"date":"2005-10-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-10-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-babu-vs-the-director-general-on-21-october-2005"},"modified":"2018-02-25T04:21:48","modified_gmt":"2018-02-24T22:51:48","slug":"g-babu-vs-the-director-general-on-21-october-2005","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-babu-vs-the-director-general-on-21-october-2005","title":{"rendered":"G.Babu vs The Director General on 21 October, 2005"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">G.Babu vs The Director General on 21 October, 2005<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           \n\nDated: 21\/10\/2005 \n\nCoram \n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.KANNADASAN    \n\nW.P.No.17643 of 1997  \n\nG.Babu                                 .. Petitioner\n\n-Vs-\n\n1.The Director General\n  Railway Protection Force,\n  Rail Bhavan,\n  Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Marg, \n  New Delhi - 110 002.\n\n2.The Chief Security Commissioner, \n  Railway Protection Force,\n  Southern Railway,\n  Moore Market Complex,  \n  6th Floor,\n  Chennai - 600 003.\n\n3.The Divisional Security Commissioner,\n  Railway Protection Force,\n  Southern Railway,\n  Moore Market Complex,  \n  Chennai - 600 003.               .. Respondents\n\n                Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of  India\npraying  for  the  issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the\nrecords of the second respondent in Order No.M\/XP-227\/28\/93 dated 2 .9.1993 as \nconfirmed by the order of the fifth respondent in proceedings  No.X\/P-227-1099\ndated  11.8.1995,  quash  the same and direct the respondents to reinstate the\npetitioner in service from 2.9.1993 onwards with all consequential benefits.\n\n!For Petitioner :  Mr.Vijay Narayan, Senior\n                Counsel for Mr.R.Parthiban\n\n^For Respondents :  Mr.R.Thiagarajan, Senior\n                Counsel for\n                Mr.V.G.Sureshkumar\n\n:JUDGMENT   \n<\/pre>\n<p>                The above writ petition is filed  for  the  relief  as  stated<br \/>\ntherein.\n<\/p>\n<p>                2.   The  petitioner  has  entered  into  the  services of the<br \/>\nRailway Protection Force in the  year  1976.    While  he  was  working  as  a<br \/>\nConstable, on 29.6.1992 a charge was framed against him relating to claim made<br \/>\nby the  petitioner  in  respect of his travelling allowance.  According to the<br \/>\npetitioner, on 18.7.1992, while he was on duty at about  11.00  A.    M.,  the<br \/>\nAssistant Security Commissioner by name Shri Edgar Fernandez visited the place<br \/>\nof  duty and took the petitioner to the lonely place for a secret conversation<br \/>\nand directed the petitioner to meet him during the rest  time.    As  per  his<br \/>\ndirections,   the  petitioner  met  the  Assistant  Security  Commissioner  on<br \/>\n21.7.1992, during which time,  the  petitioner  was  promised  that  the  said<br \/>\nOfficer  would  help him in the disciplinary proceedings and also would ensure<br \/>\nthat he would  get  further  promotion  as  a  Driver,  for  which  a  sum  of<br \/>\nRs.15,000\/-   was  demanded,  which  was  later  on  reduced  to  Rs.10,000\/-.<br \/>\nSubsequently, the petitioner had chosen to make a complaint  to  the  Director<br \/>\nGeneral  of  Railway Protection Force viz., the first respondent herein, about<br \/>\nthe demand made by the said Shri Edgar Fernandez.    Consequently,  the  first<br \/>\nrespondent  has  directed the Chief Security Commissioner to make enquiries on<br \/>\nthe allegations made in the complaint of the  petitioner  and  accordingly  an<br \/>\nenquiry was conducted and a report was arrived at that the said complaint is a<br \/>\nfrivolous one.   On the basis of the said report, a charge sheet was issued to<br \/>\nthe petitioner on 15.12.1992 to the effect that the petitioner had submitted a<br \/>\nfalse complaint to the first respondent making allegations against Shri  Edgar<br \/>\nFernandez  and  thereby  the  petitioner  had  committed  an  act  of  grossly<br \/>\ninsubordinate or insolent to his higher  Officer  which  is  punishable  under<br \/>\nSection 9(1)  of  the  Railway  Protection  Force Act.  Consequent to the said<br \/>\ncharges, an Enquiry  Officer  was  appointed  who  submitted  a  report  after<br \/>\nconducting an  enquiry.    The  third respondent, by order dated 2.9.1993, has<br \/>\npassed an order of punishment of dismissal from service which was confirmed by<br \/>\nthe appellate authority viz.,  the  second  respondent  by  proceedings  dated<br \/>\n11.8.1995.   Aggrieved  against  the  said  orders, the above writ petition is<br \/>\nfiled.\n<\/p>\n<p>                3.  The  respondents  resisted  the  above  writ  petition  by<br \/>\ncontending  that  there  is  no  procedural  irregularity  on  the part of the<br \/>\ndisciplinary authority while passing an order of dismissal and the finding  is<br \/>\narrived  at  by  considering  the  oral and documentary evidences available on<br \/>\nrecord.  It is also contended that the appellate authority also confirmed  the<br \/>\norder  of  the  disciplinary  authority  and  the order of punishment does not<br \/>\nsuffer from any infirmity or irregularity.\n<\/p>\n<p>                4.  The learned senior counsel appearing  for  the  petitioner<br \/>\ncontended that a careful perusal of the oral evidence adduced by the witnesses<br \/>\ndisclose  that the complaint preferred by the petitioner cannot be termed as a<br \/>\nfrivolous complaint and as such, the findings of the disciplinary authority as<br \/>\nwell as the appellate authority are perverse  and  liable  to  be  set  aside.<br \/>\nLearned  senior  counsel  further  contended that there is no necessity on the<br \/>\npart of the petitioner to make a complaint  of  this  nature  as  against  the<br \/>\nhigher  authority  risking  his very employment and as such, the allegation to<br \/>\nthe effect that the higher Officer had claimed the said amount as bribe  ought<br \/>\nto have been accepted as a true one.  It is also contended that the petitioner<br \/>\nhas  not  committed  any irregularity during his entire tenure of service from<br \/>\nthe date of his appointment viz., 1976 and for the first time  he  was  served<br \/>\nwith the charge memo for a false claim made in respect of travelling allowance<br \/>\nwhich  is  pertaining  to  a magre amount and in the course of the proceedings<br \/>\ninitiated in respect of the said charges, the incident of demand of bribe took<br \/>\nplace for which the authorities ought not to have imposed a major  penalty  of<br \/>\ndismissal.   He also contended that the authorities have failed to apply their<br \/>\nmind while awarding the punishment of dismissal considering the nature of  the<br \/>\ncharges  in support of which the witnesses tendered evidence as set out in the<br \/>\ncomplaint and accordingly seeks the relief.\n<\/p>\n<p>                5.  Per contra, learned senior  counsel  for  the  respondents<br \/>\ncontended  that  inasmuch  as  a  finding  is  arrived  at by the disciplinary<br \/>\nauthority only after careful examination of  the  entire  evidence  on  record<br \/>\nviz., the oral and documentary and an order of dismissal was passed, which was<br \/>\nlater  on  affirmed  by the appellate authority, this Court in exercise of its<br \/>\npowers conferred under Article 226 of the  Constitution  is  not  entitled  to<br \/>\nreappreciate  the  entire  evidence  on  record  and  to  come  to  a contrary<br \/>\nconclusion.  Learned senior counsel also contended that the  authorities  have<br \/>\nfollowed   the   rules  and  regulations  meticulously  while  conducting  the<br \/>\ndisciplinary proceedings and finally came to the conclusion that  the  charges<br \/>\nwere proved and as such, the order of dismissal cannot be interfered with.\n<\/p>\n<p>                6.   As  regards  the  quantum  of punishment is concerned, he<br \/>\ncontended that the  authorities  have  rightly  awarded  the  said  punishment<br \/>\nconsidering  the  fact  that the petitioner is employed in a disciplined Force<br \/>\nand such allegations have to be viewed  seriously.    Learned  senior  counsel<br \/>\nfurther  contended  that  the relief as claimed in the writ petition cannot be<br \/>\ngranted and at any rate, if such a relief  is  granted,  the  respondents  are<\/p>\n<p>bound  to  pay  huge  amount by way of backwages to the petitioner which would<br \/>\namount to grant of premium to the person like the petitioner who made reckless<br \/>\nallegation.\n<\/p>\n<p>                7.  I have considered the rival  contentions  of  the  learned<br \/>\nsenior counsels appearing on either side.\n<\/p>\n<p>                8.   A  perusal  of  the  relevant materials disclose that the<br \/>\nthird respondent while passing final order of dismissal, has followed all  the<br \/>\nprocedures  which  is  expected  to be followed in a disciplinary case of this<br \/>\nnature and a conclusion is arrived at.  Admittedly, there  was  a  preliminary<br \/>\ninvestigation  on  receipt  of  the complaint made by the petitioner and it is<br \/>\nonly thereafter, the charges were framed and an Enquiry officer was  appointed<br \/>\nand  the  petitioner  was  given  due  and  adequate opportunity to adduce all<br \/>\nevidence including oral evidence.  The Enquiry Officer has submitted a  report<br \/>\nafter  analysing all the materials on record and subsequently the disciplinary<br \/>\nauthority viz., the third respondent has  passed  an  order  of  dismissal  by<br \/>\nconsidering the entire materials on record.\n<\/p>\n<p>                9.   Even  though  the  learned  senior  counsel  has drawn my<br \/>\nattention  about  the  nature  of  evidence  adduced  by  the   witnesses   to<br \/>\nsubstantiate  that  the  disciplinary  authority  has not arrived at a correct<br \/>\nconclusion, this  Court  has  to  bear  in  mind  that  while  exercising  its<br \/>\njurisdiction  under  Article  226 of the Constitution, the High Court does not<br \/>\nact as an appellate authority.  Its jurisdiction is circumscribed by limits of<br \/>\njudicial review to correct the errors of law or procedural errors  leading  to<br \/>\nmanifest injustice  or  violation  of principles of natural justice.  Judicial<br \/>\nreview is not akin to adjudication of the  case  on  merits  as  an  appellate<br \/>\nauthority.  The above view is supported by the principles of the Apex Court in<br \/>\nits decision in <a href=\"\/doc\/348173\/\">Lalit Popli vs.  Canara Bank and Others<\/a> (2003 (3) SCC 583).\n<\/p>\n<p>                10.    Similarly,   the   Apex   Court   in  its  decision  in<br \/>\n<a href=\"\/doc\/1508554\/\">B.C.Chaturvedi vs.  Union of India<\/a> (1995 (6) SCC 749) held that the  scope  of<br \/>\njudicial  review  is limited only to the extent of decision making process and<br \/>\nwhen the findings of the disciplinary authority are based  on  some  evidence,<br \/>\nthe Court cannot reappreciate its evidence and substitute its own findings.  A<br \/>\nsimilar  view  is  taken  subsequently  by  the  Apex Court in its decision in<br \/>\n<a href=\"\/doc\/1798615\/\">R.S.Saini vs.  State of Punjab<\/a> (1999 (8) SCC 90).\n<\/p>\n<p>                11.  In the light of the above principles, I do  not  see  any<br \/>\nreason to interfere with the findings of the disciplinary authority wherein it<br \/>\nis held that the petitioner is guilty of the charges.\n<\/p>\n<p>                12.   As  regards  the  next  contention  viz., the quantum of<br \/>\npunishment is concerned, it is pertinent to refer to the specific ground urged<br \/>\nby the petitioner in the appeal submitted before the  first  respondent  which<br \/>\nreads as follows:-\n<\/p>\n<p>        &#8220;that the penalty imposed on me is too heavy and beyond all cannons of<br \/>\njustice  and  is  disproportionate  and  cannot  be implemented against me and<br \/>\ndeserves to be vacated and set aside.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>The above passage is set out  as  a  preamble  in  the  memorandum  of  appeal<br \/>\nsubmitted  by  the  petitioner  to  the  Chief Security Commissioner viz., the<br \/>\nsecond respondent herein.  Apart from the above said specific ground urged  in<br \/>\nthe  appeal,  the petitioner has chosen to raise several grounds attacking the<br \/>\norder of the third respondent.  A  perusal  of  the  order  of  the  appellate<br \/>\nauthority  dated 11.8.1995 discloses that the various grounds of attack in the<br \/>\nappeal was not at all dealt with including the  quantum  of  punishment.    In<br \/>\nfact,  the  second  respondent who is an appellate authority constituted under<br \/>\nthe statute is expected to deal with all the grounds urged in the appeal.  The<br \/>\norder of the appellate authority per se  discloses  that  the  petitioner  was<br \/>\ndeprived  of  a  valuable  right  of an appeal which was disposed of by merely<br \/>\nreferring to the fact that there was no procedural lapse and the appellant was<br \/>\ngiven fair opportunity and all the rules were followed correctly.  Though this<br \/>\ncourt, in normal circumstances,  would  remit  the  matter  to  the  concerned<br \/>\nappellate  authority, to examine the matter afresh, considering the long delay<br \/>\nviz., the period of dismissal till date, such course is not  adopted  and  the<br \/>\nmatter  requires  for consideration to what extent the relief could be granted<br \/>\nto the petitioner at  least  on  the  question  relating  to  the  quantum  of<br \/>\npunishment.\n<\/p>\n<p>                13.   In  this  regard,  it  is useful to refer to the various<br \/>\nprinciples of the apex Court wherein it is held that normally the Court should<br \/>\nnot interfere with the quantum of punishment; and only if  the  punishment  is<br \/>\n&#8220;shockingly&#8221;  disproportionate  to  the  misconduct  proved and it shocked the<br \/>\nconscience of the Court even then the Court would  remit  the  matter  to  the<br \/>\nauthority and  they  would  not  substitute the said punishment.  However, the<br \/>\nApex Court has also observed that in rare situations,  the  Court  itself  can<br \/>\nsubstitute its  own  punishment  by  awarding an alternative penalty.  In this<br \/>\nconnection it is useful to refer to the decisions rendered  in  <a href=\"\/doc\/1572927\/\">Ranjit  Thakur<br \/>\nvs.  Union  of  India<\/a>  (1987 (4) SCC 611); B.C.Chatturvedi vs.  Union of India<br \/>\n(1995 (6) SCC 749); and in <a href=\"\/doc\/107483\/\">Union of India vs.  Ganayutham<\/a> (1997 (7) SCC 463).\n<\/p>\n<p>                14.  In the light of the principles laid  down  in  the  above<br \/>\ndecisions,  I  am  of  the  opinion  that  the  quantum  of  punishment can be<br \/>\ninterfered with in the instant case for the following reasons:-\n<\/p>\n<p>                1.  The petitioner has entered in to services in the year 1976<br \/>\nand was chargesheeted for the first time in  the  year  1992  relating  to  an<br \/>\nirregularity in the claim of travelling allowance bills pertaining to a meagre<br \/>\namount  and  till such time, the petitioner has not committed any irregularity<br \/>\nduring his service.\n<\/p>\n<p>                2.  A chargesheet is framed in the course of the  disciplinary<br \/>\nproceedings  relating to the claim of travelling allowance bills on the ground<br \/>\nthat a complaint is given by the petitioner as against his superior officer to<br \/>\nthe effect that he has demanded a  sum  of  Rs.15,000\/-  which  was  later  on<br \/>\nreduced to Rs.10,000\/- to extend necessary help.\n<\/p>\n<p>                3.  Though a finding is rendered by the disciplinary authority<br \/>\nthat  the  allegations  are  found  to  be  frivolous, it cannot be completely<br \/>\nbrushed aside that some witnesses who have given evidence supported  the  case<br \/>\nof the petitioner, though their evidence were discarded and this Court has not<br \/>\ninterfered  with  the  ultimate  findings  by  considering  the  limited scope<br \/>\ninvolved under Article 226 of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n<p>                4.  The appellate  authority  has  not  rendered  any  finding<br \/>\neither on various grounds urged on the memorandum of appeal or on the specific<br \/>\ngrounds  raised  with  regard  to the quantum of punishment and the appeal was<br \/>\ndisposed of in a casual manner.\n<\/p>\n<p>                5.  For a charge of this nature, a major penalty of  dismissal<br \/>\nis ordered which shocks the conscience of this Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>                6.   Even on earlier occasion, when the matter was heard by an<br \/>\nanother learned Judge, his Lordship observed that  the  petitioner  cannot  be<br \/>\nawarded  with  such  a major penalty and a punishment of stoppage of increment<br \/>\nfor a period of three years would be sufficient to meet the ends  of  justice,<br \/>\nbut  however,  the  said  order could not be passed and an order of compulsory<br \/>\nretirement was ordered, which came to be recalled subsequently by order  dated<br \/>\n8.7.2005 for the reasons as set out therein.\n<\/p>\n<p>                15.   For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is disposed<br \/>\nof in the following terms:\n<\/p>\n<p>                a) The writ petition is  partly  allowed  in  so  far  as  the<br \/>\nquantum  of  punishment  is  concerned,  and  the  finding by the disciplinary<br \/>\nauthority in holding that the petitioner is guilty of  charges  is  concerned,<br \/>\nthe said finding is confirmed.\n<\/p>\n<p>                b)  The  punishment inflicted upon the petitioner is set aside<br \/>\nand the punishment of  order  of  dismissal  is  modified  as  a  stoppage  of<br \/>\nincrement for a period of three years with cumulative effect.\n<\/p>\n<p>                c) The petitioner is liable to be reinstated forthwith; at any<br \/>\nrate  not  later than the period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy<br \/>\nof this order.\n<\/p>\n<p>                d) The petitioner  is  not  entitled  for  any  backwages  but<br \/>\nhowever,  the  service  of  the  petitioner should be treated as in continuous<br \/>\nservice, which shall accrue to his future service benefits.\n<\/p>\n<p>                16.  The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.   No<br \/>\ncosts.\n<\/p>\n<p>Internet :  Yes<br \/>\nIndex :  Yes<\/p>\n<p>Svn <\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>1.The Director General<br \/>\nRailway Protection Force,<br \/>\nRail Bhavan,<br \/>\nRafi Ahmed Kidwai Marg,<br \/>\nNew Delhi &#8211; 110 002.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.The Chief Security Commissioner,<br \/>\nRailway Protection Force,<br \/>\nSouthern Railway,<br \/>\nMoore Market Complex,<br \/>\n6th Floor,<br \/>\nChennai &#8211; 600 003.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.The Divisional Security Commissioner,<br \/>\nRailway Protection Force,<br \/>\nSouthern Railway,<br \/>\nMoore Market Complex,<br \/>\nChennai &#8211; 600 003.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court G.Babu vs The Director General on 21 October, 2005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 21\/10\/2005 Coram The Hon&#8217;ble Mr. Justice N.KANNADASAN W.P.No.17643 of 1997 G.Babu .. Petitioner -Vs- 1.The Director General Railway Protection Force, Rail Bhavan, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Marg, New Delhi &#8211; 110 002. 2.The Chief Security [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-59541","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>G.Babu vs The Director General on 21 October, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-babu-vs-the-director-general-on-21-october-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"G.Babu vs The Director General on 21 October, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-babu-vs-the-director-general-on-21-october-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2005-10-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-02-24T22:51:48+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\\\/g-babu-vs-the-director-general-on-21-october-2005#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-babu-vs-the-director-general-on-21-october-2005\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"G.Babu vs The Director General on 21 October, 2005\",\"datePublished\":\"2005-10-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-24T22:51:48+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-babu-vs-the-director-general-on-21-october-2005\"},\"wordCount\":2297,\"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\\\/g-babu-vs-the-director-general-on-21-october-2005#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-babu-vs-the-director-general-on-21-october-2005\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-babu-vs-the-director-general-on-21-october-2005\",\"name\":\"G.Babu vs The Director General on 21 October, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2005-10-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-24T22:51:48+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-babu-vs-the-director-general-on-21-october-2005#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-babu-vs-the-director-general-on-21-october-2005\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-babu-vs-the-director-general-on-21-october-2005#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"G.Babu vs The Director General on 21 October, 2005\"}]},{\"@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":"G.Babu vs The Director General on 21 October, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-babu-vs-the-director-general-on-21-october-2005","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"G.Babu vs The Director General on 21 October, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-babu-vs-the-director-general-on-21-october-2005","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2005-10-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-02-24T22:51:48+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\/g-babu-vs-the-director-general-on-21-october-2005#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-babu-vs-the-director-general-on-21-october-2005"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"G.Babu vs The Director General on 21 October, 2005","datePublished":"2005-10-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-24T22:51:48+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-babu-vs-the-director-general-on-21-october-2005"},"wordCount":2297,"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\/g-babu-vs-the-director-general-on-21-october-2005#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-babu-vs-the-director-general-on-21-october-2005","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-babu-vs-the-director-general-on-21-october-2005","name":"G.Babu vs The Director General on 21 October, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2005-10-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-24T22:51:48+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-babu-vs-the-director-general-on-21-october-2005#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-babu-vs-the-director-general-on-21-october-2005"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-babu-vs-the-director-general-on-21-october-2005#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"G.Babu vs The Director General on 21 October, 2005"}]},{"@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\/59541","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=59541"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/59541\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=59541"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=59541"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=59541"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}