{"id":60992,"date":"2010-04-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-04-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-p-jayalakshmi-vs-the-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-15-april-2010"},"modified":"2017-02-13T20:10:34","modified_gmt":"2017-02-13T14:40:34","slug":"a-p-jayalakshmi-vs-the-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-15-april-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-p-jayalakshmi-vs-the-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-15-april-2010","title":{"rendered":"A.P.Jayalakshmi vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 15 April, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
A.P.Jayalakshmi vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 15 April, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 15\/04\/2010\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI\n\nW.P.(MD).No.10431 of 2007\n\nA.P.Jayalakshmi \t     \t\t\t   . . Petitioner\n\nvs\n\n1.The Government of Tamil Nadu,\n   rep. by its Secretary to Government,\n   Rural Development Department,\n   Fort St.George,\n   Chennai-600 009.\n\n2.The Government of Tamil Nadu,\n   rep. by its Secretary to Government,\n   Backward, Most Backward & Denotified Tribes Dept.,\n   Fort St.George,\n   Chennai-600 009.\n\n3.The Chief Executive Officer,\n   Tamil Nadu Khadi & Village Industries Board,\n   Kuralagam,\n   Chennai-600 108. \t           \t\t  .. Respondents\n\n\n\nWrit petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to\nissue a writ of certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the\ndisciplinary proceedings initiated by the first respondent in Charge Memo in\nLetter No. 53018\/E2\/2000-22 RD Dept. dated 03.02.2004 and consequential order in\nG.O.(D)No.538, RD & LA Dept. dated 24.09.2007 and quash the same.\n\n\n!For Petitioner   ... Mr.R.Vijayakumar\n^For Respondents  ... Mr.V.Rajasekaran,\n                      Special G.P. for  R1& R2\n \t\t      Mr.S.Dhanaseelan for R3\n\n\t\t\t\t\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
\tThe writ petition is directed against the impugned Charge Memo dated
\n03.02.2004 and the consequential order of punishment passed against the
\npetitioner by the first respondent-Government in G.O.(D)No.538,   RD & LA Dept.
\ndated 24.09.2007.  The petitioner was originally appointed as Khadi Assistant
\nGrade-III by the Executive Officer of the Tamil Nadu Khadi & Village Industries
\nBoard, Kuralagam, Chennai on 18.08.1993 and he was posted in the Office of the
\nAssistant Director at Dindigul and subsequently he was transferred and completed
\nhis successful probation on 20.10.1995.\n<\/p>\n
\t2. The petitioner has submitted his letter of resignation on 03.10.1997
\nwhich was accepted by the third respondent on 10.09.1999 relieving the
\npetitioner from the post with effect from 03.10.1997. At the time of retirement
\nof the petitioner, there was no disciplinary proceedings and in fact a
\nCertificate was issued about the non-pendency of disciplinary proceedings
\nagainst him. Thereafter, he got appointed as PG Assistant in the Government
\nKallar Higher Secondary School, Chekkanoorani, Madurai on 17.10.1997 in which
\npost he is now continuing.\n<\/p>\n
\t3. The first respondent has issued the impugned Charge Memo dated
\n03.02.2004 under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline &
\nAppeal) Rules.  The Charge Memo was on two counts. The first one is, while
\nworking as Khadi Assistant during the year 1994-95 and 1995-96, the petitioner
\ncolluded with Block Development Officer, Extension Officer and Panchayat
\nAssistants for misappropriation of Panchayat funds, while procuring the uniforms
\nfor the Panchayat staff, and prepared bogus bills. The second one is that the
\npetitioner has assisted, by collusion, in causing loss of the Panchayat funds,
\nwhich is against the Code of Conduct Rule 20(1).  The petitioner has submitted
\nher explanation on 05.04.2004 and enquiry was conducted on 30.11.2004 and the
\npetitioner has also submitted her further explanation on 02.09.2005 and
\nthereafter,  the first respondent has passed the impugned order which is the
\nfinal order in the disciplinary proceedings imposing a punishment of stoppage of
\nincrement for a period of three years with cumulative effect. The impugned
\nCharge Memo as well as the final order passed by the first respondent are
\nchallenged by the petitioner on various grounds, namely:-\n<\/p>\n
1)The first respondent has no jurisdiction since the petitioner has worked under
\nthe Khadi Board.\n<\/p>\n
2)In respect of the act stated to have been done in the years 1994-95 and 1995-
\n96, the Charge Memo was issued on 03.02.2004 and the order of punishment was
\npassed on 24.09.2007 and therefore, there is a prolonged unexplained delay which
\nis prejudicial to the interest of the petitioner, being a Delinquent Officer.\n<\/p>\n
3)Order passed by the first respondent imposing punishment is a non-speaking
\norder passed with total non-application of mind.\n<\/p>\n
\t4. Before going to the merits of the contentions raised by the petitioner
\non the above said grounds, it is relevant to point out that in respect of the
\nsame charges of the years 1994-95 and 1995-96, relating to another employee of
\nthe Village Panchayat, charges were framed on 02.02.2005 relating to the same
\noccurrence. The said Charge Memo came to be questioned before this Court on the
\nground of delay which is unexplained and ultimately, in Tirupathy, R. v. The
\nDistrict Collector, Madurai District,<\/a> reported in 2006(2) CTC 574, came to be
\ndecided by me, the said charges were quashed on the ground of inordinate delay
\nand one passed with closed mind and for extraneous reasons. While so, there is
\nabsolutely no difficulty to conclude on the facts of the present case to which
\nthe said reported judgment applies squarely.  As far as the last ground taken by
\nthe petitioner which requires to be considered as first issue in this case, it
\nis true that in the final order passed by the first respondent-Government, in
\nG.O.(D) No. 538, RD & LA Dept. dated 24.09.2007, the charges have been explained
\napart from the explanation submitted by the petitioner and the findings of the
\nEnquiry Officer and after narrating the factual aspects, while giving a finding
\nby imposing punishment, the first respondent has passed the following operative
\norder:-\n<\/p>\n
\t“jpUkjp V.gp.n[ayl;Rkp kPjhd Fw;wr;rhl;Lfs; mtuJ tpsf;fk; tprhuiz mYtyhpd;
\nfz;lwpjy;fs; kw;Wk; Fw;wk; rhl;lg;gl;l mYtyhpd; Nky; tpsf;fk; Mfpatw;iw
\nnjhlh;Gila Mtzq;fSld; ftdkhf ghprPyj;j gpd;dh; jpUkjp V.gp.n[ayl;Rkp kPjhd ,uz;L
\nFw;wr;rhl;LfSf;Fk; epUgzkhdjhf muR KbT nra;jJ.  EpUgzkhd Fw;wrprhl;LfSf;Fj;
\njz;lidahf mtuJ Cjpa cah;tpid Kd;whz;LfSf;Fj; jpuz;l gaDld; epWj;jp itf;fyhnkd;W
\nKbT nra;J mt;thNw muR MizapLfpwJ.  Nkw;Fwpg;gpl;l jz;lid mth; tpLg;gpy; nry;Yk;
\nfhyj;ijAk; cs;slf;fpajhFk;. ,j;jz;lid mtuJ Xa;T jpaj;ij ghjpf;Fk; vd;Wk;
\nMizaplg;gLfpwJ.”\n<\/p>\n
\t5. A reference to the said operative portion of the order makes it
\nabundantly clear that the first respondent has not taken note of any of the
\nissues raised by the petitioner by way of defence and it is a clear case of
\ntotal non-application of mind.  Therefore, the impugned order of punishment is
\nliable to be set aside.\n<\/p>\n
\t6. That apart, as correctly pointed out by the learned counsel for the
\npetitioner and as it was also found in the other cases stated supra, while the
\nCharge Memo was issued on 03.02.2004 which contains the instances which have
\ntaken place in 1994-95 and 1995-96 regarding the procurement of the uniforms to
\nbe given to the employees of the Panchayat, especially when the charge is that
\nthe petitioner, being the previous Sale Assistant, has colluded with the other
\nofficials who are responsible for procuring the materials at the cost of
\nRs.3,77,077\/- certainly after such a long lapse of time from 1994-2004 to the
\ndate of framing of the charge, it cannot be expected from a Delinquent Officer
\nto remember the factual matrix to give a proper explanation to substantially
\ndefend herself against the charges framed against her. It is further relevant to
\nnote that the respondents having framed the said charge on 03.02.2004, have
\ntaken more than three years for the purpose of passing final order and the long
\ndelay which has been unexplained by the respondents, is a matter of ground for
\nthis Court to interfere on the ground that such unexplained delay is detrimental
\nto the interest of the delinquent. The first respondent has not even taken note
\nof such long delay in passing the said order, against which judicial forum have
\nheavily come down on earlier occasions.\n<\/p>\n
\t7.  It was in State of Punjab and others v. Chaman Lal Goyal,<\/a> reported in
\n1995(2) SCC 570, where the Supreme Court has held that the delay of 5 . years in
\nserving the charges ought to be held as detrimental to the interest of the
\ndelinquent since it caused prejudice and such delay will be of more punishment
\nthan the ultimate order which may be passed in these cases. The Supreme Court
\nhas held as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
“9. Now remains the question of delay. There is undoubtedly a delay of five and
\na half years in serving the charges. The question is whether the said delay
\nwarranted the quashing of charges in this case. It is trite to say that such
\ndisciplinary proceeding must be conducted soon after the irregularities are
\ncommitted or soon after discovering the irregularities. They cannot be initiated
\nafter lapse of considerable time. It would not be fair to the delinquent
\nofficer. Such delay also makes the task of proving the charges difficult and is
\nthus not also in the interest of administration. Delayed initiation of
\nproceedings is bound to give room for allegations of bias, mala fides and misuse
\nof power. If the delay is too long and is unexplained, the court may well
\ninterfere and quash the charges. But how long a delay is too long always depends
\nupon the facts of the given case. Moreover, if such delay is likely to cause
\nprejudice to the delinquent officer in defending himself, the enquiry has to be
\ninterdicted. Wherever such a plea is raised, the court has to weigh the factors
\nappearing for and against the said plea and take a decision on the totality of
\ncircumstances.”\n<\/p>\n
\t8. Subsequently, in State of A.P. v. N.Radhakrishna, 1998(4) SCC 154, it
\nhas been concluded that in considering as to whether the delay has vitiated the
\ndisciplinary proceedings, the Court has to consider the nature of charge, its
\ncomplexity and on what account such delay has occurred and if the authority
\nfails to explain the delay, the prejudice to the delinquent employee is writ
\nlarge on the face of it. Holding so, the Supreme Court has set aside the
\ndisciplinary proceedings initiated therein. In Paragraph-19 of the said
\njudgment, the Supreme Court has held as under:-\n<\/p>\n
“19. It is not possible to lay down any predetermined principles applicable to
\nall cases and in all situations where there is delay in concluding the
\ndisciplinary proceedings. Whether on that ground the disciplinary proceedings
\nare to be terminated each case has to be examined on the facts and circumstances
\nin that case. The essence of the matter is that the court has to take into
\nconsideration all the relevant factors and to balance and weigh them to
\ndetermine if it is in the interest of clean and honest administration that the
\ndisciplinary proceedings should be allowed to terminate after delay particularly
\nwhen the delay is abnormal and there is no explanation for the delay. The
\ndelinquent employee has a right that disciplinary proceedings against him are
\nconcluded expeditiously and he is not made to undergo mental agony and also
\nmonetary loss when these are unnecessarily prolonged without any fault on his
\npart in delaying the proceedings. In considering whether the delay has vitiated
\nthe disciplinary proceedings the court has to consider the nature of charge, its
\ncomplexity and on what account the delay has occurred. If the delay is
\nunexplained prejudice to the delinquent employee is writ large on the face of
\nit. It could also be seen as to how much the disciplinary authority is serious
\nin pursuing the charges against its employee. It is the basic principle of
\nadministrative justice that an officer entrusted with a particular job has to
\nperform his duties honestly, efficiently and in accordance with the rules. If he
\ndeviates from this path he is to suffer a penalty prescribed. Normally,
\ndisciplinary proceedings should be allowed to take their course as per relevant
\nrules but then delay defeats justice. Delay causes prejudice to the charged
\nofficer unless it can be shown that he is to blame for the delay or when there
\nis proper explanation for the delay in conducting the disciplinary proceedings.
\nUltimately, the court is to balance these two diverse considerations.”\n<\/p>\n
\t9. That was followed by a later judgment of the Supreme Court in P.V.
\nMahadevan v. MD.T.N.Housing Board<\/a> reported in (2005) 6 Supreme Court Cases 636,
\nwherein it was held that inordinate delay of 10 years in initiating departmental
\nenquiry was held to be prejudicial to the interest of the delinquent. The
\nSupreme Court has held in that case that it is in the interest of inspiring
\nconfidence in the minds of Government employees and keeping note of the fact
\nthat making allegation of charge of corruption and disputed integrity of an
\nofficial, would cause unbearable mental agony and distress, especially when such
\nproceeding prolonging for years together, and on that basis, for the mistake
\ncommitted by the Department in causing such delay, it was held that the Court
\nhas to monitor.  The relevant paragraph of the said judgment reads as under:-
\n\t“11. Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that allowing the
\nrespondent to proceed further with the departmental proceedings at this distance
\nof time will be very prejudicial to the appellant. Keeping a higher government
\nofficial under charges of corruption and disputed integrity would cause
\nunbearable mental agony and distress to the officer concerned. The protracted
\ndisciplinary enquiry against a government employee should, therefore, be avoided
\nnot only in the interests of the government employee but in public interest and
\nalso in the interests of inspiring confidence in the minds of the government
\nemployees. At this stage, it is necessary to draw the curtain and to put an end
\nto the enquiry. The appellant had already suffered enough and more on account of
\nthe disciplinary proceedings. As a matter of fact, the mental agony and
\nsufferings of the appellant due to the protracted disciplinary proceedings would
\nbe much more than the punishment. For the mistakes committed by the department
\nin the procedure for initiating the disciplinary proceedings, the appellant
\nshould not be made to suffer.”\n<\/p>\n
\t10. The consistent trend in this case has been followed by the Supreme
\nCourt in its judgment in Ranjeet Singh v. State of Haryana & Others, reported in
\n2008 (3) CTC 781, where, by considering the unexplained delay of 9 years in
\nissuing the charge sheet and 7 years in issuing show-cause notice, the Supreme
\nCourt has held that such delay is fatal to the entire proceeding.  Following the
\nabove said series of judgments, the Supreme Court has ultimately reestablished
\nthe law in question as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
\t“9. We have extracted the charges against the appellant. These charges did
\nnot require any detailed investigation. In view of the unexplained delay of nine
\nyears the Trial Court was justified in holding that the entire enquiry was
\nvitiated and in declaring that the order of punishment to be null and void. The
\nAppellate Court did not have any justifiable reason to interfere with the said
\nfinding. In the circumstance, we are of the view that the High Court ought to
\nhave interfered in the matter as the Appeal involved a substantial question of
\nlaw, i.e. whether the issue of charge sheet after nine years when there are no
\nspecial circumstance to explain the delay vitiated the enquiry. As the matter is
\nold and as we have already found that the delay vitiated the enquiry, no purpose
\nwill be served by remitting the matter. We propose to dispose of the Appeal on
\nmerits.”\n<\/p>\n
\t11. That apart, this Court has been consistently following the said
\njudicial trend on the basis that unexplained delay in disciplinary proceeding
\ncauses more mental agony and distress apart from untold prejudice to the
\ndelinquent officials.  This is one such case where I have no hesitation to hold
\nthat in respect of the charge of the year 1994, the respondents have chosen to
\nframe the Charge Memo in the year 2004, which is nearly after 10 years, and
\nafter causing enquiry of charges, the respondents have taken 3 more years time
\nfor the purpose of passing the final order.  In such view of the matter, the
\nimpugned Charge Memo as well as the ultimate order are liable tobe set aside on
\nthe ground of unexplained delay of more than 13 years.\n<\/p>\n
\t12. No doubt there is substance in the contention of the learned counsel
\nfor the petitioner about the jurisdiction of the official who has passed the
\norder, but I am of the view that such a view can only be a technicality inasmuch
\nas it is only the different Department of the Government which has passed the
\nimpugned order and that itself cannot be taken as a ground for the purpose of
\ninterfering to hold that there is jurisdictional error. Be that as it may, as I
\nhave held above, on the other two grounds, namely, on an unexplained
\nextraordinary delay of nearly 13 years, and on the total non application of mind
\nby the first respondent in passing the impugned order, the impugned Charge Memo
\nas well as the final order passed by the first respondent are liable to be set
\naside and accordingly set aside.\n<\/p>\n
\t13. The writ petition is allowed.  Consequently, M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of
\n2007 are closed.  No costs.\n<\/p>\n
KM<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1.The Secretary to the Government,
\n   Government of Tamil Nadu,
\n   Rural Development Department,
\n   Fort St.George,
\n   Chennai-600 009.\n<\/p>\n
2.The Secretary to the Government,
\n   Government of Tamil Nadu,
\n   Backward, Most Backward & Denotified Tribes Dept.,
\n   Fort St.George,
\n   Chennai-600 009.\n<\/p>\n
3.The Chief Executive Officer,
\n   Tamil Nadu Khadi & Village Industries Board,
\n   Kuralagam,
\n   Chennai-600 108.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court A.P.Jayalakshmi vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 15 April, 2010 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 15\/04\/2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI W.P.(MD).No.10431 of 2007 A.P.Jayalakshmi . . Petitioner vs 1.The Government of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary to Government, Rural Development Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009. […]<\/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-60992","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nA.P.Jayalakshmi vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 15 April, 2010 - 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\/a-p-jayalakshmi-vs-the-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-15-april-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"A.P.Jayalakshmi vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 15 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-p-jayalakshmi-vs-the-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-15-april-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-04-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-02-13T14:40:34+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=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-p-jayalakshmi-vs-the-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-15-april-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-p-jayalakshmi-vs-the-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-15-april-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"A.P.Jayalakshmi vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 15 April, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-13T14:40:34+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-p-jayalakshmi-vs-the-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-15-april-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2675,\"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\\\/a-p-jayalakshmi-vs-the-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-15-april-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-p-jayalakshmi-vs-the-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-15-april-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-p-jayalakshmi-vs-the-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-15-april-2010\",\"name\":\"A.P.Jayalakshmi vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 15 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-13T14:40:34+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-p-jayalakshmi-vs-the-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-15-april-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-p-jayalakshmi-vs-the-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-15-april-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-p-jayalakshmi-vs-the-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-15-april-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"A.P.Jayalakshmi vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 15 April, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"A.P.Jayalakshmi vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 15 April, 2010 - 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\/a-p-jayalakshmi-vs-the-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-15-april-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"A.P.Jayalakshmi vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 15 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-p-jayalakshmi-vs-the-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-15-april-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-04-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-02-13T14:40:34+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":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-p-jayalakshmi-vs-the-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-15-april-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-p-jayalakshmi-vs-the-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-15-april-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"A.P.Jayalakshmi vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 15 April, 2010","datePublished":"2010-04-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-13T14:40:34+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-p-jayalakshmi-vs-the-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-15-april-2010"},"wordCount":2675,"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\/a-p-jayalakshmi-vs-the-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-15-april-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-p-jayalakshmi-vs-the-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-15-april-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-p-jayalakshmi-vs-the-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-15-april-2010","name":"A.P.Jayalakshmi vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 15 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-04-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-13T14:40:34+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-p-jayalakshmi-vs-the-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-15-april-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-p-jayalakshmi-vs-the-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-15-april-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-p-jayalakshmi-vs-the-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-15-april-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"A.P.Jayalakshmi vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 15 April, 2010"}]},{"@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\/60992","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=60992"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/60992\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=60992"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=60992"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=60992"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}