{"id":63313,"date":"2008-11-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-11-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-f-augustin-vs-state-of-kerala-on-7-november-2008"},"modified":"2016-09-28T23:03:07","modified_gmt":"2016-09-28T17:33:07","slug":"k-f-augustin-vs-state-of-kerala-on-7-november-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-f-augustin-vs-state-of-kerala-on-7-november-2008","title":{"rendered":"K.F.Augustin vs State Of Kerala on 7 November, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
K.F.Augustin vs State Of Kerala on 7 November, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nOP.No. 34556 of 2000(L)\n\n\n\n1. K.F.AUGUSTIN\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. STATE OF KERALA\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY\n\n                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN\n\n Dated :07\/11\/2008\n\n O R D E R\n                            S. Siri Jagan, J.\n               =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=\n                  O.P. Nos. 34556\/2000 & 6932\/2001\n               =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=\n                Dated this, the 7th  November, 2008.\n\n                           J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
      Since issues in these two original petitions are connected, they<\/p>\n
are being heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.<\/p>\n
      2. The petitioner is presently an Assistant Sub Inspector of<\/p>\n
Police.   While he was working as Head Constable, disciplinary<\/p>\n
proceedings      were initiated against him for certain acts of<\/p>\n
misconduct, which resulted in Ext. P6 order of punishment of<\/p>\n
reduction in rank, as Police Constable for two years. Although<\/p>\n
petitioner’s appeal and revision were rejected by Exts.P 8 and P10<\/p>\n
orders, in review before the Government, by Ext. P13 order, the<\/p>\n
Government reduced the punishment to one of “black mark”.<\/p>\n
Pursuant thereto, Ext. P14 order was passed directing that the period<\/p>\n
of suspension of the petitioner would be considered as duty for the<\/p>\n
purpose of payment of pension and gratuity and he would be eligible<\/p>\n
for 80% of the salary during suspension period. The petitioner is<\/p>\n
challenging Exts.P 13 and P14 orders in O.P.No. 34556\/2000.<\/p>\n
      3. Subsequently, the petitioner was considered for inclusion in<\/p>\n
the select list for promotion.    However, on account of the “black<\/p>\n
mark” consequent to the disciplinary proceedings, he was superseded<\/p>\n
for promotion, in respect of which Ext. P2 order has been issued on a<\/p>\n
representation filed by the petitioner against the supersession. The<\/p>\n
petitioner is challenging Ext. P2 order in O.P.No. 6932\/2001.<\/p>\n
      4. The petitioner’s contention is that as is evident from Ext. P4<\/p>\n
(a) minutes of punishment roll, it is evident that the enquiry officer<\/p>\n
found the petitioner not guilty of the misconduct alleged against him.<\/p>\n
According to the petitioner, after having not found guilty of the<\/p>\n
misconduct as alleged in the charge memo, the petitioner could not<\/p>\n
have been imposed with any punishment. Since the petitioner is not<\/p>\n
guilty of any misconduct, the petitioner is entitled to full salary and<\/p>\n
O.P.Nos.34556\/00 & 6932\/01.        -: 2 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
benefits for the period of suspension and it cannot be limited to 80%.<\/p>\n
As far as supersession is concerned, the petitioner would contend that<\/p>\n
in so far as he is not guilty of any misconduct, he could not have been<\/p>\n
superseded since the only ground on which he was superseded was<\/p>\n
the imposition of punishment of “black mark” on the petitioner.<\/p>\n
      5.   Counter affidavits have been filed in both cases.       It is<\/p>\n
contended in the counter affidavit that from the evidence on record,<\/p>\n
it is clear that the petitioner had tarnished the image of the police<\/p>\n
before the public. Therefore, the imposition of black mark on him is<\/p>\n
perfectly correct, is the submission made. Once the imposition of<\/p>\n
black mark is held to be valid,      his supersession for the purpose of<\/p>\n
promotion is also correct is the contention raised by the learned<\/p>\n
Government Pleader.\n<\/p>\n
      6. I have considered the rival contentions in detail.<\/p>\n
      7. The charges alleged against the petitioner was that while<\/p>\n
working as Head Constable attached to Punnapra Police Station, the<\/p>\n
petitioner, at about 9.30 p.m. on 16-2-1992, went to the house of one<\/p>\n
Lisy, a widow residing at Nedumparambu House in Ward No. 4 of<\/p>\n
Punnapra     Panchayat,     in an intoxicated  condition, beat her and<\/p>\n
destroyed    the articles in that house and uttered obscene words,<\/p>\n
which is stated to be the conduct on the part of the petitioner<\/p>\n
unbecoming of a member of the police force. From Ext. P4(a), which<\/p>\n
is the Punishment Roll Minutes, it is seen that the said Smt. Lisy was<\/p>\n
examined as a witness, namely, PW1. She had deposed before the<\/p>\n
enquiry officer that the allegations that the petitioner went to her<\/p>\n
house in an intoxicated condition, beat her, destroyed her dress and<\/p>\n
domestic articles in the house and uttered obscene words are not<\/p>\n
correct. She further deposed that some other persons of the locality<\/p>\n
assaulted the petitioner and it is one of those persons who caused<\/p>\n
O.P.Nos.34556\/00 & 6932\/01.      -: 3 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
destruction of the household articles of Smt. Lisy.          The other<\/p>\n
witnesses who have been examined also did not             support the<\/p>\n
allegations in the charge sheet. In fact, in the concluding portion of<\/p>\n
Ext. P4(a) P R minutes, what has been found by the enquiry officer<\/p>\n
is that the allegations against the petitioner in the charge memo had<\/p>\n
not been proved.       What has been found is that in the medical<\/p>\n
examination pursuant to the assault on the petitioner in respect of<\/p>\n
which a criminal case was registered, the concerned medical officer<\/p>\n
had noted that while the petitioner was admitted, he was smelling of<\/p>\n
alcohol.   A further observation made therein is that the persons of<\/p>\n
the locality assaulted the petitioner because they did not like the<\/p>\n
petitioner going to the house of Smt. Lisy. Smt. Lisy is a widow. The<\/p>\n
petitioner claims that Smt. Lisy is the widow of one of his friends and<\/p>\n
that members of both houses used to visit each other and the<\/p>\n
petitioner was only visiting the said Lisy in furtherance of his social<\/p>\n
obligations. From Ext. P4(a), I am unable to find that the allegations<\/p>\n
in the memo of charges have been proved to any extent. On the other<\/p>\n
hand, the finding therein is that the petitioner had not committed the<\/p>\n
alleged misconduct. The only finding is that at the relevant time, he<\/p>\n
was smelling of alcohol. There is no allegation that at the relevant<\/p>\n
time, the petitioner was on duty. Consumption of alcohol while not<\/p>\n
on duty is not a misconduct also. Therefore, going by Ext. P4(a), I am<\/p>\n
unable to find that the petitioner was guilty of any misconduct<\/p>\n
whatsoever.      When Smt. Lisy herself submitted that the acts<\/p>\n
constituting the allegations against the petitioner have not been<\/p>\n
committed in her house, then there cannot be any conclusion of any<\/p>\n
misconduct whatsoever against the petitioner. As such, the petitioner<\/p>\n
cannot be held guilty of any any misconduct as has been done by the<\/p>\n
respondents. Consequently, imposition of any punishment including<\/p>\n
O.P.Nos.34556\/00 & 6932\/01.     -: 4 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
black mark cannot be sustained. Accordingly, Ext. P13 order whereby<\/p>\n
the punishment of black mark has been imposed on the petitioner is<\/p>\n
quashed.    It is declared that the petitioner    is not   liable to be<\/p>\n
punished for any misconduct as has been done in this case. However,<\/p>\n
I am not inclined to interfere with Ext. P14, whereby the salary and<\/p>\n
allowances of the petitioner have been limited to 80% during the<\/p>\n
period of suspension in so far as under Rule 56A of the K.S.R, the<\/p>\n
disciplinary authority has powers to do so and in this case, there was<\/p>\n
some suspicious circumstances which led to the issue of memo of<\/p>\n
charges.\n<\/p>\n
      8.   The supersession of the petitioner for the purpose of<\/p>\n
promotion as Assistant Sub Inspector is wholly based on the<\/p>\n
punishment of “black mark” imposed on him, as is evident from Ext.<\/p>\n
P2 in O.P.No. 6932\/2001, which has been quashed by me. Therefore<\/p>\n
the supersession of the petitioner also cannot be sustained.<\/p>\n
Accordingly, Ext. P2 also is quashed. It is held that supersession of<\/p>\n
the petitioner for the purpose of promotion as A.S.I on the basis of<\/p>\n
black mark is unsustainable.\n<\/p>\n
      9.   The petitioner has been subsequently promoted as A.S.I.<\/p>\n
However, once the supersession is set aside, his date of promotion is<\/p>\n
to be revised by including him in the select list for the previous<\/p>\n
periods, if he is otherwise eligible. Orders in this regard shall be<\/p>\n
passed, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months<\/p>\n
from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The original<\/p>\n
petitions are allowed as above.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                        Sd\/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge.\n<\/p>\n
Tds\/<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court K.F.Augustin vs State Of Kerala on 7 November, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM OP.No. 34556 of 2000(L) 1. K.F.AUGUSTIN … Petitioner Vs 1. STATE OF KERALA … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER The Hon’ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN Dated :07\/11\/2008 O R D E […]<\/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":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-63313","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nK.F.Augustin vs State Of Kerala on 7 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-f-augustin-vs-state-of-kerala-on-7-november-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"K.F.Augustin vs State Of Kerala on 7 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-f-augustin-vs-state-of-kerala-on-7-november-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-11-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-09-28T17:33:07+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-f-augustin-vs-state-of-kerala-on-7-november-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-f-augustin-vs-state-of-kerala-on-7-november-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"K.F.Augustin vs State Of Kerala on 7 November, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-11-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-28T17:33:07+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-f-augustin-vs-state-of-kerala-on-7-november-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1268,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-f-augustin-vs-state-of-kerala-on-7-november-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-f-augustin-vs-state-of-kerala-on-7-november-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-f-augustin-vs-state-of-kerala-on-7-november-2008\",\"name\":\"K.F.Augustin vs State Of Kerala on 7 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-11-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-28T17:33:07+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-f-augustin-vs-state-of-kerala-on-7-november-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-f-augustin-vs-state-of-kerala-on-7-november-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-f-augustin-vs-state-of-kerala-on-7-november-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"K.F.Augustin vs State Of Kerala on 7 November, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"K.F.Augustin vs State Of Kerala on 7 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-f-augustin-vs-state-of-kerala-on-7-november-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"K.F.Augustin vs State Of Kerala on 7 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-f-augustin-vs-state-of-kerala-on-7-november-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-11-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-09-28T17:33:07+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-f-augustin-vs-state-of-kerala-on-7-november-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-f-augustin-vs-state-of-kerala-on-7-november-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"K.F.Augustin vs State Of Kerala on 7 November, 2008","datePublished":"2008-11-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-28T17:33:07+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-f-augustin-vs-state-of-kerala-on-7-november-2008"},"wordCount":1268,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-f-augustin-vs-state-of-kerala-on-7-november-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-f-augustin-vs-state-of-kerala-on-7-november-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-f-augustin-vs-state-of-kerala-on-7-november-2008","name":"K.F.Augustin vs State Of Kerala on 7 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-11-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-28T17:33:07+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-f-augustin-vs-state-of-kerala-on-7-november-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-f-augustin-vs-state-of-kerala-on-7-november-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-f-augustin-vs-state-of-kerala-on-7-november-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"K.F.Augustin vs State Of Kerala on 7 November, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/63313","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=63313"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/63313\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=63313"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=63313"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=63313"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}