{"id":67897,"date":"2003-11-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-11-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-bright-gnana-singh-vs-agarwal-vidyalaya-junior-on-6-november-2003"},"modified":"2016-04-28T14:02:48","modified_gmt":"2016-04-28T08:32:48","slug":"c-bright-gnana-singh-vs-agarwal-vidyalaya-junior-on-6-november-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-bright-gnana-singh-vs-agarwal-vidyalaya-junior-on-6-november-2003","title":{"rendered":"C. Bright Gnana Singh vs Agarwal Vidyalaya &amp; Junior &#8230; on 6 November, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">C. Bright Gnana Singh vs Agarwal Vidyalaya &amp; Junior &#8230; on 6 November, 2003<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           \n\nDATED: 06\/11\/2003  \n\nCORAM   \n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. MISRA         \n\nWRIT PETITION NO.19957 OF 1998     \n\n\n\nC. Bright Gnana Singh,\n6, Kasthuribai Street,\nGandhi Road, Choolaimedu,  \nChennai 600 094.                        ..  Petitioner\n\n-Vs-\n\n1. Agarwal Vidyalaya &amp; Junior College,\n   Represented by its Correspondent,\n   54, E.V.K. Sampath Road, \n   Vepery, Chennai 600 007.\n\n2. The Joint Secretary,\n   Central Board of Secondary Education,\n   1630\/A, 15 Main Road, Anna Nagar West,  \n   Chennai 40.\n\n3. Chairman,\n   Central Board of Secondary Education,\n   Shiksha Kendra,\n   2, Community Center,\n   Preet Vihar,\n   Delhi 110 092.                       ..  Respondents\n\n\n        Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for  the\nissuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus as stated therein.\n\n!For Petitioner :  Mr.D.  Hari Paranthaman\n\nFor Respondents        :  Mr.D.  Haridas\n                Senior Counsel for\n                Mr.A.  Ramesh Kumar\n\n\n:J U D G M E N T \n<\/pre>\n<p>                The  petitioner  has  challenged  the  order of dismissal from<br \/>\nservice which has been confirmed by the appellate authority.\n<\/p>\n<p>                2.  Respondent No.1 school was being run on Central  Board  of<br \/>\nSecondary   Education  and  was  affiliated  to  Central  Board  of  Secondary<br \/>\nEducation.  The petitioner, who is a trained graduate  teacher  having  B.Sc.,<br \/>\nB.Ed.,  qualification,  was  appointed  as  a  Mathematics  teacher  under the<br \/>\nrespondent No.1 school by order dated  27.7.1984  on  a  consolidated  pay  of<br \/>\nRs.700\/-.   Subsequently,  by  order  dated  10.6.1985 he was appointed as the<br \/>\nMathematics teacher on probation in the scale of pay applicable to  a  Trained<br \/>\nGraduate  Teacher  and  thereafter he was confirmed with effect from 1.6.1986.<br \/>\nSubsequently, his pay was revised pursuant to IV pay commission.  He was being<br \/>\nassigned teaching work in Middle School,  High  School  and  Higher  Secondary<br \/>\nclasses.   In  course  of  time,  he was also kept in charge of N.C.C., of the<br \/>\nschool.  In the month of March, 1990 he was  orally  informed  that  he  would<br \/>\ncontinue  as  a Secondary Grade teacher and after summer vacation, on 1.6.1990<br \/>\nhe was shown against a Secondary Grade Teachers  scale  and  the  salary  was<br \/>\naccordingly reduced.  Thereafter he was given classes in V, VI and VII without<br \/>\nassigning any  class in higher secondary school classes.  Since the petitioner<br \/>\nwas asked to execute an agreement, he appealed to the Joint Secretary and went<br \/>\non making correspondence against his degradation.  Ultimately, the  petitioner<br \/>\nfiled W.P.No.15410 of 1990 challenging his degradation.  It is the case of the<br \/>\npetitioner  that  after  receiving  notice  in  the  writ petition, the school<br \/>\nauthorities started issuing memos one after another magnifying certain trivial<br \/>\nmatters.  Even the school authorities did not pay  the  increase  in  dearness<br \/>\nallowance after  the  writ  petition has been filed.  The petitioner had given<br \/>\nhis reply to various memos issued  against  him  explaining  and  denying  the<br \/>\nallegations.   In  the  meantime the petitioner was also asked to take classes<br \/>\nfor Standard I and II and was asked to sign the attendance register  kept  for<br \/>\nK.G.  and  Primary  teachers.  The petitioner at that stage had written letter<br \/>\ndated 12.6.1991 requesting the school authorities to assign higher classes and<br \/>\nexpressing difficulty in handling  I  and  II  classes,  as  being  a  trained<br \/>\ngraduate  teacher  he  was not trained to teach I and II class students and he<br \/>\nhad not undergone secondary grade training which is required for such classes.<br \/>\nIt is the specific averment of the petitioner that such letter came back  with<br \/>\nthe endorsement  refused.    A  similar letter dated 8.7.1991 also came back<br \/>\nwith an endorsement refused.  It is obvious that there  was  an  undeclared<br \/>\ncold war.    At that stage, the school took objection to some statements made<br \/>\nby the petitioner in parent-teacher&#8217;s meeting dated 9.7.1991 and  issued  memo<br \/>\ndated 26.8.91.    The  reply  dated  9.9.91  explaining  the  grievance of the<br \/>\npetitioner was again returned with an endorsement  refused.    Subsequently,<br \/>\nanother  memo  was  issued  indicating  that  the  petitioner was not properly<br \/>\nconducting mathematics for I and II classes and the reply dated 4.10.1991  was<br \/>\nalso returned  with  the  postal  endorsement  refused.   At that stage, the<br \/>\npetitioner filed appeal to the Joint  Secretary,  CGSC  airing  his  grievance<br \/>\nagainst the  collar activities of the management.  In the subsequent year, the<br \/>\npetitioner was not assigned any class and even his name was not printed in the<br \/>\nlist of teachers in the school calendar and the petitioner was divested of his<br \/>\nresponsibility as a NCC teacher.  In the  aforesaid  background,  disciplinary<br \/>\nproceeding was  initiated against the petitioner.  The petitioner in his reply<br \/>\nhad indicated that an impartial enquiry is to be held.\n<\/p>\n<p>        Originally one Mr.  Palaniappan, former Law Secretary to Government of<br \/>\nTamil Nadu was appointed as the enquiry officer, but  apparently  he  had  not<br \/>\nagreed  and subsequently the petitioner was informed that the enquiry would be<br \/>\nconducted by Sri.  Veeraraghavan and Mrs.  Meera Gupta,  Advocates.    It  was<br \/>\ninformed  that  they  would be enquiring into the charge memo dated 18.6.1992.<br \/>\nThe petitioner objected to the inclusion  of  Charge  Nos.5  and  6,  as  such<br \/>\ncharges had  never  been  placed in the original charge sheet.  The petitioner<br \/>\nalso requested for list of witnesses and documents relied upon in the  enquiry<br \/>\nand had  objected to the appointment of two enquiry officers.  It was informed<br \/>\nthat S.  Veeraraghavan would continue as the sole  Enquiry  Officer  and  Mrs.<br \/>\nMeera Gupta  would  function  as  the  Presenting Officer.  The petitioner has<br \/>\nfurther indicated that he had furnished his  explanation  relating  to  Charge<br \/>\nNos.5  and 6 and it should be decided that such charges would continue or not.<br \/>\nThe enquiry officer also directed to furnish list of witnesses  and  documents<br \/>\nand they  would  continue  with Charge Nos.5 and 6.  On 3.4.93, the petitioner<br \/>\ngave his explanation to charge Nos.5 &amp;  6  and  requested  that  such  charges<br \/>\nshould be dropped.  The enquiry officer directed the Management to go into the<br \/>\nmatter  and  also  regarding  Charge  Nos.5  &amp;  6  directed to furnish list of<br \/>\nwitnesses and documents.  Thereafter the enquiry was being adjourned from time<br \/>\nto time to enable the management to produce the  relevant  documents  and  the<br \/>\nmatter  was  adjourned  to  enable  the management to consider the question of<br \/>\namicable settlement.  On 21.8.93 and 29.8.93, certain documents, namely, C1 to<br \/>\nC15 were marked on the later date.  The new Principal Mrs.   Umayal,  who  was<br \/>\nnot  originally cited as witness and who was not in service during the alleged<br \/>\nperiod of delinquency, was examined as a witness and documents M1 and M2  were<br \/>\nmarked.   On  3.9.93 chief examination of such witness continued and documents<br \/>\nM3 to M8 were marked.  On the adjourned  date,  C10  to  C40  were  marked  by<br \/>\nconsent and  further  examination was deferred.  On the next day, document C41<br \/>\nwas marked with consent and further examination was adjourned to 23.9.93.   On<br \/>\n23.9.9  3,  no  intimation  was received either from the school or the enquiry<br \/>\nofficer.   Subsequently,  on  13.12.1993,  the   school   appointed   one   S.<br \/>\nMuthukrishnan  as enquiry officer in the place of previous enquiry officer Sri<br \/>\nS.  Veeraraghavan.  The enquiry  was  fixed  on  23.12.93.    The  reason  for<br \/>\nchanging the enquiry  officer  was  not disclosed.  Mr.  Deena Dayalu, Manager<br \/>\nwas appointed as  the  Presenting  Officer.    During  the  said  period,  the<br \/>\npetitioner  was  on  medical  leave  and had been admitted as an in-patient in<br \/>\nK.M.C.  Hospital and ultimately in Wellington Hospital.  He was being  treated<br \/>\nas  in-patient  from 25.11.1993 till 7.12.1 993, but continued to remain under<br \/>\ntreatment after being discharged from the  hospital.    He  reported  back  on<br \/>\n10.1.94.  However, at that stage the petitioner was asked to appear before the<br \/>\nMedical  Board,  as  according to the management he was unfit to continue as a<br \/>\nteacher.  However, the Medical Board of Stanley Hospital  gave  a  certificate<br \/>\nthat the petitioner was fit to continue.\n<\/p>\n<p>        Be  that  as it may, the petitioner was not assigned any class inspite<br \/>\nof the certificate issued by the Medical Board.  On resumption of  enquiry  on<br \/>\n11.2.94,  it  was  represented  by  the  petitioner  that the previous enquiry<br \/>\nofficer and the presenting officer and the special committee of three  members<br \/>\nfrom  the  management had recommended for dropping the charges and for winding<br \/>\nup the enquiry, and therefore, the management should drop the  enquiry.    The<br \/>\nmatter was adjourned to 22.2.94, on which date, the newly appointed presenting<br \/>\nofficer  indicated that the enquiry officer had been changed for valid reasons<br \/>\nand the presenting officer had been changed due to administrative reasons, but<br \/>\nno documents had been produced.  In the meantime the petitioner  was  informed<br \/>\nthat charge  Nos.5  &amp;  6  need not be dropped.  Subsequently, on 3.3,.1994 and<br \/>\n15.3.1994, cross-examination of MW1 was  held  in  part  and  the  matter  was<br \/>\nadjourned to  28.3.94  for  further cross-examination.  However, on 28.3.1994,<br \/>\nthe  said  witness  even  though  present,  was  not  tendered   for   further<br \/>\ncross-examination  and  instead second witness was sought to be examined which<br \/>\nwas opposed by the petitioner.  The second witness was  examined  and  certain<br \/>\ndocuments  were  marked  even though he was not concerned with such documents.<br \/>\nOn 12.4.1994 such witness was examined in part and the matter was adjourned to<br \/>\n29.4.94 for further examination.  On 29.4.1994, even though the petitioner was<br \/>\npresent, the enquiry could not be held due  to  the  absence  of  the  enquiry<br \/>\nofficer  and  the  petitioner  was told that the next date of enquiry would be<br \/>\nnotified.  On the said date  itself  the  petitioner  gave  a  letter  to  the<br \/>\npresenting  officer  addressed  to  the enquiry officer requesting the enquiry<br \/>\nofficer to hold enquiry after summer vacation as the petitioner was to  attend<br \/>\ntwo marriages  in  his  native  place in Kanyakumari district.  The petitioner<br \/>\nalso indicated that he would also like to spend sometime with his old  parents<br \/>\nin  his native place in Kanyakumari district and therefore, the enquiry should<br \/>\nbe held after 1.6.94.  Subsequently, however, the school sent a  letter  dated<br \/>\n30.4.94  enclosing a telegram from the enquiry officer fixing the hearing date<br \/>\nas 14.5.94.  The petitioner immediately sent a letter dated 1.5.94  requesting<br \/>\nto  adjourn  the  enquiry after summer vacation enclosing a copy of invitation<br \/>\nregarding the marriage which was scheduled to be held on 13 .5.94.    However,<br \/>\nsuch request  was  telegraphically rejected.  It is the case of the petitioner<br \/>\nthat even though he had made arrangements to return to attend the enquiry,  he<br \/>\nsuddenly  fell  ill  and  was  admitted  in  Justin Hospital at Kulasekaram in<br \/>\nKanyakumari District.  A telegram was sent to the  enquiry  officer  informing<br \/>\nhim about  the  hospitalisation.  A letter dated 14.5.94 enclosing the medical<br \/>\ncertificate was also sent.  Inspite  of  the  aforesaid  letter,  the  enquiry<br \/>\nofficer  closed  the enquiry on 15.5.94 and submitted his findings holding the<br \/>\npetitioner guilty of all the charges and the  petitioner  was  asked  to  show<br \/>\ncause as  to  why  he  should  not be dismissed.  The petitioner submitted his<br \/>\nexplanation dated 31.5.94 explaining the circumstances under  which  he  could<br \/>\nnot attend  the  enquiry  and  requested  to re-open the enquiry.  It was also<br \/>\nindicated that he wanted  to  examine  the  teachers,  who,  though  cited  as<br \/>\nwitnesses, were not examined.  However, the Correspondent of the school passed<br \/>\nan order  dated 2.6.94 dismissing the petitioner from service.  The petitioner<br \/>\nfiled appeal dated 7.6.94 before the Chairman of  the  disciplinary  committee<br \/>\nconstituted under  bye-law  50  of  C.B.S.E.    affiliation bye-laws framed by<br \/>\nCentral Board of Secondary Education.  Before the  Committee,  the  petitioner<br \/>\ngave a  representation  requesting for enquiry.  He was called upon to produce<br \/>\ndocuments which he sent subsequently.  However, nothing  was  intimated  about<br \/>\nthe  petitioners  request  represented  through  lawyer  and  his request for<br \/>\nappointment of enquiry officer to be nominated by the CBSE.  Subsequently,  on<br \/>\n5.5.97, the petitioner was informed that the management committee has accepted<br \/>\nthe recommendation of the disciplinary committee in the meeting dated 25.4.97.<br \/>\nThe  petitioner  made  further  appeal  dated 7.6.97 stating that disciplinary<br \/>\ncommittee being the superior body should deal with the appeal.  An  order  was<br \/>\npassed  on  20.6.97  stating  that the disciplinary committee did not find any<br \/>\nreason to interfere with the decision of  the  disciplinary  committee.    The<br \/>\npetitioner  wrote  a  letter  dated  2.3.98  stating  that  his appeal was not<br \/>\ndisposed of and no order was passed.  Some further  correspondence  was  made,<br \/>\nbut  since  no reply was received, ultimately the petitioner filed the present<br \/>\nwrit petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>                3.  It has been  contended  by  the  petitioner  in  the  writ<br \/>\npetition  and  reiterated  before this Court that the disciplinary proceedings<br \/>\nwere initiated on account of the fact that the petitioner had made a grievance<br \/>\nbefore the High Court on earlier occasion regarding his degradation.    It  is<br \/>\nfurther  contended  that  the  disciplinary  proceedings  was  conducted in an<br \/>\ninjudicious manner and the enquiry officers  appointed  had  been  arbitrarily<br \/>\nchanged by  the  management.  It is also indicated in this connection that the<br \/>\nmanagement had relied upon past record even though the petitioner was not  put<br \/>\nto notice  which  was  in  violation  of principles of natural justice.  It is<br \/>\nfurther contended that dismissal order dated 2.6.94 was  without  jurisdiction<br \/>\nas  the same was passed by the Correspondent without getting prior approval of<br \/>\nthe management committee, as contemplated under bye-law  48(1)d  iii,  iv  and<br \/>\n48(2).   It is further contended that at any rate the disciplinary proceedings<br \/>\nhad been suddenly closed in the absence of the petitioner without  giving  him<br \/>\nadequate  opportunity,  as  he was not in a position to attend the proceedings<br \/>\ndue to his illness and even cross-examination of both management witnesses had<br \/>\nnot been completed.  The petitioner has also been deprived of the  opportunity<br \/>\nof examining  some  of  the  witnesses  cited  as management witnesses.  It is<br \/>\nfurther contended that even assuming that allegations are true  the  order  of<br \/>\ndismissal is  grossly  disproportionate to the alleged misduty.  It is further<br \/>\ncontended that even though bye law 50  of  C.B.S.E.    bye-laws  provides  for<br \/>\nappeal  against the order of dismissal passed after approval of the management<br \/>\ncommittee, since the management committee has considered the decision  of  the<br \/>\nappellate  authority  in  the  meeting  held on 25.4.97, entire proceedings is<br \/>\nvitiated.   It  is  further  contended  that  the  procedure  adopted  by  the<br \/>\ndisciplinary  committee  is  against  the principles of natural justice as the<br \/>\nformer principal and enquiry officer were enquired  behind  the  back  of  the<br \/>\npetitioner.   It  is  further  stated  that even though the order dated 5.5.97<br \/>\nrefers to action on the basis of the enquiry committee, no  enquiry  committee<br \/>\nhad  been  constituted and only an enquiry officer had been appointed, who had<br \/>\ngiven the report.\n<\/p>\n<p>It is further stated :\n<\/p>\n<p>         .  .  .  when the disciplinary committee is the appellate  authority<br \/>\nagainst  the  decision  of the management committee, considering and approving<br \/>\nthe decision of the disciplinary committee  by  the  management  committee  as<br \/>\nstated in  the  letter  dt.  5.5.97 of the Correspondent and in the letter dt.<br \/>\n20.6.97 of the Chairman of the disciplinary committee was illegal.<br \/>\nIt is further stated by the petitioner :\n<\/p>\n<p>         .  .  .  the findings of the enquiry  officer  do  not  contain  any<br \/>\nreason whatsoever  for  his  conclusion.  There is absolutely no discussion on<br \/>\nthe documents produced and the witnesses examined in the enquiry.  Even if  it<br \/>\nis  an exparte enquiry, the enquiry officer was duty bound to give reasons for<br \/>\nhis conclusion.\n<\/p>\n<p>                4.  A counter affidavit  has  been  filed  on  behalf  of  the<br \/>\nrespondents refuting  the  contentions  raised by the petitioner.  It has been<br \/>\nindicated that opportunities had been given to  the  petitioner,  but  he  had<br \/>\nremained absent.    It  is further indicated that the enquiry officer had been<br \/>\nchanged due to administrative reason and the enquiry had not been conducted in<br \/>\nany prejudiced manner.  It has been further indicated that the order passed in<br \/>\nthe disciplinary proceedings had been challenged belatedly  and  at  any  rate<br \/>\nsubsequently  the school has become matriculation and the writ petition is not<br \/>\nmaintainable.\n<\/p>\n<p>                5.  The last contention regarding maintainability of the  writ<br \/>\npetition may  be  taken up first.  It seems that the matter has been concluded<br \/>\nby a Division Bench of this Court reported in 1999 WLR 23 <a href=\"\/doc\/46042\/\">(A.P.  JOHN  PAULRAJ<br \/>\nv.  CENTRAL  BOARD  OF  SECONDASRY EDUCATION, REP.  BY ITS CHAIRMAN, NEW DELHI<br \/>\nAND<\/a> 3 OTHERS) wherein after referring to  earlier  decisions  of  the  Supreme<br \/>\nCourt  and  other  High  Courts,  it  was  observed  that  since  a  school is<br \/>\ndischarging public duty relating to imparting of education,  writ  challenging<br \/>\nthe order of dismissal is maintainable.\n<\/p>\n<p>                6.   In the present case, there are certain disturbing aspects<br \/>\nwhich create doubts about the  bonafides  of  the  management  in  the  matter<br \/>\nrelating to  holding of enquiry.  A perusal of the materials on record and the<br \/>\nevents make it clear that the action of the petitioner in trying to  ventilate<br \/>\nhis  grievance  either  before  the  High  Court in the shape of Writ Petition<br \/>\nNo.15410 of  1990  or  in  the  shape  of  filing  revision  before  the  CBSE<br \/>\nauthorities has  not  been  taken  in  a proper spirit by the management.  The<br \/>\nmaterials on record, including the statement of M.W.1, clearly  indicate  that<br \/>\nthe petitioner, who was appointed against the post of trained graduate teacher<br \/>\nwas  being paid the scale of pay applicable to such a post, was asked suddenly<br \/>\nto take class to I and II std..  The petitioner protested at  that  stage  and<br \/>\nseveral  letters  have been written by him, but strangely enough, such letters<br \/>\nwere returned with  a  postal  endorsement  refused.    This  is  a  strange<br \/>\nphenomenon so  far  as  the  management  is concerned.  The management at that<br \/>\nstage appears to have behaved like an ordinary litigant by refusing to receive<br \/>\nthe letters  sent  by  the  petitioner  on  numerous  occasions  and  yet  the<br \/>\nmanagement  seems  to  have taken umbrage because the petitioner had expressed<br \/>\nhis grievance in the parents teachers meeting or in the writ petition filed by<br \/>\nhim or in his representation before the CBSE authorities.\n<\/p>\n<p>                7.  It is already noticed that initially one retired Secretary<br \/>\nhad been appointed as the enquiry officer and subsequently  one  Advocate  had<br \/>\nbeen appointed, who had already started the enquiry.  Subsequently he had been<br \/>\nreplaced by another person.  The reasons for replacement even though stated to<br \/>\nbe administrative  are not forthcoming.  It is of course true that change of<br \/>\nenquiry officer in the midstream by itself is not sufficient  to  vitiate  the<br \/>\ndisciplinary proceedings, particularly when the petitioner has participated in<br \/>\nthe   disciplinary  proceedings  before  the  subsequently  appointed  enquiry<br \/>\nofficer.  But all these aspects, which have been noticed  earlier,  cannot  be<br \/>\nignored altogether  in  the  light of what happened subsequently.  On 29.4.97,<br \/>\nwhen the petitioner was present, the enquiry had to be postponed on account of<br \/>\nthe absence of the enquiry officer himself.  At  that  stage,  the  petitioner<br \/>\nmade  a  specific request that the matter should not be taken up during summer<br \/>\nvacation as he would be going to his native place  in  Kanyakumari  to  remain<br \/>\nwith  his  old  parents as well as to attend marriages of his close relations.<br \/>\nThis request was within the knowledge of the presenting officer to whom such a<br \/>\nrepresentation had been handed over.    It  is  surprising  that  the  enquiry<br \/>\nofficer thought it fit to fix a date in the middle of summer vacation.\n<\/p>\n<p>                8.   Even the procedure adopted by the enquiry officer appears<br \/>\nto be strange.  M.W.1, who had  been  cross-examined  in  part,  was  suddenly<br \/>\nwith-held  on the date fixed for further cross-examination even though she was<br \/>\npresent and another witness was tendered.  Neither crossexamination  of  M.W.1<br \/>\nwas over nor cross-examination of M.W.2 was over when the enquiry was suddenly<br \/>\nclosed on  15.5.98  on  account  of  the  absence of the petitioner.  When the<br \/>\nenquiry had to be post-poned earlier either on account of the absence  of  the<br \/>\nenquiry officer himself or on account of other reasons not attributable to the<br \/>\npetitioner,  it appears very strange that the enquiry would be suddenly closed<br \/>\nand report would be submitted finding the petitioner guilty on  the  basis  of<br \/>\nthe unfinished statement of two witnesses.  Even the enquiry report appears to<br \/>\nbe  an  enigma  in  the  sense  that  the enquiry officer has merely noted the<br \/>\ncharges, noted the witnesses and the documents without actually noticing  the<br \/>\ncontents  of  the statement of witness or the contents of numerous documents.<br \/>\nThe report of the enquiry officer reads like an award of an arbitrator, who is<br \/>\nnot required to give reasons for his award.  It is of  course  true  that  the<br \/>\nenquiry  officer is not expected to write a judgment as in a civil court or in<br \/>\na criminal court, but the minimum requirement  is  that  the  enquiry  officer<br \/>\nshould  notice  the relevant materials on record and apply his mind and should<br \/>\ngive a report which should contain reasons  in  brief,  if  not  the  detailed<br \/>\nreasons.   In  the  present  case,  a  perusal  of the enquiry report does not<br \/>\nindicate that these aspects have been satisfied and a laconic report has  been<br \/>\nsubmitted holding  that  the  petitioner  is  guilty  of  the  charges.    The<br \/>\ndisciplinary action subsequently taken on the basis  of  such  report  without<br \/>\nindicating the application of mind cannot be sustained.\n<\/p>\n<p>                9.   Submission  of  the learned counsel for the petitioner to<br \/>\nthe effect that the punishment imposed appears to be grossly  disproportionate<br \/>\nalso appears  to  be  correct.    It  is unnecessary to deal with this aspect.<br \/>\nSince the enquiry has been conducted  arbitrarily  without  giving  sufficient<br \/>\nopportunity  and  since  the  report of the enquiry officer and the subsequent<br \/>\ndisciplinary action cannot be sustained, it  is  obvious  that  the  order  of<br \/>\ndismissal is liable to be quashed.\n<\/p>\n<p>                10.  The normal course is to set aside the dismissal order and<br \/>\nto  reinstate  the petitioner in service leaving it open to the respondents to<br \/>\ncontinue the enquiry, recall M.Ws.1 &amp; 2 for further crossexamination and  give<br \/>\nfurther  opportunity to the petitioner to produce his witnesses and documents.<br \/>\nHowever, in course of hearing of this writ petition, learned counsel  for  the<br \/>\nrespondents  has made it amply clear that the petitioner has become a persona<br \/>\nnon grata and the management has  lost  confidence  in  him  and  instead  of<br \/>\nreinstating him,  some  compensation may be paid to him.  As a matter of fact,<br \/>\nlearned counsel for the respondents has stated in course of hearing  that  the<br \/>\nmanagement  would be prepared to pay a sum of Rs.1,60,000\/- as compensation to<br \/>\nthe petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>                11.  Even though the aforesaid sum according to me appears  to<br \/>\nbe  very  meagre and inadequate, I am prepared to accept the suggestion of the<br \/>\nrespondents that instead of  reinstating  and  directing  continuance  of  the<br \/>\npetitioner as  a  teacher,  compensation  should be paid.  Keeping in view the<br \/>\nsalary payable to the petitioner and the period  still  left  in  service  and<br \/>\ntaking  into  account  that  the  respondent is an educational institution and<br \/>\nhaving regard to all the facts and circumstances of  the  case,  I  feel  that<br \/>\ninterest  of  justice would be served by directing that a sum of Rs.3,50,000\/-<br \/>\nshould be paid as compensation to the petitioner, if the management  does  not<br \/>\nwant the  petitioner  to  continue  as  a  teacher.  On the other hand, if the<br \/>\nmanagement wants  to  reinstate  the  petitioner  as  a  teacher,  he  may  be<br \/>\nreinstated in service and a consolidated sum of Rs.1,50,000\/- shall be paid to<br \/>\nhim as backwages for the period from the date of dismissal till reinstatement,<br \/>\nbut  the  entire  period  should be counted towards service for the purpose of<br \/>\nseniority, pension, etc..   In  such  an  event,  it  would  be  open  to  the<br \/>\nmanagement if it so desires to continue with the disciplinary proceedings from<br \/>\nthe stage  at  which  it was on 15.5.1994.  The direction regarding payment of<br \/>\ncompensation or the alternate direction regarding reinstatement  with  payment<br \/>\nof  consolidated backwages, as the case may be, should be complied with within<br \/>\nsix weeks from the date of receipt of the order.\n<\/p>\n<p>                12.  With the above observations, the writ petition is allowed<br \/>\nin part to the extent indicated above.  No costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>Index :  Yes<br \/>\nInternet :  Yes<\/p>\n<p>dpk <\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>1.  Agarwal Vidyalaya &amp; Junior College,<br \/>\nRepresented by its Correspondent,<br \/>\n54, E.V.K.  Sampath Road,<br \/>\nVepery, Chennai 600 007.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.  The Joint Secretary,<br \/>\nCentral Board of Secondary Education,<br \/>\n1630\/A, 15 Main Road, Anna Nagar West,<br \/>\nChennai 40.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.  Chairman,<br \/>\nCentral Board of Secondary Education,<br \/>\nShiksha Kendra,<br \/>\n2, Community Center,<br \/>\nPreet Vihar,<br \/>\nDelhi 110 092.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court C. Bright Gnana Singh vs Agarwal Vidyalaya &amp; Junior &#8230; on 6 November, 2003 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 06\/11\/2003 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. MISRA WRIT PETITION NO.19957 OF 1998 C. Bright Gnana Singh, 6, Kasthuribai Street, Gandhi Road, Choolaimedu, Chennai 600 094. .. Petitioner -Vs- [&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-67897","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>C. Bright Gnana Singh vs Agarwal Vidyalaya &amp; Junior ... on 6 November, 2003 - 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\/c-bright-gnana-singh-vs-agarwal-vidyalaya-junior-on-6-november-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"C. Bright Gnana Singh vs Agarwal Vidyalaya &amp; Junior ... on 6 November, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-bright-gnana-singh-vs-agarwal-vidyalaya-junior-on-6-november-2003\" \/>\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=\"2003-11-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-04-28T08:32:48+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=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-bright-gnana-singh-vs-agarwal-vidyalaya-junior-on-6-november-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-bright-gnana-singh-vs-agarwal-vidyalaya-junior-on-6-november-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"C. Bright Gnana Singh vs Agarwal Vidyalaya &amp; Junior &#8230; on 6 November, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-11-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-28T08:32:48+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-bright-gnana-singh-vs-agarwal-vidyalaya-junior-on-6-november-2003\"},\"wordCount\":3754,\"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\\\/c-bright-gnana-singh-vs-agarwal-vidyalaya-junior-on-6-november-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-bright-gnana-singh-vs-agarwal-vidyalaya-junior-on-6-november-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-bright-gnana-singh-vs-agarwal-vidyalaya-junior-on-6-november-2003\",\"name\":\"C. Bright Gnana Singh vs Agarwal Vidyalaya &amp; Junior ... on 6 November, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-11-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-28T08:32:48+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-bright-gnana-singh-vs-agarwal-vidyalaya-junior-on-6-november-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-bright-gnana-singh-vs-agarwal-vidyalaya-junior-on-6-november-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-bright-gnana-singh-vs-agarwal-vidyalaya-junior-on-6-november-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"C. Bright Gnana Singh vs Agarwal Vidyalaya &amp; Junior &#8230; on 6 November, 2003\"}]},{\"@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":"C. Bright Gnana Singh vs Agarwal Vidyalaya &amp; Junior ... on 6 November, 2003 - 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\/c-bright-gnana-singh-vs-agarwal-vidyalaya-junior-on-6-november-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"C. Bright Gnana Singh vs Agarwal Vidyalaya &amp; Junior ... on 6 November, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-bright-gnana-singh-vs-agarwal-vidyalaya-junior-on-6-november-2003","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-11-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-04-28T08:32:48+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":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-bright-gnana-singh-vs-agarwal-vidyalaya-junior-on-6-november-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-bright-gnana-singh-vs-agarwal-vidyalaya-junior-on-6-november-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"C. Bright Gnana Singh vs Agarwal Vidyalaya &amp; Junior &#8230; on 6 November, 2003","datePublished":"2003-11-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-28T08:32:48+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-bright-gnana-singh-vs-agarwal-vidyalaya-junior-on-6-november-2003"},"wordCount":3754,"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\/c-bright-gnana-singh-vs-agarwal-vidyalaya-junior-on-6-november-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-bright-gnana-singh-vs-agarwal-vidyalaya-junior-on-6-november-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-bright-gnana-singh-vs-agarwal-vidyalaya-junior-on-6-november-2003","name":"C. Bright Gnana Singh vs Agarwal Vidyalaya &amp; Junior ... on 6 November, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-11-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-28T08:32:48+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-bright-gnana-singh-vs-agarwal-vidyalaya-junior-on-6-november-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-bright-gnana-singh-vs-agarwal-vidyalaya-junior-on-6-november-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-bright-gnana-singh-vs-agarwal-vidyalaya-junior-on-6-november-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"C. Bright Gnana Singh vs Agarwal Vidyalaya &amp; Junior &#8230; on 6 November, 2003"}]},{"@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\/67897","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=67897"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/67897\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=67897"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=67897"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=67897"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}