{"id":69316,"date":"2010-01-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-01-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-veena-satsangi-vs-f-c-i-others-on-22-january-2010"},"modified":"2016-06-12T04:02:46","modified_gmt":"2016-06-11T22:32:46","slug":"mrs-veena-satsangi-vs-f-c-i-others-on-22-january-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-veena-satsangi-vs-f-c-i-others-on-22-january-2010","title":{"rendered":"Mrs.Veena Satsangi vs F.C.I. & Others on 22 January, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Allahabad High Court<\/div>\n
Mrs.Veena Satsangi vs F.C.I. & Others on 22 January, 2010<\/div>\n
Court No. - 14\n\nCase :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 4289 of 1996\n\nPetitioner :- Mrs.Veena Satsangi\nRespondent :- F.C.I. & Others\nPetitioner Counsel :- B.Godiyal,R.K Sinha\nRespondent Counsel :- Alka Varma,A.K. Singh\n\nHon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J.\n<\/pre>\n
Heard Sri P.K. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Alka Verma,
\nlearned counsel for the opposite party.\n<\/p>\n
By means of this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order
\ndated 8th November, 1993 passed by the Senior Regional Manager, Food
\nCorporation of India. Lucknow, opposite party No. 3 (Annexure No. 3) to the
\nwrit petition by which the penalty of removal from service was imposed upon
\nthe petitioner and the order dated 26.02.1996 passed by the opposite party No.
\n2 by which the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of the
\ndisciplinary officer has been dismissed (Annexure No. 3).
\nBrief facts of the case as stated in the writ petition are that the petitioner while
\nworking as Cashier, Assistant Grade-I (Accounts) in the Food Corporation of
\nIndia, was served with article of charges dated 19.6.1987 (Annexure No. 9 to
\nthe writ petition).\n<\/p>\n
The charges against the petitioner mentioned in the articles of charge were
\nfollows:-\n<\/p>\n
(1) Petitioner failed to maintain honesty, sincerity, devotion and integrity and
\nfaithfulness. The petitioner failed in discharging her duties as cashier which
\nresulted in misappropriation of Rs. 5 Lacks and also tampered with the
\noriginal records of F.C.I. funds\/accounts being the custodian and destroyed
\nand tampered the same with an intention to avoid detection of the said mis-
\nappropriation and thus actively connived in this mis-appropriation,
\n(2) The petitioner failed to maintain the reconciliation of cash and bank
\naccounts during 1983-84 and failed to get the required insurance policy
\nexecuted for case in transit and cash in chest during the period when the mis-
\nappropriation of Rs. 5 Lacs took place and as such no claim could be
\npreferred with the insurance company and
\n(3) the petitioner claimed false conveyance charges for her to and fro journey
\nfrom office to State Bank of India, Kanpur and from bank to office on
\n 21.8.1983 when there was no transaction on that day being Sunday.
\nSince the petitioner was not supplied the copies of the documents referred to
\nin the articles of charge upon which the opposite parties proposed to rely for
\nproving the charges against the petitioner, the petitioner in order to file an
\neffective reply to the charge sheet moved an application before the A.M.
\n(Vigilance) F.C.I. Lucknow on 16.10.1987 (Annexure No. 13-A) with a
\nprayer for being supplied with the certified copies of the 42 documents
\nincluding 24 documents, which were mentioned in Annexure No. 3 to the
\narticles of charge. When the petitioner’s application dated 16.10.1987
\nremained unattended the petitioner made a similar request vide application
\ndated 5.12.1987 filed before the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer by his
\norder dated 19.10.1987 declined to issue the copies of the additional
\ndocuments, which were not listed in the charge sheet and which were required
\nby the petitioner for the reason that the petitioner had failed to mention the
\ncustodian of most of the documents and to disclose their relevancy in the said
\napplication. The order further mentioned that the documents mentioned at
\nserial No. 26, 27 and 28 of the list appended to the petitioner’s application
\nwere not listed and hence not allowed and documents at serial No. 39 and 35
\nwere not allowed being investigation reports. The petitioner’s claim that she
\nsubsequently moved another application before the Enquiry Officer disclosing
\ntherein custodian of the documents copies whereof were demanded by the
\npetitioner, but the copies were not issued to the petitioner as such the
\npetitioner could not file his reply to the charge sheet. The petitioner’s request
\nfor being proved assistance of a legal practitioner was also declined. The
\npetitioner’s case further is that the petitioner appeared before the Enquiry
\nofficer on 27.6.1990, but the Enquiry officer on the said date neither made
\nany inquiry, nor permitted the petitioner to cross examine Sri Ashraf Ali, who
\nwas present before the enquiry officer and who had proved the documents
\nupon which the opposite parties proposed to rely for proving the charges
\nagainst the petitioner. After 27.6.1990 neither the disciplinary Authority, nor
\nthe Enquiry Officer gave any information to the petitioner of the date on
\nwhich the Enquiry Officer proposed to hold the enquiry.\n<\/p>\n
Petitioner was served with a copy of the enquiry report dated 19.8.1990
\nholding the petitioner guilty of all the charges made against her. Upon
\nreceiving the enquiry report, the petitioner moved an application before the
\n opposite party No. 4 demanding copies of 45 documents, which had been
\nsought by her vide her earlier applications and which were in the custody of
\nthe Vigilance Branch Office Kanpur, so that she may be able to at least file an
\neffective objection against the findings of the enquiry officer (Annexure 19)
\nbut even the said application of the petitioner did not receive any response and
\nthe disciplinary authority accepted the findings recorded by the enquiry
\nofficer in his report to be correct and without giving any further opportunity to
\nthe petitioner to file her objection against the report of the enquiry officer,
\nimposed the penalty of removal from service on the petitioner vide order
\ndated 8th November, 1993.\n<\/p>\n
It has also been stated in the writ petition that along with the petitioner three
\nother officers of the Corporation namely Sri Puran Singh, Assistant Manager
\nAccounts, Sri R.P. Dubey, Assistant Manager Compilation and Sri Ajit
\nKumar Saxena, Assistant Cashier were also proceeded against departmentally
\non the same charges as the petitioner and although they were also found guilty
\nin the respective departmental enquiries conducted against them, Sri Puran
\nSingh and Sri R.P. Dubey were let off with minor punishments, while the
\npetitioner was visited with a major penalty and this conduct of the opposite
\nparties was clearly discriminatory being violative of Article 14 of the
\nConstitution of India. Since the petitioner had been removed from service on
\nthe basis of ex parte inquiry conducted in gross violation of principles of
\nnatural justice without following the proceeding prescribed under Rules and
\nwithout giving the petitioner adequate opportunity to show cause the
\npetitioner preferred departmental appeal before the opposite party no. 1,
\nwhich has also been dismissed by him by a non-speaking and cryptic order.
\nIn the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite parties, it has been
\nstated that the petitioner was chargesheeted for three specific charges along
\nwith Sri R.P. Dubey, Sri Puran Singh and Sri Ajit Kumar Saxena. The articles
\nof charge for which the petitioner was chargesheeted were different from
\nthose of Sri Ajit Kumar Saxena. The enquiry against the petitioner was
\ninitiated under Regulations, 1958 of the F.C.I. (Staff Regulations), 1975. All
\nthe delinquent officers were individually charegesheeted and separate enquiry
\nproceedings were conducted against them and their cases were decided by
\ntheir respective disciplinary authorities by imposing penalty proportionate to
\ntheir guilt, likewise the petitioner was also chargesheeted individually and her
\n case decided separately. However, the petitioner being the custodian of the
\nrecord and the cashier and the prime accused in the case she in connivance
\nwith Sri Ajit Kumar Saxena misappropriated huge amount of the corporation.
\nPetitioner’s involvement in the case was established beyond doubt during the
\ncourse of inquiry on the basis of and from the documents available on the
\nrecord. Sri Puran Singh and Sri R.P. Dubey were also punished and visited
\nwith the punishment of reduction in two stages in scale of pay of Assistant
\nManager for a period of 2 years w.e.f. 1.5.93 and deprived of their normal
\nincrements. The penalty imposed on Sri Puran Singh and Sri R.P.Dubey is
\nalso a major penalty. The petitioner being cashier was entrusted with the duty
\nof maintaining cash Book as well as other related documents. The keys of the
\ncash were also kept with her. The entire work of cashier was being performed
\nby her. Cheques amounting to Rs. 10,000\/- and Rs. 30,000\/- were prepared on
\n18.6.1983 and 20.8.1983 respectively. The said cheques then were placed
\nbefore the Assistant Manager (Finance) i.e. Sri Puran Singh, who signed the
\nsame for being drawn from the bank. After obtaining the said cheques from
\nthe said officers interpolations were made by the petitioner and cheque
\namounting to Rs. 10,000\/- was altered in such a manner that the amount was
\nchanged to Rs. 2,10,000\/- while the cheque amounting to Rs. 30,000\/- was
\naltered and the same was made for a sum amounting to Rs. 3,30,000\/-. During
\nthe course of enquiry it was found that the charges levelled against the
\npetitioner were proved and it was held that the said alternations in the cheques
\nhad been made by her. Thus the charge against her, being grave in nature and
\nthe same having been found to be established in the enquiry, the order of
\nremoval from service was passed so far as the petitioner was concerned. It
\ncannot be said that Sri Purna Singh was awarded minor punishment while the
\npetitioner was visited with major penalty. There is absolutely no
\ndiscrimination between the petitioner as well as Sri Puran Singh, Sri Ajit
\nKumar Saxena, A.G.-III was also chargesheeted and after the charges against
\nhim had were found to be proved he has also been dismissed from the
\nservices. The petitioner was given full opportunity to make inspection of
\nlisted documents and photo copies of documents were also furnished to her,
\nwhich she acknowledged on 18.10.1989. The Disciplinary Authority
\nappointed an employee of the Corporation as presenting officer therefore, the
\npetitioner was not allowed to arrange legal practitioner as her defence
\n assistance. It is evident from the record that the inquiry against the petitioner
\nwas conducted in a fair manner and in accordance with Regulations and there
\nwas sufficient material on record which indicates that the petitioner did not
\nattend the inquiry proceedings deliberately and failed to cross examine the
\nwitness examined on behalf of the corporation for proving the charges against
\nher. The inquiry officer in his report dated 21.7.1990 copy whreof is on record
\nof the writ petition had already recorded that the petitioner did not attend the
\nenquiry proceedings regularly and avoided to avail the opportunity given to
\nher for defending herself. The Inquiry Officer also recorded in his report the
\nreasons for conducting the enquiry proceedings ex-parte. Since the petitioner
\nwas allowed to inspect the prosecution documents photocopies whereof were
\nalso given to the petitioner therefore, there was no necessity to supply the
\ndocuments relied upon by the corporation to the petitioner along with the
\ninquiry report. The appeal of the petitioner has been rightly dismissed by the
\nappellate authority. Preliminary objection was also raised at the time of the
\nfinal hearing of the writ petition that the writ petition was liable to be
\ndismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy to the petitioner
\nof filing a revision before the higher authority against the orders of the
\nDisciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority.\n<\/p>\n
Rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the petitioner denying the averments
\nmade in the counter affidavit and reiterating and re-affirming the contents of
\nthe writ petition.\n<\/p>\n
The impugned orders have been challenged by the petitioner mainly on the
\ngrounds that no reasonable opportunity was not afforded by the petitioner to
\ndefend herself as she was neither supplied with the documents, which were
\nnecessary for filing a proper reply to the chargesheet, nor she was permitted to
\ncross examine, Sri Ashraf Ali who was examined as only witness on behalf of
\nthe corporation to prove the documents on the basis of which the corporation
\nproposed to prove the charges against the petitioner and as such the petitioner
\ncould not submit her reply to the charge sheet. The impugned order of the
\nDisciplinary Authority imposing the punishment of removal from service of
\nthe petitioner was violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India,
\nas two other officers of the corporation, who were charged with the same
\nmisconduct as the petitioner and found guilty in the respective inquiries
\nconducted against them were awarded minor punishments, enquiry Officer
\n was biased and the inquiry was not conducted in a fair manner.
\nLearned Counsel for the petitioner lastly submitted that the petitioner had
\nchallenged the order of the Disciplinary Authority before the Appellate Forum
\non elaborate grounds based on factual, legal and constitutional requirements,
\nwhich were ignored or violated by the Enquiry Authority and by the
\nDisciplinary Authority, the Appellate Authority by his order dated 8.11.1993,
\nwhich contains a simple narration of official version, dismissed the
\npetitioner’s appeal without touching or analyzing the grounds raised in the
\nmemorandum of appeal and without any application of mind. The petitioner
\nhad challenged the validity of the order of the disciplinary authority before the
\nappellate forum on seven grounds as would be apparent from the perusal of
\nthe memorandum of appeal copy whereof has been filed as Annexure 20 to
\nthe writ petition. However, the appellate authority has failed to test and
\nexamine the legality of the order of the disciplinary by examining and
\nanalysing the grounds raised by the petitioner in the memorandum of appeal
\nwhich has rendered the order of the appropriate authority wholly
\nunsustainable in the eyes of law.\n<\/p>\n
Smt. Alka Singh, learned counsel for the corporation submitted that the
\nimpugned orders do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting any
\ninterference by this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. She
\nfurther submitted that the inquiry against the petitioner was conducted fairly
\nand in accordance with the rules and the petitioner was afforded full
\nopportunity to defend herself. The petitioner deliberately did not file any reply
\nto the charge sheet and despite being given full opportunity the petitioner
\nfailed to cross-examine Sri Ashraf Ali and as such she can not be given any
\nbenefit of her own acts and omissions. The petitioner was dismissed from
\nservice after all the charges made against her found to be proved before the
\ndisciplinary authority. The appellate authority rightly dismissed the
\npetitioner’s appeal after considering the grounds on which the petitioner had
\nchallenged the order of the disciplinary authority.\n<\/p>\n
I have carefully examined the submission made by the learned counsel for the
\nparties and have also perused the record.\n<\/p>\n
The first issue which needs consideration in the present case is that whether
\nthe appellate authority exercised its power in accordance with law or not. For
\nthis purpose, it will be necessary to examine the law laid down by the Apex
\n Court with regard to the manner in which an Appellate authority is expected
\nto exercise its power.\n<\/p>\n
The Apex Court in the case of Narinder Mohan Arya Vs. United India
\nInsurance Co. Ltd. and others, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 713 while
\nconsidering the powers of the appellate authority under Rule 37 of the
\nGeneral Assurance (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1975 held as
\nhereunder:-\n<\/p>\n
” The order of the Appellate Authority demonstrates total non-application of
\nmind. The Appellate Authority, when the Rules required application of mind
\non several factors and serious contentions have been raised, was bound to
\nassign reasons so as to enable the writ court to ascertain as to whether he had
\napplied his mind to the relevant factors which the statute requires him to do.
\nThe Expression “consider” is of some significance in the context of the Rules.
\nThe Appellate Authority was required to see as to whether (I) the procedure
\nlaid down in the Rules was complied with; (II) the enquiry officer was
\njustified in arriving at the finding that the delinquent officer was guilty of the
\nmisconduct alleged against him; (III) whether penalty imposed by the
\ndisciplinary authority was excessive:”\n<\/p>\n
In Apparel Export Promotion Council Vs. A.K. Chopra, reported in (1999)
\n1 SCC 759 the Apex Court observed as under:-\n<\/p>\n
“………in case an appeal is presented to the Appellate Authority, the Appellate
\nAuthority has also the power\/ and jurisdiction to re appreciate the evidence
\nand come to its own conclusion, on facts, being the sole fact-finding
\nauthorities.”\n<\/p>\n
In R.P. Bhatt Vs. Union of India, reported in (1986) 2 SCC 651 the Apex
\nopined:\n<\/p>\n
“4. The word ‘consider’ in Rule 27(2) implies ‘ due application of mind’. It is
\nclear upon the terms of Rule 27(2) that the Appellate Authority is required to
\nconsider (1) whether the procedure laid down in the Rules has been complied
\nwith; and if not, whether such non- compliance has resulted in violation of
\nany provisions of the constitution or in failure of justice; (2) whether the
\nfindings of the disciplinary authority were warranted by the evidence on
\nrecord; and (3) whether the penalty imposed is adequate; and thereafter pass
\norders confirming, enhancing, etc. the penalty, or may remit back the case to
\nthe authority which imposed the same. Rule 27(2) casts a duty on the
\n Appellate Authority to consider the relevant factors set forth in clauses (a), (b)
\nand (c) thereof.\n<\/p>\n
5. There is no indication in the impugned order that Director General was
\nsatisfied as to whether the procedure laid down in the Rules had been
\ncomplied with; and if not, whether such non compliance had resulted in
\nviolation of any of the provisions of the Constitution or in failure of justice.
\nWe regret to find that the Director General has also not given any finding on
\nthe crucial question as to whether the findings of the disciplinary authority
\nwere warranted by the evidence on record. It seems that he only applied his
\nmind to the requirement of clause (c) of Rules 27 (2) viz. whether the penalty
\nimposed was adequate or justified in the facts and circumstances of the
\npresent case. There being non- compliance with the requirements or Rule
\n27(2) of the Rules, the impugned order passed by the Director General is
\nliable to be set aside.”\n<\/p>\n
Similar view was taken by this Court in the case of Kaushlesh Narain Singh
\nand others Vs. Upper Aayukt, Pratham Mandal, Allahabad and others,
\nreported in (2003) 4 UPLBEC 3149 (Alld.)
\nThere can not be any dispute about the fact that the Appellate Authority
\nhaving been conferred the appellate powers under a statute performs judicial
\nfunctions. For arriving at any conclusion it is necessary that after noting the
\narguments, reasons may be given for either accepting or rejecting the same as
\nit is only the process of thought which can make the conclusion so arrived to
\nbecome a subject matter of scrutiny by a higher forum and thus in the event of
\narriving at a conclusion there is no process of reasoning, no thought in respect
\nof the matter in issue has been expressed on the arguments so advanced, it can
\nnot be said to be an order in the eye of law.\n<\/p>\n
I have carefully gone through the memorandum of appeal and the order of the
\nappellate authority and I am constrained to observe that the petitioner had
\nchallenged the order of the disciplinary authority on several grounds, but the
\nappellate authority has failed to consider and examine even a single ground
\nand has failed to apply its mind to the facts and the arguments and in a most
\ncursory manner he had dismissed the appeal. There is nothing in the order of
\nthe appellate authority which may give slightest indication that the grounds on
\nwhich the petitioner had challenged the order of the appellate authority have
\nbeen considered by the appellate authority.\n<\/p>\n
 As the order of the appellate authority has been found to be faulty for the
\nreasons indicated hereinabove this court does not propose to go into the merits
\nof the various submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner
\non the basis of which he had tried to demonstrate that the order passed by the
\ndisciplinary authority is liable to be set aside as it is the function of the
\nappellate authority first to deal with the same and record reasons and finding
\nupon it is to be judged by this court.\n<\/p>\n
For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is partly allowed. The order dated
\n8.11.1993 passed by the opposite party no. 2 is hereby quashed. The
\npetitioner’s appeal stands revived. The matter is remitted back to the appellate
\nauthority\/opposite party no. 2 with the direction to decide the petitioner’s
\nappeal afresh in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made
\nhereinabove within a period of two months from the date of production of
\ncertified copy of this order.\n<\/p>\n
Order Date :- 22.1.2010<\/p>\n
R.C.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Allahabad High Court Mrs.Veena Satsangi vs F.C.I. & Others on 22 January, 2010 Court No. – 14 Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. – 4289 of 1996 Petitioner :- Mrs.Veena Satsangi Respondent :- F.C.I. & Others Petitioner Counsel :- B.Godiyal,R.K Sinha Respondent Counsel :- Alka Varma,A.K. Singh Hon’ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J. Heard Sri P.K. Sinha, learned […]<\/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":[9,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-69316","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-allahabad-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMrs.Veena Satsangi vs F.C.I. & Others on 22 January, 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\/mrs-veena-satsangi-vs-f-c-i-others-on-22-january-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mrs.Veena Satsangi vs F.C.I. & Others on 22 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-veena-satsangi-vs-f-c-i-others-on-22-january-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=\"2010-01-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-06-11T22:32:46+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=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-veena-satsangi-vs-f-c-i-others-on-22-january-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-veena-satsangi-vs-f-c-i-others-on-22-january-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mrs.Veena Satsangi vs F.C.I. & Others on 22 January, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-11T22:32:46+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-veena-satsangi-vs-f-c-i-others-on-22-january-2010\"},\"wordCount\":3361,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Allahabad High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-veena-satsangi-vs-f-c-i-others-on-22-january-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-veena-satsangi-vs-f-c-i-others-on-22-january-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-veena-satsangi-vs-f-c-i-others-on-22-january-2010\",\"name\":\"Mrs.Veena Satsangi vs F.C.I. & Others on 22 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-11T22:32:46+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-veena-satsangi-vs-f-c-i-others-on-22-january-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-veena-satsangi-vs-f-c-i-others-on-22-january-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-veena-satsangi-vs-f-c-i-others-on-22-january-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mrs.Veena Satsangi vs F.C.I. & Others on 22 January, 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":"Mrs.Veena Satsangi vs F.C.I. & Others on 22 January, 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\/mrs-veena-satsangi-vs-f-c-i-others-on-22-january-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mrs.Veena Satsangi vs F.C.I. & Others on 22 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-veena-satsangi-vs-f-c-i-others-on-22-january-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-01-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-06-11T22:32:46+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":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-veena-satsangi-vs-f-c-i-others-on-22-january-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-veena-satsangi-vs-f-c-i-others-on-22-january-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mrs.Veena Satsangi vs F.C.I. & Others on 22 January, 2010","datePublished":"2010-01-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-11T22:32:46+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-veena-satsangi-vs-f-c-i-others-on-22-january-2010"},"wordCount":3361,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Allahabad High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-veena-satsangi-vs-f-c-i-others-on-22-january-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-veena-satsangi-vs-f-c-i-others-on-22-january-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-veena-satsangi-vs-f-c-i-others-on-22-january-2010","name":"Mrs.Veena Satsangi vs F.C.I. & Others on 22 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-01-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-11T22:32:46+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-veena-satsangi-vs-f-c-i-others-on-22-january-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-veena-satsangi-vs-f-c-i-others-on-22-january-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-veena-satsangi-vs-f-c-i-others-on-22-january-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mrs.Veena Satsangi vs F.C.I. & Others on 22 January, 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\/69316","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=69316"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/69316\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=69316"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=69316"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=69316"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}