{"id":70356,"date":"2006-06-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-06-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-director-of-rural-development-vs-a-periyanayagam-on-30-june-2006"},"modified":"2014-12-26T11:45:26","modified_gmt":"2014-12-26T06:15:26","slug":"the-director-of-rural-development-vs-a-periyanayagam-on-30-june-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-director-of-rural-development-vs-a-periyanayagam-on-30-june-2006","title":{"rendered":"The Director Of Rural Development vs A.Periyanayagam on 30 June, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">The Director Of Rural Development vs A.Periyanayagam on 30 June, 2006<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           \n\nDATED: 30\/06\/2006  \n\nCORAM   \n\nTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.K.MISRA       \nAND  \nTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR         \n\nW.P.No.5134 of 2002  \n\nThe Director of Rural Development\nPanagal Maaligai,\nChennai 15.                             .. Petitioner\n\n-Vs-\n\n1. A.Periyanayagam  \n\n2. The Registrar,\n   Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal,\n   Chennai.                             .. Respondents\n\n        Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the  Constitution  of  India,\npraying  for  issuance  of  a  writ  of  certiorari,  calling  for the records\npertaining to the order made in O.A.No.6727 of 1995  dated  23.4.2001  on  the\nfile  of  the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, the second respondent herein\nand to quash the same. \n\n!For petitioner :  Mr.E.Sampathkumar\n                   Govt.  Advocate\n^For respondents:  Mr.V.Suthakar for R1\n\n:ORDER  \n<\/pre>\n<p>R.SUDHAKAR,J.\n<\/p>\n<p>        The Director of Rural Development,  aggrieved  by  the  order  of  the<br \/>\nTribunal  in  O.A.No.6727 of 1995, dated 23.4.2001, has filed the present writ<br \/>\npetition.\n<\/p>\n<p>        2.  First respondent herein is the contesting respondent.  The case of<br \/>\nfirst respondent is as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>        First respondent, the applicant before the Tribunal, who  was  working<br \/>\nas a Rural Welfare Officer Grade-II in the Thandarampet Panchayat Union, North<br \/>\nArcot  Ambedkar  District, (Vellore District), was charged with the offence of<br \/>\naccepting a total sum of Rs.130\/- on three occasions  between  July  1984  and<br \/>\nDecember 1984 from one P.Ramakrishnan of Changam Taluk, promising him to get a<br \/>\nloan from the Co-operative Society for purchasing a sheep unit.  A charge memo<br \/>\nwas  issued  and  enquiry  was  conducted  by  the  Tribunal  for disciplinary<br \/>\nproceedings and on the basis of the enquiry report,  it  was  found  that  the<br \/>\ncharges  levelled  against  the  first respondent\/applicant are proved and the<br \/>\nfirst respondent was awarded punishment of reduction of time scale of pay to a<br \/>\nminimum period of five years by proceedings dated 9.9.1995 and this order  was<br \/>\nchallenged by the first respondent before the Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n<p>        3.  The second respondent-Tribunal, by the impugned order, came to the<br \/>\nconclusion that  some evidence was available for the charge.  However, it held<br \/>\nthat the order was passed in violation of principles of natural  justice,  and<br \/>\ntherefore, quashed  the same.  The Tribunal, while considering the case of the<br \/>\nfirst respondent\/applicant, held as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>        &#8220;10.  On the point of violation of principles of natural  justice,  it<br \/>\nis  clear  that the respondent while issuing the show cause notice accompanied<br \/>\nwith the report of the Enquiry Officer, has come to the  conclusion  to  award<br \/>\nthe punishment  to the applicant.  The applicant should have supplied with the<br \/>\nEnquiry Officer&#8217;s report before the respondent  comes  to  the  conclusion  of<\/p>\n<p>awarding punishment.    As  this  has  not been done, the judgment referred to<br \/>\nabove by  the  applicant&#8217;s  counsel  is  squarely  applicable  to  this  case.<br \/>\nTherefore, the principle of natural justice has been violated.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>Further,  the  Tribunal also considered the claim of the first respondent that<br \/>\nthere was no evidence to hold him guilty, as P.W.5, a labourer who  had  given<br \/>\nevidence  after  six  to  seven years and was not able to tell the name of the<br \/>\naccused officer to whom he had paid the amount and the purpose for  which  the<br \/>\namount has been paid.\n<\/p>\n<p>        4.   On  the  first  issue, the Tribunal relied on the judgment of the<br \/>\nSupreme Court reported in AIR  1994  SC  1074  <a href=\"\/doc\/1190519\/\">(Managing  Director,  ECIL  vs.<br \/>\nB.Karunakar)  and<\/a>  in particular to paragraph 7 at page 1091 of that judgment,<br \/>\nwhich reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>        &#8220;Hence, it has to be held that when the Inquiry  Officer  is  not  the<br \/>\ndisciplinary authority, the delinquent employee has right to receive a copy of<br \/>\nthe  Inquiry Officer&#8217;s report before the disciplinary authority arrives at its<br \/>\nconclusions with regard to the guilt or innocence of the employee with  regard<br \/>\nto the  charges  levelled against him.  That right is a part of the employee&#8217;s<br \/>\nright to defend himself against the charges levelled against him.  A denial of<br \/>\nthe Inquiry Officer&#8217;s report  before  the  disciplinary  authority  takes  its<br \/>\ndecision  on the charges is a denial of reasonable opportunity to the employee<br \/>\nto prove his innocence and is a breach of the principles of natural justice.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>Therefore, only on the ground of violation of principles of  natural  justice,<br \/>\nthe order of punishment was quashed.  The Tribunal, while considering the fact<br \/>\nthat  the  punishment  of  stoppage of increment had already been implemented,<br \/>\nheld that there was no need to pay the amount already recovered.  The Tribunal<br \/>\nhowever directed that  the  first  respondent  will  be  entitled  to  service<br \/>\nbenefits, promotion  etc.   and further went on to hold that if the punishment<br \/>\nhad not been implemented, the first  respondent  would  be  entitled  for  pay<br \/>\nfixation prospectively.    Aggrieved  by  this  order  of  the  Tribunal,  the<br \/>\nDepartment is before this Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>        5.   The  main  contention  of  the  petitioner-Department   is   that<br \/>\nconsequent  on  the 42nd amendment to the Constitution of India (that there is<br \/>\nno need for the issue of a second time court notice to the Accused Officer  in<br \/>\nrespect  of  the  particular  penalty  to  be imposed) and in the light of the<br \/>\ndecision of the Supreme Court of India reported in AIR 1 994  SC  1074  (cited<br \/>\nsupra),  the Government in G.O.Ms.No.148, Personnel and Administrative Reforms<br \/>\n(N) Department, dated 15.3.1996 have amended the  Rule  10(b)  of  Tamil  Nadu<br \/>\nCivil  Services  (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1955, deleting the<br \/>\nprovision for issue of show cause notice to the accused-officer mentioning the<br \/>\nparticular penalty to be imposed.  The abovesaid  amendment  came  into  force<br \/>\nonly on  15 th March, 1996.  It is further contended by the petitioner that as<br \/>\nper the existing procedure in vogue (vide Rule 10(b) of the said TNCS  (  DPT)<br \/>\nRules)  at  the  time  of  passing  final  order  on 9.9.1995, the Head of the<br \/>\nDepartment, i.e.  the Director of Rural  Development  came  to  a  provisional<br \/>\nconclusion to reduce the time scale of pay to the minimum for a period of five<br \/>\nyears  on the respondent as a measure of punishment for the proved charges and<br \/>\nissued show cause notice on 16.12.1994 to the respondent with a  copy  of  the<br \/>\nreport  of  the  Tribunal for disciplinary proceedings calling for his further<br \/>\nrepresentation within 15 days from the date  of  receipt  of  the  show  cause<br \/>\nnotice.   After  receipt  of  further  representation  dated 7.4.1995 from the<br \/>\nindividual and after taking into account the representation, the  Director  of<br \/>\nRural  Development  passed final orders on 9.9.1995 awarding punishment on the<br \/>\nindividual.  It is therefore contended that  the  Government  had  come  to  a<br \/>\nprovisional   conclusion  with  regard  to  the  penalty  to  be  imposed  and<br \/>\nconsequently the delinquent was supplied with a copy  of  the  report  of  the<br \/>\nenquiry-Tribunal  and  was  called upon to show cause within a reasonable time<br \/>\nagainst the penalty proposed  to  be  inflicted.    The  Department  therefore<br \/>\ncontended  that there was no need for issuance of second show cause notice and<br \/>\ntherefore, there was no violation of principles of natural justice as alleged.<br \/>\nThe amendment to the G.O.  was made pursuant to the decision  of  the  Supreme<br \/>\nCourt  referred  to  above  and therefore, it was contended that on the proved<br \/>\ncharges, the order of the disciplinary authority imposing punishment  is  well<\/p>\n<p>within it&#8217;s powers and therefore, the order of the Tribunal requires to be set<br \/>\naside.\n<\/p>\n<p>        6.  It is stated in the show cause notice dated 16.12.1994 as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>        &#8220;The   Director   of  Rural  Development,  Madras  after  careful  and<br \/>\nindependent examination of  the  Report  of  the  Tribunal,  for  Disciplinary<br \/>\nProceedings,  Madras  accept  the findings of the Tribunal and has come to the<br \/>\nprovisional conclusion, to reduce the time-scale of pay to the minimum  for  a<br \/>\nperiod  of  FIVE YEARS on Thiru.A.Perianayagam, formerly Rural Welfare Officer<br \/>\nGrade II, Thandrampet Panchayat Union, now as a measure of punishment for  the<br \/>\nabove proved charge.&#8221; (emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n<p>        7.   The  contention  of  the first respondent is that before the show<br \/>\ncause notice dated  16.12.1994  is  issued,  the  disciplinary  authority  has<br \/>\nalready  come  to  the  conclusion  that  the  findings  of  the  Tribunal for<br \/>\ndisciplinary proceedings, are liable to be accepted  and  also  comes  to  the<br \/>\nprovisional  conclusion  to  reduce the time scale of pay to minimum period of<br \/>\nfive years on the ground that it is a measure  of  punishment  for  the  above<br \/>\nproved charge.  The contention of the counsel for the first respondent is that<br \/>\nthe  copy  of  the report of the Tribunal for disciplinary proceedings, should<br \/>\nhave been furnished earlier and an opportunity should have been given  to  the<br \/>\nfirst respondent  to submit his statement of defence.  On the contrary, by the<br \/>\nshow  cause  notice  proceedings,  the  authority  has  already  come  to  the<br \/>\nconclusion  that  the  charges are proved and the findings of the Tribunal for<br \/>\ndisciplinary proceedings, have been  accepted.    Therefore,  the  show  cause<br \/>\nnotice    proceedings    is   only   an   empty   formality   and   that   the<br \/>\npetitionerDepartment has pre-judged the issue and came to the conclusion about<br \/>\nthe guilt of the first respondent.  According to the  counsel  for  the  first<br \/>\nrespondent,  non-furnishing  of the enquiry report before issuance of the show<br \/>\ncause notice is fatal to  the  disciplinary  proceedings  and  the  conclusion<br \/>\narrived  at  by the authority in the show cause notice clearly shows that they<br \/>\nhave already pre-judged the issue and therefore, it is contrary  to  the  G.O.<br \/>\nand also to that of the ruling of the Apex Court referred to above.\n<\/p>\n<p>        8.   We have given our anxious consideration to the contentions of the<br \/>\nparties on merits.\n<\/p>\n<p>        9.  We find that the show  cause  notice  dated  16.12.1994  has  been<br \/>\nissued  by  the petitioner herein, who has simply accepted the findings of the<br \/>\nenquiry-Tribunal that the charges are proved and  the  punishment  has  to  be<br \/>\ngiven.   It  is therefore apparent that the authority has not applied his mind<br \/>\nindependently to the various charges alleged  against  the  first  respondent.<br \/>\nHowever,  the  same  has  been  accepted  without any appreciation of material<br \/>\nevidence and the order of punishment has been recommended by the  disciplinary<br \/>\nauthority following the report of the enquiry officer.\n<\/p>\n<p>        10.  We find that the enquiring authority in this case is the Tribunal<br \/>\nwhich has  given it&#8217;s enquiry report.  The delinquent employee did not receive<br \/>\nthe copy of the enquiring authority&#8217;s report before the disciplinary authority<br \/>\narrived at the conclusion with  regard  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the<br \/>\nemployee on  the  charges  levelled  against him.  Therefore, the right of the<br \/>\nemployee to defend his case before the disciplinary authority, is  taken  away<br \/>\nas the  issue has been pre-judged.  This will amount to denial of a reasonable<br \/>\nopportunity for the delinquent to prove his innocence and it will be breach of<br \/>\nprinciples of natural justice.\n<\/p>\n<p>        11.  In this case, before issuing show cause notice  dated  16.12.1994<br \/>\nwhereunder  the disciplinary authority has already come to the conclusion that<br \/>\nthe findings of the Tribunal for  disciplinary  proceedings  are  accepted  on<br \/>\nproved charges, there was no opportunity for the first respondent to rebut the<br \/>\ncharges.   We  have  no  hesitation to hold that the petitioner-Department has<br \/>\npre-judged the issue.  It is no doubt true that second show  cause  notice  is<br \/>\nnot contemplated  after  the 42nd amendment to the Constitution.  The question<br \/>\nof issuing second show cause notice  does  not  arise.    In  this  case,  the<br \/>\ndisciplinary  authority  has come to a conclusion about the guilt of the first<br \/>\nrespondent even at the time  of  issuance  of  the  show  cause  notice  dated<br \/>\n16.12.1994  and along with the said show cause notice, the copy of the enquiry<br \/>\nreport has been submitted.  So, there is a clear case of prejudice on  account<br \/>\nof violation  of  principles  of  natural  justice.    It  is  also  a case of<br \/>\narbitrariness on the part of the authority.  We have  no  hesitation  to  hold<br \/>\nthat  there  is  violation  of the principles laid down in the judgment of the<br \/>\nApex Court referred to above.\n<\/p>\n<p>        12.  Therefore, we have no hesitation to accept the contention of  the<br \/>\nfirst respondent that the disciplinary authority has pre-judged the issue even<br \/>\nat  the stage of issuance of show cause notice and at that point of time only,<br \/>\nthe  enquiry  report  of  the  Tribunal  for  disciplinary  proceedings,   was<br \/>\nfurnished.  Therefore, there is miscarriage of justice on account of violation<br \/>\nof   principles   of   natural  justice  and  consequently,  the  disciplinary<br \/>\nproceedings are to be set aside.\n<\/p>\n<p>        13.  In the facts and circumstances of the case, we find no reason  to<br \/>\ninterfere  with  the  order  of  the  Tribunal which has modified the order of<br \/>\npunishment to the effect that if the punishment has not been implemented,  the<br \/>\nfirst respondent  would  be entitled for pay fixation prospectively.  The writ<br \/>\npetition is dismissed.  No costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>cs<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>1.  The Director of Rural Development,<br \/>\nPanagal Maaligai,<br \/>\nChennai-15.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.  The Registrar,<br \/>\nTamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal,<br \/>\nChennai.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court The Director Of Rural Development vs A.Periyanayagam on 30 June, 2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 30\/06\/2006 CORAM THE HON&#8217;BLE MR.JUSTICE P.K.MISRA AND THE HON&#8217;BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR W.P.No.5134 of 2002 The Director of Rural Development Panagal Maaligai, Chennai 15. .. Petitioner -Vs- 1. A.Periyanayagam 2. The Registrar, Tamil [&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-70356","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>The Director Of Rural Development vs A.Periyanayagam on 30 June, 2006 - 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\/the-director-of-rural-development-vs-a-periyanayagam-on-30-june-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Director Of Rural Development vs A.Periyanayagam on 30 June, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-director-of-rural-development-vs-a-periyanayagam-on-30-june-2006\" \/>\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=\"2006-06-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-12-26T06:15:26+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-director-of-rural-development-vs-a-periyanayagam-on-30-june-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-director-of-rural-development-vs-a-periyanayagam-on-30-june-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Director Of Rural Development vs A.Periyanayagam on 30 June, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-06-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-12-26T06:15:26+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-director-of-rural-development-vs-a-periyanayagam-on-30-june-2006\"},\"wordCount\":1962,\"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\\\/the-director-of-rural-development-vs-a-periyanayagam-on-30-june-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-director-of-rural-development-vs-a-periyanayagam-on-30-june-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-director-of-rural-development-vs-a-periyanayagam-on-30-june-2006\",\"name\":\"The Director Of Rural Development vs A.Periyanayagam on 30 June, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-06-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-12-26T06:15:26+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-director-of-rural-development-vs-a-periyanayagam-on-30-june-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-director-of-rural-development-vs-a-periyanayagam-on-30-june-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-director-of-rural-development-vs-a-periyanayagam-on-30-june-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Director Of Rural Development vs A.Periyanayagam on 30 June, 2006\"}]},{\"@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":"The Director Of Rural Development vs A.Periyanayagam on 30 June, 2006 - 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\/the-director-of-rural-development-vs-a-periyanayagam-on-30-june-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Director Of Rural Development vs A.Periyanayagam on 30 June, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-director-of-rural-development-vs-a-periyanayagam-on-30-june-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-06-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-12-26T06:15:26+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-director-of-rural-development-vs-a-periyanayagam-on-30-june-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-director-of-rural-development-vs-a-periyanayagam-on-30-june-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Director Of Rural Development vs A.Periyanayagam on 30 June, 2006","datePublished":"2006-06-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-12-26T06:15:26+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-director-of-rural-development-vs-a-periyanayagam-on-30-june-2006"},"wordCount":1962,"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\/the-director-of-rural-development-vs-a-periyanayagam-on-30-june-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-director-of-rural-development-vs-a-periyanayagam-on-30-june-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-director-of-rural-development-vs-a-periyanayagam-on-30-june-2006","name":"The Director Of Rural Development vs A.Periyanayagam on 30 June, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-06-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-12-26T06:15:26+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-director-of-rural-development-vs-a-periyanayagam-on-30-june-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-director-of-rural-development-vs-a-periyanayagam-on-30-june-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-director-of-rural-development-vs-a-periyanayagam-on-30-june-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Director Of Rural Development vs A.Periyanayagam on 30 June, 2006"}]},{"@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\/70356","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=70356"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/70356\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=70356"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=70356"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=70356"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}