{"id":78236,"date":"2006-01-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-01-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chairman-cum-m-d-t-n-c-s-vs-k-meerabai-on-23-january-2006"},"modified":"2017-05-06T09:10:03","modified_gmt":"2017-05-06T03:40:03","slug":"chairman-cum-m-d-t-n-c-s-vs-k-meerabai-on-23-january-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chairman-cum-m-d-t-n-c-s-vs-k-meerabai-on-23-january-2006","title":{"rendered":"Chairman-Cum-M.D., T.N.C.S. … vs K. Meerabai on 23 January, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Chairman-Cum-M.D., T.N.C.S. … vs K. Meerabai on 23 January, 2006<\/div>\n
Author: . A Lakshmanan<\/div>\n
Bench: H.K. Sema, Dr. Ar. Lakshmanan<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  623 of 2005\n\nPETITIONER:\nChairman-cum-M.D., T.N.C.S. Corpn. Ltd. and  Ors.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nK. Meerabai\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 23\/01\/2006\n\nBENCH:\nH.K. Sema & Dr. AR. Lakshmanan\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
Dr. AR. Lakshmanan, J.\n<\/p>\n
The present appeal was preferred against the final judgment and order dated
\n19.04.2004 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras passed in Writ Appeal
\nNo. 2592 of 2001 dismissing the same.\n<\/p>\n
Factual Background:\n<\/p>\n
The factual background,  filtering out unnecessary details, is as follows:-
\nThe Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Limited (in short the “Corporation”) is
\nconstituted to fulfil its chief objective of distributing essential commodities among the
\nweaker sections of the population of the State of Tamil Nadu and has opened a number
\nof godowns throughout the State to achieve the said objective.
\nThe respondent-herein – K. Meerabai was appointed as a Bill Clerk on
\n30.11.1974 in the service of the Corporation and was promoted to the post of Junior
\nAssistant on 31.12.1980.  The respondent was posted as Junior Assistant in the
\nGodown situated at Mint Street, Chennai on 05.01.1981 which post she held till
\n28.01.1983 when she was suspended vide order dated 28.01.1983 pending initiation of
\ndisciplinary proceedings against her and the other members of the Mint Godown staff in
\nrespect of mis-appropriation of the Corporation’s stock and money in the sum of
\nRs.9,86,980.56 committed by her in collusion with the other members of the staff
\nthrough fraudulent practices such as deliberate omission to bring into account the
\nstocks received by them, showing bogus issues in the records, falsification of accounts,
\nsubmission of defective accounts, tampering of records, manipulation of accounts and
\nrecords etc.  <\/p>\n
In 1983, a criminal complaint was filed by the Senior Regional Manager of the
\nCorporation in the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai
\nagainst the respondent herein and other members of the staff of the Mint Godown for
\noffences under Sections 409 and 477A I.P.C. The said case was registered as crime
\ncase No. 14 of 1983 in calendar case No. 5964 to 5967 of 1983.\n<\/p>\n
Vide charge memo dated 16.02.1984, the Disciplinary authority levelled against
\nthe respondent herein as well as against four other members of the Staff of the Mint
\nGodown,  the following charges:-\n<\/p>\n
CHARGES:\n<\/p>\n
(I)\tThat as staff of the Mint (Godown) has failed to maintain the prescribed
\nrecords for the issue of stocks from the Godown and neglected his
\nprimary duty.\n<\/p>\n
(ii)\tThat he\/she neglected his\/her primary duty as the staff of the Mint
\nGodown and issued the stocks from the Godown in a highly irresponsible
\nand objectionable manner to the ADS, Mint without insisting for the
\nproper acknowledgement from persons responsible and thus indulged in
\nthe fraudulent practices and swindled the corporation money in
\nconnivance with the ADS staff.\n<\/p>\n
(iii)\tThat he\/she failed to safeguard the Corporation stock and property and
\nacted in an irresponsible manner by having direct collusion with the ADS
\nMint staff and swallowed the Corporation accounts and money for their
\npersonal benefits.\n<\/p>\n
(iv)\tThat he\/she proved himself to be an irresponsible, unreliable and
\nuntrustworthy employee of the Corporation.\n<\/p>\n
Meanwhile, on 17.02.1984, the respondent had moved the High Court by filing
\nwrit petition No. 1337 of 1984 to quash the order of suspension dated 28.01.1983.  She
\nalso moved W.M.P. No. 2084 of 1984 praying for stay of the operation of the order of
\nsuspension.  By order dated 17.02.1984, the learned single Judge of the High Court
\nrestored the service of the respondent herein with payment of full salary subject to
\ndeduction of the subsistence allowance already paid to her.\n<\/p>\n
Meanwhile, Departmental Enquiry was instituted against the respondent herein
\nin respect of the aforementioned four charges.  After a full-fledged enquiry in which the
\nrespondent fully participated, the Enquiry Officer, vide his Enquiry Report dated
\n11.06.1991, recorded his conclusions based on the evidence on record holding (1) that
\ncharge No.1 is not proved; (2) that charge No.2 is partly proved; (3) that charge No.3 is
\nnot proved and (4) that charge No.4 is partly proved.  On 14.06.1991, the Disciplinary
\nAuthority issued a show-cause notice to the respondent as well as to other 11 charged
\nofficers.  They were called upon to submit their explanations as to the findings
\ncontained in the Enquiry Report which was also enclosed with the show-cause notice.
\nThe Disciplinary Authority, vide his order dated 28.11.1991, dismissed the respondent
\nherein from service with immediate effect without prejudice to the recovery proceedings
\nto be initiated against her, while further directing that the period of suspension with
\neffect from 01.02.1983 till the date of the order of dismissal would be treated as a
\nperiod of suspension.  On 11.12.1991, the High Court disposed of the writ petition No.
\n1337 of 1984 and quashed the order of suspension.  Being aggrieved by the order of
\ndismissal dated 28.11.1991, the respondent preferred a Departmental Appeal to the
\nJoint Managing Director, the Appellate Authority.  Vide common show-cause notice
\ndated 27.01.1992, the Disciplinary Authority intimated the official proposal to recover
\nthe loss suffered by the Corporation on account of the malpractices of the charged
\nofficers proportionately at 5% of the total value of the loss with interest, while calling
\nupon the charged officers including the respondent herein to show-cause within 15
\ndays from the receipt of the notice why the said amount should not be recovered from
\nthe charged officers.  Meanwhile, the respondent moved the High Court by preferring
\nwrit petition No.15554 of 1992 praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus,
\ndirecting the second appellant herein to pay to the respondent-writ petitioner salary and
\nother benefits due to her for the period from 01.01.1983 (date of suspension) to
\n28.11.1991 (date of dismissal).  Vide order dated 13.11.1992, the High Court disposed
\nof the writ petition by directing the Corporation to consider the representation of the
\nrespondent dated 22.01.1992 on merits and pass orders according to law thereon
\nwithin a period of 3 months from that date.  In compliance with the directions contained
\nin the High Court’s order disposing of the respondent’s writ petition No. 1337 of 1984,
\nthe Disciplinary Authority ordered that the period of suspension of the respondent with
\neffect from 01.02.1983 till 28.11.1991 be treated as the period of duty, while further
\nordering payment to the respondent of the arrears of salary etc. after adjustment of the
\nsubsistence allowance already paid to her during the period of her suspension.  Vide
\norder dated 21.09.1993, the Disciplinary Authority passed an order directing recovery
\nfrom the respondent the proportionate amount of the principal loss in the sum of
\nRs.34,436.85 without any interest, while categorically holding that the respondent’s
\nresponsibility in receipt of mis-appropriation could not at all be brushed aside and that
\nher explanation was found not acceptable.  On 05.10.1993, the respondent again
\nmoved the High Court by preferring writ petition No. 18502 of 1993 praying for quashing
\nthe order of dismissal dated 28.11.1991.  The Appellate Aauthority, vide his order dated
\n16.06.1994, dismissed the respondent’s appeal after exhaustively dealing with her
\nsubmissions in the light of the documentary evidence on record.  Being aggrieved by
\nthe Appellate Order, dismissing her Departmental Appeal, the respondent moved the
\nHigh Court by preferring writ petition No.14652 of 1994 challenging the correctness of
\nthe aforementioned order.  In the meanwhile, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Egmore,
\nChennai acquitted the respondent herein of the charges under Sections 409 and 477A
\nI.P.C. on 27.09.2000.  Both the writ petitions filed by the respondent herein (writ petition
\nNo. 18502 of 1993 challenging the order of dismissal and writ petition No. 14652 of
\n1994 challenging the Appellate Authority’s Order dismissing her Departmental Appeal)
\ncame up before the learned single Judge of the High Court.  The learned single Judge
\nallowed the writ petition No. 18502 of 1993 and quashed the order of dismissal dated
\n28.11.1991 directing her reinstatement with all consequential benefits, while also
\nallowing the writ petition No. 14652 of 1994 quashing the Appellate Authority’s Order
\ndismissing the respondent’s Departmental Appeal.  Being aggrieved by the aforesaid
\njudgment of the learned single Judge, the appellant preferred writ appeal No. 2592 of
\n2001 on 07.06.2001 challenging the same insofar as it related to writ petition No. 18502
\nof 1993.  Vide order dated 25.01.2002, the Division Bench granted interim stay of the
\noperation of the order of reinstatement dated 27.04.2001 of the learned single Judge.
\nBy order dated 19.04.2004, the Division Bench dismissed the writ appeal No. 2592 of
\n2001 upholding the judgment and order dated 27.04.2001 of the learned single Judge.
\nBeing aggrieved, the appellant preferred the above civil appeal arising out of special
\nleave petition No. 16214 of 2004.  This Court granted leave on 17.01.2005 and ordered
\npayment of monthly salary at the rate of  last pay drawn by the respondent at the time
\nof her suspension and that the payment shall be made from 01.02.2005.\n<\/p>\n
We heard Mr. Ambrish Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. V.J.
\nFrancis, learned counsel for the respondent.  Lenghty arguments were advanced by
\nlearned counsel for the appellants and elaborate submissions were made by way of
\nreply by Mr. V.J. Francis, learned counsel for the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
  Mr. Ambrish Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants, made elaborate
\nsubmissions questioning the correctness of the judgment of the High Court and took us
\nthrough the enquiry report submitted by the enquiry officer, order of the Disciplinary
\nAuthority, order of the Appellate Authority and of the High Court and submitted that the
\norders passed by the High Court is ex facie illegal and that both the learned single
\nJudge and Judges of the Division Bench were of the erroneous impression that both
\nthe criminal proceedings and the departmental enquiry were based upon identical set of
\nfacts and that both the Disciplinary Authority while passing the order of dismissal and
\nthe Appellate Authority while dismissing the respondent’s departmental appeal
\nassigned no reasons whatsoever in support of their conclusion.  He relied on Lalit
\nPopli vs. Canara Bank and Others<\/a> 2003 (3) SCC 583, Ajit Kumar Nag vs. General
\nManager (PJ), Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd., Haldia and Others,<\/a> 2005(7) SCC 764,  B.C.
\nChaturvedi vs. Union of India,<\/a> (1995) 6 SCC 749.\n<\/p>\n
According to Mr. V.J. Francis, learned counsel for the respondent, the enquiry
\nofficer found charge Nos. 2 & 4 have been partly proved against the respondent without
\ngiving proper reasons and supported by evidence and, therefore, the enquiry report
\ncannot be relied upon.  He cited Anil Kumar vs. Presiding Officer and Others,<\/a> 1985
\n(3) SCC 378.  It was further contended that the disciplinary authority has passed the
\ndismissal order without giving a hearing to the delinquent employee\/respondent and
\nwithout specifically disagreeing with the enquiry report.  Before the dismissal order, the
\ndisciplinary authority has not properly considered the explanation given by the
\nemployee\/respondent or without hearing the employee-respondent.  He relied on
\nPunjab National Bank & Ors. Vs. Kunj Behari Misra etc.,1998 (7) SCC 84.\n<\/p>\n
It was further submitted that the appellate authority has also not given any
\nhearing to the employee\/respondent and confirmed the order of dismissal without
\napplication of mind, but by reproducing the order of the disciplinary authority.  Messrs.
\nMahabir Prasad Santosh Kumar vs. State of U.P. and Ors.,1970 (1) SCC 764 was
\nrelied on for this point.\n<\/p>\n
It was further submitted that the case of the respondent\/employee was that she
\nissued the maida from the stock in the godown after getting permission from the
\nAssistant Manager concerned and there was contemporaneous accounting of the same
\nin the sales register and in the stock register of the Amudham departmental store and,
\ntherefore, she cannot be held responsible for the loss whatsoever.\n<\/p>\n
It was further contended that actually 12 employees were involved in this case
\nand admittedly some of the employees who were also placed under suspension along
\nwith the respondent were reinstated.  No specific reasons have been given by the
\nappellant-Corporation why she was discriminated.\n<\/p>\n
The loss alleged to have caused, initially was Rs.9,86,980.56 but later on the
\nactual value of the loss assessed was Rs.6,88,737.12 and it was proposed to recover
\nfrom the respondent Rs.34,436.85 being 5% of the total loss.\n<\/p>\n
The respondent employee has been in service from 30.11.1974 to 28.01.1983
\nand during this time this is the only known allegation against the respondent employee
\nand there was no such allegation earlier.  Therefore, he requested this Court to mould
\nthe prayer and grant appropriate relief.\n<\/p>\n
It was submitted that the case being case of procedural irregularity which cannot
\nbe termed as negligence and 11 other employees were also involved and some of them
\nhaving been reinstated, the punishment given to the respondent is excessive.
\nMoreover, criminal proceedings were also initiated against the respondent and that
\nended in acquittal, on merits, and that became final.  Concluding his arguments, Mr.
\nFrancis submitted both the learned single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the
\nHigh Court were, therefore, right on the totality of the circumstances, in taking the view
\nthat the order passed by the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority
\nsuffers from serious infirmity and, therefore, the impugned judgment does not call for
\nany interference by this Court and that, therefore, the respondent is fit to be reinstated
\nwith consequential benefits.\n<\/p>\n
Both the learned counsel invited our attention to the relevant pleadings,
\nannexures filed along with the appeal and also of the rulings of this Court.  The
\nfollowing questions of law arise for consideration and adjudication by this Court:-\n<\/p>\n
1)\tWhether the High Court has gravely erred in law in holding that the
\nacquittal of the respondent herein by the Court of C.J.M., Chennai ought
\nto have been taken into consideration by the disciplinary authority, while
\ndismissing the respondent from service vide order dated 28.11.1991;\n<\/p>\n
2)\tWhether the High Court has not gravely erred in law by ignoring to
\nappreciate that the punishment of dismissal of the respondent from
\nservice was the most appropriate punishment in the peculiar facts and
\ncircumstances of the case, based on independent appreciation of
\nevidence on record as well as the categorical findings recorded by the
\nenquiry officer in perfect accordance with the requirements of the rules
\napplicable to the disciplinary proceedings in the appellant-Corporation;\n<\/p>\n
3)\tWhether the High Court has not gravely erred in law vitiating thereby the
\nends of justice by erroneously interfering with the punishment as
\nawarded by the disciplinary authority and later confirmed by the appellate
\nauthority in the teeth of a plethora of judicial pronouncements of this
\nCourt defining and delimiting the scope of interference by the High Court
\nwith the punishment awarded to a guilty employee by disciplinary
\nauthority;\n<\/p>\n
4)\tWhether the High Court has gravely erred in interfering with the
\npunishment awarded to the respondent who was found in the
\ndepartmental enquiry guilty of misappropriation and other heinous
\nmalpractices causing thereby enormous loss in stock and cash to the
\nCorporation, an institution primarily concerned with distribution of the
\nessential commodities among the weaker sections of the population of
\nthe State of Tamil Nadu.\n<\/p>\n
We have perused the common judgment of the learned single Judge and also of
\nthe Division Bench.  What seems to have weighed predominantly with the learned
\nsingle Judge was 1) acquittal of the respondent by the Court of C.J.M. Chennai; 2) an
\nerroneous impression that both the criminal proceedings and the departmental enquiry
\nwere based upon identical set of facts; 3) an erroneous impression that both the
\ndisciplinary authority, while passing the order of dismissal and the appellate authority,
\nwhile dismissing the respondent’s departmental appeal assigned no reasons
\nwhatsoever in support of their conclusions.\n<\/p>\n
We are unable to countenance the view and impression taken by the learned
\nsingle Judge.  In our view, the single Judge has mis-directed herself in reaching the
\nerroneous conclusion that both the criminal case in the Court of C.J.M. and the
\ndepartmental enquiry were based on identical facts and charges.
\nShe has lost sight of the fact that the criminal case instituted against the
\nrespondent in the Court of C.J.M. was in respect of the offences under Section 409 IPC
\n(Criminal breach of trust) and falsification of accounts punishable under Section 477A
\nIPC whereas the respondent herein was charged in the departmental enquiry for her
\nfailure to maintain prescribed records for issue of a stock and for swindling the
\nCorporation in collusion with the other members of the staff through mis-appropriation
\nof stock and cash of the Corporation thereby causing huge loss to the Corporation to
\nthe tune of more than Rs. 9.00 lacs.\n<\/p>\n
Similarly, the learned single Judge was patently misconceived in reaching the
\nconclusion that the acquittal of the respondent by the Court of C.J.M. clinched issue
\nbefore the departmental enquiry, while losing sight of the well settled law that the scope
\nof criminal proceedings in the Court of criminal law and the scope of disciplinary
\nproceedings in a departmental enquiry are quite distinct and exclusive and
\nindependent.\n<\/p>\n
The learned single Judge has also failed to appreciate that the standard of proof
\nrequired in the criminal proceedings and the departmental disciplinary actions are not
\nthe same.\n<\/p>\n
We have perused the order of dismissal dated 28.11.1991 passed by the
\ndisciplinary authority and the order of the appellate authority dated 16.06.1994
\nupholding the order of dismissal with dispassionate judicial mind.  In our opinion, both
\nthe orders aforementioned are exhaustive in details, impeccable on facts and armed
\nwith irrefutable reasons in support of the conclusions.\n<\/p>\n
The learned Judges of the Division Bench who dismissed the writ appeal filed by
\nthe Corporation upheld the patently erroneous judgment of the learned single Judge
\nvirtually on all those grounds and reasons which had appealed to the learned single
\nJudge.  While passing the impugned judgment, the learned Judges have lost sight of
\nthe following:-\n<\/p>\n
(i)\tThe scope of the Criminal Proceedings in a Criminal Code and the scope of
\ndisciplinary proceedings in a departmental enquiry are quite distinct,
\nexclusive and independent of each other;\n<\/p>\n
(ii)\tThe Criminal Proceedings in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate and
\nDisciplinary Proceedings were on totally different sets of facts and charges;\n<\/p>\n
(iii)\tThe order of dismissal dated 28.11.1991 (Annexure P-5) passed by the
\nDisciplinary Authority and the order dated 16.6.1994 of the Appellate
\nAuthority, dismissing the respondent’s Departmental Appeal are exhaustive
\norders, incorporating the statement of the correct and relevant facts of the
\ncase and impeccable conclusions based on dispassionate appreciation of
\nthe evidence on record and supported by legally irrefutable reasons.\n<\/p>\n
In our opinion, both the learned single Judge and the learned appellate Judges
\nof the High Court failed to consider and appreciate dispassionately and judicially the
\nCorporation’s most emphatically pronounced plea that it would be virtually impossible
\nfor them to reinstate the respondent who was found in the departmental enquiry guilty
\nof mis-appropriation and other malpractices causing thereby enormous loss in stock
\nand cash to the Corporation, an institution primarily concerned with the distribution of
\nessential commodities among the weaker sections of the population of the State of
\nTamil Nadu whose dismissal from service has been upheld by the appellate authority
\nvide its very detailed, well-considered and well-reasoned verdict and in whose integrity,
\nhonesty and trustworthiness the Corporation have lost their faith completely and
\nabsolutely.\n<\/p>\n
We shall now advert to the rulings cited by Mr. Ambrish Kumar, learned counsel
\nfor the appellants, in support of his submission:-\n<\/p>\n
1) Lalit Popli vs. Canara Bank and Others,<\/a> (2003) 3 SCC 583
\nWhile considering the nature of proof required in a departmental enquiry on the
\nscope of judicial review of the High Court under Article 226, this Court held as follows:-
\n“It is fairly well settled that the approach and objective in criminal
\nproceedings and the disciplinary proceedings are altogether distinct and
\ndifferent. In the disciplinary proceedings the preliminary question is whether
\nthe employee is guilty of such conduct as would merit action against him,
\nwhereas in criminal proceedings the question is whether the offences
\nregistered against him are established and if established what sentence
\nshould be imposed upon him. The standard of proof, the mode of enquiry
\nand the rules governing the enquiry and trial are conceptually different.
\n(State of Rajasthan v. B.K. Meena and Ors.<\/a> (1996) 6 SCC 417). In case of
\ndisciplinary enquiry the technical rules of evidence have no application. The
\ndoctrine of “proof beyond doubt” has no application. Preponderance of
\nprobabilities and some material on record are necessary to arrive at the
\nconclusion whether or not the delinquent has committed misconduct.
\nWhile exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution the High
\nCourt does not act as an appellate authority. Its jurisdiction is circumscribed
\nby limits of judicial review to correct errors of law or procedural errors
\nleading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice.
\nJudicial review is not akin to adjudication of the case on merits as an
\nAppellate Authority.\n<\/p>\n
In B. C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India and Ors. (1995 (6) SCC 749) the scope
\nof judicial review was indicated by stating that review by the Court is of
\ndecision making process and where the findings of the disciplinary authority
\nare based on some evidence, the Court or the Tribunal cannot re-appreciate
\nthe evidence and substitute its own finding.\n<\/p>\n
As observed in R. S. Saini v. State of Punjab and Ors.<\/a> (1999 (8) SCC 90) in
\nparagraphs 16 and 17 the scope of interference is rather limited and has to
\nbe exercised within the circumscribed limits.”\n<\/p>\n
2) In B.C. Chaturvedi vs. Union of India,<\/a> (1995) 6 SCC 749, it was observed at
\npage 762 para 18 as under:\n<\/p>\n
” A review of the above legal position would establish that the disciplinary
\nauthority, and on appeal the Appellate Authority, being fact-finding
\nauthorities have exclusive power to consider the evidence with a view to
\nmaintain discipline.  They are invested with the discretion to impose
\nappropriate punishment keeping in view the magnitude or gravity of the
\nmisconduct.  The High Court\/Tribunal, while exercising the power of judicial
\nreview, cannot normally substitute its own conclusion on penalty and
\nimpose some other penalty.  If the punishment imposed by the disciplinary
\nauthority or the Appellate Authority shocks the conscience of the High
\nCourt\/Tribunal, it would appropriately mould the relief, either directing the
\ndisciplinary\/Appellate Authority to reconsider the penalty imposed, or to
\nshorten the litigation, it may itself, in exceptional and rare cases, impose
\nappropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof.”\n<\/p>\n
3) In Ajit Kumar Nag vs. General Manager (PJ), Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd.,
\nHaldia and Others,<\/a> (2005) 7 SCC 764 (Three Judges Bench).  Thakker, J. speaking
\nfor the Bench held as under:\n<\/p>\n
“11.  As far as acquittal of the appellant by a criminal court is concerned, in
\nour opinion, the said order does not preclude the Corporation from taking an
\naction if it is otherwise permissible.  In our judgment, the law is fairly well
\nsettled.  Acquittal by a criminal court would not debar an employer from
\nexercising power in accordance with the Rules and Regulations in force.
\nThe two proceedings, criminal and departmental, are entirely different.
\nThey operate in different fields and have different objectives.  Whereas the
\nobject of criminal trial is to inflict appropriate punishment on the offender,
\nthe purpose of enquiry proceedings is to deal with the delinquent
\ndepartmentally and to impose penalty in accordance with the service rules.
\nIn a criminal trial, incriminating statement made by the accused in certain
\ncircumstances or before certain officers is totally inadmissible in evidence.
\nSuch strict rules of evidence and procedure would not apply to departmental
\nproceedings.  The degree of proof which is necessary to order a conviction
\nis different from the degree of proof necessary to record the commission of
\ndelinquency.  The rule relating to appreciation of evidence in the two
\nproceedings is also not similar.  In criminal law, burden of proof is on the
\nprosecution and unless the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the
\naccused “beyond reasonable doubt”, he cannot be convicted by a Court of
\nlaw.  In a departmental enquiry, on the other hand, penalty can be imposed
\non the delinquent officer on a finding recorded on the basis of
\n“preponderance of probability”.  Acquittal of the appellant by a Judicial
\nMagistrate, therefore, does not ipso facto absolve him from the liability
\nunder the disciplinary jurisdiction of the Corporation.  We are, therefore,
\nunable to uphold the contention of the appellant that since he was acquitted
\nby a criminal Court, the impugned order dismissing him from service
\ndeserves to be quashed and set aside.”\n<\/p>\n
We shall now advert to the rulings cited by Mr. V.J. Francis, learned counsel for
\nthe respondent, in support of his submission:-\n<\/p>\n
1) Messrs. Mahabir Prasad Santosh Kumar vs. State of U.P. and Ors., 1970
\n(1) SCC 764 was cited that the executive authority while exercising quasi judicial
\nfunctions should give reasons for their conclusion.\n<\/p>\n
2) Anil Kumar vs. Presiding Officer and Others,<\/a> (1985) 3 SCC 378 and\n<\/p>\n
3) Punjab National Bank & Ors. Vs. Kunj Behari Misra etc., (1998) 7 SCC 84.  The
\nfirst judgment was cited by Mr. Francis for the proposition that in a quasi judicial
\nenquiry, a reasoned report of the enquiry is essential.  The second judgment was cited
\nfor the proposition that disciplinary enquiry against respondents declared to be vitiated
\non account of non-observance of the principles of natural justice.\n<\/p>\n
This contention has no merits.  A perusal of the enquiry officer’s report in which
\nthe respondent has fully participated and the order of the disciplinary authority and of
\nthe appellate authority would go to show that the order passed by them are very
\ndetailed, well-considered and well-reasoned verdict.  The conclusion arrived at by the
\ndisciplinary authority and the appellate authority are exhaustive in nature incorporating
\nthe correct and relevant facts of the case and conclusion based on the appreciation of
\nthe evidence on record and supported by legally irrefutable reasons.\n<\/p>\n
4) State of Karnataka vs. Amajappa and Others<\/a> (2003) 9 SCC 468
\nThe other contentions made by Mr. Francis are in respect of procedural
\nirregularity which, according to him, cannot be termed to be negligence on the part of
\nthe respondent.  We have already held both the disciplinary authority and the appellate
\nauthority has given ample reasons for arriving at their conclusions.  This Court has held
\nin a catena of decisions that interference is not permissible unless the orders passed by
\nthe quasi judicial authorities is clearly unreasonable or perverse or manifestly illegal or
\ngrossly unjust.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. Francis also submitted that a sum of Rs.34,436.85 being 5% of the total loss
\nof Rs.6,88,735\/- is sought to be recovered from the respondent and that the present
\ndepartmental proceedings is the only known allegation against the respondent and
\nthere was no such allegation earlier and, therefore, a lenient view should be taken by
\nthis Court and relief prayed for by both the parties can be suitably moulded by this
\nCourt.  We are unable to agree with the above submission which, in our opinion, has no
\nforce.  The scope of judicial review is very limited.  Sympathy or generosity as a factor
\nis impermissible.  In our view, loss of confidence as the primary factor and not the
\namount of money mis-appropriated.  In the instant case, respondent employee is found
\nguilty of mis-appropriating the Corporation funds.  There is nothing wrong in the
\nCorporation losing confidence or faith in such an employee and awarding punishment
\nof dismissal.  In such cases, there is no place for generosity or mis-placed sympathy on
\nthe part of the judicial forums and interfering therefor with the quantum of punishment
\nawarded by the disciplinary and appellate authority.\n<\/p>\n
The other contention taken by Mr. Francis that criminal proceedings which were
\ninitiated against the respondent ended in acquittal, on merits, and that became final.  A
\nlenient view must be taken since the charges in both the cases are identically the
\nsame.  We have already elaborately discussed about this point factually and also with
\nreference to the judgments referred to supra and for the reasons recorded earlier, we
\nreject this contention.\n<\/p>\n
The order of dismissal passed by the disciplinary authority was based on
\ndispassionate and independent examination and appreciation of the entirety of facts
\nand evidence on record relating to the malpractices and mis-appropriation indulged in
\nby the respondent in collusion with the other members of the staff causing thereby huge
\nloss to the Corporation.\n<\/p>\n
The scope of disciplinary proceedings and the scope of criminal proceedings in
\na Court of Criminal law are quite distinct, exclusive and independent of each other.
\nThe prosecution proceedings launched against the respondent herein were in respect of
\noffences punishable under Sections 409 and 477-A I.P.C., whereas the Departmental
\nProceedings as initiated against her were in respect of the charges of misappropriation and
\nother fraudulent practices such as deliberate omission to bring into accounts the stock
\nreceived showing bogus issues in the records, falsification of accounts, submission of
\ndefective accounts, tampering of records, manipulation of accounts and records etc.  Thus,
\nthe respondent herein was proceeded against for quite different charges and on different sets
\nof facts before the Court of  Chief Judicial Magistrate, on the one hand, and before the
\nDepartmental Enquiry on the other.\n<\/p>\n
The orders passed by the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority
\nare not only impeccable on facts, tenable on law but also unambiguously supported by
\nunassailable reasons in support of their conclusions.  Thus the unchargeable
\nacquisition by the learned single Judge and of the learned Judges of the appellate
\nbench that the order of the disciplinary authority and of the appellate authority suffer
\nfrom total non-application of mind is patently devoid of any substance of truth and law.\n<\/p>\n
It was submitted that though departmental actions initiated against 11
\nemployees and some of them were reinstated who were also involved in the same
\noffence and, therefore, a direction should be issued to the appellant-Corporation to take
\nthe same view insofar as the respondent is concerned.  We directed the learned
\ncounsel for the appellant to ascertain the correct position insofar as all the other 11
\nemployees are concerned.  Mr. Ambrish Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the
\nappellants, on instructions from the Corporation, submitted a memorandum stating that
\nout of 11 employees, 9 were dismissed from service including the respondent herein
\nand 2 employees  were not charge-sheeted.\n<\/p>\n
In the instant case, the charged employee holds a position of trust where
\nhonesty and integrity are inbuilt requirements of functioning and, therefore, in our
\nopinion, the matter should be dealt with firmly with firm hands and not leniently. In the
\ninstant case, the respondent deals with public money and engaged in financial
\ntransactions or acts in a fiduciary capacity and, therefore, highest degree of integrity
\nand trustworthiness is must and unexceptionable.  Judged in that background, the
\nconclusion of the learned single Judge as affirmed by the Division Bench of the High
\nCourt do not appear to be proper.  We have no hesitation to set aside the same and
\nrestore the order passed by the disciplinary authorities upholding the order of dismissal.
\nThe Civil Appeal stands allowed. The orders passed by the disciplinary authority
\nand the appellate authority ordering dismissal is confirmed and the judgment passed by
\nthe learned single Judge in writ petition No. 14652 of 1994 as confirmed by the
\nappellate Judges in writ appeal No. 19646 of 2001 dated 25.01.2002 are set aside.
\nHowever, there will be no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
During the pendency of this appeal, this court passed an order on 17.01.2005
\ndirecting the appellant-Corporation to pay to the respondent the monthly salary at the
\nrate of last pay drawn by the respondent at the time of her suspension and that the
\npayment shall be made from 01.02.2005.  Since the payment has been ordered by this
\nCourt during the pendency of the appeal, we are not inclined to disturb the said order
\nand, therefore, the monthly salary paid pursuant to the above order need not be
\nrecovered from the respondent.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Chairman-Cum-M.D., T.N.C.S. … vs K. Meerabai on 23 January, 2006 Author: . A Lakshmanan Bench: H.K. Sema, Dr. Ar. Lakshmanan CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 623 of 2005 PETITIONER: Chairman-cum-M.D., T.N.C.S. Corpn. Ltd. and Ors. RESPONDENT: K. Meerabai DATE OF JUDGMENT: 23\/01\/2006 BENCH: H.K. Sema & Dr. AR. Lakshmanan JUDGMENT: J U […]<\/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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-78236","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nChairman-Cum-M.D., T.N.C.S. ... vs K. Meerabai on 23 January, 2006 - 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\/chairman-cum-m-d-t-n-c-s-vs-k-meerabai-on-23-january-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Chairman-Cum-M.D., T.N.C.S. ... vs K. Meerabai on 23 January, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chairman-cum-m-d-t-n-c-s-vs-k-meerabai-on-23-january-2006\" \/>\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=\"2006-01-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-05-06T03:40:03+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=\"26 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chairman-cum-m-d-t-n-c-s-vs-k-meerabai-on-23-january-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chairman-cum-m-d-t-n-c-s-vs-k-meerabai-on-23-january-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Chairman-Cum-M.D., T.N.C.S. … vs K. Meerabai on 23 January, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-01-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-06T03:40:03+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chairman-cum-m-d-t-n-c-s-vs-k-meerabai-on-23-january-2006\"},\"wordCount\":5165,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chairman-cum-m-d-t-n-c-s-vs-k-meerabai-on-23-january-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chairman-cum-m-d-t-n-c-s-vs-k-meerabai-on-23-january-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chairman-cum-m-d-t-n-c-s-vs-k-meerabai-on-23-january-2006\",\"name\":\"Chairman-Cum-M.D., T.N.C.S. ... vs K. Meerabai on 23 January, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-01-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-06T03:40:03+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chairman-cum-m-d-t-n-c-s-vs-k-meerabai-on-23-january-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chairman-cum-m-d-t-n-c-s-vs-k-meerabai-on-23-january-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chairman-cum-m-d-t-n-c-s-vs-k-meerabai-on-23-january-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Chairman-Cum-M.D., T.N.C.S. … vs K. Meerabai on 23 January, 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":"Chairman-Cum-M.D., T.N.C.S. ... vs K. Meerabai on 23 January, 2006 - 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\/chairman-cum-m-d-t-n-c-s-vs-k-meerabai-on-23-january-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Chairman-Cum-M.D., T.N.C.S. ... vs K. Meerabai on 23 January, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chairman-cum-m-d-t-n-c-s-vs-k-meerabai-on-23-january-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-01-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-05-06T03:40:03+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":"26 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chairman-cum-m-d-t-n-c-s-vs-k-meerabai-on-23-january-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chairman-cum-m-d-t-n-c-s-vs-k-meerabai-on-23-january-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Chairman-Cum-M.D., T.N.C.S. … vs K. Meerabai on 23 January, 2006","datePublished":"2006-01-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-06T03:40:03+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chairman-cum-m-d-t-n-c-s-vs-k-meerabai-on-23-january-2006"},"wordCount":5165,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chairman-cum-m-d-t-n-c-s-vs-k-meerabai-on-23-january-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chairman-cum-m-d-t-n-c-s-vs-k-meerabai-on-23-january-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chairman-cum-m-d-t-n-c-s-vs-k-meerabai-on-23-january-2006","name":"Chairman-Cum-M.D., T.N.C.S. ... vs K. Meerabai on 23 January, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-01-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-06T03:40:03+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chairman-cum-m-d-t-n-c-s-vs-k-meerabai-on-23-january-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chairman-cum-m-d-t-n-c-s-vs-k-meerabai-on-23-january-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chairman-cum-m-d-t-n-c-s-vs-k-meerabai-on-23-january-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Chairman-Cum-M.D., T.N.C.S. … vs K. Meerabai on 23 January, 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\/78236","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=78236"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/78236\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=78236"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=78236"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=78236"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}