{"id":80693,"date":"2007-01-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-01-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-rep-by-vs-g-sivaramakrishnan-on-11-january-2007"},"modified":"2017-10-31T11:16:12","modified_gmt":"2017-10-31T05:46:12","slug":"union-of-india-rep-by-vs-g-sivaramakrishnan-on-11-january-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-rep-by-vs-g-sivaramakrishnan-on-11-january-2007","title":{"rendered":"Union Of India Rep. By vs G.Sivaramakrishnan on 11 January, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Union Of India Rep. By vs G.Sivaramakrishnan on 11 January, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n                              \n                      DATED:  11.1.2007\n                              \n\n                           CORAM:\n                              \n\n       THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE F.M.IBRAHIM KALIFULLA\n                             AND\n           THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.K.KRISHNAN\n\n                              \n                    W.P.No.19847 of 2001\n                  \t    and\n\t\t   W.M.P.No.29255 of 2001\n\n\n\n1. Union of India rep. by\n   Postmaster-General,\n   Tamilnadu Circle,\n   Chennai-600 002.\n\n2. Sr. Supdt. of RMS,\n   Railway Mail Service,\n   'T' Division, Tiruchy-620 001.\n\n3. The Head Record Officer,\n   Railway Mail Service,\n   'T'        Division,       \n   Tiruchy-620       001.\t\t.. Petitioners\n\n\n                            vs.\n\n\n1. G.Sivaramakrishnan\n2. The Registrar,\n   Central Administrative Tribunal,\n   Chennai - 600 104.\t\t\t.. Respondents\n\n\n         Writ  Petition  filed  under  Article  226  of  the\n\nConstitution  of India, praying for issuance of  a  writ  of\n\ncertiorari,   calling  for  the  records   of   the   second\n\nrespondent, dated 27.4.2000 in O.A.No.554 of 1998 and  quash\n\nthe order.\n\n\n               For  petitioners       :   Mr.E.R.K.Moorrthy,\n\t\t\t\t\t  SCCG\n               For respondent-1       : Mr.L.Chandrakumar\n\n\n\n\n                            ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
 (The Order of the Court was made by F.M.Ibrahim Kalifulla,J.)<\/p>\n
        The  Union  of  India represented by the  Postmaster<\/p>\n
General,  Tamil  Nadu Circle, Chennai-600  002,  The  Senior<\/p>\n
Superintendent  of  Railway  Mail  Service,  ‘T’   Division,<\/p>\n
Tiruchy-620  001 and the Head Record Officer,  Railway  Mail<\/p>\n
Service, ‘T’ Division, Tiruchy-620 001, are the petitioners.<\/p>\n
        2.  The  challenge in the Writ Petition  is  to  the<\/p>\n
order   of   the  Central  Administrative  Tribunal,   dated<\/p>\n
27.4.2000 passed in O.A.No.554 of 1998, in and by which  the<\/p>\n
Tribunal,  while  setting aside the order  of  removal  from<\/p>\n
service  in respect of the first respondent, dated 22.1.1997<\/p>\n
as  well  as the rejection of his appeal petition, by  order<\/p>\n
dated  24.2.1998, directed the petitioners herein to restore<\/p>\n
the  first  respondent herein to duty within one month  from<\/p>\n
the  date  of receipt of a copy of the order and  also  held<\/p>\n
that  the first respondent was not entitled for any monetary<\/p>\n
benefits  for the period from the date of removal  till  the<\/p>\n
date of reinstatement.\n<\/p>\n
        3.  The brief facts which led to the passing of  the<\/p>\n
above order of the Tribunal, can be stated as under:<\/p>\n
        The first respondent who joined as a Mail Mazdoor in<\/p>\n
the Railway Mail Service in the year 1982, was posted as  an<\/p>\n
Extra-Departmental Mail Man. On  8.7.1994,  when  the  first<\/p>\n
respondent   was  on duty at 7.30 hours, affixing  the  date<\/p>\n
stamp  impressions on the advance work papers for 10.7.1994,<\/p>\n
it    was    noticed   by   his   higher   authority,    one<\/p>\n
Thiru.S.Hirudayaraj, C.M.A. that the first respondent was in<\/p>\n
an  intoxicated mood. The said Hirudhayaraj  was  stated  to<\/p>\n
have advised the first respondent to report to the H.R.O. on<\/p>\n
the next day by cancelling his duty. It is stated that after<\/p>\n
some  altercation, he left the scene and  returned  back  at<\/p>\n
22.30  hours  in  an intemperate mood and argued  with  some<\/p>\n
vehemence  with the C.M.A. on duty. At that point  of  time,<\/p>\n
one  Thiru.P.Muthukumar,  the officiating  I.R.M.,  who  was<\/p>\n
present  at  the  scene,  advised the  first  respondent  to<\/p>\n
contact the H.R.O. on the next day turning down his request.<\/p>\n
In  the course of the said altercation, the first respondent<\/p>\n
was stated to have suddenly attacked the said I.R.M. with an<\/p>\n
‘aruval’  at  22.45  hours, causing  him  bleeding  and  cut<\/p>\n
injuries. When the first respondent was about to attack  the<\/p>\n
I.R.M.   for  the  second  time,  Thiru.Hirudayaraj,  C.M.A.<\/p>\n
appeared to have prevented the first respondent and in  that<\/p>\n
process,  the  first respondent was stated  to  have  caused<\/p>\n
bleeding injuries on both his palms.\n<\/p>\n
         4.   On  the  above  stated  incident,  a  criminal<\/p>\n
complaint  was stated to have been made, wherein  the  first<\/p>\n
respondent was proceeded against in the Criminal  Court  for<\/p>\n
the offences falling under Sections 332, 333 and 307 IPC. In<\/p>\n
the  Criminal  Court, the first respondent was acquitted  by<\/p>\n
order dated 4.7.1996.\n<\/p>\n
         5.   There   were  also  departmental   proceedings<\/p>\n
initiated   against   the   first   respondent,   in   which<\/p>\n
Thiru.P.Muthukumar,    the    officiating     I.R.M.     and<\/p>\n
Thiru.Hirudayaraj, C.M.A. were examined  as  witnesses.  The<\/p>\n
first  respondent fully participated in the enquiry and  the<\/p>\n
enquiry  officer  submitted  his  report,  dated  10.7.1996,<\/p>\n
holding   that  the  charges  levelled  against  the   first<\/p>\n
respondent were conclusively proved.  Based on the  findings<\/p>\n
of  the enquiry officer, by order dated 22.1.1997, the first<\/p>\n
respondent  was removed from service.  The first  respondent<\/p>\n
preferred  an  appeal  petition dated  8.4.1997,  which  was<\/p>\n
subsequently dismissed by order dated 24.2.1998.<\/p>\n
        6.  As against the above said orders dated 22.1.1997<\/p>\n
and 24.2.1998, the first respondent preferred O.A.No.554  of<\/p>\n
1998 and the Tribunal, by the impugned order, held that when<\/p>\n
once the first respondent has been acquitted by the Criminal<\/p>\n
Court  on  merits, the petitioners should not have proceeded<\/p>\n
against and pass the order of removal from service.  It  was<\/p>\n
on  that  basis,  the  Tribunal while setting  aside  orders<\/p>\n
impugned  before  it,  directed the  petitioners  herein  to<\/p>\n
restore the first respondent herein to duty and the Tribunal<\/p>\n
however held that the first respondent was not entitled  for<\/p>\n
any  monetary  benefits  for the period  from  the  date  of<\/p>\n
removal till the date of reinstatement.\n<\/p>\n
         7.   Assailing   the   order   of   the   Tribunal,<\/p>\n
Mr.E.R.K.Moorrthy, learned Standing Counsel for the  Central<\/p>\n
Government  appearing  for the petitioners,  contended  that<\/p>\n
since  the  Supreme Court has taken a consistent  view  that<\/p>\n
criminal proceedings and departmental action travel  on  two<\/p>\n
different  planes  and the acquittal by the  Criminal  Court<\/p>\n
need not always deter the department from proceeding against<\/p>\n
the delinquent and pass appropriate order of punishment, the<\/p>\n
Tribunal was not justified in interfering with the order  of<\/p>\n
removal passed against the first respondent, especially when<\/p>\n
the  charge  against the first respondent  was  serious,  in<\/p>\n
that,  he  caused  bleedings and cut  injuries  to  his  co-<\/p>\n
employee. The learned Standing Counsel also relied upon  the<\/p>\n
decisions of the Supreme Court reported in 2006 (2) SCC  584<\/p>\n
(South  Bengal State Transport Corporation vs.  Sapan  Kumar<\/p>\n
Mitra)  and<\/a> 2004 (6) SCC 482 (Allahabad District Cooperative<\/p>\n
Bank  Ltd.,  Allahabad  vs.  Vidhya  Varidh  Mishra)  and<\/a>  a<\/p>\n
decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported in  2005<\/p>\n
(1)  CTC  625  (The  Management of  Thiruvalluvar  Transport<\/p>\n
Corporation   vs.  S.Anthonysamy<\/a>  )  in   support   of   his<\/p>\n
submissions.\n<\/p>\n
          8.    As    against    the   above    submissions,<\/p>\n
Mr.L.Chandrakumar, learned counsel appearing for  the  first<\/p>\n
respondent, by relying upon a decision of the Supreme  Court<\/p>\n
reported  in  2006  (5)  SCC  446  (G.M.Tank  vs.  State  of<\/p>\n
Gujarat),<\/a>  contended  that when once an  employee  has  been<\/p>\n
honourably  acquitted  in a Criminal  trial,  the  order  of<\/p>\n
removal  from  service  cannot  be  sustained.  The  learned<\/p>\n
counsel  for  the first respondent also contended  that  the<\/p>\n
Tribunal,  having  only directed reinstatement  without  any<\/p>\n
monetary benefits for the period of non-employment, the same<\/p>\n
does not call for any interference.\n<\/p>\n
         9.   Having  heard  the  learned  counsel  for  the<\/p>\n
respective parties, we are of the view that in the light  of<\/p>\n
the consistent view of the Supreme Court on the question  as<\/p>\n
to  the  authority  or  power of the Department  to  proceed<\/p>\n
against  an  employee in respect of a misconduct  which  was<\/p>\n
based  on the same set of facts with reference to which  the<\/p>\n
criminal  proceedings were also initiated, which  ultimately<\/p>\n
ended  in acquittal, the Department is entitled to  make  an<\/p>\n
assessment  of the evidence differently in the  departmental<\/p>\n
proceedings  for  the  purpose of  passing  final  order  of<\/p>\n
punishment, it will have to be held that the impugned  order<\/p>\n
of the Tribunal cannot be sustained.\n<\/p>\n
        10.  On the above issue, we wish to be guided  by  a<\/p>\n
recent  decision of the Supreme Court reported in  2006  (2)<\/p>\n
SCC  584  (supra) and in paragraphs 9 and  10  of  the  said<\/p>\n
judgment, the Supreme Court has succinctly stated the  legal<\/p>\n
position as under:\n<\/p>\n
                 “9.  We  have heard the  learned
\n         counsel   for  the  parties   and   also
\n         examined  the relevant records  of  this
\n         case.  Although the Division  Bench  had
\n         not    categorically   said   that   the
\n         departmental  proceeding  could  not  be
\n         continued  and punishment could  not  be
\n         imposed on the delinquent employee  when
\n         the  criminal  case ended in  acquittal,
\n         even  then the learned  counsel for  the
\n         respondents sought to argue this  ground
\n         before  us. In our view, this ground  is
\n         no  longer res integra. In Nelson  Motis
\n         v.  Union of India<\/a> (1992 (4) SCC  711  :
\n         1993 SCC (L & S) 13 : 1993 (23) ATC 382)
\n         a   three-Judge  Bench  of  this   Court
\n         observed  at  SCC  p.714,  para  5,   as
\n         follows:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                           “5.  So far the  first
\n                   point   is  concerned,  namely
\n                   whether    the    disciplinary
\n                   proceedings  could  have  been
\n                   continued in the face  of  the
\n                   acquittal of the appellant  in
\n                   the  criminal case,  the  plea
\n                   has  no  substance  whatsoever
\n                   and  does not merit a detailed
\n                   consideration. The nature  and
\n                   scope  of a criminal case  are
\n                   very different from those of a
\n                   departmental      disciplinary
\n                   proceeding  and  an  order  of
\n                   acquittal,  therefore,  cannot
\n                   conclude    the   departmental
\n                   proceeding.    Besides,    the
\n                   Tribunal has pointed out  that
\n                   the  acts  which  led  to  the
\n                   initiation of the departmental
\n                   disciplinary  proceeding  were
\n                   not  exactly  the  same  which
\n                   were the subject-matter of the
\n                   criminal                case.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   (emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                 10.  Similarly, in Senior Supdt.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
         of  Post  Offices   v. A.Gopalan   (1997
\n         (11) SCC 239 : 1998 SCC (L & S) 124) the
\n         view  expressed in Nelson Motis v. Union
\n         of India<\/a> (1992 (4) SCC 711 : 1993 SCC (L
\n         &  S)  13 : 1993 (23) ATC 382) was fully
\n         endorsed by this Court and similarly  it
\n         was  held  that the nature and scope  of
\n         proof   in  a  criminal  case  is   very
\n         different  from  that of a  departmental
\n         disciplinary proceeding and the order of
\n         acquittal in the former cannot  conclude
\n         the departmental proceedings. This Court
\n         has further held that in a criminal case
\n         charge  has to be proved by proof beyond
\n         reasonable  doubt while in  departmental
\n         proceeding  the standard  of  proof  for
\n         proving the charge is mere preponderance
\n         of   probabilities.   Such   being   the
\n         position  of law now settled by  various
\n         decisions  of this Court, two  of  which
\n         have  already been referred to  earlier,
\n         we  need  not  deal in detail  with  the
\n         question whether acquittal in a criminal
\n         case  will  lead  to  holding  that  the
\n         departmental proceedings should also  be
\n         discontinued.  That being the  position,
\n         an   order   of  removal  from   service
\n         emanating from a departmental proceeding
\n         can  very  well  be  passed  even  after
\n         acquittal of the delinquent employee  in
\n         a   criminal  case.  In  any  case,  the
\n         learned  Single  Judge as  well  as  the
\n         Division   Bench  did  not  base   their
\n         decisions  relying  on  the  proposition
\n         that  after  acquittal in  the  criminal
\n         case, departmental proceedings could not
\n         be  continued and the order  of  removal
\n         could not be passed.”<\/p>\n
        11.  In  the  earlier decision of the Supreme  Court<\/p>\n
reported in 2004 (6) SCC 482 (supra), the Supreme Court  has<\/p>\n
stated  the  above legal position in an emphatic  manner  in<\/p>\n
paragraph 12, which is to the following effect:<\/p>\n
                 “12.  Mr.Rao submitted that  the
\n         respondent  had been exonerated  by  the
\n         criminal  court. He submitted  that  the
\n         termination  was only on  the  basis  of
\n         his  conviction.  He submitted  that  as
\n         his  conviction is set aside, the courts
\n         below  were  right  in  reinstating  the
\n         respondent. We are unable to  accede  to
\n         this  submission.  The  termination  was
\n         pursuant  to a disciplinary inquiry.  It
\n         is  settled  law that in a  disciplinary
\n         inquiry  a  conclusion  different   from
\n         that  arrived  at  by a criminal  court,
\n         may be arrived at. The strict burden  of
\n         proof required to establish guilt  in  a
\n         criminal   court  is  not  required   in
\n         disciplinary proceeding. The  respondent
\n         had  not  claimed that the  disciplinary
\n         proceedings  were not concluded  fairly.
\n         As   the   termination  was   based   on
\n         findings  of the Disciplinary Committee,
\n         the   fact  that  the  appellate   court
\n         exonerated  the  respondent  was  of  no
\n         consequence.”<\/p>\n
This decision of the Supreme Court has also been applied  by<\/p>\n
the  First  Bench of this Court in the decision reported  in<\/p>\n
2005 (1) CTC 625 (supra).\n<\/p>\n
        12.  On  a  fair  reading of the above  referred  to<\/p>\n
decisions of the Supreme Court as well as the Division Bench<\/p>\n
of  this Court, the position is crystal clear that while  in<\/p>\n
the  Criminal  Court, the charge has to be proved  by  proof<\/p>\n
beyond  reasonable doubt, the same is not the  case  in  the<\/p>\n
Departmental  proceedings, where the standard of  proof  for<\/p>\n
proving the charge is mere preponderance of probabilities.<\/p>\n
        13.  The  Supreme Court having stated that the  said<\/p>\n
position of law is well settled by a catena of decisions  of<\/p>\n
the  Supreme Court, as held in the decision reported in 2006<\/p>\n
(2)  SCC 584 (supra), it will be travesty of justice  if  in<\/p>\n
respect of the case where the first respondent was stated to<\/p>\n
have caused bleeding and cut injuries on his co-employee  in<\/p>\n
the  course  of his employment in the Railway Mail  Service,<\/p>\n
which conduct of the first respondent was duly explained  by<\/p>\n
the  concerned  person who suffered such bleeding  injuries,<\/p>\n
before  the Departmental enquiry officer, it will be  wholly<\/p>\n
improper and inexpedient to ignore the said findings of  the<\/p>\n
enquiry  officer  and  the ultimate order  of  removal  from<\/p>\n
service  passed by the petitioners and direct  reinstatement<\/p>\n
by simply stating that the first respondent was acquitted by<\/p>\n
the Criminal Court on the very same set of facts. Therefore,<\/p>\n
being  guided by the decisions of the Supreme Court, we  are<\/p>\n
unable  to  sustain the order of the Tribunal  in  directing<\/p>\n
reinstatement of the first respondent.\n<\/p>\n
        14.  As  far  as the other decision of  the  Supreme<\/p>\n
Court reported in 2006 (5) SCC 446 (supra) is concerned,  it<\/p>\n
is  true that the Supreme Court has held that if an employee<\/p>\n
is  honourably acquitted by the Criminal Court  even  during<\/p>\n
the  pendency of the proceedings challenging the  dismissal,<\/p>\n
the  dismissal order cannot be sustained. But on  a  careful<\/p>\n
consideration of this decision of the Supreme Court, we find<\/p>\n
that  the  Supreme Court has made a thorough examination  of<\/p>\n
the pleadings, evidence and the charge involved in that case<\/p>\n
and  on  a  detailed reference to the evidence available  on<\/p>\n
record,  the  Supreme  Court has  found  that  the  Criminal<\/p>\n
Court’s conclusion was based on thorough examination of  the<\/p>\n
facts involved and in view of the said overwhelming evidence<\/p>\n
that was placed before the Criminal Court with regard to the<\/p>\n
offence charged under Section 5(1)(e) read with Section 5(2)<\/p>\n
of  the Prevention of Corruption Act, which was found to  be<\/p>\n
not proved, the Supreme Court took the view that in spite of<\/p>\n
the  acquittal  which  was out and out  on  merits,  in  the<\/p>\n
absence  of any evidence to prove the charge, the  order  of<\/p>\n
dismissal  from service cannot be sustained after acquittal.<\/p>\n
We  find no comparison of the facts involved therein to  the<\/p>\n
case on hand where the first respondent was charged with the<\/p>\n
serious  offence of misconduct of causing bleeding  injuries<\/p>\n
on  a  co-employee in the course of his employment with  the<\/p>\n
petitioners.   Therefore, the said  decision  being  clearly<\/p>\n
distinguishable,  cannot be applied to  the  facts  of  this<\/p>\n
case.\n<\/p>\n
        15. Therefore, we find no scope to sustain the order<\/p>\n
of the Tribunal impugned in this Writ Petition. The impugned<\/p>\n
order  of  the Tribunal is set aside.  The order of  removal<\/p>\n
from service, dated 22.1.1997 and the rejection order by the<\/p>\n
appellate authority dated 24.2.1998, are restored. The  Writ<\/p>\n
Petition stands allowed. No costs. W.M.P. is closed.<\/p>\n
cs<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1. Union of India rep. by
\n     Postmaster-General,
\n    Tamilnadu Circle,
\n    Chennai-600 002.\n<\/p>\n
2. Sr. Supdt. of RMS,
\n    Railway Mail Service,
\n    ‘T’ Division, Tiruchy-620 001.\n<\/p>\n
3. The Head Record Officer,
\n    Railway Mail Service,
\n    ‘T’ Division, Tiruchy-620 001.\n<\/p>\n
4.  The Registrar,
\n     Central Administrative Tribunal,
\n     Chennai Bench-600 104.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Union Of India Rep. By vs G.Sivaramakrishnan on 11 January, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 11.1.2007 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE F.M.IBRAHIM KALIFULLA AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.K.KRISHNAN W.P.No.19847 of 2001 and W.M.P.No.29255 of 2001 1. Union of India rep. by Postmaster-General, Tamilnadu Circle, Chennai-600 002. 2. Sr. […]<\/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-80693","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nUnion Of India Rep. By vs G.Sivaramakrishnan on 11 January, 2007 - 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\/union-of-india-rep-by-vs-g-sivaramakrishnan-on-11-january-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Union Of India Rep. By vs G.Sivaramakrishnan on 11 January, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-rep-by-vs-g-sivaramakrishnan-on-11-january-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-01-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-10-31T05:46:12+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-rep-by-vs-g-sivaramakrishnan-on-11-january-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-rep-by-vs-g-sivaramakrishnan-on-11-january-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Union Of India Rep. By vs G.Sivaramakrishnan on 11 January, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-01-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-31T05:46:12+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-rep-by-vs-g-sivaramakrishnan-on-11-january-2007\"},\"wordCount\":2335,\"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\\\/union-of-india-rep-by-vs-g-sivaramakrishnan-on-11-january-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-rep-by-vs-g-sivaramakrishnan-on-11-january-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-rep-by-vs-g-sivaramakrishnan-on-11-january-2007\",\"name\":\"Union Of India Rep. By vs G.Sivaramakrishnan on 11 January, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-01-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-31T05:46:12+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-rep-by-vs-g-sivaramakrishnan-on-11-january-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-rep-by-vs-g-sivaramakrishnan-on-11-january-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-rep-by-vs-g-sivaramakrishnan-on-11-january-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Union Of India Rep. By vs G.Sivaramakrishnan on 11 January, 2007\"}]},{\"@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":"Union Of India Rep. By vs G.Sivaramakrishnan on 11 January, 2007 - 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\/union-of-india-rep-by-vs-g-sivaramakrishnan-on-11-january-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Union Of India Rep. By vs G.Sivaramakrishnan on 11 January, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-rep-by-vs-g-sivaramakrishnan-on-11-january-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-01-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-10-31T05:46:12+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-rep-by-vs-g-sivaramakrishnan-on-11-january-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-rep-by-vs-g-sivaramakrishnan-on-11-january-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Union Of India Rep. By vs G.Sivaramakrishnan on 11 January, 2007","datePublished":"2007-01-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-31T05:46:12+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-rep-by-vs-g-sivaramakrishnan-on-11-january-2007"},"wordCount":2335,"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\/union-of-india-rep-by-vs-g-sivaramakrishnan-on-11-january-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-rep-by-vs-g-sivaramakrishnan-on-11-january-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-rep-by-vs-g-sivaramakrishnan-on-11-january-2007","name":"Union Of India Rep. By vs G.Sivaramakrishnan on 11 January, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-01-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-31T05:46:12+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-rep-by-vs-g-sivaramakrishnan-on-11-january-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-rep-by-vs-g-sivaramakrishnan-on-11-january-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-rep-by-vs-g-sivaramakrishnan-on-11-january-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Union Of India Rep. By vs G.Sivaramakrishnan on 11 January, 2007"}]},{"@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\/80693","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=80693"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/80693\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=80693"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=80693"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=80693"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}