{"id":81778,"date":"2004-11-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-11-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-r-ramalingam-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-rep-by-on-5-november-2004"},"modified":"2015-01-20T14:56:17","modified_gmt":"2015-01-20T09:26:17","slug":"k-r-ramalingam-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-rep-by-on-5-november-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-r-ramalingam-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-rep-by-on-5-november-2004","title":{"rendered":"K.R.Ramalingam vs The State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By on 5 November, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
K.R.Ramalingam vs The State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By on 5 November, 2004<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           \n\nDATED: 05\/11\/2004  \n\nCORAM   \n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.KANAGARAJ            \n\nWRIT PETITION NO.5201 OF 2002     \nand \nW.P.M.P.NO.7306 OF 2002    \n\nK.R.Ramalingam,  \nBranch Manager,  \nTamil Nadu Transport Corporation\nAmbur Depot, \nVellore District.                               ..       Petitioner\n\n-Vs-\n\n1. The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by\n   The Secretary for Transport Department,\n   Chennai-9.\n\n2. The Managing Director,\n   Tamil Nadu State Transport  Corporation,\n   Villupuram  Division II,\n   Vellore-9.                            ..    Respondents\n\n\n        Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of  India  praying\nfor a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus as stated therein.\n\nFor Petitioner:        :  Mr.  R.Margabandhu\n\nFor Respondents:       :  Ms.V.Velumani for R1\n                        Mr.L.G.Sahadevan for R2.\n\n:O R D E R \n<\/pre>\n
        This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner praying to issue a
\nWrit  of  Certiorarified  Mandamus  to  call  for  the records from the second
\nrespondent in his proceedings dated 6.8.1993, 27.8.1993,30.8.19 93, 5.10.1993,
\n29.10.1993 and quash the same  and  direct  the  respondents  to  promote  the
\npetitioner  as  Selection  Grade  Assistant  Manager  on time bound scale with
\neffects from 10.4.1993 with back wages.\n<\/p>\n
        2.  In the affidavit filed in support  of  the  above  writ  petition,
\npetitioner  would  submit  that he was working as Branch Manager in Gudiyatham
\nDepot from 1992-1993; that during that period 9 charge memos.  were issued  by
\nthe  General  Manager  and  explanations  were  called  for  and  the same was
\nsubmitted, but no domestic enquiry was conducted;  that  the  General  Manager
\nwithout  giving  an opportunity and without conducting enquiry passed an order
\n(1) dated 6.8.1993 stoppage of  increment  for  6  months  without  cumulative
\neffect; (2)  dated  27.8.1993  stoppage  of  increment  for  3  months without
\ncumulative effect; 3) dated 27.8.199 3 stoppage  of  increment  for  6  months
\nwithout cumulative effect;      (4)  dated 27.8.1993 stoppage of increment for
\n12 months without cumulative effect; (5) dated 20.8.1993 stoppage of increment
\nfor 3 months without  cumulative  effect;  (6)  dated  5.10.1993  stoppage  of
\nincrement for 6 months without cumulative effect; (7) dated 5.10.1993 stoppage
\nof increment for 3 months without cumulative effect;    (8)  dated  29.10.1993
\nstoppage of increment for 12  months  without  cumulative  effect;  (9)  dated
\n28.11.1993  stoppage of increment for 6 months without cumulative effect; that
\nas per the Corporation Standing Rules  3(A),  the  Managing  Director  is  the
\ncompetent  authority  for  punishing the Assistant Manager Grade Officer; that
\nthe General Manager of the Corporation who is not a  competent  authority  had
\nawarded the aforesaid major penalties.\n<\/p>\n
        3.   The  petitioner  would further submit that he preferred an appeal
\nbefore the Managing Director against the order passed by General  Manager  and
\nrequested  him  to cancel the punishment and to promote him as Selection Grade
\nAssistant Manager; that the same was not considered by the second  respondent;
\nthat  he  preferred  an  appeal  to  the competent authority viz., the Finance
\nCommittee on 1.6.1998; that the said Finance Committee rejected his appeal  by
\na  non-speaking  order, on the ground of limitation without giving opportunity
\nfor the petitioner to explain his case and without going into  the  merits  of
\nthe case, which is against the principles of natural justice.\n<\/p>\n
        4.   The  petitioner  would  further  submit  that  he was promoted as
\nAssistant Manager with effect  from  10.4.1987  as  per  G.Lr.NO.11118-DOI-96,
\nTransport  Department dated 20.1.1998 following the earlier Government Orders;
\nthat the Assistant Managers of  Transport  are  eligible  to  be  promoted  as
\nSelection  Grade  Manager  on  completion  of  6  years of qualifying services
\nsubject to passing of I.R.T.  Tests and of obtaining heavy  transport  vehicle
\nlicence; that he has completed 6 years of service even on 10.4.1993 itself and
\nhas passed  I.R.T.    Test  and is holding H T C Licence; that even before the
\ndate of award of punishment he was qualified for promotion of Selection  Grade
\nAssistant Manager on time bound scale.\n<\/p>\n
        5.   Heard  the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents
\nas well and the materials placed on record have also been perused.\n<\/p>\n
        6.  During arguments the learned  counsel  for  the  petitioner  would
\nsubmit  that as per the Corporation Standing Rules 3(a), the Managing Director
\nis the competent authority for punishing the Assistant Manager Grade  Officer;
\nthat  the  General Manager of the Corporation who is not a competent authority
\nhad awarded the aforesaid major penalties.   At  this  juncture,  the  learned
\ncounsel  for  the  petitioner  would  cite  the following Service Rules of the
\nRespondents:    Rule 6 of the General Rules of the respondents reads:\n<\/p>\n
        “No person other than the Competent Authority prescribed  under  these
\nrules  shall  exercise  or  no  person  other than the Managing Director shall
\nsub-delegate powers under these rules without the general or  specific  orders
\nof the Board.”\n<\/p>\n
Rule 6(1) of the Discipline and Appeal Rules of the Respondent reads:\n<\/p>\n
        “(1)  No  order  imposing  any  of  the  major  penalties specified in\n<\/p>\n
(d),(e), (f), (g), (h) and (i) of Rule 4(1) shall  be  made  except  after  an
\nenquiry is held as far as may be in accordance with these rules.\n<\/p>\n
        Rule 4(1)(d) in respect of Major Penalties reads:\n<\/p>\n
        (d)  Withholding  of  increments  of  Pay  with  or without cumulative
\neffect.\n<\/p>\n
        Rule 5 Discriminately Authority:-\n<\/p>\n
        (1) The  Competent  Authority  or  the  Discriminately  Authority,  as
\nspecified in the Schedule, may impose any of the penalties specified in Rule 4
\non any employee, provided that the authority which may impose any of the major
\npenalties  specified  in  (f),(g),  (h)  and  (i)  of  Rule 4 (1) shall be the
\nAppointing Authority or any higher authority.\n<\/p>\n
        (2) Without prejudice to the provisions in  clause  (1),  any  of  the
\npenalties specified in Rule 4 may be imposed on any employee by the Appointing
\nAuthority  or any higher authority subject to such conditions and limitations,
\nif any, as may be specified.\n<\/p>\n
SCHEDULE
\n(REFERRED TO IN RULE 3(a)\n<\/p>\n
————————————————————<\/p>\n
\nS.  Grade Disciplinary Authority Penalty the Appellate No.      \/Competent\nAuthority Disciplinary Authority\nAuthority\ncan impose \n\n(1) (2) (3)                             (4)             (5)\n-----------------------------------------------------------EMPLOYEES        IN\nMANAGERIAL GRADE       \n<\/pre>\n
1.(a) Manager’s Managing i) Minor penalties Appointment
\nGrade.  Director & Committee\/
\n                                                        Staff Select-\n<\/p>\n
                                                        ion Committee\n<\/p>\n
                                        ii) Major penalties Board.<\/p>\n
\n(b) Deputy -do- i) Minor penalties Appointment\nManager's       & Committee\/\nGrade.                  Staff Select-\n                                ion Committee                           ii)\nMajor penalties Appointment \n\nCommittee\/ \n                                                                        Staff\nSelect-\n                                        ion Committee\n<\/pre>\n
(c)Asst.Manager’s ` Grade i) Minor Penalties Appointment
\nCommittee\/\n<\/p>\n
-do- & Staff Select
\n                                on Committee<\/p>\n
ii Major Penalties Appointment<\/p>\n
Committee\/                                                               Staff
\nSelect-\n<\/p>\n
                                                                        ion
\nCommittee  <\/p>\n
————————————————————\n<\/p>\n
        7.   The  learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that
\nhe has completed 6 years of service even on 10.4.1993 itself  and  has  passed
\nI.R.T.   Test and holding is H T C Licence; that even before the date of award
\nof punishment he was qualified for promotion of Selection  under  these  rules
\nwithout the general or specific orders of the Board.”
\nRule 6(1) of the Discipline and Appeal Rules of the respondent reads:\n<\/p>\n
                “(1) No order imposing any of the major penalties specified in\n<\/p>\n
(d),  (e),  (f),  (g),  (h), and (i) of Rule (4) shall be made except after an
\nenquiry is held as far as may be in accordance with these rules.\n<\/p>\n
                Rule 4(1)(d) in respect of Major Penalties reads:\n<\/p>\n
                (d)  Withholding  of  increments  of  pay  with   or   without
\ncumulative effect.\n<\/p>\n
                Rule 5 Disciplinary Authority:-\n<\/p>\n
                (1)  The Competent Authority or the Disciplinary Authority, as
\nspecified in the Schedule, may impose any of the penalties specified  in  Rule
\non any employee, provided
\nthat  the  authority  which may impose any of the major penalties specified in\n<\/p>\n
(f), (g), (h) and (i) of Rule (4) shall be the  Appointing  Authority  or  any
\nhigher authority.\n<\/p>\n
        (2)  Without  prejudice  to  the  provisions in clause (1), any of the
\npenalties specified in Rule 4 may be imposed on any employee by the Appointing
\nAuthority or any higher authority subject to such conditions and  limitations,
\nif any, as may be specified.\n<\/p>\n
Grade  Assistant  Manager  on  time  bound  scale,  but his representation for
\npromotion was not considered till date; that there cannot be  two  punishments
\nfor  single  offence;  that two persons viz., Kuppusamy and N.J.Srinivasan who
\nwere also appointed along wi th the  petitioner  were  promoted  as  Selection
\nGrade  Assistant Manager on time bound scale; that the respondent herein acted
\ndiscriminately with ulterior motive; that he was not deserved to  be  punished
\nfor  such vague charges; that even so, that was after 10.4.1993 only, on which
\ndate he was qualified for promotion; that he is entitled to receive  the  back
\nwages with cumulative effect from 10.4.1993 onwards on Selection Grade Manager
\non time  bound  scale  till  date.    On such arguments, he would pray for the
\nrelief extracted supra.\n<\/p>\n
        8.  The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the  respondents  would
\nsubmit  that  against  the punishment given by the General Manager in the year
\n1993, the petitioner preferred appeal only on 1.6.1998, which is after 5 years
\nand the same was rejected by the  appellate  authority  on  12.1.1999  on  the
\nground  of  limitation; that he filed the above Writ Petition only in the year
\n2001, i.e.  after two years from the  date  of  rejection  of  appeal  by  the
\nAppellate  Authority  and  hence he would pray for dismissal of the above writ
\npetition.\n<\/p>\n
        9.  In consideration of  the  facts  pleaded,  having  regard  to  the
\nmaterials  placed  on  record  and  upon  hearing  the learned counsel for the
\npetitioner and the respondents as well, what this court is able to  assess  is
\nthat  9  charge  memos  have been served on the petitioner in quick succession
\nrespectively dated 6.8.1993,  27.8.1993,  27.8.1993,  27.8.1  993,  30.8.1993,
\n5.10.1993,  5.10.1993,  29.10.1993  and  29.10.1993 and explanations have been
\ncalled for and though not at the initial stage it comes to be  seen  from  the
\norders  of  the  2nd  respondent  dated 6.8.1993 prior to passing of the final
\norder for all the charge memos, explanations have been offered on the part  of
\nthe petitioner and admittedly without conducting any domestic enquiry so as to
\nafford  sufficient  and  reasonable  grounds  for the delinquent to answer and
\nstoutly deny the delinquency brought forth against him.   As  per  the  charge
\nmemos  the final orders have been passed in all the matters concerned with all
\nthe 9 charge memos inflicting the punishments  thereon.    Consequent  to  the
\naward of punishments which are either stoppage of increments for six months or
\nfor  three  months  and  without  cumulative  effect,  the  promotion  of  the
\npetitioner as Selection Grade Assistant Manager has been denied and hence  the
\npetitioner  has  not  only  come  forward  to  pray  for  issue  of  a writ of
\ncertiorarified mandamus calling for the records from the 2nd respondent in his
\nproceedings  dated  6.8.1993,  27.8.1993,  27.8.1993,  27.8.1993,   30.8.1993,
\n5.10.1993,  5.10.199  3,  29.10.1993  and 29.10.1993 and quash the same and to
\ndirect the 2nd  respondent  to  promote  the  petitioner  as  Selection  Grade
\nAssistant  Manager  with  effects  from  10.4.1993  with  backwages  and other
\nbenefits.\n<\/p>\n
        10.  On the part of the respondents it would be claimed that  all  the
\ncharges were very serious and major they attract major penalties in character.
\nHowever,  the  same  would  be  cleaned by the petitioner as petty charges and
\nminor in character.  The petitioner’s argument  is  that  if  they  are  major
\ncharges  definitely  there  should have been a domestic enquiry held following
\nall the rules and procedures established  under  law,  but  no  such  domestic
\nenquiry  has been conducted in cases connected with all the 9 charges and only
\ncalling for the explanations straightaway punishments have  been  ordered  and
\nthe  same  is  unknown  to  law  relating  to  disciplinary proceedings of any
\nmanagement.  The petitioner  would  further  submit  that  consequent  to  the
\ndefective  proceedings  initiated  against  the  petitioner  on  petty charges
\nwithout any truth attached to the same he was denied  of  his  due  promotion.
\nAll his appeals submitted before the 2nd respondent and other authorities have
\nnot  been  properly  dealt with on merits and in accordance with law, but only
\nslip-shod and non-speaking orders have been passed.\n<\/p>\n
        11.  The petitioner would further submit as per the Rule 3(a)  of  the
\nStanding  Rules,  the  Managing  Director  is  the competent authority and the
\npunishing authority for the category of those, such as the Assistant  Managers
\nand   since   the  petitioner  admittedly  being  an  Assistant  Manager,  the
\ndisciplinary proceedings should hence been dealt with  only  by  the  Managing
\nDirector,  whereas contrary to the rules and procedures established under law,
\nthe General Manager of the Corporation, who is not a  competent  authority  to
\naward  major penalty without conducting any domestic enquiry is quite illegal.
\nHe would further argue that even the appellate authorities have  never  looked
\ninto  reasons,  not discussed the merits to decide the case of the petitioner,
\nbut on the ground of limitation alone his appeals have been dismissed  by  the
\nsecond  respondent Managing Director and the Committee and therefore left with
\nno choice the petitioner has come forward to  file  the  above  writ  petition
\nseeking the relief extracted supra.\n<\/p>\n
        12.   A  careful  perusal  of the charge memos and as to how they have
\nbeen dealt with and  decided  so  as  to  inflict  the  punishments  of  major
\npenalties  without  even  conducting any domestic enquiry would clearly reveal
\nthat nothing has been either proceeded with or concluded particularly  in  the
\nevent  of  punishing  the  delinquent  in the manner proceeded under law or in
\nadhering to the rules and procedures by the authorities concerned.\n<\/p>\n
        13.  For  instance,  as  rightly  pointed  out  on  the  part  of  the
\npetitioner  Rule 3(a) of the Schedule of Rules which stipulates specifications
\nsuch as  the  disciplinary\/competent  authority  for  the  Grade  of  Officers
\nparticularly for the employees in managerial grade in respect of the penalties
\nwhether  it is the Managers’ Grade or Deputy Managers’ Grade or even Assistant
\nManagers’ Grade, it is pertinent to note that  the  General  Manager  who  has
\npassed the orders in the cases of inflicting punishment to the petitioner, who
\nis  not at all competent authority empowered under those rule and therefore no
\ndoubt basically in all the 9 charges issued  to  the  petitioner  as  per  the
\ncharge  memos,  it  has  not  been  dealt  with  by  the appropriate competent
\nauthority as stipulated under the rules and at this stage itself, the case  of
\nthe 2nd respondent proceedings against the petitioner falls to the ground.\n<\/p>\n
        14.   On  the  part  of the respondents they would deny vehemently the
\nallegations levelled by the petitioner on the only ground on which the  second
\nrespondent  would  come  forward  to  resist  the  writ  petition  is that the
\nappellate authorities dismissed his  appeals  on  grounds  of  limitation  and
\ntherefore  the  writ petition has been filed by the petitioner thereafter that
\ntoo with a delay and therefore this writ petition cannot also  be  ordered  as
\nprayed for and becomes liable to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
        15.   At  this juncture it needs to be mentioned that the order of the
\nappellate  authority  which  is  a  one  sentence  order  without  having  any
\ndiscussion  on  the  merit  of  the  case and in dismissing the same is highly
\nbelated without even explaining as to how and  in  what  manner  and  to  what
\nextent the  delay  has  occurred.    It  is  still  pathetic  to  note that no
\nopportunity has been given for the appellant\/petitioner herein to be heard and
\nthe appeal had been dismissed as an  administrative  order,  which  is  highly
\ndeplorable.\n<\/p>\n
        16.   In  short,  nothing  in  the  whole of the appeal process either
\ninflicting the punishment on the petitioner pursuant to the  charge  memos  or
\ndenying the petitioner’s promotion has been legally dealt with and ordered for
\nconducting  domestic  enquiry  in  the  manner  provided for and under law and
\ndeciding the same as it has been decided is a glaring  case  of  flouting  the
\nprocedures with no opportunity for the petitioner to be heard whether it is at
\nthe  enquiry  stage  or appellate stage thus in violation of the principles of
\nnatural justice.  Moreover, even the charges  framed  against  the  petitioner
\nhave been on petty grounds and any in a hurried manner and in quick succession
\nall  the  9  charges have been framed within a couple of months under doubtful
\ncircumstances so as to permit the court to think that only if the  authorities
\ndispose  of  the  petition,  no  such  charge  could  be brought forth nor any
\npunishment inflicted without an enquiry being held at all,  much  less  by  an
\nauthority, who is not competent to act as disciplinary authority and therefore
\nabsolutely without application of the Discipline and Appeal Rules, since these
\ncharges  have  been  framed  and punishments inflicted consequent to which the
\npetitioner has been denied of  his  due  promotions  as  the  Selection  Grade
\nAssistant Manager and hence it has become highly necessary on the part of this
\ncourt to order the writ petition as prayed for and hence the following order.\n<\/p>\n
        In result,\n<\/p>\n
(i) the above writ petition stands allowed;\n<\/p>\n
(ii) the proceedings of the second  respondent  dated  6.8.1993,  2  7.8.1993,
\n27.8.1993,   27.8.1993,  30.8.1993,  5.10.1993,  5.10.1993,  29.1  0.1993  and
\n29.10.1993 are hereby quashed and the orders passed by the Appellate Authority
\ndated 01.6.1998 and the Disciplinary Authority dated 21.8.1998 as well are set
\naside;\n<\/p>\n
        (iii) the 2nd respondent is directed  to  promote  the  petitioner  as
\nSelection  Grade  Assistant  Manager  on  time  bound  scale with effects from
\n10.04.1993 with all back wages and other benefits; and\n<\/p>\n
        (iv) Consequently, the connected W.P.M.P.NO.7306 of 2002 is closed.\n<\/p>\n
ks<\/p>\n
Index;Yes
\nWebsite:Yes  <\/p>\n
Copy to:-\n<\/p>\n
1.  The Secretary for Transport Department,
\nState of Tamil Nadu rep.  by
\nChennai-9.\n<\/p>\n
2.  The Managing Director,
\nTamil Nadu State Transport Corporation,
\nVillupuram Division II,
\nVellore-9.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court K.R.Ramalingam vs The State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By on 5 November, 2004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 05\/11\/2004 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.KANAGARAJ WRIT PETITION NO.5201 OF 2002 and W.P.M.P.NO.7306 OF 2002 K.R.Ramalingam, Branch Manager, Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation Ambur Depot, Vellore District. .. Petitioner -Vs- 1. […]<\/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-81778","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nK.R.Ramalingam vs The State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By on 5 November, 2004 - 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\/k-r-ramalingam-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-rep-by-on-5-november-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"K.R.Ramalingam vs The State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By on 5 November, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-r-ramalingam-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-rep-by-on-5-november-2004\" \/>\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=\"2004-11-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-01-20T09:26:17+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=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-r-ramalingam-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-rep-by-on-5-november-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-r-ramalingam-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-rep-by-on-5-november-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"K.R.Ramalingam vs The State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By on 5 November, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-11-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-01-20T09:26:17+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-r-ramalingam-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-rep-by-on-5-november-2004\"},\"wordCount\":2617,\"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\\\/k-r-ramalingam-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-rep-by-on-5-november-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-r-ramalingam-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-rep-by-on-5-november-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-r-ramalingam-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-rep-by-on-5-november-2004\",\"name\":\"K.R.Ramalingam vs The State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By on 5 November, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-11-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-01-20T09:26:17+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-r-ramalingam-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-rep-by-on-5-november-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-r-ramalingam-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-rep-by-on-5-november-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-r-ramalingam-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-rep-by-on-5-november-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"K.R.Ramalingam vs The State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By on 5 November, 2004\"}]},{\"@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":"K.R.Ramalingam vs The State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By on 5 November, 2004 - 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\/k-r-ramalingam-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-rep-by-on-5-november-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"K.R.Ramalingam vs The State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By on 5 November, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-r-ramalingam-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-rep-by-on-5-november-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-11-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-01-20T09:26:17+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":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-r-ramalingam-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-rep-by-on-5-november-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-r-ramalingam-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-rep-by-on-5-november-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"K.R.Ramalingam vs The State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By on 5 November, 2004","datePublished":"2004-11-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-01-20T09:26:17+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-r-ramalingam-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-rep-by-on-5-november-2004"},"wordCount":2617,"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\/k-r-ramalingam-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-rep-by-on-5-november-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-r-ramalingam-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-rep-by-on-5-november-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-r-ramalingam-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-rep-by-on-5-november-2004","name":"K.R.Ramalingam vs The State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By on 5 November, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-11-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-01-20T09:26:17+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-r-ramalingam-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-rep-by-on-5-november-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-r-ramalingam-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-rep-by-on-5-november-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-r-ramalingam-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-rep-by-on-5-november-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"K.R.Ramalingam vs The State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By on 5 November, 2004"}]},{"@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\/81778","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=81778"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/81778\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=81778"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=81778"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=81778"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}