{"id":82762,"date":"2005-03-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-03-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-p-elec-board-vs-jagdish-chandra-sharma-on-4-march-2005"},"modified":"2018-10-04T07:28:47","modified_gmt":"2018-10-04T01:58:47","slug":"m-p-elec-board-vs-jagdish-chandra-sharma-on-4-march-2005","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-p-elec-board-vs-jagdish-chandra-sharma-on-4-march-2005","title":{"rendered":"M.P Elec. Board vs Jagdish Chandra Sharma on 4 March, 2005"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
M.P Elec. Board vs Jagdish Chandra Sharma on 4 March, 2005<\/div>\n
Author: P Balasubramanyan<\/div>\n
Bench: N.Santosh Hegde, Tarun Chatterjee, P.K.Balasubramanyan<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  1339-1340 of 2003\n\nPETITIONER:\nMadhya Pradesh Electricity Board\n\nRESPONDENT:\nJagdish Chandra Sharma\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 04\/03\/2005\n\nBENCH:\nN. SANTOSH HEGDE, TARUN CHATTERJEE & P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T <\/p>\n
P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, J.\n<\/p>\n
1.\t\tThe appeal C.A. No. 1339 of 2003 is by the employer.  C.A.
\nNo. 1340 of 2003 is by the employee.   The employee was working as a
\nmuster roll labourer in the employer-Organization.  On 19.01.1984, while
\nin employment, he allegedly physically assaulted a superior officer A.K.
\nSingh, Sub-Engineer.  He hit him with a tension screw on his back and on
\nhis nose.  The blow on the nose allegedly resulted in fracture of the nose
\nand severe bleeding.   According to the employer, consequent on the
\nincident, the employee remained unauthorizedly absent for about three
\nweeks.  A show cause notice along with a memo of charges based on his
\nassault on the superior officer and his unauthorized absence from duty,
\nwas served on him.  He was charged with violating the service rules of the
\nemployer-organization.  Pursuant to the objections filed by the employee,
\nan enquiry officer was appointed to hold a domestic enquiry.  A proper
\nenquiry was held.  The Enquiry Officer found the charges proved and
\nsubmitted a report on that basis.  On 14.9.1984, based on the findings, the
\nservices of the employee were terminated with effect from 15.9.1984.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tAt the instance of the employee, a reference was made to the
\nLabour Court.  The Labour Court did not disagree with the finding at the
\nenquiry either on the inflicting of injuries on the superior officer or on the
\nunauthorized absence and the consequent violations of the service rules.
\nThe Labour Court took the view that the punishment of termination
\ninflicted on the employee was punitive in nature.  The employee had been
\nkept out of service till the date of the decision by that Court and that was
\nenough punishment in the circumstances.  Therefore, exercising its
\npowers under Section 107 A of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations
\nAct, 1962, which correspondents to Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes
\nAct, the Labour Court set aside the punishment of termination and ordered
\nreinstatement of the employee but without back wages.  The employer
\nfiled an appeal before the Industrial Court challenging the interference
\nwith the punishment.  The employee filed an appeal challenging the denial
\nof back wages.  In the appeal filed by the employer, the Industrial Court
\ntook the view that the Labour Court acted illegally and perversely in
\ninterfering with the punishment awarded on the findings at the enquiry
\naccepted by the Labour Court.  Therefore, the Appellate Authority, the
\nIndustrial Court, set aside the interference by the Labour Court with the
\npunishment awarded and held that the termination of service as a
\npunishment was justified in the circumstances.  Thus, the order of
\ntermination issued by the employer was upheld.  As a consequence, the
\nappeal filed by the employee claiming back wages was dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tFeeling aggrieved by the decision of the Industrial Court, the
\nemployee filed W.P. No. 460 of 1999 in the High Court of Madhya
\nPradesh invoking Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.  The
\nHigh Court held that the charges against the employee stood proved and
\nthe finding in that behalf by the Labour Court had not been challenged by
\nthe employee in the appeal filed by him before the Industrial Court, since
\nhis appeal challenged only that part of the order of the Labour Court
\nwhich denied him back wages.  Though, the High Court found no reason
\nto interfere with the finding that the charges were proved, it interfered
\nwith the punishment.  The reasons given were, that taking into account the
\nentire facts and circumstances of the case, the gravity of the misconduct
\nproved, the past behaviour and all other attendant circumstances
\nappearing on record, the Labour Court was justified in interfering with the
\nquantum of punishment.  As an added reason, it stated that while
\nentertaining the Writ Petition, the High Court had stayed the operation of
\nthe order of the Industrial Court, upholding the dismissal and that was
\nalso a ground for interfering with the punishment.  The High Court had no
\ndifficulty in observing that the charge leveled against the employee was a
\nmajor one, but since the Labour Court had decided to award a lesser
\npunishment, the same should not have been interfered with by the
\nIndustrial Court.  Thus, the High Court set aside the decision of the
\nIndustrial Court and restored the decision of the Labour Court.  This
\nmeant that the employee’s reinstatement was ordered but back wages
\nwere denied to him.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tThe employer and the employee have challenged this decision of
\nthe High Court in these appeals.  The employer has questioned the
\ninterference with the punishment awarded and the employee, the denial of
\nback wages to him.\n<\/p>\n
5.\tLearned counsel for the employer submitted that the High Court
\nand the Labour Court have totally misunderstood the nature of their
\njurisdiction under Section 107A of the Act.  Learned counsel submitted
\nthat the charge proved against the employee was a serious one affecting
\nthe discipline in the entire organization.  Even otherwise, inflicting of a
\ngrave injury on a superior officer while at work, could not be
\ncountenanced by any organization and this coupled with the unauthorized
\nabsence by the employee, clearly justified the order of termination.
\nLearned Counsel relied on the decisions of this Court rendered on Section
\n11A of the Industrial Disputes Act to contend that the interference with
\nthe punishment under the circumstances was clearly unjustified and the
\ndecision of the High Court calls for interference.  He also pointed out that
\nthe fact that an interim stay was granted while admitting the Writ Petition
\nfiled by the employer, was not at all a ground to interfere with the
\npunishment of termination.  Learned counsel for the employee submitted
\nthat the Labour Court had taken note of the circumstances as a whole to
\ncome to the conclusion that the punishment imposed was punitive in
\nnature and called for interference in exercise of its jurisdiction under
\nSection 107A of the Act and that there was no reason to interfere with the
\naward of such punishment upheld by the High Court.  Learned counsel
\nalso relied on some of the decisions of this Court in support of his
\ncontention.  He also made an attempt to argue that the charge against the
\nemployee had not been proved though the employee had not filed an
\nappeal against that part of the decision of the Labour Court in the
\nIndustrial Court and had confined himself to challenging the refusal to
\naward back wages.\n<\/p>\n
6.\tIt is clear from the findings recorded and the materials available
\nbefore us, that the charge against the employee of hitting a superior
\nofficer with an implement and causing him injury stood proved, as also
\nhis absence from duty without intimation.  In fact, the Labour Court has
\nfound nothing wrong with the domestic enquiry wherein the charges were
\nfound to have been proved.  The Labour Court also proceeded on the basis
\nthat the charges were proved.  The Industrial Court in appeal accepted the
\nfinding that the charges against the employee were proved.  The High
\nCourt also held that the charges against the employee stood proved on the
\nfacts of this case.  The High Court also took note of the fact that the
\nemployee did not even challenge this part of the finding of the Labour
\nCourt in the appeal, he filed before the Industrial Court.  Thus, it is clear
\nthat there is no reason for this Court to interfere with the finding that the
\ncharges against the employee stood proved, even assuming that the
\nemployee, the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 1340 of 2003, is permitted to
\nraise the question regarding the proving of the charges against him.  We
\nwere taken through the relevant materials.  The materials clearly disclose
\nthat the charges were proved.  We have, therefore, only to ask ourselves
\nwhether in the face of the charges proved, it was proper for the Labour
\nCourt or for the High Court to interfere with the punishment imposed by
\nthe employer.\n<\/p>\n
7.\tOn a comparison, it is seen that Section 107A of the Act is almost a
\nreproduction of Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act.   Learned
\ncounsel also agreed that its scope was the same as that of Section 11A of
\nthe Industrial Disputes Act.\n<\/p>\n
8.\tThe question then is, whether the interference with the punishment
\nby the Labour Court was justified?   In other words, the question is
\nwhether the punishment imposed was so harsh or so disproportionate to
\nthe charge proved, that it warranted or justified interference by the Labour
\nCourt?    Here, it had been clearly found that the employee during work,
\nhad hit his superior officer with a tension screw on his back and on his
\nnose leaving him with a bleeding and broken nose.   It has also been found
\nthat this incident was followed by the unauthorized absence of the
\nemployee.   It is in the context of these charges found established that the
\npunishment of termination was imposed on the employee.   The
\njurisdiction under Section 107A of the Act to interfere with punishment
\nwhen it is a discharge or dismissal can be exercised by the Labour Court
\nonly when it is satisfied that the discharge or dismissal is not justified.
\nSimilarly, the High Court gets jurisdiction to interfere with the
\npunishment in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
\nConstitution of India only when it finds that the punishment imposed, is
\nshockingly disproportionate to the charge proved.   These aspects are well
\nsettled.  In U.P. State Road Transport Corpn.   Vs.  Subhash Chandra
\nSharma and others , (2000) 3 SCC 324, this Court, after referring to the
\nscope of interference with punishment under Section 11A of the Industrial
\nDisputes Act, held that the Labour Court was not justified in interfering
\nwith the order of removal from service when the charge against the
\nemployee stood proved.  It was also held that the jurisdiction vested with
\nthe Labour Court to interfere with punishment was not to be exercised
\ncapriciously and arbitrarily.   It was necessary, in a case where the Labour
\nCourt finds the charge proved, for a conclusion to be arrived that the
\npunishment was shockingly disproportionate to the nature of the charge
\nfound proved, before it could interfere to reduce the punishment.   In
\nKrishnakali Tea Estate   vs. Akhil Bharatiya Chah Mazdoor Sangh
\nand<\/a> another, (2004) 8 SCC 200,  this Court after referring to the decision
\nin State of Rajasthan vs. B.K. Meena<\/a> ,(1996) 6 SCC 417,  also pointed
\nout the difference between the approaches to be made in a criminal
\nproceeding and a disciplinary proceeding.   This Court also pointed out
\nthat when charges proved were grave, vis-`-vis the establishment,
\ninterference with punishment  of dismissal  could not be justified.   In
\nBharat Forge Company Ltd.  vs. Uttam Manohar Nakate,<\/a> 2005(1)
\nSCALE 345, this Court again reiterated that the jurisdiction to interfere
\nwith the punishment should be exercised only when the punishment is
\nshockingly disproportionate and that each case had to be decided on its
\nfacts.    This Court also indicated that the Labour Court or the Industrial
\nTribunal, as the case may be, in terms of the provisions of the Act, had to
\nact within the four corners thereof.   It could not sit in appeal over the
\ndecision of the employer unless there existed a statutory provision in that
\nbehalf.   The Tribunal or the labour Court could not interfere with the
\nquantum of punishment based on irrational or extraneous factors and
\ncertainly not on what it considers a compassionate ground.   It is not
\nnecessary to multiply authorities on this question, since the matter has
\nbeen dealt with in detail in a recent  decision of this Court in Mahindra
\nand  Mahindra  Ltd.  v.  N. B.  Narawade,<\/a>  2005 (2) SCALE 302.  This
\nCourt summed up the position thus: “It is no doubt true that after
\nintroduction of Section 11-A in the Industrial Disputes Act, certain
\namount of discretion is vested with the labour court\/Industrial Tribunal in
\ninterfering with the quantum of punishment awarded by the Management
\nwhere the concerned workman is found guilty of misconduct.   The said
\narea of discretion has been very well defined by the various judgments of
\nthis Court referred to herein above and it is certainly not unlimited as has
\nbeen observed by the Division Bench of the High Court.   The discretion
\nwhich can be exercised under Section 11-A is available only on the
\nexistence of certain factors like punishment being disproportionate to the
\ngravity of misconduct so as to disturb the conscience of the court, or the
\nexistence of any mitigating circumstances which requires the reduction of
\nthe sentence, or the past conduct of the workman which may persuade the
\nLabour Court to reduce the punishment.”  It may also be noticed that in
\nOrissa Cement Ltd.  vs. V. Adikanda Sahu<\/a>  (1960 (1) LLJ-518-SC)
\nand in New Shorrock Mills  vs.  Maheshbhai T. Rao,<\/a> (1996) 6 SCC
\n590, this Court held that use of abusive language against a superior,
\njustified punishment of dismissal.   This Court stated “punishment of
\ndismissal for using abusive language cannot be held to be
\ndisproportionate”.   If that be the position regarding verbal assault, we
\nthink that the position regarding dismissal for physical assault, must be
\nfound all the more justifiable.  Recently, in Employers, Management,
\nMuriadih Colliery M\/s BCCL Ltd. v. Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union,
\nThrough Workmen (JT<\/a> 2005 (2) SC 444)  this Court after referring to
\nand quoting the relevant passages from Management of Krishnakali Tea
\nEstate v. Akhil Bharatiya Chah Mazdoor Sangh & Anr.<\/a> [2004 (7)
\nSCALE 608] and The Management of Tournamulla Estate Vs.
\nWorkmen, [(1973) 2 SCC 502] held :-\n<\/p>\n
“The courts below by condoning an act of physical violence
\nhave undermined the discipline in the organization, hence, in
\nthe above factual backdrop, it can never be said that the
\nIndustrial Tribunal could have exercised its authority under
\nSection 11(A) of the Act to interfere with the punishment of
\ndismissal.”\n<\/p>\n
9.\tIn the case on hand, the employee has been found guilty of hitting
\nand injuring his superior officer at the work place, obviously in the
\npresence of other employees.   This clearly amounted to breach of
\ndiscipline in the organization.  Discipline at the work place in an
\norganization like the employer herein, is the sine qua non for the efficient
\nworking of the organization.  When an employee breaches such discipline
\nand the employer terminates his services, it is not open to a Labour Court
\nor an Industrial Tribunal to take the view that the punishment awarded is
\nshockingly disproportionate to the charge proved.  We have already
\nreferred to the views of this Court.  To quote Jack Chan, “discipline is a
\nform of civilly responsible behaviour which helps maintain social order
\nand contributes to the preservation, if not advancement, of collective
\ninterests of society at large.”   Obviously this idea is more relevant in
\nconsidering the working of an organization like the employer herein or an
\nindustrial undertaking.  Obedience to authority in a workplace is not
\nslavery.  It is not violative of one’s natural rights.  It is essential for the
\nprosperity of the organization as well as that of its employees.  When in
\nsuch a situation, a punishment of termination is awarded for hitting and
\ninjuring a superior officer supervising the work of the employee, with no
\nextenuating circumstance established, it cannot be said to be not justified.
\nIt cannot certainly be termed unduly harsh or disproportionate.  The
\nLabour Court and the High Court in this case totally misdirected
\nthemselves while exercising their jurisdiction.  The Industrial Court made
\nthe correct approach and came to the right conclusion.\n<\/p>\n
10.\tWe, therefore, allow C.A. No. 1339 of 2003 filed by the employer
\nand setting aside the decision of the High Court, restore the decision of
\nthe Industrial Court.  That means that the punishment of termination
\nawarded to the employee will stand.  The appeal C.A. No. 1340 of 2003
\nfiled by the employee is dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India M.P Elec. Board vs Jagdish Chandra Sharma on 4 March, 2005 Author: P Balasubramanyan Bench: N.Santosh Hegde, Tarun Chatterjee, P.K.Balasubramanyan CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 1339-1340 of 2003 PETITIONER: Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board RESPONDENT: Jagdish Chandra Sharma DATE OF JUDGMENT: 04\/03\/2005 BENCH: N. SANTOSH HEGDE, TARUN CHATTERJEE & P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN JUDGMENT: J […]<\/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-82762","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nM.P Elec. Board vs Jagdish Chandra Sharma on 4 March, 2005 - 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\/m-p-elec-board-vs-jagdish-chandra-sharma-on-4-march-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M.P Elec. Board vs Jagdish Chandra Sharma on 4 March, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-p-elec-board-vs-jagdish-chandra-sharma-on-4-march-2005\" \/>\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=\"2005-03-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-10-04T01:58:47+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=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-p-elec-board-vs-jagdish-chandra-sharma-on-4-march-2005#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-p-elec-board-vs-jagdish-chandra-sharma-on-4-march-2005\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M.P Elec. Board vs Jagdish Chandra Sharma on 4 March, 2005\",\"datePublished\":\"2005-03-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-04T01:58:47+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-p-elec-board-vs-jagdish-chandra-sharma-on-4-march-2005\"},\"wordCount\":2623,\"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\\\/m-p-elec-board-vs-jagdish-chandra-sharma-on-4-march-2005#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-p-elec-board-vs-jagdish-chandra-sharma-on-4-march-2005\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-p-elec-board-vs-jagdish-chandra-sharma-on-4-march-2005\",\"name\":\"M.P Elec. Board vs Jagdish Chandra Sharma on 4 March, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2005-03-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-04T01:58:47+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-p-elec-board-vs-jagdish-chandra-sharma-on-4-march-2005#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-p-elec-board-vs-jagdish-chandra-sharma-on-4-march-2005\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-p-elec-board-vs-jagdish-chandra-sharma-on-4-march-2005#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M.P Elec. Board vs Jagdish Chandra Sharma on 4 March, 2005\"}]},{\"@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":"M.P Elec. Board vs Jagdish Chandra Sharma on 4 March, 2005 - 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\/m-p-elec-board-vs-jagdish-chandra-sharma-on-4-march-2005","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M.P Elec. Board vs Jagdish Chandra Sharma on 4 March, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-p-elec-board-vs-jagdish-chandra-sharma-on-4-march-2005","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2005-03-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-10-04T01:58:47+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":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-p-elec-board-vs-jagdish-chandra-sharma-on-4-march-2005#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-p-elec-board-vs-jagdish-chandra-sharma-on-4-march-2005"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M.P Elec. Board vs Jagdish Chandra Sharma on 4 March, 2005","datePublished":"2005-03-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-04T01:58:47+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-p-elec-board-vs-jagdish-chandra-sharma-on-4-march-2005"},"wordCount":2623,"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\/m-p-elec-board-vs-jagdish-chandra-sharma-on-4-march-2005#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-p-elec-board-vs-jagdish-chandra-sharma-on-4-march-2005","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-p-elec-board-vs-jagdish-chandra-sharma-on-4-march-2005","name":"M.P Elec. Board vs Jagdish Chandra Sharma on 4 March, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2005-03-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-04T01:58:47+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-p-elec-board-vs-jagdish-chandra-sharma-on-4-march-2005#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-p-elec-board-vs-jagdish-chandra-sharma-on-4-march-2005"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-p-elec-board-vs-jagdish-chandra-sharma-on-4-march-2005#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M.P Elec. Board vs Jagdish Chandra Sharma on 4 March, 2005"}]},{"@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\/82762","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=82762"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/82762\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=82762"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=82762"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=82762"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}