{"id":84785,"date":"2008-12-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-12-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/janak-singh-vs-chief-district-medical-officer-on-26-december-2008"},"modified":"2016-06-09T15:36:18","modified_gmt":"2016-06-09T10:06:18","slug":"janak-singh-vs-chief-district-medical-officer-on-26-december-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/janak-singh-vs-chief-district-medical-officer-on-26-december-2008","title":{"rendered":"Janak Singh vs Chief District Medical Officer on 26 December, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Jammu High Court<\/div>\n
Janak Singh vs Chief District Medical Officer on 26 December, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n \n HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU.            \nSWP No. 1559 OF 2006    \nJanak Singh \nPetitioners\nState of J&K  & Ors\nRespondent  \n!Mr.U.K. Jalali Sr. Advocate with Mr. Parimoksh Seth & Ms. Shivani Jalali\n^Mr. D.C.Raina, Advocate General \n\nHon'ble Mr. Justice Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. \nDate: 26.12.2008 \n: J U D G M E N T :\n<\/pre>\n
1.      By the medium of this writ petition, petitioner has questioned Government
\norder No. 968-GAD of 2006 dated 14-8-2006, whereby he came to be
\ncompulsorily retired from service, on the grounds taken in the petition.\n<\/p>\n
2.      Respondents have filed their counter and resisted the petition on the
\ngrounds taken therein.\n<\/p>\n
3.      The meat of the matter is whether the impugned compulsory retirement
\norder is legal one and cannot be interfered with by this court?\n<\/p>\n
4.      It is beaten law of the land that compulsory retirement is not a punishment
\nat all and cannot be questioned by way of writ petition, except as per guidelines
\nand tests laid down by the judicial pronouncements. Apex court in case
\nBaikuntha Nath Das & another Vs Chief District Medical Officer, AIR 1992 SC
\n1020 laid down the following principles:-\n<\/p>\n
32. The following principles emerge from the above discussion:\n<\/p>\n
i)      An order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment. It implies
\nno stigma nor any suggestion of mis-behaviour.\n<\/p>\n
ii)     The order has to be passed by the Government on forming the
\nopinion that it is in the public interest to retire a government servant
\ncompulsorily. The order is passed on the subjective satisfaction of
\nthe Government.\n<\/p>\n
iii)    Principles of natural justice have no place in the context of an order
\nof compulsory retirement. This does not mean that judicial scrutiny
\nis excluded altogether. While the High Court or this Court would not
\nexamine the matter as an appellate Court, they may interfere if they
\nare satisfied that the order is passed (a) mala fide, or (b) that it is
\narbitrary in the sense that no reasonable person would form the
\nrequisite opinion on the given material in short; if it is found to be a
\nperverse order.\n<\/p>\n
iv)     The Government or the Review Committee, as the case may be)
\nshall have to consider the entire record of service before taking a
\ndecision in the matter  of course attaching more importance to
\nrecord of and performance during the later years. The record to be
\nso considered would naturally include the entries in the confidential
\nrecords \/character rolls, both favourable and adverse. If a
\ngovernment servant is promoted to a higher post notwithstanding
\nthe adverse remarks, such remarks lose their sting, more so, if the
\npromotion is based upon merit (selection) and not upon seniority.\n<\/p>\n
v)      An order of compulsory retirement is not liable to be quashed by a
\nCourt merely on the showing that while passing it un-communicated
\nadverse remarks were also taken into consideration. That
\ncircumstance by itself cannot be a basis for interference.\n<\/p>\n
Interference is permissible only on the  grounds mentioned in (iii)
\nabove. This object has been discussed in paras 29 to 31 above.<\/p>\n
5.      These tests came to be discussed by the apex court and this court (both
\nsingle and Letters Patent Bench) and other High Courts in numerous cases
\nreported as Baldev Raj Chandra V. Union of India,<\/a> 1980(4) SCC 321, Baldev Raj
\nChandra V.  Union of India, AIR<\/a> 1981 SC 70, H.C. Gagri V. State of Haryana, AIR<\/a>
\n1987 SC 65, Brij Mohan Singh Chopra Vs State of Punjab, AIR 1987 SC 948,
\nBaidyanath Mahapatra V. State of Orissa, AIR<\/a> 1989 SC 2218, Ram Ekbal Sharma
\nV. State of  Bihar, 1990(3) SCC 504, Union of India V. Dulal Dutt,<\/a> 1993 (2) SCC
\n179, S.Ramachandra Raju Vs. State of Orissa, 1994 Supp (3) SCC 424, State of
\nJ&K V. Jia Lal Gupta, 1994 SLJ 24, Chief General Manager, SBI V. Suresh Chandra
\nBehera,  AIR<\/a> 1995 SCC 1745, K. Kandaswamy Vs. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC
\n277, Allahabad Bank Officers Association V. Allahabad Bank,<\/a> 1996(4) SCC 504,
\nM.S. Bindra V. Union of India,<\/a> 1998(7) SCC 310, M.S. Bindra v. Union of India,
\nAIR<\/a> 1998, SCC  3058, State of Gujarat V. Suryakant Chunilal Shah,<\/a> 1999(1) SCC
\n529, State of Gujrat V. Umedbhai M. Patel, AIR<\/a> 2001 SC 1109, State of U.P V.
\nChater Sen, 2005(9) SCC 592, Pritam Singh V. Union of India,<\/a> 2005(9) SCC 748,
\nAshok Kumar Jain Vs. State of J&K & ors. LPA Nos. 27J and 28J of 2005 decided
\non 5-8-2005, Mohammad Mehraj-ud-Din Khan Vs., State of J&K & ors.,
\n2006(3)JKJ 240(HC), Shah Latief Vs, State of J&K & ors. 2006 (1) JKJ 486 HC
\n(DB), Rajesh Gupta vs. State of J&K & ors.  2008 (1) JKJ 573 [HC] and SWP No.
\n828 and other bunch of petitions titled Zareena Banoo & connected matters Vs.
\nState and others, date of decision 6-6-2008.\n<\/p>\n
6.      While going through the above referred judgments, one comes to an in-
\nescapable conclusion that the order of compulsory retirement, as discussed
\nabove, can be questioned only on the grounds enumerated in para 32 of the
\napex court judgement reported in AIR 1992 SC 1020 supra. Keeping in view the
\nratio laid down in the apex court judgements supra, and other things, the
\ncompulsory retirement order can be challenged on the grounds of mala fide or
\nlack of evidence or being arbitrary and out come of malice. The instant case has
\nto be examined on the touch stone of the law laid down by the apex court and by
\nthis court.\n<\/p>\n
7.      In order to return a finding as to whether the impugned order is liable to
\nbe interfered with on the grounds supra,  as laid down in judicial
\npronouncements, it is profitable to notice the brief facts of the instant case.\n<\/p>\n
8.      Respondents have produced photostat copies of the record which
\naccording to them came to be considered while making the impugned order.\n<\/p>\n
9.      Perusal of the record reveals that the Government constituted a
\ncommittee for considering premature retirement cases of the officers \/ officials
\nunder Article 226(2) and 226(3) of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Service
\nRegulations. The said committee consisting of the Chief Secretary, Financial
\nCommissioner (Home), Commissioner\/Secretary to Government, General
\nAdministration Department, Commissioner\/Secretary to Government, Law
\ndepartment, Additional Deputy Inspector General of Police, CID, Commissioner
\nof Vigilance, met on 8-8-2006 for considering the cases of four officers\/officials
\nincluding the petitioner and it was decided to consider the general reputation of
\nthe Government employees, launching of prosecution on the basis of
\ninvestigation conducted by the Vigilance Organization or Crime Branch etc. and if
\na Government employee is found to have indulged in corrupt practices at
\ndifferent stages of his service career, he is liable for compulsory retirement. It is
\nprofitable to reproduce para 3 of the report of the Committee, so far it is
\nrelevant for the present case, and which is part of the photostat copies of the
\nrecord, produced by the respondents:-\n<\/p>\n
     ..\n<\/p>\n
     The Committee again took note of the principles which have
\ncrystallized through various judgements of the Honble Courts on the
\nissue of premature retirement. These include the principle that if the
\ngeneral reputation of a government employee is not good, he can be
\ncompulsorily retired in public interest. The Committee has also held earlier
\nthat, among other things, where prosecution has been launched on the
\nbasis of investigation conducted by the vigilance organization or the
\ncrime branch, it shall be considered that the general reputation of the
\nconcerned officer\/ official is not good. The Committee held that if a
\nGovernment employees is found to have generally indulged in corrupt
\npractices at different stages of his service career, his\/her pre-mature
\nretirement would be justified and in accordance with the objectives of
\nArticle 226(2) of the J&K CSR.<\/p>\n
10.     The record also contains what were the grounds which weighed with the
\ncommittee for recommending compulsory retirement of the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
11.     It appears that FIR No. 69\/1999 Police Station Vigilance Organization,
\nJammu, came to be registered against the petitioner and other members of the
\nState Level Purchase Committee headed by Mr. Ajit Kumar, IAS. The petitioner
\nalso figured one of the co-accused in the case. It also appears that the petitioner
\nhas allegedly certified in writing that he had verified the rates from the original
\nmanufacturers and is allegedly involved in the case relating to purchase of Digital
\nToe Aligner, which came to be purchased by Technical Education Department in
\nthe year 1997-1998 and FIR came to be registered and petitioner was one of the
\nmember of the Purchase Committee. In nutshell, all the allegations leveled
\nagainst the petitioner, which as per record were made basis for his compulsory
\nretirement, relate to the year 1997-1998 and he was one of the members of the
\nPurchase Committee. What action has been drawn against other members of the
\nPurchase Committee and the Chairman\/Head, is not forthcoming from the
\nrecord.\n<\/p>\n
12.     Petitioner has specifically averred in the writ petition that the prosecution
\nhas failed to produce challan till filing of the writ petition before the court of
\ncompetent jurisdiction, relating to the two FIRs referred above. The respondents
\nhave not denied the said fact specifically. The question which calls for
\nconsideration is whether lodging of FIR(s) and allegations contained in FIR(s)can
\nbe made a ground for compulsory retirement. The answer is in negative for the
\nfollowing reasons:-\n<\/p>\n
13.     The allegations against the petitioner relates to the year 1997-98.
\nAdmittedly the petitioner came to be promoted in the year 2004, when he was
\nplaced in the selection grade, on the basis of merit-cum-seniority as specifically
\naverred in para 14 of the writ petition. The respondents have not denied the said
\nfact either evasively or specifically. It is apt to reproduce relevant portion of the
\nsaid para herein:-\n<\/p>\n
.And it was on January 24, 2004 that the petitioner was promoted
\nto the selection grade w.e.f. October 01, 2003 and later transferred to
\nJammu Development Authority as Financial Advisor\/Chief Accounts
\nOfficer. <\/p>\n
14.     Apex court in case,  State of Gujrat & anr. Vs. Suryakant Chunilal Shah,
\n1999(1) SCC 529 has held that pendency of FIR or a criminal case is no ground
\nfor compulsory retirement. It is apt to reproduce para 26 of the said judgement
\nhereunder:-\n<\/p>\n
26. Applying the principles laid down above to the instant case, what
\ncomes out is that in compulsorily retiring the respondent from service,
\nthe authorities themselves were uncertain about the action which was
\nto be taken ultimately against him. In fact, there was hardly any
\nmaterial on the basis of which a bona fide opinion could have been
\nformed that it would be in public  interest to retire the respondent
\nfrom service compulsorily. The material which was placed before the
\nReview Committee has already been mentioned above. To repeat, the
\nrespondent was promoted in 1981; the character roll entries for the
\nnext two years were not available on record; there were no adverse
\nentries in the respondents character roll about his integrity; he was
\ninvolved in two criminal cases, in one of which a final report was
\nsubmitted while in the other, a charge-sheet was filed. Although
\nthere was no entry in  his character roll that the respondents
\nintegrity was doubtful, the Review Committee on its own, probably
\non the basis of the FIRs lodged against the respondent, formed the
\nopinion that the respondent was a person of doubtful  integrity. The
\nReview Committee was constituted to assess the merit of the
\nrespondent on the basis of the character roll entries and other relevant
\nmaterial and to recommend whether it would in public interest to
\ncompulsorily retire him from service or not. The Review Committee,
\nafter taking into consideration the character roll entries and
\nnoticing that there were no adverse entries and his integrity was, at
\nno stage, doubted,  proceeded, in excess of its jurisdiction, to form
\nits own opinion with regard to the respondents integrity merely on
\nthe basis of the FIRs lodged against him. Whether the integrity of an
\nemployee is doubtful or not, whether he is efficient and honest, is
\nthe function of the appointing authority or the immediate superior
\nof that employee to consider and assess. It is not the function of the
\nReview Committee to brand, and that too, offhand, an employee as a
\nperson of doubtful integrity. Moreover, the Review Committee did not
\nrecommend compulsory retirement. It was of the opinion that the
\nrespondent had committed grave irregularity and that he must be
\nretained in service so that he may ultimately be dealt with and
\npunished severely. The Secretary and the Chief Secretary, who
\nconsidered the recommendations of the Review Committee, had other
\nideas. They thought that the investigation and subsequent prosecution
\nof the respondent would take a long time and that it would be better
\nto immediately dispense with his services by giving him the temptation
\nof withdrawing the criminal cases and retiring him compulsorily from
\nservice, provided he does not approach the court against the order of
\ncompulsory retirement. This proposal too was not immediately acted
\nupon and it was thought that nobody could say whether the order of
\ncompulsory retirement would be challenged by the respondent before
\nthe court or he would merely submit to it on the temptation that the
\ncriminal cases against him would be withdrawn. It was at this stage
\nthat the order of compulsory retirement was passed.<\/p>\n
15.     It is in place to mention here that the photostat copies of the record
\nproduced by the respondents for perusal, also contain APRs of the petitioner
\npertaining to the years 1999-2000, 2000-2001, 2002-2003 and 2003-2004
\n(from June up to ending November 2003). He has been ranked as an
\noutstanding officer and integrity beyond any doubt. The reporting officer
\nhas also ranked integrity of the petitioner as beyond any doubt and the
\nreviewing officer has also ranked the petitioner as very good officer. In the
\nAPRs of 2003-2004, in the general assessment form which contains 10 clauses,
\nthe officer has been ranked as Excellent Officer. It is also recorded that the
\nofficer  petitioner has made special efforts to re-schedule loan terms for
\npayment of interest from 16.5% to 12.5%. It is also recorded that the petitioner
\nis an outstanding officer with ability to work in a team and as a group for
\nefficient corporate working and management. The reviewing officer has also
\nranked him A very good officer.<\/p>\n
16.     It is worthwhile to mention here that it is not coming out from record
\nwhether these APRs were taken into consideration by the committee. It is
\nnowhere indicated in the record that the confidential reports of the petitioner
\nwere considered by the committee, though these APRs are part of the record. It
\nis thus suggestive of the fact that the impugned order suffers from non-
\napplication of mind and is based on no material.\n<\/p>\n
17.     Admittedly, the petitioner came to be promoted to the selection grade in
\nthe year 2004. How the allegations of the year 1997-98 can be made basis for
\npassing the impugned order of compulsory retirement. The apex court in AIR
\n1992 SC 1020, Baikuntha Nath Das case supra, while laying down the tests, has
\nheld that if an officer\/employee is promoted, any adverse entry existing in his
\nservice records loses its sting. It is apt to reproduce para (iv) of the tests
\nhereunder:-\n<\/p>\n
The Government or the Review Committee, as the case may be)
\nshall have to consider the entire record of service before taking a
\ndecision in the matter  of course attaching more importance to
\nrecord of and performance during the later years. The record to be
\nso considered would naturally include the entries in the confidential
\nrecords \/character rolls, both favourable and adverse. If a
\ngovernment servant is promoted to a higher post notwithstanding
\nthe adverse remarks, such remarks lose their sting, more so, if the
\npromotion is based upon merit (selection) and not upon seniority.<\/p>\n
18.     The apex court in case titled Baidyanath Mahapatra Vs. State of Orissa, AIR
\n1989 SC 2218, has held that if an officer is promoted, previous allegations
\ncannot be made basis for compulsory retirement. It is apt to reproduce relevant
\npart of para 5 of the judgement hereunder:-\n<\/p>\n
When a Government servant is promoted to a higher post on the
\nbasis of merit and selection, adverse entries if any contained in his service
\nrecord lose their significance and those remain on record as part of past
\nhistory. It would be unjust to curtail the service career of Government
\nservant on the basis of those entries in the absence of any significant fall
\nin his performance after his promotion.<\/p>\n
19.     In yet another case reported as Baldev Raj Chadha v. Union of India & ors.
\nAIR<\/a> 1981 SC 70, the apex court has made detailed discussions, whether earlier
\nentries\/allegations can be made basis for compulsory retirement, though
\nsubsequently promoted and the apex court in the said judgement replied in
\nnegative. It is apt to reproduce relevant portion of para 15 of the judgement
\nhereunder:-\n<\/p>\n
One wonders how an officer whose continuous service for 14 years
\ncrossing the efficiency bar and reaching the maximum salary in the scale
\nand with no adverse entries at least four five years immediately before
\nthe compulsory retirement, could be cashiered on the score that long
\nyears ago, his performance had been poor, although his superiors had
\nallowed him to cross the efficiency bar without qualms. A short cut may
\noften be a wrong cut. The order of compulsory retirement fails because
\nvital material, relevant to the decision, has been ignored and obsolete
\nmaterial, less relevant to the decision, has influenced the decision. Any
\norder which materially suffers from the blemish of overlooking or
\nignoring willfully or otherwise, vital facts bearing on the decision is bad in
\nlaw. Likewise, any action which irrationally digs up obsolete
\ncircumstances and obsessively reaches a decision based thereon, cannot
\nbe sustained. Legality depends on regard or the totality of material facts
\nviewed in a holistic perspective. For these reasons, the order challenged is
\nobviously bad and .  <\/p>\n
20.     While going through the record, one comes to an in-escapable conclusion
\nthat there is no adverse entry recorded in the service record of the petitioner,
\nexcept  filing of two FIRs. As discussed above, lodging of FIRs cannot be made
\nbasis for compulsory retirement, coupled with the fact that there is no adverse
\nentry in the service records of the petitioner. On the other hand, the fact of the
\nmatter is that the service record shows that the petitioner is graded as excellent
\nofficer. In the given circumstances, impugned order merits to be quashed. The
\napex court in a case titled State of Gujrat Vs. Umebhhai M. Patel reported in AIR
\n2001 SC 1109 has laid down the same principle. It is apt to reproduce para 12 of
\nthe judgement hereunder:-\n<\/p>\n
In the instant case, there were absolutely no adverse entries in
\nrespondents confidential record. In the rejoinder filed in this court also,
\nnothing has been averred that the respondents service record revealed
\nany adverse entries. The respondent had successfully crossed the
\nefficiency bar at the age of 50 as well 55 He was placed under suspension
\non 22-5-1986 pending disciplinary proceedings. The State Government
\nhad sufficient time to complete the enquiry against him but the enquiry
\nwas not completed within a reasonable time. Even the Review Committee
\ndid not recommend the compulsory retirement of thee respondent. The
\nrespondent had only less than two years to retire from service. If the
\nimpugned order is viewed in the light of these facts, it could be said that
\nthe order of compulsory retirement was passed for extraneous reasons.
\nAs the authorities did not wait for the conclusion of the enquiry and
\ndecided to dispense with the services of the respondent merely on the
\nbasis of the respondent merely on the basis of the allegations which had
\nnot been proved and in the absence of any adverse entries in his service
\nrecord to support the order of compulsory retirement. We are of the view
\nthat the division Bench was right in holding that the impugned order was
\nliable to be set aside. We find no merit in the appeal, which is dismissed
\naccordingly..<\/p>\n
21.     The apex court in case titled Baldev Raj Chadha Vs. Union of India, (1980)
\n4 SCC 321, H.C.Gargi Vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1987 SC 65, M.S. Bindra Vs.
\nUnion of India, (1998) 7 SCC 310 and State of U.P. Vs. Chater Sen, (2005) 9 SCC
\n592, has laid down the same principle. It is apt to reproduce para 16 of the
\njudgement reported in (1980) 4 SCC 321 hereunder:\n<\/p>\n
16. The appellant was promoted only in 1961 and was regularly
\ndrawing increment for well over a decade, without let or hindrance.
\nWhat is far more significant is the further fact that the Reviewing
\nCommittee and the AG appear to have ignored entries in yearly\/half
\nyearly reports in the seventies.\n<\/p>\n
The appellant states categorically:\n<\/p>\n
        A perusal of the extract from the confidential reports would show
\nthat there were no adverse remarks in the confidential reports of the
\nappellant for the years 1971-72, 1972-73, 1973-74, 1974-75 and 1975-
\n76, till the date of his retirement from service on August 27, 1975.<\/p>\n
22.     A Division Bench of this court while dealing with a case of identical nature
\nhas also laid down the same principle in case titled State of J&K Vs. Jia Lal Gupta
\n& ors., 1994 SLJ 24.\n<\/p>\n
While going through the service record and keeping in view the
\ndiscussions made hereinabove, there is no material at all which could
\nhave been made basis for the compulsory retirement of the petitioner.
\nThus it cannot be safely held that the impugned order came to be passed
\non no evidence.<\/p>\n
23.     The apex court has also laid down the same principle in case titled
\nH.C.Gargi Vs. State if Haryana, AIR 1987 SC 65 (supra). Apex court in case titled
\nUnion of India Vs. Dulal Dutt, (1993) 2 SCC 179 fhas held that the order should
\nbe based on material and entire service record. It is apt to reproduce para 2 of
\nthe judgement delivered in H.C.Gargis case supra, hereunder:\n<\/p>\n
2The test in such cases is public interest as laid down by this Court in
\nUnion of India v. J.N. Sinha,<\/a> (1971) 1 SCR 791: (AIR 1971 SC 40). It does
\nnot appear that there was any material on the basis of which the State
\nGovernment could have formed an opinion that it was in public interest to
\ncompulsorily retire the appellant at the age of 57 years. There was really
\nno justification for his compulsory retirement in public interest. The
\nimpugned order of compulsory retirement of the appellant under R
\n3.25(d) of the Rules must therefore be struck down as being arbitrary.
\n..\n<\/p>\n
24.     Before passing the impugned order, it was mandatory for the respondents
\nto examine the entire service record of the petitioner,  more particularly, latest
\none which, which would form foundation for the opinion. I am fortified in my
\nview by a judgement of the apex court reported as S. Ramachandra Raju Vs.
\nState of Orissa, 1994 Supp (3) SCC 424, wherein it has been held that:\n<\/p>\n
On total evaluation of the entire record of service if the
\nGovernment or the governmental authority forms the opinion that in the
\npublic interest the officer needs to be retired compulsorily, the court may
\nnot interfere with the exercise of such bona fide judicial review not as a
\ncourt of appeal but in its exercise of judicial review to consider whether
\nthe power has been properly exercised or is arbitrary or vitiated either by
\nmala fide or actuated by extraneous consideration or arbitrary in retiring
\nthe government officer compulsorily from service.<\/p>\n
25.     Same view has been taken by the apex court in case titled K. Kandaswamy
\nVs. Union of India and another reported in AIR 1996 SC 277. It is profitable to
\nreproduce relevant observation of the Honble Court hereunder:-\n<\/p>\n
On consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances
\nalone, the Government should form the opinion that the Government
\nofficer needs to be compulsorily retired from service. Therefore, the entire
\nrecord more particularly, the latest, would form the foundation for the
\nopinion and furnish the base to exercise the power under the relevant rule
\nto compulsorily retire a Government Officer.<\/p>\n
26.     The committee in the report has also stated that the general reputation of
\nthe petitioner, as gathered from a cross section of people is not good. It also
\nappears that this ground and registration of two FIRs came to be made basis for
\npassing the impugned order. It is not the case of the Committee or of the
\nGovernment that entries recorded in the APRs are adverse, that too how it can
\nbe said when APRs are recorded in favour of the petitioner, as discussed
\nhereinabove. It is not forthcoming from the record, what does words cross
\nsection of people would mean? From whom they have gathered the
\ninformation, whether verbally or in writing. Nothing of this kind is forthcoming
\non the file. If it is verbal, who made such a remark and who recorded it. There is
\nno such record. At least such  remark(s) should have been reduced in writing.
\nNothing is forthcoming from the file \/ record that the CBI\/CID\/IB \/SB agency(ies)
\nhave ever made any such report against the petitioner Had that been so, then
\nthe committee would have recorded that they have received a report from any
\nof the above referred agencies. That is not the case. The officers under whom
\nthe petitioner has worked have ranked him good, very good and excellent
\nand admittedly came to be promoted \/placed in selection grade. How he became
\na bad officer and how can it be said that his integrity is doubtful, when the fact of
\nthe mater is, as discussed above that competent authority and the reviewing
\nauthority has recorded his integrity as beyond doubt. The apex court in AIR
\n1992 SC 1020, AIR 1995 SC 1745 and AIR 1998 SC 3058 (supra) held that in
\norder to consider whether the petitioner is having good reputation, service
\nrecord is to be considered and not otherwise. It is apt to reproduce para 6 of the
\njudgement reported in AIR 1995 SC 1745 and para 13 of the judgement
\nreported in AIR 1998 SC 3058 hereunder:-\n<\/p>\n
6. Learned advocate for the respondent relied on a decision in the case
\nof Baldeve Raj Chandra V. Union of India (1981) 1 SCR 430: (AIR 1981SC\n<\/p>\n
70). In that case, the appellant was compulsorily retired on the basis of his
\npoor performance many years ago. He had been allowed to cross the
\nefficiency bar and there was nothing adverse in his service record for the
\npast five years. This Court  said that the order of compulsory retirement
\ncould not be sustained as it ignored relevant material. This judgment has
\nno application to the facts of the present case.\n<\/p>\n
13. While viewing this case from the next angle for judicial scrutiny i.e.,
\nwant of evidence or material to reach such a conclusion, we may add that
\nwant of any material is almost equivalent to the next situation that from
\nthe available materials no reasonable man would reach such a
\nconclusion. While evaluating the materials the authority should not
\naltogether ignore the reputation in which the officer was held till recently.
\nThe maxima Nemo Firut Repente Turpissiums (no one becomes
\ndishonest all of a sudden) is not unexceptional but still it is salutary
\nguideline to judge human conduct, particularly in the field of
\nAdministrative Law. The authorities should not keep the eyes totally
\nclosed towards the overall estimation in which the delinquent officer was
\nheld in the recent past by those who were supervising him earlier. To
\ndunk an officer into the puddle of doubtful integrity it is not enough
\nthat the doubt fringes on a mere hunch. That doubt should be of such a
\nnature as would reasonably and consciously be entertain able by a
\nreasonable man on the given material. Mere possibility is hardly sufficient
\nto assume that it would have happened. There must be preponderance of
\nprobability for the reasonable man to entertain doubt regarding that
\npossibility. Only then there is justification to ram an officer with the label
\ndoubtful integrity<\/p>\n
27.     This point also came up for consideration before this court in a bunch of
\npetitions lead case being SWP No. 828\/2005 titled Zareena Banoo and others Vs.
\nState and others, decided on 6-6-2008. It is apt to reproduce relevant para of
\nthe judgement hereunder:-\n<\/p>\n
.. in the situation, this, one feels compelled to say that even
\nwhile a long career of many Government officers was at stake, the
\nadverse decision on their premature retirement appears to have been
\ntaken on mere guess work and hear say, without enough materials to
\nsupport the same………………\n<\/p>\n
The observations apply to these cases with full effect, because of the total
\nabsence of materials to supporting impugned order from records, which
\nmight not have been so had the impugned recommendations of
\ncompulsory retirement been well documented. .       <\/p>\n
28.     It is also the duty of the court to lift the veil and come to the conclusion
\nwhether the order is without evidence, arbitrary and out come of malice, as held
\nby the apex court in case titled Ram Eqbal Sharma vs. State of Bihar, 1990(3) SCC\n<\/p>\n
504.<\/p>\n
29.     While going through the record and minutes of the committee, it is
\nnowhere mentioned that the service record of the petitioner came to be
\nconsidered. Why it was not considered is best known to the committee and it can
\nbe safely held that impugned order came to be passed arbitrarily and without
\napplication of mind. It is worthwhile to mention here that the petitioner has
\npleaded in para 26 of the writ petition that the impugned order is out come of
\nmalice. Respondents have not specifically denied para 26 in their reply. It is apt
\nto reproduce reply to paras 26 and 27 of the reply hereunder:-\n<\/p>\n
The contents of these paras are misdirected and misconceived, in that,
\nthe order impugned has been issued in the public interest and on the basis
\nof sufficient material and with due application of mind. The answering
\nrespondents are vested with powers to take action against the
\nofficers\/officials who in the opinion of the Committee and on the basis of
\nsufficient material requires to be prematurely retired and under rules no
\ninquiry is required to be initiated in this behalf.<\/p>\n
30.     It is also in place to mention here that the petitioner has specifically
\npleaded in the writ petition that the other officers who were members of the
\nPurchase Committee including the head(s) and who are co-accused in the case
\nregistered against the petitioner, came to be reinstated. Even the respondents
\nhave not specifically or evasively denied the same. It is also positive case of the
\npetitioner that no action disciplinary\/otherwise including compulsory retirement
\norder came to be passed against them, though they are figuring as co-accused in
\nboth the criminal cases. For the sake of repetition, the material\/allegations which
\nwere made basis for passing the impugned order, virtually amounts punishing
\nthe petitioner for the said allegations contained in the FIR.\n<\/p>\n
31.     Having glance over the above discussion, I am of the considered view that
\nthe impugned order came to be passed without any material and is based on no
\nevidence, without application of mind, arbitrary and out come of malice, viewed
\nthus is liable to be quashed. This petition is accordingly allowed and the
\nimpugned order is quashed.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Jammu High Court Janak Singh vs Chief District Medical Officer on 26 December, 2008 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU. SWP No. 1559 OF 2006 Janak Singh Petitioners State of J&K & Ors Respondent !Mr.U.K. Jalali Sr. Advocate with Mr. Parimoksh Seth & Ms. Shivani Jalali ^Mr. D.C.Raina, Advocate General Hon’ble Mr. Justice […]<\/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":[8,17],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-84785","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-jammu-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nJanak Singh vs Chief District Medical Officer on 26 December, 2008 - 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\/janak-singh-vs-chief-district-medical-officer-on-26-december-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Janak Singh vs Chief District Medical Officer on 26 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/janak-singh-vs-chief-district-medical-officer-on-26-december-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-12-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-06-09T10:06:18+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"26 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/janak-singh-vs-chief-district-medical-officer-on-26-december-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/janak-singh-vs-chief-district-medical-officer-on-26-december-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Janak Singh vs Chief District Medical Officer on 26 December, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-12-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-09T10:06:18+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/janak-singh-vs-chief-district-medical-officer-on-26-december-2008\"},\"wordCount\":5092,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Jammu High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/janak-singh-vs-chief-district-medical-officer-on-26-december-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/janak-singh-vs-chief-district-medical-officer-on-26-december-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/janak-singh-vs-chief-district-medical-officer-on-26-december-2008\",\"name\":\"Janak Singh vs Chief District Medical Officer on 26 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-12-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-09T10:06:18+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/janak-singh-vs-chief-district-medical-officer-on-26-december-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/janak-singh-vs-chief-district-medical-officer-on-26-december-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/janak-singh-vs-chief-district-medical-officer-on-26-december-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Janak Singh vs Chief District Medical Officer on 26 December, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"Janak Singh vs Chief District Medical Officer on 26 December, 2008 - 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\/janak-singh-vs-chief-district-medical-officer-on-26-december-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Janak Singh vs Chief District Medical Officer on 26 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/janak-singh-vs-chief-district-medical-officer-on-26-december-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-12-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-06-09T10:06:18+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"26 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/janak-singh-vs-chief-district-medical-officer-on-26-december-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/janak-singh-vs-chief-district-medical-officer-on-26-december-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Janak Singh vs Chief District Medical Officer on 26 December, 2008","datePublished":"2008-12-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-09T10:06:18+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/janak-singh-vs-chief-district-medical-officer-on-26-december-2008"},"wordCount":5092,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Jammu High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/janak-singh-vs-chief-district-medical-officer-on-26-december-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/janak-singh-vs-chief-district-medical-officer-on-26-december-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/janak-singh-vs-chief-district-medical-officer-on-26-december-2008","name":"Janak Singh vs Chief District Medical Officer on 26 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-12-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-09T10:06:18+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/janak-singh-vs-chief-district-medical-officer-on-26-december-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/janak-singh-vs-chief-district-medical-officer-on-26-december-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/janak-singh-vs-chief-district-medical-officer-on-26-december-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Janak Singh vs Chief District Medical Officer on 26 December, 2008"}]},{"@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\/84785","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=84785"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/84785\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=84785"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=84785"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=84785"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}