{"id":88939,"date":"1998-03-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1998-03-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/virender-singh-vs-general-manager-fruit-and-on-24-march-1998"},"modified":"2016-05-05T08:10:55","modified_gmt":"2016-05-05T02:40:55","slug":"virender-singh-vs-general-manager-fruit-and-on-24-march-1998","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/virender-singh-vs-general-manager-fruit-and-on-24-march-1998","title":{"rendered":"Virender Singh vs General Manager, Fruit And … on 24 March, 1998"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
Virender Singh vs General Manager, Fruit And … on 24 March, 1998<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1998 IIIAD Delhi 17, 72 (1998) DLT 657, 1998 (45) DRJ 184, 1998 (79) FLR 436<\/div>\n
Author: . M.K.Sharma<\/div>\n
Bench: D M Sharma<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
ORDER<\/p>\n
 Dr. M.K.Sharma, J. <\/p>\n
 1.     Challenge in this writ petition is to the validity of clause 18 of the offer  of appointment of the petitioner dated 4.4.1990 and also to  regulation  44 of The Fruit and Vegetable Project Officers  (Conduct,  Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1991. The petitioner has also sought for  quashing of  the order passed by the respondent No.1 terminating his services  under clause  18  of the offer of appointment and as a consequential  relief  the petitioner seeks for reinstatement in service with full back wages.\n<\/p>\n
 2.   The petitioner was initially appointed as an Executive by the respondent No.1 purely on temporary basis for a period of 3 months at consolidated salary  of  Rs.2,000\/- per month. On 3.1.1990 the petitioner  was  given  a fresh  appointment as Executive at a consolidated salary of Rs.2,000\/-  per month  which  appointment was also purely on temporary basis  for  a  fixed period  of 3 months. On 4.4.1990, the respondent offered the petitioner  an appointment  as Executive in level IV of the Organisation with a basic  pay of  Rs.1,175\/- in the sub-scale of Rs.1175-1630 falling under the scale  of Rs.1175-2920. The petitioner was put on probation for a period of 6 months. On  successful completion of the probation period the petitioner  was  confirmed  in the said post as Executive Procurement on 10.11.1990. The  services  of the petitioner were however, terminated by letter dated  31.3.1993 stating  that  in  terms of clause 18 of the  offer  of  appointment  dated 4.4.1990 the services of the petitioner were no longer required by respondent  No.1  and the same stood terminated with immediate  effect.  Alongwith such  termination letter a cheque for Rs.4,850.50 was also  enclosed  being one  months’ salary in lieu of one months notice period. Aggrieved  by  the aforesaid  order  of termination the petitioner has approached  this  court through the present writ petition.\n<\/p>\n
 3.   For  better appreciation of the facts, clause 18 of the offer  of  appointment dated 4.4.1990 is extracted below:-\n<\/p>\n
      “Clause 18:\n<\/p>\n
      You  shall have to give one months’ notice in writing or to  make payment of amount equivalent to one months’ salary in lieu thereof  if you desire to leave the service of the Project after  your confirmation,  and the management shall also  likewise  terminate your services by giving one months’ notice or one months’  salary in lieu thereof.”\n<\/p>\n
 4.   In  exercise  of the powers conferred by Section 48  of  the  National Dairy  Development Board Act, 1987 the Board of Directors of  the  National Dairy  Development  Board made regulations called ‘The  Fruit  &  Vegetable Project  Officers  (Conduct,  Discipline  and  Appeal)  Regulations,  1991, (hereinafter  referred  as the Regulations) which came  into  force  w.e.f. 1.4.1988.  Admittedly,  the aforesaid regulations also govern  the  service conditions  of the petitioner. Regulation 44 of the said  Regulations  provides for termination of services in the following terms:-\n<\/p>\n
      “44. TERMINATION OF SERVICES:\n<\/p>\n
      The services of an officer may be terminated after giving him one month’s notice or on payment of salary (basis pay + D.A.) in lieu of the notice period, provided that in case where the officer  is found  guilty  of misconduct his services may  be  terminated  by dismissal or discharge in accordance with the procedure laid down under these regulations.”\n<\/p>\n
 5.   Since  during the course of hearing the counsel for the  parties  also referred to some other provisions of the said Regulations, I deem it appropriate to extract some of such provisions:-\n<\/p>\n
      “37. PENALTIES:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n      The following penalties may be imposed on an officer as hereinafter  provided, for misconduct committed by him or for  any  other good and sufficient reasons namely- <\/p>\n
      (A)  Minor Penalties –\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
      (a)  Censures;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
      (b)  Fines;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
  (c)  Withholding of increments with or without cumulative effect;\n<\/p>\n
      (d)  Withholding of promotion;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
      (e)  Recovery  from  the pay or from any other amount due  to  an officer of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to  the Project by his breach of any order or due to negligence or otherwise. <\/p>\n
      (B)  Major Penalties –\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
      (a)  Reduction to lower service or post, or to a lower pay scale, or to a lower stage in a pay scale; <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
      (b)  Compulsory retirement;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
      (c)  Removal from service;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
      (d)  Dismissal.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        ….. ….. ….. ………. ….. ….. …..\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
      39.  DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURE:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n      (1)  Where  it is proposed to impose any of the  minor  penalties specified  in regulation 35, the officer concerned shall  be  informed in writing of the allegations and the charge of misconduct or  misbehaviour against him and where his past service  is  also relief  upon  a copy of his past service record as well,  and  he shall be given an opportunity to submit his written statement  of defense  within the specified period not exceeding  fifteen  days and  the  defense statement, if any, submitted  by  the  officer, shall  be taken into consideration by the Disciplinary  Authority  before passing orders.
\n      (2) ….. ….. …..\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     ….. ….. …..\n<\/p>\n
      (3)  No  order imposing any of the major penalties  specified  in regulation  37 shall be made except after an enquiry is  held  in accordance with this regulation.\n<\/p>\n
       ….. ….. ….. …..\n<\/p>\n
     ….. ….. ….. …..\n<\/p>\n
      43.  SPECIAL PROCEDURE IN CERTAIN CASES:\n<\/p>\n
      Notwithstanding anything contained in this Chapter, the Disciplinary  Authority  may straight away impose any  of  the  penalties specified in regulation 37 in any of the following circumstances: <\/p>\n
\n \n\n      (i)  on  the strength of facts or conclusions arrived at after  a judicial  trial  or  where the officer has been  convicted  on  a criminal charge; or  \n \n\n      (ii) Where the Disciplinary Authority is satisfied for reasons to be  recorded in writing that it is not reasonably practicable  to hold an enquiry in the manner provided in these regulations; or   \n \n\n      (iii)     Where  the officer admits to the misconduct  concerned, or  \n \n\n      (iv) Where in the interest of the security of the Project or  the State  or due to the Project Authorities having lost  all  confidence in the officer, it is not expedient to continue the officer in the service. \n \n\n<\/pre>\n
 6.   On  a comparative analysis of Regulation 44 with that of clause 18  of the terms of appointment, it is apparent that clause 18 was incorporated in the  terms  of appointment in the light of regulation 44. They  are  almost peri  materia.  The petitioner in the present petition has  challenged  the legality  and  validity of said clause 18 and regulation 44 on  the  ground that it is arbitrary, discriminatory and unconscionable.\n<\/p>\n
 7.   The  respondent has contested the writ petition by filing  a  detailed counter affidavit contending inter alia that the services of the petitioner were  terminated by respondent No.1 owing to a complete lack of  confidence arising  out  of serious allegations and accusations of lack  of  integrity against  the petitioner in the responsible and sensitive job  of  Executive (Procurement).  It is also stated that the job of the  petitioner  involved purchase  of  various items of fruits and vegetables worth lacs  of  Rupees every  month  which called for petitioner’s discretion and  judgment  judiciously and honestly but he failed to inspire any confidence. After careful consideration of the matter and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of  the case the authority was satisfied that it was not  reasonably  practicable to hold an enquiry against the petitioner and hence terminated  the petitioner’s  services. In support of the contention reference was made  to the  provisions of Regulation 43 of the Service Regulations which  empowers the respondent No.1 to terminate the services of an employee without  holding  an enquiry. Reference was also made to clause 18 of the terms  of  appointment.\n<\/p>\n
 8.   I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as  also the counsel appearing for the respondent at length. The letter of  appointment appointing the petitioner in service dated 4.4.1990 is on record.  The letter  terminating the services of the petitioner has also been placed  on record  by the petitioner which is Annexure ‘D’ to the writ  petition.  The said letter dated 31.3.1993 specifically stated that in terms of clause  18 of  the  said offer of appointment the services of the petitioner  are  not required  by  the  Project and accordingly, the same  are  terminated  with immediate  effect.  Apparently,  therefore, the respondent  No.1  chose  to invoke the powers vested in it under clause 18 of the offer of  appointment read  with regulation 44 of the Regulations. It is thus, apparent that  the respondent now is seeking to improve upon and\/or add to the order of termination  of  services in the counter affidavit by adding  therein  that  the power  has  also been exercised by respondent No.1 under clause 43  of  the regulations which is similar to that of Article 311(2) of the  Constitution of India. The aforesaid provision of clause 43(ii) which appears to be peri materia  with  Article  311(2) of the Constitution of  India  requires  the
\ndisciplinary authority to record its reasons for its satisfaction as to why it is not reasonably practicable to hold an enquiry in the manner  provided in  the regulations. The regulation has laid down detailed procedure as  to how a departmental enquiry is to be conducted and regulation 39(iii) of the Regulations states that no order imposing any of the major penalties specified  in  regulation 37 shall be made except after an enquiry  is  held  in accordance  with these Regulations. Removal from service and dismissal  are included in major penalties.\n<\/p>\n
 9.   A  mere reading of the order of termination of services of  the  petitioner  discloses that the said termination has been effected in  terms  of clause  18 of the offer of appointment which is peri materia with  that  of clause  44 of the Regulations and therefore, the respondent No.1 could  not have fallen back on the provisions of regulation 43(ii) of the  regulations as has been sought to be done in the counter affidavit by stating that  the action  has  also been taken under clause 43(ii). The  respondent  has  the option  to take action against the petitioner on either of the three  modes prescribed  under  the  Regulations i.e. his  services  can  be  terminated through  the provisions of Regulation 44 or the disciplinary authority  may impose  any  of the penalties specified in Regulation 37  by  resorting  to clause 43(ii) provided the conditions set out therein are satisfied or  may proceed against the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of Regulation  37 after initiation of the departmental proceedings. In  the  present case the respondent has chosen to invoke the provisions of regulation 44 of the Regulations and therefore, the respondent is not entitled to fall  back upon  the  provisions of regulation 43(ii). The respondent  cannot  add  to and\/or  make  improvement to the impugned order in  the  counter  affidavit filed by it, nor it can seek to override the order in the counter affidavit by pleading a case different from the impugned order. Besides the  respondent  has failed to place the reasons on record showing the satisfaction  of the  disciplinary authority that it is not practicable to hold any  enquiry in the manner provided for in these Regulations. Accordingly, the  respondent  has to stand on the basis of the letter by which the services  of  the petitioner were terminated. No doubt regulation 44 as also clause 18 of the offer  of  appointment  empower the competent authority  to  terminate  the services  of a confirmed employee by giving him one months’ notice  or  one months’  salary in lieu thereof. Since however, the validity of the  aforesaid  provision  has  been challenged in this writ petition,  it  would  be necessary  to consider and deal with the aforesaid challenge.  The  Supreme Court dealing with the constitutionality of similar provisions enabling the Governmental authorities to terminate service of an employee has held  that the  constitutional  pledge of equality and  the  constitutional  guarantee against  arbitrary action contained in Article 14 frown upon conferment  on the  State  or its instrumentalities such arbitrary power. In  this  regard reference  may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in West  Bengal State  Electricity  Board Vs. D.B.Ghosh; ,  Central  Inland Water  Transport  Corporation  Ltd. and another Vs. Brojo  Nath  Ganguly  & another;  AIR  1986 SC 1575, O.P.Bhandari Vs.  Indian  Tourism  Development Corporation Ltd.; , M.K.Aggarwal Vs. Gurgaon Gramin Bank and others;  AIR  1987 SC 286 and Delhi Transport Corporation Vs.  DTC  Mazdoor
\nCongress and others; reported in 1991(Suppl.) 1 S 600.\n<\/p>\n
 10.  In  Central  Inland Water Transport Ltd. (supra) it was  held  by  the Supreme Court that the provisions of Rule 9(1) which is almost peri materia with the present regulation 44 is not only arbitrary but also discriminatory  for  it enables the Corporation to discriminate  between  employee  and employee,  for it can pick up one employee and apply to him clause  (i)  of Rule 9, it can again pick up another employee and apply to him clause  (ii) of Rule 9. It can pick up yet another employee and apply to him  sub-clause (iv) of clause (b) of Rule 36 read with Rule 38 and to yet another employee it can apply Rule 37. It was held that all this the Corporation can do when the  same circumstances exist as would justify the Corporation  in  holding under  Rule 38 a regular disciplinary enquiry into the  alleged  misconduct against  the  employee. The Supreme Court in that case also held  that  the Corporation  can afford to dispense with the services of an officer and  it would  find  hundreds  of others to take his place but  an  officer  cannot afford  to  lose his job because if he does so, there are not  hundreds  of jobs  waiting  for him. A clause such as clause (i) of Rule  9  is  against right  and reason and is wholly unconscionable. It is also stated  that  it has  been  entered  into between the parties between whom  there  is  gross inequality  of  bargaining and it is harmful and injurious  to  the  public interest for it tends to create a sense of insecurity in the minds of those to whom it applies and consequently it is against public good. Finally  the Supreme Court in that case held that Rule 9(i) is both arbitrary and unreasonable  and it also wholly ignores and sets aside the audi alteram  partem rule  and  is  therefore, violative of Article 14 of  the  Constitution  of India.\n<\/p>\n
 11.  In the case of M.K.Aggarwal (supra) the Supreme Court held that  regulation 10(2)(a) empowering the bank to terminate the services of an officer after giving him 3 months notice or pay in lieu thereof is an arbitrary and unguided power and is unconstitutional.\n<\/p>\n
 12.  Similarly, in the case of Delhi Transport Corporation (supra)  regulation  9(b)  which  is almost peri materia with that of  the  regulation  44 confers power on the authority to terminate the services of a permanent and confirmed  employee  by issuing the notice terminating the  service  or  by making payment in lieu of notice without assigning any reasons in the order and without giving any opportunity of hearing to the employee before  passing  the impugned order. Construing the aforesaid provision it was held  by the  Supreme  Court that such power is wholly  arbitrary,  uncanalised  and unrestricted violating principles of natural justice as well as Article  14
\nof  the  Constitution. It was also held that regulation 9(b) is  also  void under Section 23 of the Contract Act as being opposed to public policy.\n<\/p>\n
 13.  The  provisions  of  Regulation 44 are worded almost  in  the  similar language  and  therefore, in the light of the aforesaid  decisions  of  the Supreme Court the said provision has to be held to be arbitrary,  discriminatory  and unconscionable and violative of principles of  natural  justice and accordingly unconstitutional. In view of the aforesaid conclusions  the order  of termination passed against the petitioner dated  31.3.1993  which has  for its foundation a provision which is unconstitutional is  also  required  to be and is hereby quashed, holding the same to be  illegal,  void
\nand non est. <\/p>\n
 14.  Having  held  thus, the issue that immediately crops up is –  to  what relief the petitioner shall be entitled to i.e. whether he should be  reinstated in service with full back wages or he should be reinstated in  service  with  1\/2  back wages or he should be paid only an amount  by  way  of compensation  in place of reinstatement. In Central Inland Water Ltd.  case (supra) the Supreme Court after quashing the order of termination  directed for reinstatement of the writ petitioner and also to pay him all arrears of salary and allowances payable to him whereas in M.K.Aggarwal’s case (supra) the  Supreme  Court on a consideration of the entire  matter  directed  for reinstatement  of the writ petitioner but restricted the back wages to  50% of what would otherwise be payable. At the same time the Supreme Court gave liberty to the bank to hold such disciplinary enquiry as it might deem  fit in regard to the acts of misconduct alleged against the petitioner. On  the other hand in O.P.Bhandari’s case (supra) after setting aside and  quashing a  similar provision as unconstitutional did not grant the relief of  reinstatement  in  services  and instead ordered for  payment  of  compensation taking into consideration certain factors which would protect the interests of both the writ petitioner as also the respondent therein.\n<\/p>\n
 15.  It  is true that once an order of termination is set aside  a  workman and  white  collar  employee other than those belonging  to  managerial  or similar high level cadre is concerned employee is generally to be reinstated  in service. While doing so taking into consideration the  entire  facts and  circumstances of the case the court could direct for payment  of  only 50%  of  the  arrears of salary and allowances to the  petitioner.  In  the present case the counsel for the petitioner on instructions from the  petitioner who was also personally present in court stated that the  petitioner would be agreeable to receive even 50% of the arrears of salary and  allowances  in  case the court directs for reinstatement of  the  petitioner  in service. I am also informed by the counsel for the parties that 50% of  the arrears salary would amount to approximately Rs.2,50,000\/- for at the  time of termination of the services the petitioner was drawing a salary of about Rs.5,800\/-. However, when I take note of the averments made in the  counter affidavit  that the services of the petitioner were terminated due to  complete lack of confidence arising out of serious allegations and  accusation of  lack of integrity of the petitioner in the responsible job of  procurement,  it implores me to consider the relief to be given to the  petitioner more minutely and deeply.\n<\/p>\n
 16.  In O.P.Bhandari’s case (supra), the Supreme Court in paragraphs 6 &  7 has held thus:-\n<\/p>\n
    “Time  is now ripe to turn to the next question as to whether  it is obligatory to direct reinstatement when the concerned  regulation  is  found to be void. In the  sphere  of  employer-employee relations  in public Sector Undertakings, to which Article 12  of the Constitution of India is attracted, it cannot be posted  that reinstatement must invariably follow as a consequence of  holding that  an order of termination of service of an employee is  void. No  doubt in regard to `blue-collar’ workman and  `white  collar’ employees other than those belonging to the managerial or similar high level cadre, reinstatement would be a rule, and compensation in  lieu  thereof a rare exception. In so far as the  high  level managerial  cadre is concerned, the matter deserves to be  viewed from  an  altogether different perspective a  larger  perspective which must take into account the demands of National interest and the  resultant  compulsion to ensure the success  of  the  public sector  in its competitive co-existence with the private  sector. The  public sector can never fulfill its life-aim or  successfully vie  with  private  sector if it is not managed  by  capable  and efficient  personnel with unimpeachable integrity and the  requisite  vision,  who enjoy the fullest confidence  of  the  `policy makers’  of  such  undertakings. Then and then  only  can  public sector  undertaking achieve the goals of (1)  maximum  production for the benefit of the community, (2) social justice for workers, consumers and the people, and (3) reasonable return on the public funds invested in the undertaking.\n<\/p>\n
      It  is public interest that such undertakings of their  Board  of Directors are not compelled and obliged to entrust their  managements  to personnel in whom, on reasonable grounds, they have  no trust or faith and with whom they are in a bonafide manner unable to  function harmoniously as a team working arm-in-arm with  success  in  the aforesaid three-dimensional sense as  their  common goal. These factors have to be taken into account by the Court at the  time of passing the consequential order, for the  Court  has full  discretion in the matter of granting relief, and the  Court  can sculpture the relief to suit the needs of the matter at hand.  The  Court,  if  satisfied that ends of justice  so  demand,  can certainly  direct that the employer shall have the option not  to reinstate  provided the employer pays reasonable compensation  as indicated by the Court.”\n<\/p>\n
 17.  The  petitioner was working with the respondent as an Executive  (Procurement).  The  job  of the petitioner admittedly,  involved  purchase  of various  items of fruits and vegetables worth lacs of Rupees  every  month. The respondent has taken up the stand that there are allegations of  misappropriation against the petitioner and that it is a case of lack of  integrity on the part of the petitioner. In my considered opinion, absolute  and unquestionable  integrity  is crucial to the job that  the  petitioner  was performing.  The  respondent has also referred  to  the  omplaints\/reports
\nreceived  against the petitioner from various sources which  were  enquired into  by the respondent No.1 entrusting the matter of investigation  to  an independent  outside investigating agency. It is also stated that the  said investigating  agency  submitted a report on 15.1.1993 which is  placed  on record and annexed as Annexure R1\/3. The said report does not speak well of the  petitioner. In a job of Executive (Procurement) which  the  petitioner was performing at the time of termination of his services and to which post he is to be reinstated, if so ordered by this court, calls for absolute and unquestionable  integrity.  Trust and confidence of the management  on  the person holding the said post is one of the vital and important factors. The report submitted by the investigating agency prima facie points out certain misdeeds and does not speak well of the petitioner. It thus cannot be  said that the apprehension of the respondent is misplaced or ill-founded. In the present case, even if an order is passed for reinstatement of the petitioner,  liberty will have to be given to the respondent to initiate a  department enquiry against the petitioner for the misconduct alleged against  him in the counter affidavit, and therefore, the matter would not end with  the reinstatement  of the petitioner in service. Taking all these factors  into consideration,  I do not consider it to be a fit case where the  petitioner should  be ordered to be reinstatement in service and instead I  feel  that payment of adequate compensation to the petitioner in lieu of his  services would  advance  the cause and interest of justice. The petitioner,  at  the time of his termination of his services was drawing a salary of  Rs.5,800\/- per month and therefore, if it is ordered that he should be paid a  compensation of Rs.4 lacs instead of reinstatement in service he would be able to invest the said amount in a fixed deposit whereby he would be able to  earn interest of about Rs.48,000\/- per annum going by the present rate of interest, which would mean that he would be getting Rs.4,000\/- per month,  which would be the amount he would be receiving every month apart from being able to take up any other job or venture into some other business of his own.\n<\/p>\n
 18.  Accordingly,  taking note of the peculiar facts and  circumstances  of the case as delineated above, and taking note of the ratio of the  decision in  O.P.Bhandari’s case (supra), in my considered opinion the  compensation of  Rs.4 lac would be a reasonable amount to award in favour of  the  petitioner  in  lieu  of  reinstatement,  which I  hereby  do,  with  costs  of Rs.5,000\/- payable by the respondent to the petitioner.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court Virender Singh vs General Manager, Fruit And … on 24 March, 1998 Equivalent citations: 1998 IIIAD Delhi 17, 72 (1998) DLT 657, 1998 (45) DRJ 184, 1998 (79) FLR 436 Author: . M.K.Sharma Bench: D M Sharma ORDER Dr. M.K.Sharma, J. 1. Challenge in this writ petition is to the validity of […]<\/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":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-88939","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nVirender Singh vs General Manager, Fruit And ... on 24 March, 1998 - 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\/virender-singh-vs-general-manager-fruit-and-on-24-march-1998\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Virender Singh vs General Manager, Fruit And ... on 24 March, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/virender-singh-vs-general-manager-fruit-and-on-24-march-1998\" \/>\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=\"1998-03-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-05-05T02:40:55+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=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/virender-singh-vs-general-manager-fruit-and-on-24-march-1998#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/virender-singh-vs-general-manager-fruit-and-on-24-march-1998\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Virender Singh vs General Manager, Fruit And … on 24 March, 1998\",\"datePublished\":\"1998-03-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-05T02:40:55+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/virender-singh-vs-general-manager-fruit-and-on-24-march-1998\"},\"wordCount\":3842,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/virender-singh-vs-general-manager-fruit-and-on-24-march-1998#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/virender-singh-vs-general-manager-fruit-and-on-24-march-1998\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/virender-singh-vs-general-manager-fruit-and-on-24-march-1998\",\"name\":\"Virender Singh vs General Manager, Fruit And ... on 24 March, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1998-03-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-05T02:40:55+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/virender-singh-vs-general-manager-fruit-and-on-24-march-1998#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/virender-singh-vs-general-manager-fruit-and-on-24-march-1998\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/virender-singh-vs-general-manager-fruit-and-on-24-march-1998#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Virender Singh vs General Manager, Fruit And … on 24 March, 1998\"}]},{\"@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":"Virender Singh vs General Manager, Fruit And ... on 24 March, 1998 - 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\/virender-singh-vs-general-manager-fruit-and-on-24-march-1998","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Virender Singh vs General Manager, Fruit And ... on 24 March, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/virender-singh-vs-general-manager-fruit-and-on-24-march-1998","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1998-03-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-05-05T02:40:55+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":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/virender-singh-vs-general-manager-fruit-and-on-24-march-1998#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/virender-singh-vs-general-manager-fruit-and-on-24-march-1998"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Virender Singh vs General Manager, Fruit And … on 24 March, 1998","datePublished":"1998-03-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-05T02:40:55+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/virender-singh-vs-general-manager-fruit-and-on-24-march-1998"},"wordCount":3842,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/virender-singh-vs-general-manager-fruit-and-on-24-march-1998#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/virender-singh-vs-general-manager-fruit-and-on-24-march-1998","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/virender-singh-vs-general-manager-fruit-and-on-24-march-1998","name":"Virender Singh vs General Manager, Fruit And ... on 24 March, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1998-03-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-05T02:40:55+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/virender-singh-vs-general-manager-fruit-and-on-24-march-1998#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/virender-singh-vs-general-manager-fruit-and-on-24-march-1998"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/virender-singh-vs-general-manager-fruit-and-on-24-march-1998#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Virender Singh vs General Manager, Fruit And … on 24 March, 1998"}]},{"@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\/88939","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=88939"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/88939\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=88939"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=88939"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=88939"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}