{"id":91726,"date":"2007-04-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-04-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-sangram-keshari-nayak-on-27-april-2007"},"modified":"2018-09-25T12:23:44","modified_gmt":"2018-09-25T06:53:44","slug":"union-of-india-ors-vs-sangram-keshari-nayak-on-27-april-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-sangram-keshari-nayak-on-27-april-2007","title":{"rendered":"Union Of India &amp; Ors vs Sangram Keshari Nayak on 27 April, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Union Of India &amp; Ors vs Sangram Keshari Nayak on 27 April, 2007<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: S.B. Sinha<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: S.B. Sinha, Markandey Katju<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  3691 of 2005\n\nPETITIONER:\nUnion of India &amp; Ors\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSangram Keshari Nayak\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 27\/04\/2007\n\nBENCH:\nS.B. Sinha &amp; Markandey Katju\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>J U D G M E N T <\/p>\n<p>S.B. SINHA, J :\n<\/p>\n<p> \tInterpretation of a purported circular letter dated 21.01.1993 falls for<br \/>\nour consideration in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order<br \/>\ndated 31.01.2005 passed by the High Court of Orissa in Writ Petition No. 50<br \/>\nof 2004.\n<\/p>\n<p> \tBefore embarking upon the said question, we may, however, notice<br \/>\nthe admitted fact of the matter.\n<\/p>\n<p> \tRespondent was recruited to Indian Railway Traffic Services on or<br \/>\nabout 1.02.1982.  He was promoted to the post of Junior Administrative<br \/>\nGrade.  He was also placed in the selection grade on 1.07.1994.  The post of<br \/>\nSenior Administrative Grade fell vacant.  Respondent was eligible to be<br \/>\nconsidered therefor.  A Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) was<br \/>\nconvened for preparation of a panel for promotion to the said post.<br \/>\nRespondent&#8217;s name was also included therein.  Inter alia on the premise that<br \/>\na vigilance case was pending against him, sealed cover procedure was<br \/>\nadopted by the DPC purported to be in terms of the circular in question<br \/>\nproviding for the procedure and guidelines to be followed in respect of the<br \/>\nofficers who are to be promoted from Grade B to Grade A and of Railway<br \/>\nofficers against whom disciplinary \/ court proceedings were pending.\n<\/p>\n<p> \tParagraph 6 of the said Circular, which is relevant for our purpose<br \/>\nreads, thus:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;6. A Government Servant, who is recommended<br \/>\nfor promotion by the Departmental Promotion<br \/>\nCommittee but in whose case any of the<br \/>\ncircumstances mentioned in para 2 above arise<br \/>\nafter the recommendations of the DPC are received<br \/>\nbut before he is actually promoted, will be<br \/>\nconsidered as if his case had been placed in a<br \/>\nSealed Cover by the Departmental promotion<br \/>\nCommittee.  He shall not be promoted until the<br \/>\nconclusion of disciplinary case\/ criminal<br \/>\nproceedings and the provisions contained in this<br \/>\nletter will be applicable in his case also.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p> \tOn or about 27.08.1999, one Shri G.P. Srivastava who was immediate<br \/>\njunior to the respondent was promoted to the post of Senior Administrative<br \/>\nGrade but only on 24.09.1999, a departmental proceeding was initiated<br \/>\nagainst the respondent by issuance of a chargesheet.\n<\/p>\n<p> \tAn original application filed by the respondent before the Calcutta<br \/>\nBench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, which was eventually<br \/>\ntransferred to the Cuttack Bench, praying for a direction to the appellants to<br \/>\npromote him to the said post from the date when his junior was appointed,<br \/>\nwas allowed by a judgment and order dated 19.08.2003.  A writ petition<br \/>\nfiled by the appellants thereagainst has been dismissed by the High Court, by<br \/>\nreason of the impugned judgment.\n<\/p>\n<p> \tThe Tribunal as also the High Court proceeded to determine the issue<br \/>\non the basis that the term &#8220;Government Servant under cloud&#8221; would be the<br \/>\nemployees against whom a chargesheet has been issued, relying on or on the<br \/>\nbasis of paragraph 2 of the said circular, the relevant portion whereof reads<br \/>\nas under:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;2. At the time of consideration of the case of<br \/>\nGovernment Servants for empanelment, details of<br \/>\nGovernment Servants in the consideration zone for<br \/>\npromotion falling under the following categories<br \/>\nshould be specifically brought to the notice of the<br \/>\nDepartmental Promotion Committee:\n<\/p>\n<p>(i)\tGovernment Servants under suspension;\n<\/p>\n<p>(ii)\tGovernment Servants in respect of whom a<br \/>\ncharge sheet has been issued and the disciplinary<br \/>\nproceedings are pending;\n<\/p>\n<p>(iii)\tGovernment Servants in respect of whom<br \/>\nprosecution for a criminal charge is pending&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p> \tIn arriving at its conclusion the High Court furthermore placed strong<br \/>\nreliance upon a judgment of this Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/1010619\/\">Union of India and Others v. K.V.<br \/>\nJanakiraman and Others<\/a> [(1991) 4 SCC 109].\n<\/p>\n<p> \tMr. R. Mohan, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing on<br \/>\nbehalf of the appellants would contend that the circular letter received wrong<br \/>\ninterpretation at the hands of the Tribunal and\/ or the High Court inasmuch<br \/>\nas upon a proper reading thereof it would appear that a complete procedure<br \/>\nhas been laid down therein providing for the mode and manner in which the<br \/>\ncases of those officers against whom a charge is pending should be<br \/>\nconsidered for promotion.  Strong reliance in this behalf has been placed on<br \/>\n<a href=\"\/doc\/1342313\/\">Union of India and Another v. R.S. Sharma<\/a> [(2000) 4 SCC 394], <a href=\"\/doc\/1548130\/\">Delhi<br \/>\nDevelopment Authority v. H.C. Khurana<\/a> [(1993) 3 SCC 196], and Union of<br \/>\nIndia v. Kewal Kumar [(1993) 3 SCC 204].\n<\/p>\n<p> \tMr. S.K. Dholakia, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the<br \/>\nrespondent, on the other hand, would contend that paragraph 6 of the said<br \/>\ncircular must be read in the context of paragraph 2 thereof.\n<\/p>\n<p> \tPromotion is not a fundamental right.  Right to be considered for<br \/>\npromotion, however, is a fundamental right.  Such a right brings within its<br \/>\npurview an effective, purposeful and meaningful consideration.  Suitability<br \/>\nor otherwise of the candidate concerned, however, must be left at the hands<br \/>\nof the DPC, but the same has to be determined in terms of the rules<br \/>\napplicable therefor.  Indisputably, the DPC recommended the case of the<br \/>\nrespondent for promotion.  On the day on which, it is accepted at the bar, the<br \/>\nDPC held its meeting, no vigilance enquiry was pending.  No decision was<br \/>\nalso taken by the employer that a departmental proceeding should be<br \/>\ninitiated against him.\n<\/p>\n<p> \tTerms and conditions of an employee working under the Central<br \/>\nGovernment are governed by the rules framed under the proviso appended to<br \/>\nArticle 309 of the Constitution of India or under a statute.  The right to be<br \/>\npromoted to a next higher post can, thus, be curtailed only by reason of valid<br \/>\nrules.  Such a rule again, however, cannot be construed in a manner so as to<br \/>\ncurtail the right of promotion more than what was contemplated by law.\n<\/p>\n<p> \tWhereas paragraph 6 of the said circular letter provides for a sealed<br \/>\ncover procedure to be adopted by the DPC, the same has to be taken<br \/>\nrecourse to only in the event circumstances mentioned in paragraph 2 thereof<br \/>\narise after the recommendation of the DPC.  The recommendations of the<br \/>\nDPC, therefore, can be refused to be given effect to only inter ala when one<br \/>\nor the other conditions mentioned in paragraph 2 of the said circular stand<br \/>\nsatisfied which in the instant case would mean that as against the respondent<br \/>\na chargesheet had been issued or, in other words, a disciplinary proceeding<br \/>\nwas pending.  Admittedly, a chargesheet was issued as against him only on<br \/>\n24.09.1999.\n<\/p>\n<p> \tThus, there was no bar in promoting the respondent during the period<br \/>\n14.01.1999 to 27.08.1999.  No material was placed before the DPC to take<br \/>\nrecourse to the sealed cover procedure.  In fact, none existed at the material<br \/>\ntime.  Paragraph 2 of the said circular specifically refers to submission of<br \/>\nchargesheet as the cut-off date when a departmental proceeding can be said<br \/>\nto have been initiated.  Even otherwise such a meaning had been given<br \/>\nthereto by this Court in K.V. Janakiraman (supra) holding:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;16The sealed cover procedure is to be resorted<br \/>\nto only after the charge-memo\/charge-sheet is<br \/>\nissued. The pendency of preliminary investigation<br \/>\nprior to that stage will not be sufficient to enable<br \/>\nthe authorities to adopt the sealed cover procedure.<br \/>\nWe are in agreement with the Tribunal on this<br \/>\npoint. The contention advanced by the learned<br \/>\ncounsel for the appellant-authorities that when<br \/>\nthere are serious allegations and it takes time to<br \/>\ncollect necessary evidence to prepare and issue<br \/>\ncharge-memo\/charge-sheet, it would not be in the<br \/>\ninterest of the purity of administration to reward<br \/>\nthe employee with a promotion, increment etc.<br \/>\ndoes not impress us. The acceptance of this<br \/>\ncontention would result in injustice to the<br \/>\nemployees in many cases. As has been the<br \/>\nexperience so far, the preliminary investigations<br \/>\ntake an inordinately long time and particularly<br \/>\nwhen they are initiated at the instance of the<br \/>\ninterested persons, they are kept pending<br \/>\ndeliberately. Many times they never result in the<br \/>\nissue of any charge-memo\/charge-sheet. If the<br \/>\nallegations are serious and the authorities are keen<br \/>\nin investigating them, ordinarily it should not take<br \/>\nmuch time to collect the relevant evidence and<br \/>\nfinalise the charges. What is further, if the charges<br \/>\nare that serious, the authorities have the power to<br \/>\nsuspend the employee under the relevant rules, and<br \/>\nthe suspension by itself permits a resort to the<br \/>\nsealed cover procedure&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\tReliance placed by Mr. Mohan on R.S. Sharma (supra), in our<br \/>\nopinion, does not advance the appellant&#8217;s case.  In that case, cases where<br \/>\nsealed cover procedure were applicable were contained in paragraph 2 of the<br \/>\noffice memorandum dated 12.01.1988 which reads as under:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;Cases where &#8216;Sealed Cover Procedure&#8217; applicable<br \/>\n.At the time of consideration of the cases of<br \/>\ngovernment servants for promotion, details of<br \/>\ngovernment servants in the consideration zone for<br \/>\npromotion falling under the following categories<br \/>\nshould be specifically brought to the notice of the<br \/>\nDepartmental Promotion Committee:\n<\/p>\n<p>(i) government servants under suspension;\n<\/p>\n<p>(ii) government servants in respect of whom<br \/>\ndisciplinary proceedings are pending or a decision<br \/>\nhas been taken to initiate disciplinary proceedings;\n<\/p>\n<p>(iii) government servants in respect of whom<br \/>\nprosecution for a criminal charge is pending or a<br \/>\nsanction for prosecution has been issued or a<br \/>\ndecision has been taken to accord sanction for<br \/>\nprosecution;\n<\/p>\n<p>(iv) government servants against whom an<br \/>\ninvestigation on serious allegations of corruption,<br \/>\nbribery or similar grave misconduct is in progress<br \/>\neither by CBI or any agency, departmental or<br \/>\notherwise.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t(Emphasis supplied) <\/p>\n<p>\tSerious allegations of financial misdemeanours were made against the<br \/>\nrespondent therein.  Central Bureau of Investigation took up investigation.<br \/>\nHe was suspended on 10.03.1988.  Although the said order of suspension<br \/>\nwas revoked, investigation continued.  The DPC considered his case for<br \/>\npromotion on 3.04.1991 and resorted to sealed cover procedure.  Only in the<br \/>\naforementioned situation, K.V. Janakiraman (supra) and other decisions<br \/>\nfollowing the same stood distinguished opining  that paragraph 7 of the said<br \/>\noffice memorandum would be attracted, which is in the following terms:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;Sealed cover applicable to an officer coming<br \/>\nunder cloud before promotion .A government<br \/>\nservant, who is recommended for promotion by the<br \/>\nDepartmental Promotion Committee but in whose<br \/>\ncase any of the circumstances mentioned in para 2<br \/>\nabove arise after the recommendations of DPC are<br \/>\nreceived but before he is actually promoted, will<br \/>\nbe considered as if his case had been placed in a<br \/>\nsealed cover by DPC. He shall not be promoted<br \/>\nuntil he is completely exonerated of the charges<br \/>\nagainst him and the provisions contained in this<br \/>\nOM will be applicable in his case also.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIt was held:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;One is that, what the Department did not do is<br \/>\nnot the yardstick indicated in para 7 of the Sealed<br \/>\nCover Procedure, what is mentioned therein is that<br \/>\nit cannot apply to the government servant who is<br \/>\nnot &#8220;actually promoted&#8221; by that time. Second is<br \/>\nthat, the stand taken up by the Department is that<br \/>\nin spite of deletion of clause ( iv ) of the second<br \/>\npara, the recommendations of DPC must remain in<br \/>\nthe sealed cover on account of the conditions<br \/>\nspecified in clause ( iii ) of the said paragraph by<br \/>\nvirtue of the operation of para 7 thereof. We<br \/>\ncannot say that the said stand was incorrect and,<br \/>\ntherefore, we are unable to blame the Department<br \/>\nfor not opening the sealed cover immediately after<br \/>\n31-7-1991.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p> \tTherein H.C. Khurana (supra) and Kewal Kumar (supra) were<br \/>\nnoticed.\n<\/p>\n<p> \tIn H.C. Khurana (supra), the question was as to what would be the<br \/>\nmeaning of the word &#8216;issued&#8217; when a disciplinary proceeding had been<br \/>\ninitiated by framing the chargesheet and the same had been despatched.<br \/>\nParagraph 2 of the circular letter in question was similar to the case of R.S.<br \/>\nSharma (supra).  It is in that context, what would be the meaning of the word<br \/>\n&#8216;issued&#8217; when the decision has been taken to initiate disciplinary proceeding<br \/>\ncame up for consideration.  As the circular contained a provision of that<br \/>\nnature which is absent in the present case, the said decision, in our opinion,<br \/>\nalso has no application in the instant case.\n<\/p>\n<p> \tFor the self-same reasons, the decision of this Court in Kewal Kumar<br \/>\n(supra) is also not attracted.\n<\/p>\n<p> \tThis aspect of the matter has recently been considered in <a href=\"\/doc\/40806\/\">Coal India<br \/>\nLtd. &amp; Ors. v. Saroj Kumar Mishra<\/a> [(2007) 5 SCALE 724].\n<\/p>\n<p> \tWe, therefore, are of the opinion that there is no infirmity in the<br \/>\nimpugned judgments.   Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with costs.<br \/>\nCounsel&#8217;s fee assessed at Rs. 25,,000\/-.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Union Of India &amp; Ors vs Sangram Keshari Nayak on 27 April, 2007 Author: S.B. Sinha Bench: S.B. Sinha, Markandey Katju CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 3691 of 2005 PETITIONER: Union of India &amp; Ors RESPONDENT: Sangram Keshari Nayak DATE OF JUDGMENT: 27\/04\/2007 BENCH: S.B. Sinha &amp; Markandey Katju JUDGMENT: J U [&hellip;]<\/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-91726","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Union Of India &amp; Ors vs Sangram Keshari Nayak on 27 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-sangram-keshari-nayak-on-27-april-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Union Of India &amp; Ors vs Sangram Keshari Nayak on 27 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-sangram-keshari-nayak-on-27-april-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2007-04-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-09-25T06:53:44+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-ors-vs-sangram-keshari-nayak-on-27-april-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-ors-vs-sangram-keshari-nayak-on-27-april-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Union Of India &amp; Ors vs Sangram Keshari Nayak on 27 April, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-04-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-25T06:53:44+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-ors-vs-sangram-keshari-nayak-on-27-april-2007\"},\"wordCount\":2032,\"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\\\/union-of-india-ors-vs-sangram-keshari-nayak-on-27-april-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-ors-vs-sangram-keshari-nayak-on-27-april-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-ors-vs-sangram-keshari-nayak-on-27-april-2007\",\"name\":\"Union Of India &amp; Ors vs Sangram Keshari Nayak on 27 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-04-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-25T06:53:44+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-ors-vs-sangram-keshari-nayak-on-27-april-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-ors-vs-sangram-keshari-nayak-on-27-april-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-ors-vs-sangram-keshari-nayak-on-27-april-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Union Of India &amp; Ors vs Sangram Keshari Nayak on 27 April, 2007\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Union Of India &amp; Ors vs Sangram Keshari Nayak on 27 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-sangram-keshari-nayak-on-27-april-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Union Of India &amp; Ors vs Sangram Keshari Nayak on 27 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-sangram-keshari-nayak-on-27-april-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-04-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-09-25T06:53:44+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-sangram-keshari-nayak-on-27-april-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-sangram-keshari-nayak-on-27-april-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Union Of India &amp; Ors vs Sangram Keshari Nayak on 27 April, 2007","datePublished":"2007-04-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-25T06:53:44+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-sangram-keshari-nayak-on-27-april-2007"},"wordCount":2032,"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\/union-of-india-ors-vs-sangram-keshari-nayak-on-27-april-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-sangram-keshari-nayak-on-27-april-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-sangram-keshari-nayak-on-27-april-2007","name":"Union Of India &amp; Ors vs Sangram Keshari Nayak on 27 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-04-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-25T06:53:44+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-sangram-keshari-nayak-on-27-april-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-sangram-keshari-nayak-on-27-april-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-sangram-keshari-nayak-on-27-april-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Union Of India &amp; Ors vs Sangram Keshari Nayak on 27 April, 2007"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/91726","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=91726"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/91726\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=91726"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=91726"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=91726"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}