Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Rakesh Kulshreshtha vs Union Of India on 11 October, 2011
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH TA No.12 of 2009 With TA No.16 of 2009 TA No.1241 of 2009 New Delhi this the 11th day of October, 2011 Honble Shri Shailendra Pandey, Member (A) Honble Dr. Dharam Paul Sharma, Member (J) TA No.12 of 2009 Rakesh Kulshreshtha Telecom Technical Assistant, Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd., R/o Qr.No.H-3, P&T Wireless Colony, Gurgaon (Haryana). .... Applicant ( By Advocate Shri Sudhir Kulshreshtha ) VERSUS 1. Union of India, Through Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Communication, Deptt. of Telecommunication, Sanchar Bhawan, 20, Ashoka Road, New Delhi. 2. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. through Chief General Manager, O/o Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd., Khurshid Lal Bhawan, Janpath, New Delhi. 3. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. through its The D.G.M. (Administration), Office of the General Manager (West-II) MTNL, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi. 4. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. through its The A.G.M. (Administration) Office of the General Manager (West-I), MTNL, Mayapuri, New Delhi. .. Respondents ( By Advocate Shri R.N. Singh ) TA No.16 of 2009 Rakesh Kulshreshtha Telecom Technical Assistant, Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd., R/o Qr.No.H-3, P&T Wireless Colony, Gurgaon (Haryana). .... Applicant ( By Advocate Shri Sudhir Kulshreshtha ) VERSUS 1. Union of India, Through Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Communication, Deptt. of Telecommunication, Sanchar Bhawan, 20, Ashoka Road, New Delhi. 2. Chief General Manager, Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd., Khurshid Lal Bhawan, Eastern Court, Janpath, New Delhi. 3. Deputy General Manager (Admn.) Office of the General Manager (West-II) Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd., Rajouri Garden, New Delhi. 4. Assistant General Manager (Admn.) Office of the General Manager (West-II), Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd., Rajouri Garden, New Delhi. 5. General Manager (West-I) C/o Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. 6, Local Shopping Complex, Maya Puri, New Delhi. .. Respondents ( By Advocate Shri R.N. Singh ) TA No.1241 of 2009 Rakesh Kulshreshtha Telecom Technical Assistant, Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd., R/o Qr.No.H-3, P&T Wireless Colony, Gurgaon (Haryana). .... Applicant ( By Advocate Shri Sudhir Kulshreshtha ) VERSUS 1. Union of India, Through Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Communication, Deptt. of Telecommunication, Sanchar Bhawan, 20, Ashoka Road, New Delhi. 2. Chief General Manager, Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd., Khurshid Lal Bhawan, Janpath, New Delhi. 3. Divisional Engineer (O/D) Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd., Hari Nagar, New Delhi. .. Respondents ( By Advocate Shri R.N. Singh ) O R D E R Dr. Dharam Paul Sharma, Member (J) :
The parties to these three Applications are same and common. The applicant challenges in all these Applications the legality of the orders of the respondents declaring three spells of absence as dies non without break in service in one case and with break in service in other two cases. Since the question of law involved in all these Applications is the same, these Applications have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
2. The applicant joined the Ministry of Communications, Department of Telecommunications as Technician on 22.1.1979. When Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited was formed, he was transferred to the said Nigam on deemed deputation basis. He was sent on training to the Regional Telecom Centre, Kalyani, West Bengal from 22.5.1995 to 17.8.1995. On successful completion of the training, he was promoted as a Telecom Technical Assistant in the pay scale of Rs.1320-2040 against the existing vacancy.
3. The facts of the three Applications from here onwards relate to different periods in which the applicant was said to have been unauthorizedly absent which periods have been declared as dies non by the respondents. Since these three Applications relate to such period of absence of three spells, these are dealt with Application-wise as follows:-
TA 12/2009I. On his promotion as Telecom Technical Assistant, the applicant was posted vide Memo Dated 12.9.1995 to the Office of General Manager (West-I) at his request. The applicants case is that when he reported for duty in the Office of the General Manager (West-I), he was not allowed to join and the authorities concerned did not assign any duty to the applicant. The applicant alleged that when he reported for duty as per Memo dated 12.9.1995, the Divisional Engineer (Operations) in the Office of the General Manager (West-I) demanded Rs.2000/- as bribe for issuing the order of posting to the applicant in assigning him duties which he refused to pay. The applicant made a number of representations since then but had not been given any posting order. After about four years, the applicant in May, 1999 filed Civil Writ Petition No.3217/1999 in the High Court. Vide interim order dated 22.9.1999 passed in the said Writ Petition, the Honble High Court permitted the applicant to join duties which he did on 22.9.1999. The applicants grievance has been that although he was allowed to join yet he was not given his arrears of pay. As a matter of fact, he was placed under suspension on 2.2.1996, which was later on revoked on 13.10.1997. However, no departmental proceedings were ever initiated against him. The applicant filed a Contempt Petition in December, 2001. After coming to know of it, the respondents, without any notice, ordered this period to be treated as dies non without pay and allowances and without break in service for the purpose of pension and other service benefits vide order dated 13.3.2002, a copy of which is at Annexure IV at page 20 of the paperbook. The applicant preferred an appeal to the appellate authority but no orders have been passed thereon so far. Feeling aggrieved, the applicant filed Writ Petition (Civil) No.7506/2004, wherein he has challenged the impugned order 13.3.2002 as referred to above, on the ground inter alia that it has been passed in violation of the principles of natural of justice as he has not been given reasonable opportunity to be heard before imposing the extreme penalty upon him. Whether the applicant was on unauthorizedly absent could be settled only in proper inquiry where both the parties concerned would lead evidence in support of their respective contentions but no such inquiry was held. This has resulted in grave miscarriage of justice as the applicant has been condemned without any hearing. Furthermore, there has been non-application of mind on the part of disciplinary authority. As a matter of fact, there was sufficient reasons for the petitioners absence as he was not allowed to join duty as stated in the petition. In fact the applicant has been penalized for prosecuting his rights in the court of law. The said Writ Petition was transferred to this Tribunal vide High Courts order dated 19.12.2008 whereupon the said Writ Petition has been re-numbered as TA 12/2009.
II. The respondents filed their counter affidavit wherein they have opposed the applicants claim on facts as well as law. It has inter alia been submitted by the respondents that the applicant has absented himself continuously w.e.f. 15.9.1995 to 26.9.1999, i.e., four calendar years and 12 days and has not performed any duty inspite of several letters issued to him for joining and, therefore, the appropriate authority passed orders. Accordingly, the period of absence is ordered to be treated as dies non without pay and allowances and without break in service for the purpose of pension and other service benefits. It has further been submitted that the respondents could have taken stronger action but in the interest of justice and in view of principle of no work no pay, the respondents treated the period of absence w.e.f. 15.9.1995 to 26.9.1999 as dies non without pay and allowances and without break in service. The said action of the respondents is legally in order and does not warrant any judicial interference. The respondents have further contended that the applicant has been habitual litigant and has been attending office at his own whims and fancies and has continuously absented himself for indefinite period and also in the habit of making false and frivolous allegations against the officers. All these render the applicant disentitled to any relief whatsoever. As a matter of fact, the respondents strongly contended that the applicant had not returned for duty after he was asked to join the office of the General Manager (West-I). Because of his misbehaviour, he was suspended which was revoked w.e.f. 13.10.1997. The applicant had initially joined the office of the General Manager (West-I), Mayapuri, New Delhi on 13.9.1995. On 15.9.1995, he was ordered to join duties under Divisional Engineer (FRS), Karol Bagh, New Delhi with immediate effect. The applicant, however, did not join the office of Divisional Engineer (FRS), but continued to draw his pay and allowances from Head Quarter upto 31.8.1996. Since the applicant had failed to perform his duty till 26.9.1999, the action was taken in accordance with the law and the said period was treated as dies non.TA 16/2009
I. The applicants case is that CWP 3217/1999 filed by him in May 1999 was disposed of by learned Single Judge of the High Court on 16.2.2001. In terms of the said judgment, the applicant was permitted to join his duty w.e.f. 22.2.2001. When the applicant was denied arrears of pay for the period, he filed Contempt Petition. Thereupon the respondents issued a show cause notice to the applicant on 18.3.2002 alleging that the applicant was unauthorizedly absent from 8.8.2000 to 21.2.2001 and called upon the applicant to show cause as to why this period be not treated as dies non. The applicant submitted his reply on 23.3.2002 wherein he had inter alia submitted that the SDO did not allow him to join duty on 8.8.2000 for which he had made a number of representations to various authorities, including Honble Minister for Communications as well as Deputy General Manager, M.T.N.L. On 30.3.2002, the respondents passed a non-speaking order directing the said period to be treated as dies non a copy of which is at Annexure P.IV at page 18 of the paperbook. The applicant preferred an appeal against this order on 13.5.2002. The appellate authority dismissed the applicants appeal on 28.6.2002, a copy of which is at Annexure P.VI at page 23 of the paperbook. Feeling aggrieved the applicant filed Writ Petition (Civil) No.5766 of 202 challenging the impugned order on the ground inter alia that he was not given reasonable opportunity to be heard before passing the impugned order of dies non. The question as to whether the applicant was unauthorizedly absent could be decided in an appropriate inquiry, which has not been held. This has resulted in gross miscarriage of justice. The orders of the disciplinary and the appellate authorities are vitiated on account of non-application of mind. There were sufficient reasons for applicants absence during this period. From the aforesaid, it is seen that the grounds taken in this Application are on the lines of the grounds on which the impugned order of dies non has been challenged by the applicant in TA 12/2009 referred to above.
II. The applicants claim was opposed in the counter reply filed by the respondents. The respondents case is that vide letter dated 7.8.2000, the applicant was relieved from the office where he was working and was directed to report to the General Manager (West-II) from the afternoon of 7.8.2000. The applicant, however, refused to accept this order. The said refusal was made in the presence of the witness whose statement to this effect was duly endorsed on the copy of the Order itself. A copy of the said order with noting of the refusal by the applicant in the presence of the witness is annexed with the respondents reply as Annexure R1. A copy of the said transfer order was then sent to the applicant through Registered post vide receipt No.0063 dated 8.8.2000 and also through express telegram No.76 dated 8.8.2000 at the residential address of the applicant as per the official records. The respondents have denied that the applicant was not allowed to join when he reported for duty in the office of General Manager (West-II) and submitted that the applicant himself remained unauthorizedly absent from the said date without obtaining prior sanction or informing the respondents. This period as aforesaid has rightly been treated as dies non by the respondents.TA 1241/2009
I. This Application is directed against the Office Memo No.Q.2/KB-1/98-99/107 dated 21.2.2002, as at Annexure III, whereby the period from 15.6.2000 to 7.8.2000 during which the applicant is alleged to have been unauthorizedly absent without any intimation/prior sanction of leave has been treated as dies non with break in service and the order of the appellate authority dated 12.12.2002, a copy of which is at Annexure VI, rejecting the appeal of the applicant against the order of dies non dated 12.2.2002 referred to above. The applicant claims that he was actually on duty during this period and in support of this, he annexed a copy of attendance register, as at Annexure IV at pages 19 to 22 of the paperbook. The grounds taken for challenging the impugned orders herein are analogous to the grounds taken by the applicant in earlier too applications referred to above. It has thus been contended that the impugned orders are in violation of principles of natural justice as he was not given a reasonable opportunity to be heard before passing these orders. There was no proper inquiry held to determine if the applicant was unauthorizedly absent during this period. Failure to hold such an inquiry led to a gross miscarriage of justice. There has been non-application of mind on the part of the disciplinary and the appellate authorities and the applicant has been penalized for prosecuting his right in court of law and also that he has indeed performed his duty during this period.
II. On the other hand, the respondents in the reply claimed that the applicant remained absent for the period from 15.6.2000 to 7.8.2000. It has further been contended that copies of attendance register as at Annexure IV of the Application are forged and fabricated documents.
4. At the hearing learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the orders passed by the respondents are not sustainable for the reason of having been passed by an incompetent authority. Since the applicant was on deemed deputation to the respondents Nigam, such orders could have been passed by the Department of Telecommunications and not by M.T.N.L. It has been strongly contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that no order of dies non can be passed in law without giving a show cause notice to the applicant. Non-compliance of this would render the impugned orders vitiated and, therefore, unsustainable in law on this ground alone. Admittedly, no show-cause notice was given to the applicant in TA 12/2009 and TA 1241/2009. In TA 12/2009, the appeal preferred by the applicant against the impugned order has not yet been decided. The impugned order dated 30.3.2002 in TA 16/2009 is bad for being non-speaking and non-reasoned order. Although reply to the show cause notice of the applicant has been referred to in the said order, the impugned order does not show as to how the points raised by the applicant in his representation have been dealt with. It merely stated that after going through the reply and on careful consideration of the facts in entirely, the order has been passed in exercise of powers conferred under the rules directing the period to be treated as dies non without indicating as to whether this would constitute break in service for the purpose of pensionary and other benefits. The deficiency in the said order is said to be rectified by giving some reasons in the appellate authoritys order. However, this will not cure the defects in the order of the disciplinary authority. If the order of the disciplinary authority fails for being non-speaking and non-reasoned order, the order of the appellate authority cannot stand on its own even if it purported to state some reasons justifying the impugned action.
5. As regards TA 1241/2009, both the orders of the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority are non-speaking and non-reasoned. They are also bad for the reason of not giving show cause notice. The applicants counsel referred to Rule 31 of MTNL Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1998 (Executives) dealing with employee on deputation from the Central Government or the State Government. The reliance has also been placed on the cases of Sarbdeep Singh Virk vs. State of Punjab and others, (2008) 11 SCC 263, and Chairman, Disciplinary Authroity, Rani Lakshmi Bai Kshetriya Gramin Bank vs. Jagdish Sharan Varshney and others, JT 2009 (4) SC 519, in support of his contention that the impugned orders have not been passed by the appropriate authority, i.e., the Department of Telecommunications. The learned counsel for the applicant also referred to case of Rabindra Kumar Battick and another vs. State of Orissa and others, (1998) 8 SCC 769, wherein it has been held that appellants therein were entitled to back wages for wrongful refusal to allow joining of duty after completion of training.
6. The learned counsel for the respondents controverted the contentions put forth by the applicants counsel. Referring to Rule 31 of the MTNL Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1998 (Executives), the learned counsel for the respondents strongly contended that the disciplinary authority in the MTNL with regard to the applicant is duly competent to take action in the matter in terms of the said Rule. The said Rule provides for imposition of minor penalty by the Borrowing Authority under intimation to the Lending Authority. The Department of Telecommunications has been duly informed of the happening in the present case with regard to the orders passed in TA 12/2009. The learned counsel for the respondents has drawn our attention to the fact that the period of absence has not been treated as a break in service and, therefore, absence of show cause notice would not vitiate the respondents action in the matter. The cases referred to by the applicants counsel have been distinguished by the respondents counsel on facts. It has thus been contended that it is not a case where the applicant has been denied duty or refused work by the respondents. As a matter of fact, the applicant has himself absented from the work on his own without any prior intimation or sanction. Besides each case has to be decided on its own facts. In view of the MTNL Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1998, the cases referred to by the applicants counsel on the aspect of the disciplinary authority are not applicable to the applicant as these are distinguishable on facts. It has further been contended that the order, which was passed by the respondents authority, cannot be said to be a non-speaking order, as the applicant has not raised any specific averment in his representation based on which the said order has been passed. The applicant deliberately did not report for duty and he absented willfully and unauthorizedly. There is nothing on record to indicate that he was ever refused to allow joining of his new place of posting. With regard to TA 16/2009, the learned counsel for the respondents has specifically drawn our attention to internal page 13 of their counter reply wherefrom it is seen that the applicant refused to accept the posting order. This refusal was duly witnessed by an independent witness whose endorsement has been recorded on the order itself. The transfer order was also displayed on the Notice Board. A copy of the said order was also sent to the applicant through Registered Post as well as through telegram. The learned counsel has also drawn our attention to page 4 of the counter reply and the reply to the show cause notice of the applicant. The applicant has not raised any objection as to the competency of the authority. Reasons are not given in the impugned order, as no substantial point was raised by the applicant in his reply given to the show cause notice. The point of competency was also not raised by the applicant in his appeal. It is only an afterthought. Even otherwise, the plea of lack of competency is devoid of substance and has no merit. With regard to TA 1241/2009, the learned counsel for the respondents strongly contended that copies of attendance register filed by the applicant are forged and fabricated documents. These are not submitted along with the appeal. The respondents have denied in their counter reply on affidavit that there are no such attendance sheets.
7. We have given our careful consideration to the respective submissions of both the parties and we have also carefully perused the records of the case.
8. The dispute between the parties revolves around three spells of absence, namely, 15.9.1995 to 26.9.1999, 8.8.2000 to 21.2.2011 and 15.7.2000 to 7.8.2000 respectively in the three Applications. All the three spells of absence have been ordered to be treated as dies non. The first one without break in service, second one as dies non simpliciter without clarifying as to whether it would cause break in service or not and the third one with break in service. No show-cause notice has been given for the first and the third spells. In all the cases, the period of absence has been treated as dies non for the reason of having not performed any duty. The impugned orders do not reveal the reasons for treating the period of dies non as causing break in service in two cases and not in the third one.
9. The applicant upon appointment to the Department of Telecommunications is governed by CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972 being a Government servant. Rule 4 of the said Rules provides that Government servants to whom these rules apply shall continue to be governed by these rules while on temporary transfer to the Indian Railways or to a State Government or while on foreign service within India. Under F.R. 17, the Government Servant shall begin to draw the pay and allowances attached to his tenure of a post with effect from the date when he assumes the duties of that post and shall cease to draw them as soon as he ceased to discharge those duties. However, an officer who is absent from duty without any authority shall not be entitled to any pay and allowance during the period of such absence in terms of FR 17. An unauthorized absence is deemed to cause an interruption or break in service of the employees, unless otherwise decided by the competent authority for the purpose of leave travel concession, quasi-permanency and eligibility for appearing in departmental examinations, for which a minimum period of continuous service is required as is provided in FR 17A. For the purpose of this Rule, the term Competent Authority means the Appointing Authority as explained in Explanation II to FR 17A. Thus, it may be seen that whereas an unauthorized absence will entail denial of pay and allowances during the period of such absence as provided in FR 17. Such unauthorized absence period operates to cause an interruption and break in service of employee by operation of law in terms of FR 17A, subject to the rider that Competent Authority has the powers to decide otherwise either in general or for a limited purpose as provided therein. The provisions of FR 17A are in the nature of penal provisions. Therefore, it has been held that issue of an order under this Rule without giving a reasonable opportunity of representation and being heard in person, if so desired by the person concerned, would be against the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, it has been administratively advised to all the Ministries and Departments to keep in mind the procedural requirement that an order under FR 17-A should be preceded by extending to the person concerned a reasonable opportunity of representation and being heard in person if so desired by him/her. The term dies non has not been used in the said provision yet quite often the term is used in official parlance. The term is latin in its origin and is a short form for dies non juridicus meaning non judicial day, i.e., the day on which no legal business could be done. Over a period of time, it assumes connotation indicating that it does not count for legal purposes. Accordingly, it not only denotes the period of unauthorized absence in which the employee concerned is not entitled to pay and allowances but it also becomes indicative of such absence causing break in service resulting in forfeiture of past service, unless the competent authority decides otherwise. Thus denial of pay and allowances during the period of an unauthorized absence is one thing and its operation as causing break in service leading to forfeiture of past service is another. We are concerned herein with the second aspect of the matter when the respondents have ordered this period to be treated as dies non.
10. It would be relevant to refer in the present context D.G., P. & T.s letter No.14/12/82-Vig. III, dated the 23rd September, 1982 wherein the principles governing condonation of unauthorized absence for the purpose of pension are stated. The said letter is reported in Swamys Compilation of FRSR under F.R. 17A as follows:-
It needs to be pointed out that the principles to be adopted for condonation of break in service for purposes of pension and that for purposes of other disabilities enumerated in FR 17-A are different. The fact that break in service has not been condoned for purposes of Leave Travel Concession, quasi-permanency and eligibility to appear at Departmental examinations should and need not influence the appointing authority adversely in deciding the question of condonation of break for counting the past service of the official for purposes of pension. It is not the intention of the Government to deny the pensionary benefits to the employees in all cases of break of service. If necessary, the appointing authority may in its discretion not condone the break-in-service on account of unauthorized absence for purposes of pension only in exceptional and grave circumstances and not as a matter of course. The question of condonation of break-in-service for the purpose of Pension Rules may be considered suo motu without waiting for a representation from the affected officials and orders issued, so that the retired employees are not put to financial hardship.
11. The applicant is stated to have already retired from the service of Department of Telecommunications service as far back in 2005. It has not been brought to our notice as to how and to what extent the applicant has been affected by these orders under consideration insofar as his retiral dues are concerned.
12. In view of the aforesaid, especially having regard to its penal nature, the order directing to treat the period of absence as dies non is not sustainable in the absence of any show cause notice to the applicant before passing these orders. In view of this, the orders of dies non in TA 12/2009 and TA 1241/2009 cannot be sustained in law. As regards TA 16/2009 in which show cause notice has indeed been issued to the applicant before passing the impugned order, it is seen that the same has not been passed by the appointing authority of the applicant in terms of the FR 17A. The same is the position in other two TAs on this aspect of the matter. We have earlier observed that even while being on deemed deputation to MTNL, the applicant continued to be governed by the provisions of CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972. The respondents have not brought to our notice any document indicating delegation of powers of the appointing authority in Department of Telecommunications to the MTNL authorities in the matter. Besides the impugned orders of disciplinary authority in the present case is vitiated on account of being non-speaking and non-reasoned order without referring to the points raised by the applicant in his reply to the show cause notice in any manner. Consequently, the order of the appellate authority in this case also falls with the order of the disciplinary authority.
13. Dies non or the period of an unauthorized absence causing break in service resulting in forfeiture of past service is not one of the penalties provided under the Disciplinary Rules. Therefore, the cases referred to by the applicants counsel with regard to appropriate disciplinary authority in the case are not relevant. The same is the case with regard to the case referred to by the applicants counsel on the decision of payment of arrears of pay for the period of absence in question as the facts of the case do not reveal refusal to assign duties to the applicant by the respondents.
14. It is relevant to note that in two of these cases the applicant has joined duties in terms of the judicial orders passed in the pending Writ Petitions whereas in one case, the period of absence for more than 4 years has not been treated as break in service and in other cases, the period of absence of shorter spells have been ordered to be treated as break in service. The reason for passing different orders in similar set of circumstances is not discernible from the impugned orders. Nonetheless, the fact that the period has been treated as dies non by itself would result in break in service in the absence of any order of the respondents to the contrary. There is conspicuous absence of uniform common link in the orders passed by the respondents in similar sets of circumstances leading to varying and conflicting results of not treating the period of absence as break in service in one case while similar absence being treated as break in service without any plausible justification and explanation. To this extent, the varying impugned orders insofar as their effect on continuity of service of the applicant is concerned, there is apparently arbitrariness in the action of the respondents vitiating the impugned orders on this count as well.
15. In the result, though absence from duty without any authority disentitled the applicant to any pay and allowances during the period of such absence yet the orders of dies non are not sustainable for the reasons of not giving requisite show cause notice to the applicant, lack of necessary competency in passing these orders, non-speaking order and arbitrariness in passing the orders as a matter of course without recording any finding as to the exceptional and grave nature of the circumstances of the case.
16. In the facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons stated above, the impugned orders directing the three spells as dies non are not sustainable and are accordingly quashed and set aside. Consequences in accordance with law will follow. All the three TAs are allowed in the above terms. No order as to costs.
17. Registry is directed to place a copy of this order be in other two TAs.
(Dr. Dharam Paul Sharma) (Shailendra Pandey)
Member (J) Member (A)
/ravi/