Gujarat High Court
Mepalal Hansrajbhai Lunagaria vs State Of Gujarat & on 9 August, 2017
Author: S.G. Shah
Bench: S.G. Shah
C/SCA/1754/2017 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1754 of 2017
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5840 of 2017
==========================================================
MEPALAL HANSRAJBHAI LUNAGARIA....Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1....Respondent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance in Special Civil Application No.1754 of 2017
MR DC DAVE, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MR PA JADEJA, ADVOCATE for
the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS ASMITA PATEL, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 - 2
Appearance in Special Civil Application No.5840 of 2017:
MR APURVA KAPADIA for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS ASMITA PATEL, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 - 2
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.G. SHAH
Date : 09/08/2017
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned senior advocate Mr. D. C. Dave with Mr. P. A. Jadeja for the petitioner in respective matters and learned AGP Ms. Asmita Patel for the respondents in both the matters. Perused the record so also all the original records of the respondent - authority and original thesis in two sets, which are available with the respondents, one of which is received from the University and second is alleged to have been received from the concerned college, so also thesis of one Mr. Vatsal K. Kapadia because there is an allegation that petitioner - Mepalal H. Page 1 of 19 HC-NIC Page 1 of 19 Created On Sun Aug 13 08:06:34 IST 2017 C/SCA/1754/2017 ORDER Lunagaria has copied the thesis of Vatsal Kapadia for confirming his course of Masters of Engineering ('M.E.', for short).
2. The sum and substance of the dispute raised before this court is to the effect that the respondents have by impugned order dated 18.11.2016 imposed punishment of removal from service with a stigma to get any Government service in future for submitting a thesis to secure the degree of M.E. without doing any research work, but by copying the thesis already submitted in past by one Mr. Vatsal Kapadia.
3. Whereas, similar punishment was awarded to the petitioner of Special Civil Application No.5840 of 2017, who has worked as guide of the petitioner - Mepalal H. Lunagaria. Therefore, both the petitions are heard together. The petitioners have prayed to quash and set-aside the impugned order, dismissing petitioner from services and stoppage of five increments with future effect for the petitioner Mr.Mepalal H. Lunagaria. Both the petitioners have also prayed for interim relief to stay the implementation and effect of such order dated 18.11.2016 and, thereby, permitted the petitioner to continue in service till the final outcome of the petitions.
4. In addition to factual submissions, the basic defence of the respondent is only to the effect that since interim relief would result into Page 2 of 19 HC-NIC Page 2 of 19 Created On Sun Aug 13 08:06:34 IST 2017 C/SCA/1754/2017 ORDER allowing the petitions at such admission stage, relief/s cannot be granted. However, discussion herein after would make it clear that the impugned orders are clearly in violation of basic principles of law and purely arbitrary and discriminatory and probably to settle some other issue against the petitioner, so as to ruin his career and, therefore, it cannot be said that only because of lacuna in procedural part of adjudication of such petitions before the court, wherein respondents are trying to take undue advantage of the situation, because once petitions are admitted, it would not be taken-up for final hearing almost for a decade, during which period, petitioners would cross the age of superannuation and, thereby, they may not be taken back on duty, so also considering the roster, whereby this court is assigned with the admission work only, it cannot be said that petitioners are not entitled to appropriate relief/s when otherwise prima facie the entire case is in favour of the petitioners and in absence of interim relief, they would suffer irreparable loss and thereby, balance of convenience is in favour of the petitioners. I have reason to say so because when appointment of the petitioners as otherwise in accordance with law and when there is no complaint about their performance of duties; during their tenure for couple of decades, the decision of the respondent to terminate the petitioners with endorsement Page 3 of 19 HC-NIC Page 3 of 19 Created On Sun Aug 13 08:06:34 IST 2017 C/SCA/1754/2017 ORDER that they are not qualified for any job in Government, specifically confirms that there is some reason beyond the factual details emerging on record to punish the petitioners to such an extent. In this background, it seems that there is substance in the allegations by the petitioner that only because petitioner has taken lead of similarly situated employees to get appropriate service benefits in accordance with pronouncement of judgments by different courts so also interpretation of the G.R.s, which are in favour of the similarly situated employees', department probably has grudge against him and, therefore, department has decided to teach him a lesson. In simple words, it can be said that petitioner is being punished for being a leader of Union though in fact, no Union is in existence as such.
5. If we peruse the factual details, it is undisputed fact that petitioner - Mepalal H. Lunagaria has joined services of respondent No.1 in the year 1990. He was placed in the cadre of Class-I in the subject of Civil Engineering in the year 2004 pursuant to regular selection process conducted by GPSC. Therefore, petitioner has joined the post of Assistant Professor at L.D. College of Engineering, Ahmedabad. Petitioner was permitted to undergo his further studies for Masters degree and he successfully completed the course of Masters of Engineering (CASAD). On 4.8.2012, and petitioners were selected by Departmental Promotion Committee, Page 4 of 19 HC-NIC Page 4 of 19 Created On Sun Aug 13 08:06:34 IST 2017 C/SCA/1754/2017 ORDER which met on 8.2.2012 for the promotion to the post of Associate Professor Class - I (Civil Engineering). However, before getting the actual order of promotion, petitioner has received a show-cause notice dated 18.6.2012 seeking clarification about certain discrepancies in the dissertation (thesis) submitted by the petitioner while pursuing his study for the course of M.E. with allegation of plagiarism that he has copied certain portion of his dissertation from the dissertation of one Mr. Vatsal Kapadia, who had submitted it in the year 2005 at Surat and to show cause that why departmental proceedings should not be initiated against him for the offence as per Rules 3(1)(i) and 3(1)(ii) of the Gujarat Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1971. The allegation in such show-cause notice is to the effect that the petitioner had misused the Government time and money and thus, his integrity and dedication has become questionable and thus, he has violated the rules and made him guilty for punishment. Surprisingly, the petitioner was asked to respond within 7 days to such show-cause notice. When petitioner has asked for relevant documents with copy of thesis of Mr. Vatsal Kapadia and time of 30 days to file reply, respondents have while forwarding the copy of thesis by Mr. Vatsal Kapadia, called upon the petitioner to show cause within three days. On 5.7.2012, petitioner has submitted his reply denying all the allegations. On 21.7.2012, Page 5 of 19 HC-NIC Page 5 of 19 Created On Sun Aug 13 08:06:34 IST 2017 C/SCA/1754/2017 ORDER chargesheet was issued to the petitioner alleging that while pursuing his M.E. degree course, he submitted his thesis, which was a carbon copy of thesis submitted by Mr. Vatsal Kapadia in the year 2005 at Sardar Vallabhbhai National Institute of Technology at Surat and, thus, petitioner had committed gross misconduct. During inquiry, based upon such chargesheet, though nobody is representing the department, the inquiry officer being Special Officer appointed for the purpose, has recorded the statement of the petitioner and statement of one Mr. P. R. Dave, Jt. Director, Directorate of Technical Education had prepared minutes of the proceedings on 3.5.2013. It is evident that from 21.7.2012 till 3.5.2013, respondents could not proceed in such inquiry, which is also a crucial issue. On 15.5.2013, respondents have submitted written submission to such Special Officer appointed for conducting departmental inquiry. On 31.5.2013, petitioner has submitted written statement to the inquiry officer in response to above-referred written submission by the department. On 10.6.2013, Mr. U. C. Rane, the investigating officer has submitted his report. Based upon such report, both the thesis under reference, were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), Gandhinagar, seeking its opinion on the same. The FSL submitted its detailed report and opinion on 18.1.2014 i.e. after six months. Again, after more than 2 months, relying upon the report of Page 6 of 19 HC-NIC Page 6 of 19 Created On Sun Aug 13 08:06:34 IST 2017 C/SCA/1754/2017 ORDER the investigating officer and report submitted by FSL, respondent No.1 has issued another notice to the petitioner, seeking reply or clarification, which is responded by petitioner on 9.4.2014. The respondent No.3 University had confirmed that the petitioner had not indulged in any act of plagiarism and had not copied anything from the thesis of Mr. Vatsal Kapadia. Thereafter, for two years, there was no communication or development in the subject and, therefore, petitioner was under impression that alleged charges against him must have been dropped, but when there was no communication regarding exoneration from departmental proceedings, on 30.5.2016 the petitioner made a representation to clarify his exoneration.
6. In view of above background, it is submitted by the petitioner that when there is no proof of plagiarism by him, and when departmental proceedings were required to be dropped, which was not decided for more than two years, after six months from his representation, all of a sudden, the respondents have declared the petitioner as guilty and punished him by dismissing him from services with stigma to get any Government job herein after by the impugned order. Therefore, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 18.11.2016 with an interim relief to stay the execution and implementation of such order, which would practically result into allowing him to continue Page 7 of 19 HC-NIC Page 7 of 19 Created On Sun Aug 13 08:06:34 IST 2017 C/SCA/1754/2017 ORDER in his service till the final decision of the petition.
7. Respondent No.1 has filed affidavit-in-reply on 7.7.2017 contending that such affidavit is filed only for limited purpose to bring to the notice of the court various documents relating to the inquiry. However, thereafter, in paragraphs 6 to 11, only background and details of petitioner is disclosed. It is to be noted here that respondent No.1 has admitted the position that the Gujarat University had already granted a degree in favour of the petitioner in the year 2009 and it is evident from the record that University has confirmed that there is no plagiarism by the petitioner and, therefore, they have neither taken any action against the petitioner for such allegation nor disturbed his qualification and thus, even today, petitioner is having such qualification without any disturbance. However, it is the case of the respondent that after lapse of some time, an application is received by the office of the deponent being the Under Secretary of Education Department, Gandhinagar that thesis submitted by the petitioner, based on which a degree is awarded to him and his research work, are nothing, but, fraudulently obtained copy of thesis of one of the candidate, who was pursuing his Master study with SVNIT, Surat. Based upon such application, departmental inquiry was proceeded, details of which are discussed herein Page 8 of 19 HC-NIC Page 8 of 19 Created On Sun Aug 13 08:06:34 IST 2017 C/SCA/1754/2017 ORDER above and which is reproduced by the deponent also and, therefore, except recalling following lines, nothing needs to be referred.
"Thus, the petitioner was called upon as to why disciplinary action and penalty as contemplated as under Section 3(ix) and 3(x) of Rule 3 of the Gujarat Civil Services & Conduct Rules, 1971"
Thereafter, the sum and substance of the affidavit-in-reply, which is emerging from paragraphs 16 to 18 is only to the effect that disciplinary authority has agreed with the finding of the inquiry officer after consultation with the GPSC and, therefore, penalty of dismissal has been accorded looking to the serious charges, which are admittedly proved in the departmental inquiry with a Professor like the petitioner has submitted duplicate thesis contending that it cannot be taken lightly and cannot be tolerated in the filed to education.
8. Therefore, now, what is required to be verified are the charges in the form of allegations, basic evidence before the inquiry officer and to observe that if there is any substance in the charges and allegations and that whether there is any evidence to support the impugned order, more particularly, when there is specific report of atleast two authorities, disclosing that the petitioner had not copied thesis of Mr. Kapadia or other research person/s.
Page 9 of 19HC-NIC Page 9 of 19 Created On Sun Aug 13 08:06:34 IST 2017 C/SCA/1754/2017 ORDER It cannot be ignored that these two dissertations are part of the departmental proceedings, which are produced by the concerned authority to the respondents and, therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve such reports. One of such report is by Anant M. Parghi, Asst. Professor, Department of Applied Mech., S.V.N.I.T., Surat, the University where Mr. Kapadia has submitted his thesis. He has by his letter dated 17.8.2012 addressed to the Principal Secretary and Dy.Secretary of Education Department, Government of Gujarat specifically made it clear with clarification of his decision that the petitioner has not copied the dissertation report prepared by Mr. Kapadia or other researchers. It would be appropriate to refer to contents of such letter as it is and, hence, the contents of such letter is reproduced hereunder:-
"Sub.:-Regarding M.E. Dissertation of Mr.M.H. Lunagaria Ref.:-Your letter No.GEC-1912-181-E Dtd.21.7.2012 Dear Sir, With due respect, I would like to state with reference to the above cited subject and your referred letter on dated 21st July-2012, that I have been appointed as an external examiner (Reviever) by Gujarat University for M.E. Dissertation work done by Mr.Lungaria in 2009 at L.D. College of Engineering, Ahmedabad.
I received a copy of Mr. Lungaria's dissertation report duly stamped by the University for review. I had thoroughly reviewed his dissertation. Moreover, I had referred the literature associated with his topic, M.E./M.Tech. Dissertation submitted by earlier researchers through library database and internet resources. I have also referred Mr.Vatsal Kapadia's dissertation report and I compared all the chapters with experimental result with reference to Mr.Lunagaria's work which is absolutely dissimilar in principle.Page 10 of 19
HC-NIC Page 10 of 19 Created On Sun Aug 13 08:06:34 IST 2017 C/SCA/1754/2017 ORDER Mr.Kapadia's dissertation entitled "Experiment Study of High Strength Concrete using Silica fune" for Concrete Grade M40 and M60, whereas Mr.Lunagaria's work is on "Role of Silica fume in the Development of High Strength Concrete" for Concrete Grade of M50 and M70, using locally available materials. Additionally, there is a room for further research work in the same area using silica fume and other admixtures for the various grades of concrete (including above grades).
After thorough study of the other researchers dissertation we had conducted vice-voce exam of Shri Lunagaria's M.E.Dissertation and approved his dissertation as per Gujarat University rules and regulations and I had submitted the result to the University Office.
From above clarification, I can state that Mr.Lungaria had not copied the dissertation report prepared by Mr. Kapadia or other researchers. This is for your information please.
Thanking you,"
9. Similarly, when respondent - State Government has by their letter dated 17.1.2013 called for the opinion on the thesis of the petitioner from L.D. College of Engineering, Dr. M. N. Patel, Principal of L.D. College of Engineering along with Prof. A.M. Malek, Professor and Head of Civil Engineering Department, L.D. College of Engineering had forwarded their opinion on their forwarding letter dated 2.2.2013, initially to the Registrar of Gujarat University, which has in turn forwarded to the respondents. The perusal of such report makes it clear that there is categorical finding by the eminent academicians that the thesis of the petitioner is not found to be direct copy of thesis of Mr. Vatsal Kapadia as alleged by Education Department. It is also stated that work of petitioner is related with Page 11 of 19 HC-NIC Page 11 of 19 Created On Sun Aug 13 08:06:34 IST 2017 C/SCA/1754/2017 ORDER Concrete Mix M50 and M70, whereas work of Shri Kapadia is related to M40 and M60 and subject and title of both the thesis are also different. It is also stated that the petitioner has focused on properties of Concrete with Flexural Strength, Compressive Strength and Tensile Strength of M50 and M70 Concrete; whereas, Shri Kapadia has done research work pertaining to M40 and M60 Grade Concrete. It is further stated that results for M50 and M70 Grade Concrete, disclosed by the petitioner are not found in Shri Kapadia's thesis. Similarly, graphs showing the effect of variation of Silica Fume on Compressive Strength, Tensile Strength and Flexural Strength of M50 and M70 Grade Concrete are not found in Shri Kapadia's thesis. Whereas, Mortar Strength of Concrete Cubes containing Silica Fumes is found in the thesis of Shri Kapadia, but not in the thesis of the petitioner. Similarly, cost analysis is included by Shri Kapadia, but it is not found in petitioner's thesis, but the most important part is photographs showing that the petitioner is conducting the experiment himself, which cannot be part of Shri Kapadia's thesis.
10. So far as common part in both the thesis is concerned, they have specifically mentioned that the design steps are part of standard procedure and, therefore, it is difficult to arrive at a conclusion that petitioner has copied it from the thesis of Shri Kapadia, because the same designed steps are common and available from any sources.
Page 12 of 19HC-NIC Page 12 of 19 Created On Sun Aug 13 08:06:34 IST 2017 C/SCA/1754/2017 ORDER They have also endorsed the opinion of Professor M.H. Aghara, who also confirms that petitioner has not copied. It is stated that it is absolutely dissimilar to the work of Shri Kapadia in principle and they agree to such opinion.
11. It seems that two different thesis were forwarded to them and, therefore, though they have endorsed that they have not entered minutely about truth, correctness, ownership and preparation of relevant thesis, the fact remains that for both the copies, their opinion is common that none of the copy, one of which is with the stamp of the University and another which is unstamped copy, are in any way a direct copy of the thesis of Shri Kapadia. In addition to what is disclosed herein above for stamped copy, they have assigned as many as 13 reasons confirming that even unstamped copy of the petitioner's thesis is not direct copy of Shri Kapadia. All such 13 points are well described on pages 167 and 168 of paper-book and, therefore, I do not want to reproduce it. Though it is stated that except those 13 points, other part is similar to the thesis of Kapadia and thereby, it can be alleged that that part is copied from the thesis of Kapadia. The fact remains that so far as subject like Science and Maths so also Law is concerned, certain information would remain common in all circumstances and, therefore, it cannot be said that only because language is similar, it is a copy of details or research work Page 13 of 19 HC-NIC Page 13 of 19 Created On Sun Aug 13 08:06:34 IST 2017 C/SCA/1754/2017 ORDER of somebody else. For eg. if one has to define Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, the basic concept of murder and homicidal death, would certainly comprise of the definition and, therefore, it cannot be said that the same answer or information has been copied by another person. Similarly in Maths, if 1 + 1 = 2, then, it would be universal for all paper-work by everyone in any manner whatsoever and thereby, it cannot be said that one has copied the answer of another. Similarly, in Science also, certain things would remain unchanged and common for all time to come and, therefore, if somebody has disclosed such scientific result in particular manner and such disclosure is known by two persons, it cannot be said that second person has copied the entire research work - thesis. It is further stated that they have verified the results of the petitioner for M.E. (Semester - I and Semester - II) and found that he has secured 70.19% in 1st Semester and 68.19% in second Semester. Therefore, it is their opinion that a teacher securing distinction in 1st and 2nd Semester shall not dare to submit thesis like unstamped copy, containing many mistakes like irrelevant table numbers, omissions and haphazard presentation. Therefore, prima facie, there are two opinions before the respondents that the petitioner has not copied the thesis of Mr. Kapadia. In view of such prima facie opinion, there is no reason for the respondents to impose such a harsh punishment Page 14 of 19 HC-NIC Page 14 of 19 Created On Sun Aug 13 08:06:34 IST 2017 C/SCA/1754/2017 ORDER like removal from services with stigma to appear in any other Government service thereafter. As against that, respondentis are relying upon the report by the FSL wherein it is stated that pages No.B1 to B9 in the thesis submitted by the petitioner has been found to be changed or replaced. However, for verification of such aspect, on perusal of thesis produced by the respondent before the court, wherein there is allegation that some pages are changed, it becomes clear that those pages are not part of the main contents of the thesis because main thesis starts from page B10 with the index and pages B1 to B9 are preface pages with bar code of the University with rubber stamp of University having certificate and approval sheet signed by concerned authorities with acknowledgment of the petitioner and nothing more. Therefore, those pages are not part of thesis, but they are documents, which are attached on the top of the thesis for its certification, verification, identification of total pages for the thesis. Therefore also, there is no reason to confirm that petitioner has copied thesis of Mr. Kapadia. Whereas, the record also shows that in fact for such report of the FSL, the University has already confirmed that such pages are attached by them and, therefore, they are different from the pages of original thesis and, thereby, when University confirms that there is no jugglery, if at all any found either by the department or by Page 15 of 19 HC-NIC Page 15 of 19 Created On Sun Aug 13 08:06:34 IST 2017 C/SCA/1754/2017 ORDER the FSL, then, it is not by the petitioner because it is admitted position by the University that rebinding of pages was done at their end. In any case, when such copy, which is having stamp of the University and bar code of the University, then, it is the only authenticated copy, which is the original copy received by the department from the college, whereas an unstamped copy, which is alleged to be received from the L.D. College of Engineering may not be considered as an authenticated copy of the thesis. Though respondents have tried to emphasize by submitting that several chapters in the thesis is nothing, but a copy of thesis by Mr. Kapadia; prima facie it seems that there is a dispute with reference to authenticated copy also that which copy is authenticated.
12. However, such issue has been cleared during departmental inquiry, when Mr. M. N. Patel, Principal of L.D. College of Engineering has deposed before the Inquiry Officer wherein presenting officer could not prove anything against the petitioner. Similar is the situation with the deposition of Dr. Yogesh Parekh, Incharge Addl. University Librarian of the University before the Inquiry Officer wherein also, the presenting officer of the respondent could not prove anything against the petitioner. Therefore, the result of departmental inquiry is also not based upon the evidence produced before it except opinion by the department based upon Page 16 of 19 HC-NIC Page 16 of 19 Created On Sun Aug 13 08:06:34 IST 2017 C/SCA/1754/2017 ORDER the copy of thesis verified by them to confirm that petitioner has copied the thesis of Mr. Kapadia. It is surprising to note that in inquiry report, without any evidence to that effect and when photograph of the petitioner doing experimental work is recorded in his thesis and reported by the University, the Inquiry Officer and disciplinary authority had audacity to conclude that no experimental work was ever carried out by the petitioner. Similarly, when there is categorical report by the University, L.D. College of Engineering and Prof. A. M. Parghi of S.V.N.I.T., Surat that petitioner has not copied the thesis of Mr. Kapadia, the Inquiry Officer and disciplinary authority has audacity to hold that the petitioner has copied the thesis as alleged by them. Whereas, so far as petitioner Mr. M. H. Aghara is concerned, the respondents have audacity to allege that he has given misleading statement, though he was nowhere concerned or involved in main thesis.
13. In view of above facts and circumstances, when there is evidence on record so also in the office file of the department, which is scrutinized during the argument and while dictating this order, it is seen that there is no evidence available with the respondents to confirm that the work in the form of thesis by the petitioner is absolutely copied from the work/thesis of Mr. Kapadia. In view of such fact, it cannot be said that petitioners have in any Page 17 of 19 HC-NIC Page 17 of 19 Created On Sun Aug 13 08:06:34 IST 2017 C/SCA/1754/2017 ORDER case failed to maintain absolute integrity or failed to maintain devotion to duty. It is also surprising to note that though punishment is awarded for non-performance of duty, in report of the departmental inquiry, the only conclusion is to the effect that they have misused the time, by indulging in unfair practice with the consent of his guide when he was paid full pay and allowances during his studies. Therefore, the moot question, which is required to be resolved during the final determination of the petitions, would be that whether it amounts to lack of integrity and devotion towards duty or mere negligence or lack of requisite performance. It also needs to be considered that after granting permission for study, if somebody fails and could not clear the examination in first attempt, whether it can be considered as lack of integrity or lack of devotion towards duty. Therefore, matter requires consideration and, hence, rule, returnable on 3.11.2017. Learned AGP waives service of notice of rule for respondents. Interim relief in terms of paragraph 9(B) in Special Civil Application No.1754 of 2017 and paragraph 8(C) in Special Civil Application No.5840 of 2017 is granted till the final disposal of these petitions, which would result into a direction to reinstate the petitioner - Mepalal Hansrajbhai Lunagariya on the post from where he was terminated and to place Mukesh Hirabhai Aghara - petitioner of Special Civil Page 18 of 19 HC-NIC Page 18 of 19 Created On Sun Aug 13 08:06:34 IST 2017 C/SCA/1754/2017 ORDER Application No.5840 of 2017 in same scale as if impugned order was not executed.
14. Though it can be alleged that such interim relief may amount to allowing entire petitions, it goes without saying that when by impugned order, respondents have put the petitioner in such a condition whereby he cannot earn his livelihood herein after, and when except the present dispute between the parties, entire career of the petitioner is otherwise neat and clean, and more particularly when petitioner would get salary only after performing his duties, and, therefore, at the most, respondents may press for early hearing and determination of main petition at the earliest. For the purpose, it is made clear that petition requires to be expedited and be listed for hearing at the earliest. However, refusal of interim relief would result into irreparable loss, inconvenience and stigma in the life of the petitioner. There is a condition that he is not entitled to any Government job, there is no option, but to grant interim relief as prayed for considering the facts, circumstance and discussion herein above.
15. Parties shall complete the pleadings on or before 16.10.2017
16. Direct service is permitted.
(S.G. SHAH, J.) binoy Page 19 of 19 HC-NIC Page 19 of 19 Created On Sun Aug 13 08:06:34 IST 2017