Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai
Karkela Shivaji Arya vs M/O Labour on 17 April, 2026
1
O.A. No. 265/2019
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI BENCH, MUMBAI
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 265/2019
Order reserved on:11.12.2025
Order pronounced on:17.04.2026
Hon'ble Mr. Justice M. G. Sewlikar, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Sangam Narain Srivastava, Member (A)
Karkela Shivaji Arya
Retired Regional
Provident Fund Commissioner
Grade-I,
Presently resident of C-704,
Nazrene Apartment Kharodi,
Marve Road, Malad (West),
Mumbai- 400095. ...Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Anupam Chattopadhyay)
Versus
1. Union of India Through the Secretary,
Government of India, Ministry of Labour &
Employment, Sharam Shakti Bhavan,
Rafi marg, New Delhi-110001.
2. The Central Provident fund Commissioner,
Employees Provident Fund Organization,
Ministry of Labour and Employment,
Head Office, 14, Bhikaji Cama Place.
Digitally signed by Abhishek
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6154, OID.2.5.4.65=
New Delhi-110066. ...Respondents
(By Advocate: Dr. V.S. Masurkar a/w Mr. D.A. Dube)
f28f2fbc5f714cb8bbe47e219697b88b, Phone=
Abhishek
79e4b0eae75371db339188c432b404cdd337994a10a3176ada063035852
6b47d, PostalCode=110040, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER=
9c4be475bf23922d93317b590390a4f38be48c0c867b19fa366ffe4870980
c5a, CN=Abhishek
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.04.29 12:48:41+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
2
O.A. No. 265/2019
ORDER
Per: Justice M. G. Sewlikar, Member (J)
By this application, the applicant is challenging the order dated 14.12.2018 (Annexure- A/1) whereby his pension has been cut by 30% for a period of 7 years.
2. Facts can be summarised thus:
3. The applicant joined Employees Provident Fund Organization (EPFO) as a Provident Fund Inspector Grade-I on 10.12.1982. He was promoted as Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Grade-I in March, 2006.
4. CBI filed a charge sheet bearing CBI Special Case No. 2 of 2010 under Section 13(1)(e) read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 and under Section 109 of Indian Penal Code, alleging that the applicant possessed assets, disproportionate to his known sources of income. The son of the applicant was also prosecuted by CBI. The Special Judge, CBI Court convicted the applicant and his son and sentenced Digitally signed by Abhishek DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6154, OID.2.5.4.65= f28f2fbc5f714cb8bbe47e219697b88b, Phone= Abhishek 79e4b0eae75371db339188c432b404cdd337994a10a3176ada063035852 6b47d, PostalCode=110040, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 9c4be475bf23922d93317b590390a4f38be48c0c867b19fa366ffe4870980 c5a, CN=Abhishek Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
them with two years of rigorous imprisonment and fine of Date: 2026.04.29 12:48:41+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 Rs.30,000/- each (Annexure-A/3).3 O.A. No. 265/2019
5. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the Special Judge of CBI Court, the applicant preferred criminal Appeal No.58/2016. The applicant had filed an application No.118/2016 under Section 389 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. The applicant was released on bail and his sentence has been suspended.
6. EPFO adopted Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules 1972, vide Gazette notification dated 25th September, 2008 (Annexure-A/6).
7. It is further alleged that in the month of May, 2018, show cause proposing imposition of penalty of reduction of pension by 30% for 7 years was issued by the respondents and the applicant was called upon to make representation on the same. The applicant tendered his representation on 31st May, 2018. In the said representation, applicant contended that there is no provision in Pension rules, akin to Rule 19(1) of CCS CCA rules. Simply by reason of conviction recorded by Digitally signed by Abhishek DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6154, OID.2.5.4.65= f28f2fbc5f714cb8bbe47e219697b88b, Phone= Abhishek 79e4b0eae75371db339188c432b404cdd337994a10a3176ada063035852 6b47d, PostalCode=110040, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 9c4be475bf23922d93317b590390a4f38be48c0c867b19fa366ffe4870980 c5a, CN=Abhishek Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
competent Court, without inquiry no penalty can be imposed Date: 2026.04.29 12:48:41+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 on the government servant. The respondents vide impugned order dated 14.12.2018 (Annexure-A/1) imposed the 4 O.A. No. 265/2019 aforesaid punishment of reduction of pension by 30% for 07 years. This order is under challenge in this OA.
8. The applicant has contended that in terms of judgment of Supreme Court, in the case of Akhtari Bi Vs. State of M.P. (Criminal Appeal No.320/2001) the Apex Court held that "appeal being a statutory right, the Trial Court's verdict does not attain finality during the pendency of the appeal and for that purpose, his trial is deemed to be conducted despite conviction". He contends that since the applicant has preferred appeal and it is still pending and sentence is suspended, the respondents cannot impose punishment, though, conviction is not stayed. He also contends that in terms of Rule 9 of Pension Rules 1972, before imposing punishment, advice of UPSC has to be taken. In the case at hand, the respondents have not taken advice of UPSC and on this ground alone, the application needs to be allowed.
9. Respondents filed their written statement contending Digitally signed by Abhishek DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6154, OID.2.5.4.65= f28f2fbc5f714cb8bbe47e219697b88b, Phone= Abhishek 79e4b0eae75371db339188c432b404cdd337994a10a3176ada063035852 6b47d, PostalCode=110040, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 9c4be475bf23922d93317b590390a4f38be48c0c867b19fa366ffe4870980 c5a, CN=Abhishek Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
that once a public servant is convicted and conviction is not Date: 2026.04.29 12:48:41+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 stayed, the respondents/employer are permitted to take disciplinary action against the government servant. They 5 O.A. No. 265/2019 further contend that Ministry of Labour and Employment vide letter dated 18th September, 2015 has issued clarification regarding consultation with UPSC in pension cut cases under Rule 9(1) of Pension Rules 1972. It is stated that consequent upon adoption of Pension Rules 1972 by the EPFO vide resolution dated 25th September, 2008, the question has been under consideration of the Ministry whether the cases relating to disciplinary proceedings against retired employees of the EPFO needs consultation with the UPSC, as per provisions contained under Rule 9 of CCS Pension Rules 1972. It is stated in the letter dated 18th September, 2015 that the matter has been examined in this Ministry in consultation with the Department of Pension and Pensioner's Welfare, UPSC and Department of Personnel and Training and law Ministry and as per the advice/comments tendered by the DoPT/Department of Pension, UPSC as well as Law Ministry, it has been decided that there shall be no need to consult UPSC in disciplinary cases, in respect of retired employees of Digitally signed by Abhishek DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6154, OID.2.5.4.65= f28f2fbc5f714cb8bbe47e219697b88b, Phone= Abhishek 79e4b0eae75371db339188c432b404cdd337994a10a3176ada063035852 6b47d, PostalCode=110040, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 9c4be475bf23922d93317b590390a4f38be48c0c867b19fa366ffe4870980 c5a, CN=Abhishek Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
the EPFO. They therefore, prayed for dismissal of the OA. Date: 2026.04.29 12:48:41+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
10. We have heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for the respondents.
6O.A. No. 265/2019
11. Learned counsel for the applicant raised only two points;
(i) that there is no provision in Pension Rules 1972 analogous to Section 19 of CCS CCA Rules. He contended that there is no provision empowering the respondents/disciplinary authority to impose punishment on the basis of conviction recorded by the competent Criminal Court. Unless there is any provision, the action of the respondents/disciplinary authority is without jurisdiction.
(ii) The respondents ought to have sought the advice of the UPSC, in terms of proviso to Rule 9(1) of Pension Rules 1972.
12. The respondents did not seek any advice from the UPSC and, therefore, the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority is against the provisions of Rule 9 of Pension Rules 1972 and, therefore, the punishment is bad in law.
13. He submitted that the respondents have contended that the Ministry of Labour and Employment has passed an OM, in consultation with the UPSC and other stake holders to the Digitally signed by Abhishek DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6154, OID.2.5.4.65= f28f2fbc5f714cb8bbe47e219697b88b, Phone= Abhishek 79e4b0eae75371db339188c432b404cdd337994a10a3176ada063035852 6b47d, PostalCode=110040, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 9c4be475bf23922d93317b590390a4f38be48c0c867b19fa366ffe4870980 c5a, CN=Abhishek Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
effect that consultation with, UPSC is not necessary, in Date: 2026.04.29 12:48:41+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 respect of retired employees. However, they have not produced any OM to that effect. The respondents have 7 O.A. No. 265/2019 produced Gazette notification dated 25th September, 2008 vide which Employees Provident Fund (Officers and Employees Pension Service Regulation Rules) 2008 have been brought into force. These rules do not speak anything about the memorandum which the respondents have alleged. Nor is there any rule doing away with the consultation with UPSC by EPFO. The applicant has produced the UPSC (Exemption from Consultation) Regulations 1958 dated 01st September, 1958. He submitted that there is nothing in this notification to show that in consultation with UPSC is done away with.
Therefore, the order passed by the respondents/disciplinary authority is bad in law and deserves to be set aside.
14. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the respondents have passed an OM, in which, it is specifically stated that consultation with UPSC is not needed in case of retired employees. He further submitted that once a conviction is recorded and conviction is not stayed, the employer is authorised to initiate action for imposition of Digitally signed by Abhishek DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6154, OID.2.5.4.65= f28f2fbc5f714cb8bbe47e219697b88b, Phone= Abhishek 79e4b0eae75371db339188c432b404cdd337994a10a3176ada063035852 6b47d, PostalCode=110040, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 9c4be475bf23922d93317b590390a4f38be48c0c867b19fa366ffe4870980 c5a, CN=Abhishek punishment.
Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.04.29 12:48:41+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 8 O.A. No. 265/2019
15. We have given thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by learned counsel for the respective parties.
16. The contention of the applicant that once an appeal is admitted against conviction and sentence is suspended then, till the decision of the appeal, no action by the department can be taken as regards conviction till the decision of appeal. The position in this regard is settled. In the case of Union of India vs. V.K. Bhaskar, (1997) 11 SCC 383, it has been held by placing reliance on the case of Dy. Director of Collegiate Education (Admn.) v. S. Nagoor Meera, (1995) 3 SCC 377 that passing orders of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of a government servant who has been convicted by a criminal court is not barred merely because the sentence or order is suspended by the appellate court or on the ground that the said government servant- accused has been released on bail pending the appeal. Full Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Ashok Kumar Purwar vs. Union of India & Ors. in OA No. Digitally signed by Abhishek DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6154, OID.2.5.4.65= f28f2fbc5f714cb8bbe47e219697b88b, Phone= Abhishek 79e4b0eae75371db339188c432b404cdd337994a10a3176ada063035852 6b47d, PostalCode=110040, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 9c4be475bf23922d93317b590390a4f38be48c0c867b19fa366ffe4870980 c5a, CN=Abhishek 213/2019 dated 02nd November, 2023 in which I (Justice Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.04.29 12:48:41+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 M.G. Sewlikar) was a party has rendered the same decision.9 O.A. No. 265/2019
17. Rule 8 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 specifies the action to be taken in case of a pensioner having been convicted of a serious offence by court of law. Rule 8 reads thus:-
"8. Pension subject to future good conduct (1) (a) Future good conduct shall be an implied condition of every grant of pension and its continuance under these rules.
(b) The appointing authority may, by order in writing, withhold or withdraw a pension or a part thereof, whether permanently or for a specified period, if the pensioner is convicted of a serious crime or is found guilty of grave misconduct.
Provided that where a part of pension is withheld or withdrawn, the amount of such pension shall not be reduced below the amount of [rupees three hundred and seventy-five] per mensem. (2) Where a pensioner is convicted of a serious crime by a Court of Law, action under sub-rule (1) shall be taken in the light of the judgment of the court relating to such conviction."
18. Rule 1(a) states that future good conduct shall be an implied condition for grant of pension and its continuance. Rule 1(b) states that the appointing authority may, by order in writing, withhold or withdraw a pension or a part thereof in case the pensioner is convicted of a serious crime or is found guilty of grave misconduct. Sub rule (2) provides that when a pensioner is convicted of a serious crime by a Court Digitally signed by Abhishek DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6154, OID.2.5.4.65= of Law, action under sub-rule (1) shall be taken in the light of f28f2fbc5f714cb8bbe47e219697b88b, Phone= Abhishek 79e4b0eae75371db339188c432b404cdd337994a10a3176ada063035852 6b47d, PostalCode=110040, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 9c4be475bf23922d93317b590390a4f38be48c0c867b19fa366ffe4870980 c5a, CN=Abhishek Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.04.29 12:48:41+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 the judgment of the court relating to such conviction.10 O.A. No. 265/2019
19. This Rule clearly provides that departmental inquiry is not required to be initiated if a pensioner is found guilty of a serious crime by Court of Law and the appointing authority is competent to take action under sub-rule (1) in the light of the judgment of the Court relating to such conviction.
20. Similar provision is found in Rule 9 of CCS (Pension) Rules. Rule 9 reads as under:-
"9. Right of President to withhold or withdraw pension [(1) The President reserves to himself the right of withholding a pension or gratuity, or both, either in full or in part, or withdrawing a pension in full or in part, whether permanently or for a specified period, and of ordering recovery from a pension or gratuity of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government, if, in any departmental or judicial proceedings, the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of service, including service rendered upon re-employment after retirement:
Provided that the Union Public Service Commission shall be consulted before any final orders are passed:
Provided further that where a part of pension is withheld or withdrawn the amount of such pensions shall not be reduced below the amount of rupees three hundred and seventy-five per mensem.] (2) (a) The departmental proceedings referred to in Digitally signed by Abhishek DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6154, OID.2.5.4.65= f28f2fbc5f714cb8bbe47e219697b88b, Phone= Abhishek 79e4b0eae75371db339188c432b404cdd337994a10a3176ada063035852 6b47d, PostalCode=110040, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 9c4be475bf23922d93317b590390a4f38be48c0c867b19fa366ffe4870980 c5a, CN=Abhishek Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.04.29 12:48:41+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 sub-rule (1), if instituted while the Government servant was in service whether before his retirement or during his re-employment, shall, after the final retirement of the Government servant, be deemed to be proceedings under this rule and shall be continued and concluded 11 O.A. No. 265/2019 by the authority by which they were commenced in the same manner as if the Government servant had continued in service:
Provided that where the departmental proceedings are instituted by an authority subordinate to the President, that authority shall submit a report recording its findings to the President.
(b) The departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the Government servant was in service, whether before his retirement, or during his re-employment, -
(i) shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the President,
(ii) shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution, and
(iii) shall be conducted by such authority and in such place as the President may direct and in accordance with the procedure applicable to departmental proceedings in which an order of dismissal from service could be made in relation to the Government servant during his service.
(3) omitted.
(4) In the case of Government servant who has retired on attaining the age of superannuation or otherwise and against whom any departmental or judicial proceedings are instituted or where departmental proceedings are continued under sub-rule (2), a provisional pension as provided in 2[Rule 69] shall be sanctioned.
(5) Where the President decides not to withhold or withdraw pension but orders recovery of pecuniary loss from pension, the recovery shall not ordinarily be made at a rate exceeding one-third of Digitally signed by Abhishek DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6154, OID.2.5.4.65= f28f2fbc5f714cb8bbe47e219697b88b, Phone= the pension admissible on the date of retirement of Abhishek 79e4b0eae75371db339188c432b404cdd337994a10a3176ada063035852 6b47d, PostalCode=110040, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= a Government servant.
9c4be475bf23922d93317b590390a4f38be48c0c867b19fa366ffe4870980 c5a, CN=Abhishek Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.04.29 12:48:41+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 (6) For the purpose of this rule, -
(a) departmental proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted on the date on which the statement of charges is issued to the 12 O.A. No. 265/2019 Government servant or pensioner, or if the Government servant has been placed under suspension from an earlier date, on such date ;
and
(b) judicial proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted -
(i) in the case of criminal proceedings, on the date on which the complaint or report of a police officer, of which the Magistrate takes cognizance, is made, and
(ii) in the case of civil proceedings, on the date the plaint is presented in the court.
21. This Rule empowers the President to withdraw pension or gratuity or both either in full or in part, either permanently or for a specified period, if in any departmental or judicial proceedings, the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct.
22. It is pertinent to note that Rule 9 does not contemplate initiation of an inquiry, if pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct in any judicial proceedings. The President can simply impose punishment in the light of the judgment relating to conviction. The President is not required to initiate Digitally signed by Abhishek DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6154, OID.2.5.4.65= f28f2fbc5f714cb8bbe47e219697b88b, Phone= inquiry to find out whether it is a grave misconduct. In the Abhishek 79e4b0eae75371db339188c432b404cdd337994a10a3176ada063035852 6b47d, PostalCode=110040, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 9c4be475bf23922d93317b590390a4f38be48c0c867b19fa366ffe4870980 c5a, CN=Abhishek Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.04.29 12:48:41+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 light of the judgment relating to conviction, the President has to take a call as to whether it is a grave misconduct.
Therefore, there is no force in the contention of the learned 13 O.A. No. 265/2019 counsel for the applicant that there is no provision which empowers the President to impose punishment on conviction in a judicial proceedings akin to Rule 19 of CCS (CCA) Rules, departmental proceedings are not contemplated in respect of a pensioner having been convicted by a competent court of law.
23. The applicant has been convicted of the offence punishable under Rule 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and has been sentenced accordingly. This clearly shows that the applicant was found guilty of the corrupt practices which is a grave misconduct. Once a competent court find a pensioner guilty of corrupt practices under Prevention of Corruption Act, the only logical corollary is imposition of punishment as contemplated under Rule 9 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.
24. So far as, consultation with UPSC is concerned, the applicant has produced UPSC (Exemption from Consultation Regulations) 1958 (Exemption Regulations). Regulation 5 is Digitally signed by Abhishek DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6154, OID.2.5.4.65= f28f2fbc5f714cb8bbe47e219697b88b, Phone= Abhishek 79e4b0eae75371db339188c432b404cdd337994a10a3176ada063035852 6b47d, PostalCode=110040, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 9c4be475bf23922d93317b590390a4f38be48c0c867b19fa366ffe4870980 c5a, CN=Abhishek important for our purpose. It reads thus; Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.04.29 12:48:41+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 (1). It shall not be necessary to consult the Commission in regard to the making of any order in any disciplinary case other than:14 O.A. No. 265/2019
(a) an original order by the President imposing any of the following penalties:-
(i) Censure
(ii) Withholding of increment or promotion;
(iii) recovery from the pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government by negligence or breach of orders;
(iv) reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay for a specified period, with further directions as to whether or not the Government servant will earn increments of pay during the period of such reduction and whether on expiry of such period, the reduction will or will not have the effect of postponing the future increments of his pay;
(iv)(a) reduction to a lower time scale of pay, grade, post or Service with or without further directions regarding conditions of restoration to the grade or post or service from which the Government servant was reduced and his seniority and pay on such restoration to that grade, post or service;
(v) compulsory retirement;
(vi) removal from service;
(vii) dismissal from service;
(b) an order by the President on an appeal against an order imposing any of the said penalties made by a subordinate authority;
(c) an order by the President over-ruling or modifying after consideration of any petition or memorial or otherwise, an order imposing any of the said penalties made by the President or by a subordinate authority;
(d) an order by the President imposing any of the said penalties in exercise of his powers of review and in modification of an order under which none of the said penalties has been imposed.
(2) It shall not be necessary to consult the commission in regard to any disciplinary matter affecting a person belonging to a Defence Service (Civilian).
25. This resolution clearly states that it will be necessary to Digitally signed by Abhishek DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6154, OID.2.5.4.65= f28f2fbc5f714cb8bbe47e219697b88b, Phone= Abhishek 79e4b0eae75371db339188c432b404cdd337994a10a3176ada063035852 6b47d, PostalCode=110040, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 9c4be475bf23922d93317b590390a4f38be48c0c867b19fa366ffe4870980 c5a, CN=Abhishek Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.04.29 12:48:41+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 consult the commission, if, the disciplinary authority is proposing to pass the orders mentioned in regulation 5(1) of 15 O.A. No. 265/2019 Exemption Regulations. This Rule 5(1) clearly stipulates that, if, the punishment to be imposed is one of those mentioned in regulation 5(1) of Exemption Regulations consultation with UPSC is mandatory. This regulation 5(1) does not speak about the punishment to be imposed under Rule 9(1) of Pension Rules 1972. These regulations themselves, make it clear that, if the conviction in judicial proceedings of a pensioner for grave misconduct i.e. corrupt practices is recorded, consultation with UPSC is not necessary. In these circumstances, there was nothing wrong in non-consulting UPSC. So far as, non-consultation with UPSC is concerned while imposing punishment with respect to curtail pension to the extent of 30% for 7 years. We, therefore, do not find any merit in this Original Application. Hence, it is dismissed with no orders as to costs.
(Sangam Narain Srivastava) (Justice M. G. Sewlikar) Digitally signed by Abhishek DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6154, OID.2.5.4.65= f28f2fbc5f714cb8bbe47e219697b88b, Phone= Abhishek 79e4b0eae75371db339188c432b404cdd337994a10a3176ada063035852 6b47d, PostalCode=110040, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 9c4be475bf23922d93317b590390a4f38be48c0c867b19fa366ffe4870980 c5a, CN=Abhishek Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Member, (A) Member (J)
Date: 2026.04.29 12:48:41+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
A*