Madhya Pradesh High Court
Radheshyam Vishwakarma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 December, 2024
1
WP No. 26077 -2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
WRIT PETITION NO. 26077 of 2019
RADHESHYAM VISHWAKARMA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
.........................................................................................................
Appearance:
Shri Dhananjay Kumar Mishra - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Dilip Parihar - Panel Lawyer for the respondents /State.
..........................................................................................................
ORDER
(Reserved on :- 09.12.2024) (Pronounced on :- 20 .12.2024) The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 22.02.2019 passed by the State Government (Annexure P-16) whereby the entire pension has been permanently withdrawn.
2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of present petition are that the petitioner was working on the post of Inspector in the office of Registrar Firms and Societies, Madhya Pradesh and while he was in service, the petitioner was involved in a criminal case under Section 13(1), 13(2) and Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act. The trial was conducted in Special Sessions Trial No.15/2001 in the Court of Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act) Bhopal and vide judgment dated 23.11.2006 the petitioner has been convicted of the aforesaid offences under the Signature Not Verified Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR SARATHE Signing time: 20-12-2024 4:58:54 PM 2 WP No. 26077 -2019 provisions of Prevention of Corruption and sentenced to R.I. of 1 year each under each of the said provisions and fine with default stipulations. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has challenged the aforesaid conviction and sentence before this Court by filing CRA No.2395/2006 wherein the petitioner has been granted suspension of sentence by this Court and the said appeal is still pending before this Court for final hearing.
3. The petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 31.10.2004 while the Sessions Trial was pending against him and after his conviction on 23.11.2006, the State passed an order dated 07.12.2006 (Annexure P-8) thereby permanently withdrawing the pension payable to the petitioner in terms of Rule 9(1) of M.P. Civil Services Pension Rules, 1976 (for short 'Rules of 1976').
4. The aforesaid order was challenged before this Court by the petitioner by filing WP. No.1960/2007 and the said petition was decided by this Court on 11.10.2018 vide Annexure P-13 and the order of stoppage of pension was set aside by this Court while relying on the judgment of Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Sewak Mishra Vs. The State of M.P. & Anr. 2017(4) MPLJ 428 wherein Full Bench had held that even for a person convicted in a criminal trial, before passing any order of stoppage of pension, granting opportunity of hearing is must. Thereafter, the State has passed a fresh order dated 22.02.2019 vide Annexure P-16 which is now impugned in the present petition and again an order permanently withdrawing the entire pension of the petitioner has been passed.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the aforesaid order of permanent stoppage of pension vide Annexure P-16 has raised the sole ground that the said order has been passed in terms of Rule 8 and Rule Signature Not Verified Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR SARATHE Signing time: 20-12-2024 4:58:54 PM 3 WP No. 26077 -2019 9 of M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 and as per Rule 9 of the Rules of 1976, the competent authority is the Governor and the order not having been passed by the Governor personally but having been passed by the Executive Government i.e. Secretary in the name of Governor, therefore, the order is absolutely without jurisdiction and it is only the Governor who is competent and authorized to pass an order of stopping pension in term of Rule 9 of Rules of 1976 and therefore, the order should be set aside on this count. Reliance is placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Brajendra Singh Yambem v. Union of India reported in (2016) 9 SCC 20 to contend that stoppage of pension is not an executive power but statutory power in terms of Article 309 of the Constitution of India. It is argued that the earlier judgment of Supreme Court which was rendered by a two judges Bench in the case of State of M.P. v. Yashwant Trimbak reported in (1996) 2 SCC 305 has been distinguished in the subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Brajendra Singh Yambem (supra). Therefore, this Court should quash the order dated 22.02.2019.
6. Per Contra, the order is defended by the counsel for the State on the ground that the order of stoppage of pension can be validly passed by authority who is empowered under the Rules of Business of Executive Government framed under Article 166 of the Constitution of India and order is not required to be issued personally by the Governor because the powers under Rules 8 & 9 M.P. Civil Services Pension Rules are not statutory powers under the Constitution but are merely executive powers which can be exercised in terms of Rules of Business of executive Government of the State framed under Article 166 of the Constitution of India.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR SARATHE Signing time: 20-12-2024 4:58:54 PM 4WP No. 26077 -2019
7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. In the present case, the petitioner was subjected to a criminal case under the various provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act and the petitioner has been convicted under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to jail imprisonment and fine by the Special Sessions Court vide judgment dated 23.11.2006. The appeal against said conviction and sentence is pending before this Court and he has been granted benefit of suspension of sentence.
9. Consequent to conviction of the petitioner, the State Government initially passed an order stopping pension of the petitioner vide Annexure P-8 which was set aside by this Court in earlier round of litigation in WP No.1960/2007 on 11.08.2018 relying on a Full Bench judgment of this Court in case of Ram Sewak Mishra (supra). The said judgment in the case of Ram Sewak Mishra (supra) has subsequently been held not to be a good law by a larger Bench comprising of 5 judges of this Court in the case of Lal Sahab Bairagi Vs. The State of M.P. and Ors. reported in 2020 (2) MPLJ 551 which was vehemently argued by the counsel for the State. However, since the earlier petition had already been allowed relying on the Full Bench judgment in the case of Ram Sevak Mishra (supra) and a fresh order of stoppage of pension has now been passed, the aspect of opportunity of hearing granted to the petitioner while passing earlier pension stoppage order (Annexure P-8) is now insignificant because this Court is only required to see the legality or otherwise of the fresh order Annexure P-16 dated 22.02.2019.
10. The sole contention raised by the petitioner was that the order should have been passed by the Governor personally and could not be passed by Signature Not Verified Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR SARATHE Signing time: 20-12-2024 4:58:54 PM 5 WP No. 26077 -2019 the competent authority with approval of Council of Ministers under the Rules of Business of Executive Government of the State. Reliance was placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Brajendra Singh Yambem (supra). Before appreciating the aforesaid contention, Rule 8 & 9 of M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 are required to be considered which are reads as under:-
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 pension sanctioning authority may, by order in writing withhold or withdraw a pension or 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 no such order shall be passed by an authority subordinate to the authority competent at the time of retirement of the pensioner, to make an appointment to the post held by him immediately before his retirement from service:
Provided further that where a part of pension is withheld or withdrawn, the amount of such pension shall not be reduced below [the minimum pension as determined by the Government from time to time] (2) Where a pensioner is convicted of a serious crime by a Court of law, action under clause (b) of sub-rule (1) shall be taken in the light of the judgement of the Court relating to such conviction.
(3) In a case not falling under sub-rule (2), if the authority referred to in sub-rule (1) considers that the pensioner is prima facie guilty of grave misconduct, it shall before passing an order under sub-rule (1)
(a) serve upon the pensioner a notice specifying the action proposed to be taken against him and the ground on which it is proposed to be taken and calling upon him to submit, within fifteen days of the receipt of the notice or such further time not exceeding fifteen Signature Not Verified Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR SARATHE Signing time: 20-12-2024 4:58:54 PM 6 WP No. 26077 -2019 days as may be allowed by the pension sanctioning authority, such representation as he may wish to make against the proposal; and
(b) take into consideration the representation, if any, submitted by the pensioner under clause (a). (4) Where the authority competent to pass an order under sub-rule (1) is the Governor, the State Public Service Commission shall be consulted before the order is passed.
(5) An appeal against an order under sub-rule (1); passed by any authority other than the Governor, shall lie to the Governor and the Governor shall in consultation with the State Public Service Commission pass such order on the appeal as he deems fit.
Explanation. - In this rule,-
(a)the expression "serious crime" includes a crime involving an offence under the Official Secrets Act 1923 (No. 19 of 1923);
(b)the expression "grave misconduct" includes the communication or disclosure of any secret official code or pass word or any sketch, plan, model, article, note, document or information such as is mentioned in Section 5 of the Official Secrets Act, while holding office under the government so as to prejudicially affect the interests of the general public, or the security of the country.
[Note- The Provisions of this rule shall also be applicable to family pension payable under Rules 47 and 48. The authority competent to make an appointment to the post held by the deceased Government servant/ pensioner immediately before the death or retirement from the service, as the case may be, shall be the competent authority to withhold or withdraw any part of family pension.]
9. Right of Governor to withhold or withdraw pension.
(1)The Governor reserves to himself the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or part thereof, whether permanently or for a specified period, and of ordering recovery from pension of Signature Not Verified Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR SARATHE Signing time: 20-12-2024 4:58:54 PM 7 WP No. 26077 -2019 the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government if, in any departmental or judicial proceeding, the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his service, including service rendered upon re-employment after retirement:
Provided that the State 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 pension shall not be reduced below [the minimum pension as determined by the Government from time to time];
(2)(a) The departmental proceedings [xxx] [Omitted by Notification No. FB-25-31-95-PWC-IV, dated 22-12-1995 (w.e.f.
26-1-1996).], 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 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 Governor, that authority shall submit a report regarding its findings to the Governor.
(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 Governor;
(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 Government may direct and in accordance with the procedure applicable to departmental proceedings:
(a)in which an order of dismissal from service could be made in relation to the Government Signature Not Verified Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR SARATHE Signing time: 20-12-2024 4:58:54 PM 8 WP No. 26077 -2019 servant during his service in case it is proposed to withhold or withdraw a pension or part thereof whether permanently or for a specified period; or
(b)in which an order of recovery from his pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused by him to the Government by negligence or breach of orders could be made in relation to the Government servant during his service if it is proposed to order recovery from his pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government].
(3) No judicial proceeding, if not instituted while the Government servant was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment, shall be instituted in respect of a cause of action which arose or in respect of an event which took place, more than four years before such institution.
(4)In the case of a 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 and death-cum-retirement gratuity as provided in [Rule 64] [Substituted by Notification No. B-
6-1-77-PWC-IV, dated 26-8-1996 (w.e.f. 1-2-1977).], as the case may be, shall be sanctioned :
[Provided that where pension has already been finally sanctioned to a Government servant prior to institution of departmental proceedings, the Governor may, by order in writing, withhold, with effect from the date of institution of such departmental proceedings fifty per cent of the pension so sanctioned subject however that the pension payable after such withholding is not reduced to less than [the minimum pension as determined by the Government from time to time] :
Provided further that where departmental proceedings have been instituted prior to the 25th October, 1978, the first proviso shall have effect as it for Signature Not Verified Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR SARATHE Signing time: 20-12-2024 4:58:54 PM 9 WP No. 26077 -2019 the words "with effect from the date of institution of such proceedings" the words "with effect from a date not later than thirty days from the date aforementioned," had been substituted :
Provided also that-
(a)If the departmental proceedings are not completed within a period of one year from the date of institution thereof, fifty per cent of the pension withheld shall stand restored on the expiration of the aforesaid period of one year;
(b)If the departmental proceedings are not completed within a period of two years from the date of institution the entire amount of pension so withheld shall stand restored on the expiration of the aforesaid period of two years; and
(c) If in the departmental proceedings final order is passed to withhold or withdraw the pension or any recovery is ordered, the order shall be deemed to take effect from the date of the institution of departmental proceedings and the amount, of pension since withheld shall be adjusted in terms of the final order subject to the limit specified in sub-rule (5) of Rule 43]. (5)Where the Government decides not to withhold or withdraw pension but orders recovery of pecuniary loss from pension, the recovery shall not be made at a rate exceeding one-third of the pension admissible on the date of retirement of a Government servant. (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 Government servant or pensioner, or if the Government servant has been placed under suspension from an earlier date, on such date; and Signature Not Verified Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR SARATHE Signing time: 20-12-2024 4:58:54 PM 10 WP No. 26077 -2019
(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.
11. As per Rule 8, pension is subject to future good conduct and for withdrawal of pension under Rule-8, the pension sanctioning authority is competent in case where there is conviction of pensioner for a serious crime in a criminal case or having been found guilty of grave misconduct. There is no requirement in Rule 8 that the order should be passed by the Governor. However, Rule 9 of the Pension Rules provides that the Governor has the right to withhold or withdraw pension and the impugned order Annexure P-16 has been passed by relying on Rule 8 as well as Rule 9 of M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules and therefore, it has been argued that since Rule 9 has also been pressed into service by the State, therefore, the order should have been passed by the Governor himself.
12. The powers conferred on the Governor under various service rules framed under Article 309 of Constitution of India have been considered in detail by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of State of M.P. v. P.N. Raikwar reported in ILR 2018 MP 2696 (FB) in which case the Full Bench of this Court has considered the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Brajendra Singh Yambem (supra) in detail so also the earlier judgments on the point and after considering the entire law on the subject, the Full Bench has held that in the case of Brajendra Singh Yambem (supra) the earlier judgment of 7 Judges Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Samsher Singh v. State of Punjab, (1974) 2 SCC 831 so also Signature Not Verified Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR SARATHE Signing time: 20-12-2024 4:58:54 PM 11 WP No. 26077 -2019 the three judges Bench judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Sripati Ranjan Biswas, (1975) 4 SCC 699 was not brought to the attention of the Supreme Court.
13. The Full Bench considered the judgment of 7 judges bench in Samsher Singh (supra) which reads as under:-
"31. Further the Rules of Business and allocation of Business among the Ministers are relatable to the provisions contained in Article 53 in the case of the President and Article 154 in the case of the Governor, that the executive power shall be exercised by the President or the Governor directly or through the officers subordinate. The provisions contained in Article 74 in the case of the President and Article 163 in the case of the Governor that there shall be a Council of Ministers to aid and advise the President or the Governor, as the case may be, are sources of the Rules of Business. These provisions are for the discharge of the executive powers and functions of the Government in the name of the President or the Governor. Where functions entrusted to a Minister are performed by an official employed in the Minister's department there is in law no delegation because constitutionally the act or decision of the official is that of the Minister. The official is merely the machinery for the discharge of the functions entrusted to a Minister (see Halsbury's Laws of England 4th Ed., Vol. I, paragraph 748 at p. 170 and Carltona Ltd. v. Works Commissioners [(1943) 2 All ER 560] ).
44. The distinction made by this Court between the executive functions of the Union and the executive functions of the President does not lead to any conclusion that the President is not the constitutional head of Government. Article 74(1) provides for the Council of Ministers to aid and advise the President in the exercise of his functions. Article 163(1) makes similar provision for a Council of Ministers to aid and advise the Governor. Therefore, whether the functions exercised by the President are functions of the Union or the functions of the President they have equally to be exercised with the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, and the same is true of the functions of the Governor except those which he has to exercise in his discretion.Signature Not Verified Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR SARATHE Signing time: 20-12-2024 4:58:54 PM 12
WP No. 26077 -2019
45. In Sardari Lal case an order was made by the President under sub-clause (c) to clause (2) of Article 311 of the Constitution. The order was:
"The President is satisfied that you are unfit to be retained in the public service and ought to be dismissed from service. The President is further satisfied under sub-clause (c) of proviso to clause (2) of Article 311 of the Constitution that in the interest of the security of the State it is not expedient to hold an inquiry."
The order was challenged on the ground that the order was signed by the Joint Secretary and was an order in the name of the President of India and that the Joint Secretary could not exercise the authority on behalf of the President.
47. The decision in Sardari Lal case that the President has to be satisfied personally in exercise of executive power or function and that the functions of the President cannot be delegated is with respect not the correct statement of law and is against the established and uniform view of this Court as embodied in several decisions to which reference has already been made. These decisions are from the year 1955 up to the year 1971. These decisions are Rai Saheb Ram Jawaya Kapur v. State of Punjab, A. Sanjeevi Naidu v. State of Madras, and U.N.R. Rao v. Smt Indira Gandhi. These decisions were neither referred to nor considered in Sardari Lal case.
48. The President as well as the Governor is the constitutional or formal head. The President as well as the Governor exercises his powers and functions conferred on him by or under the Constitution on the aid and advice of his Council of Ministers, save in spheres where the Governor is required by or under the Constitution to exercise his functions in his discretion. Wherever the Constitution requires the satisfaction of the President or the Governor for the exercise by the President or the Governor of any power or function, the satisfaction required by the Constitution is not the personal satisfaction of the President or Governor but the satisfaction of the President or Governor in the constitutional sense in the Cabinet system of Government, that is, satisfaction of his Council of Ministers on whose aid and advice the President or the Governor generally exercises all his powers and functions. The decision of any Minister or officer under Rules of Business made under any of these two Articles 77(3) and 166(3) is the decision of the President or the Governor Signature Not Verified Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR SARATHE Signing time: 20-12-2024 4:58:54 PM 13 WP No. 26077 -2019 respectively. These articles did not provide for any delegation. Therefore, the decision of a Minister or officer under the Rules of Business is the decision of the President or the Governor.
53. The majority view in Babu Ram Upadhya case is no longer good law after the decision in Moti Ram Deka case. The theory that only the President or the Governor is personally to exercise the pleasure or dismissing or removing a public servant is repelled by express words in Article 311 that no person who is a member of the civil service or holds a civil post under the Union or a State shall be dismissed or removed by authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed. The words "dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed" indicate that the pleasure of the President or the Governor is exercised by such officers on whom the President or the Governor confers or delegates power.
57. For the foregoing reasons we hold that the President or the Governor acts on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers with the Prime Minister at the head in the case of the Union and the Chief Minister at the head in the case of State in all matters which vests in the Executive whether those functions are executive or legislative in character. Neither the President nor the Governor is to exercise the executive functions personally. The present appeals concern the appointment of persons other than District Judges to the Judicial Services of the State which is to be made by the Governor as contemplated in Article 234 of the Constitution after consultation with the State Public Service Commission and the High Court. Appointment or dismissal or removal of persons belonging to the Judicial Service of the State is not a personal function but is an executive function of the Governor exercised in accordance with the rules in that behalf under the Constitution.
14. The Full Bench held that in such Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India the powers conferred on the Governor is not to be exercised by the Governor personally but by the Council of Ministers or the Ministers or a competent authority as per the rules of Business. The said case before the Full Bench was in relation to the Governor being named as Signature Not Verified Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR SARATHE Signing time: 20-12-2024 4:58:54 PM 14 WP No. 26077 -2019 an appellate authority under the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966.
15. Considering Para-48 of the judgment in the case of Samsher Singh (supra), the Full Bench considered the conclusions of a Constitution Bench in case of Nabam Rebia & Bamang Felix v. Dy. Speaker, Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly, (2016) 8 SCC 1 wherein the Constitution Bench held as under:-
155. We may, therefore, summarise our conclusions as under:
155.1. Firstly, the measure of discretionary power of the Governor, is limited to the scope postulated therefor, under Article 163(1).
155.2. Secondly, under Article 163(1) the discretionary power of the Governor extends to situations, wherein a constitutional provision expressly requires the Governor to act in his own discretion.
155.3. Thirdly, the Governor can additionally discharge functions in his own discretion, where such intent emerges from a legitimate interpretation of the provision concerned, and the same cannot be construed otherwise.
155.4. Fourthly, in situations where this Court has declared that the Governor should exercise the particular function at his own and without any aid or advice because of the impermissibility of the other alternative, by reason of conflict of interest. 155.5. Fifthly, the submission advanced on behalf of the respondents, that the exercise of discretion under Article 163(2) is final and beyond the scope of judicial review cannot be accepted. Firstly, because we have rejected the submission advanced by the respondents, that the scope and extent of discretion vested with the Governor has to be ascertained from Article 163(2), on the basis whereof the submission was canvassed. And secondly, any discretion exercised beyond the Governor's jurisdictional authority, would certainly be subject to judicial review.Signature Not Verified Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR SARATHE Signing time: 20-12-2024 4:58:54 PM 15
WP No. 26077 -2019 155.6. Sixthly, in view of the conclusion drawn at fifthly above [para 155.5], the judgments rendered in Mahabir Prasad Sharma case [Mahabir Prasad Sharma v. Prafulla Chandra Ghose, (1968) 72 CWN 328 : 1968 SCC OnLine Cal 3] , and Pratapsingh Raojirao Rane case [Pratapsingh Raojirao Rane v. Governor of Goa, AIR 1999 Bom 53 : 1998 SCC OnLine Bom 351] , by the High Courts of Calcutta and Bombay, respectively, do not lay down the correct legal position. The constitutional position declared therein, with reference to Article 163(2), is accordingly hereby set aside.
16. Considering the entire law on the subject, the Full Bench in P.N. Raikwar (supra) in concluding Para 23 held as under:-
"23. In view of the above, we find that no appeal shall lie to the Governor if an order is passed by him personally in terms of Rule 22 Clause (i) of the Service Rules, but since the order of punishment has not been passed by the Governor personally but has been passed in the name of the Governor, therefore, an appeal would lie under Rule 23 of the Service Rules. The appellate authority shall be Governor in terms of Rule 24(1)(i)(b) of the Service Rules, but again it is not the power to be exercised by the Governor personally, but in terms of Rule of Business by the 'Council of Ministers' or the 'Minister' as may be warranted in the Rule of Business."
The same view has been taken by a Division Bench of this court recently in WA 2061/2019 (Indore), decided on 15.6.2023.
17. In view of aforesaid, the argument of the petitioner that the order stopping pension of the petitioner was to be passed personally by the Governor and could not be passed by the Council of Ministers or any other authority competent as per Rules of Executive Business of Government, cannot be countenanced.
18. Consequently, the petition being devoid of merits and substance stands dismissed. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to renew the Signature Not Verified Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR SARATHE Signing time: 20-12-2024 4:58:54 PM 16 WP No. 26077 -2019 prayer in case he is acquitted in appeal which is pending before this Court against his conviction.
(VIVEK JAIN)
nks JUDGE
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 20-12-2024
4:58:54 PM