Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sub-Inspector Harish Chander ... vs Government Of Nctd on 5 July, 2011
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH OA 2504/2009 NEW DELHI THIS THE 5th DAY OF JULY, 2011 HONBLE MR. G. GEORGE PARACKEN, MEMBER (J) HONBLE DR. A.K. MISHRA, MEMBER (A) Sub-Inspector Harish Chander No.D/3528, S/o Shri Hira Dass, age 46 years, R/o H.No. 532, Pocket-A, Sector-13, Dwarka, Delhi. Applicant. (By Advocate Shri Sachin Chauhan) VERSUS 1. Government of NCTD Through the Commissioner of Police Police Headquarters, MSO Building, IP Estate, New Delhi. 2. The Joint Commissioner of Police, Northern Range, Through the C.P. Police Headquarters, MSO Building, IP Estate, New Delhi. 3. The Addl. Dy. Commissioner of Police, North District, Through Police Headquarters, MSO Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. Respondents. (By Advocate Ms. Urvashi Malhotra for Ms. Avnish Ahlawat) ORDER
Shri G. George Paracken.
The applicant has filed this OA challenging the Annexure A-1 order dated 07.06.2005 by which the disciplinary proceedings against him have been initiated, Annexure A-2 order dated 10.01.2007 by which the disciplinary authority has imposed the punishment of censure upon him and the Annexure A-3 order dated 07.07.2009 whereby his appeal against the order of the disciplinary authority has been rejected by the appellate authority.
2. The charge against the applicant is as under:
It is alleged that SI Harish Chander No. D/3528, while posted at PS Bara Hindu Rao, Delhi, had arrested Akhtar Parvez s/o Late Habib Hussain r/o 3308 Baghichi Acchiji, Bara Hindu Rao, Delhi u/s 107/151 Cr.PC on 03.10.04, on the complaint of Izhar Ahmed r/o 6859, Beriwala Bagh, Delhi. He was beaten by SI Harish Chander & Others and also prepared the kalandra u/s 107/150 Cr.P.C. against Akhter Parvez on 24/09/04 on the complaint dt. 21/09/04 of Vasim Ahmed s/o Ali Ahmed r/o 6500 Ist Floor Bara Hindu Rao, Delhi.
The complaint of Izhar Ahmed was received on 08.04.04 at PS Bara Hindu Rao. The IO SI Harish Chander No. D/3528 did not give any notice to Akhter Parvez to join the enquiry and arrested him on 03/10/04 u/s 107/151 Cr.PC. Akhtar Parvez was not got medically examined on the same day before putting him in lock up. After arrest SI Harish Chander No. D/3528 prepared the body inspection memo of Akhtar Parvez duly signed by the IO and no injury had been shown. When Akhter Parvez admitted that he received injuries at the time of arrest in melee he was taken to the Bara Hindu Rao Hospital. But in the MLC No. 9390/04 BHR hospital the doctor recorded Alleged H/O being beaten by Police in custody bruises, contusion, swelling etc had been shown on the body and referred to X-Ray, Orthopedic department etc. Akhtar Parvez was produced on 04/10/05 in the court of Ld. SEM/North Distt. And released on the same day. He was again admitted on 04/10/05 in BHR hospital and underwent treatment of injuries caused during police custody. He was discharged from the hospital on 09/10/04.
On the complaint of Vasim Ahmed the IO SI Harish Chander No.D-3528, prepared the kalandra u/s 107/150 Cr PC but he did not try to verify the facts from the complainant as well as from the defaulter i.e. Akhter Parvez. Thus SI Harish Chander No. D/3528 has been responsible for the following lapses:-
The petitioner Akhter Parvez was arrested by SI Harish Chander u/s 107/151 Cr.PC without sufficient reasons.
Akhtar Parvez was not got medically examined before being put in the lock-up.
The SI did not issue the notice to the complainant Izhar Ahmed and Vasim Ahmed and Akhter Parvez to join the enquiry.
In the body inspection memo of Akhtar Parvez, prepared by SI Harish Chander, no injury was shown. However, in MLC of Akhttar Parvej, the doctor of Bara Hindu Rao Hospital has shown Alleged H/O being beaten by Police in custody bruises, contusion, swelling etc. No person was allowed to meet to Akhtar Parvez in PS during Police custody.
3. The Inquiry Officer has examined 10 Prosecution Witnesses and 6 Defence Witnesses. After going through the entire depositions of the witnesses and the defence statements and the exhibits gathered and collected during the course of inquiry proceedings, the Inquiry Officer came to the conclusion that no credible, legal or reliable evidence was available to support any of the articles of charge levelled against the applicant. However, he recommended for imposing punishment, as deemed fit upon the applicant by the respondent authority.
4. The Analysis of the Evidences on Record and the Conclusion arrived at by the Inquiry Officer is reproduced below and it is as under:
ANALYSIS OF THE EVIDENCES ON RECORD I have gone through the entire case file including statements of PWs, DWs and defence statements and the exhibits gathered and collected during the course of formal proceedings. The evidence on record in the form of documents as well as verbal statements of witnesses recorded during the enquiry has strengthened the plea of delinquent SI Harish Chander No. D/3528. The entire bunch of evidences establishes that there were sufficient and fool proof reasons for the arrest of Akhtar Parvez. Had it not been done the image of the force would be stained particularly when Akhtar Parvez has a crime history as per his own admission during cross-examination. It has also been observed during cross-examination of PWs & DWs that Akhtar Parvez and his brother Aslam Parvez are notorious BCs of Bundle-A of PS Bara Hindu Rao. On latest account Akhtar Parvez was involved in a murder case and was released just before this episode from jail in April, 2004. It is worth mentioning here that he is a habitual criminal and has business of frightening the party of property disputes. His case history may please be gone through as deposed by PWs-1,2,5,6&7 and DWs-4,5,6 & 7. He when produced before SEM Court pleaded his guilt inspite of protest as per documentary evidence on record and shown as exhibits. However, while hearing CRL.A 35/04 in the matter of Akhtar Parvez Vs. State, the Honble ASI, Smt. Asha Menon accepted the appeal of Akhtar Parvez against the order of SEM dated 18.10.2004 directing the appellant to execute a personal bond in a sum of Rs.5000/- with one surety for keeping peace for a period of one year and vide order dated 1.12.2004 observed that In the circumstances the appeal is liable to be accepted and is accepted. The matter be remanded back to the Ld. SEM to rehear the matter and dispose the same in accordance with law, on the plea of not guilty recorded on 04.10.2004 by him. The bail bond that stands accepted be treated to be one U/ 116 (3) Cr.PC. The Ld. SEM shall grant an opportunity to the appellant Akhtar Parvez to defend himself and to show cause, why no bond could be asked from him on the basis of the Kallandra presented to the Ld. SEM (DW-04/G). The observations of Honble ASJ clearly cast a doubt over the manner in which the kalandra was disposed off by the Ld. MM. The then SHO examined as PW-5 has justified the alleged arrest being an eye witness. He is well versed with the history of Akhtar Parvez and outright failed to establish that his arrest was without sufficient reasons. His son examined as PW-4 appears to be tutored one, since he even could not tell the name of relative from where the entire family allegedly came from on 3/10/04 whereas PW-3 Akhtar Parvez told that they returned from his in-laws.
Akhtar Parvez was arrested in the night of 3.10.04 and in the Kalandra prepared against him, the delinquent S.I has clearly mentioned that the medical examination under which circumstances such decision was taken has not been elaborated. Further, the Body Inspection Memo prepared by the delinquent S.I reflects that Akhtar Parez didnt had any Old, Fresh or Swelling injury over any part of his body at the time of his arrest. However, on the next day i.e. on 4.10.04, when Akhtar Parvez was got medically examined at Bara Hindu Rao Hospital vide MLC No. 9390/04 (Ex.PW-8/A), the doctor recorded Alleged H/o being beaten by police in custody. Bruises, Contusion, Swelling etc. had been shown existing on the body and referred to X-ray, Orthopedic department etc. Regarding doctors observation of existence of injury at the time of medical examination over hips, knee and other parts of body of Akhtar Parvez, the delinquent S.I has taken the plea that the same were caused as a result of fall of Akhtar Parvez a number of times on stones, iron rods etc. while trying to run away when challenged by police patrolling party in the night of 3/10/04. The Doctor, who prepared MLC, on cross-examination, deposed that the alleged bruises, contusion, and swelling etc. could be caused as a result of fall of the patient and bruises marks on hips as a result of fall on rods, bars and fencing etc. However, if that had been the reason of injury, then why the same was not mentioned in the Kalandara and in the Body Inspection Memo by the delinquent I.O remains unexplained. It will be pertinent to quote here the guidelines of Supreme Court given in judgement dated 18.12.96 in Crl. W.P. No.539/86-D.K. Basu Vs. State, are that major and minor injuries, if any present on his/her body, must be recorded in the Body Inspection Memo at the time of arrest. As soon as the person is arrested, police officer effecting the arrest shall make a mention of the existence or non existence of any injury (s) on the person of the arrestee in the register of arrest. If any injuries are found on person of the arrestee, full description and other particulars as to the manner in which the injuries were caused should be mentioned in the register, which entry shall be signed by the police officer and the arrestee. Hence, regarding the cause of injury, if the version of delinquent S.I is believed, then it unhesitatingly points towards the failure and negligence of S.I/I.O and the then SHO/P.S Bara Hindu Rao in getting injured Akhtar Parvez immediately medically examined. How and under which provisions of law could they arrest and keep an injured person in the lock-up without getting him medically examined remains unexplained. It certainly casts aspersion over the act of the delinquent S.I and also contradicts the stand taken by him. The delinquent I.O has further taken the plea that for medical examination at the initial stage, Akhtar Parvez himself did not express any willingness as has been admitted by him in his statement during cross-examination. Also, Akhtar Parvez did not bring to the notice of anyone including SHO, night GO, sentry on lock-up duty or even the SEM Court about the alleged injuries on his body. Not only had this, in Bara Hindu Rao Hospital he himself did not mention the name of any police officer/man responsible for causing said injuries on his body. In this regard, the documents on record prove that SHO/Bara Hindu Rao was present at the spot when Akhtar Parvez was arrested hence, if Akhtar Parvez had any injury on his body then it must have been in the knowledge of the SHO and there was no need for him to inform him separately. As regards the checking done by the night GO, the contents of the checking D.D entry mere prove the presence of arrested three persons inside the lock-up of he police station, it nowhere says that the GO had personally checked the lock-up and the condition of arrested persons. As regards the proceedings in SEM Court, the Honble ASJ, Smt. Asha Menon directed at a later stage to rehear the matter and expressed unhappiness over the manner in which the kalandra against Akhtar was disposed off. In the light of facts discussed above, though there is no direct evidence to prove that Akhtar Parvez was beaten by the police or the injury over his body were caused as a result of being beaten by police, there is every reason to draw the inference that he sustained injuries in police custody which were not brought on record by the delinquent I.O either due to his own negligence or to save himself from consequent legal implications.
PW-1 and DWs 2&3 have categorically and candidly deposed that during the course of formal proceedings the son of Akhtar Parvez and one Advocate were allowed to meet and see Akhtar Parvez, whereas his son when examined as PW-4 cursorily deposed that he met DO but was not allowed to meet and see his father. On cross-examination he neither could tell the name of duty officer he met nor explain why he not approached the SHO or Addl. SHO to see his father.
The defence put forth by delinquent SI Harish Chander is partially credible on the basis of evidence on record.
CONCLUSION In the backdrop of evidence on record, analyzed in the foregoing paras of this final report, no credible, legal or reliable evidence is available to support any of the articles of charge levelled against delinquent SI Harish Chander No. D/3528 however for his failure in preparing a comprehensive Body Inspection Memo and for giving unsatisfactory reply regarding the injuries caused to Akhtar Parvez during/after his arrest, departmental punishment, as deemed fit, may be taken against the delinquent S.I so that he could remain careful and adhere to the guidelines of Supreme Court/Legal Provisions while effecting arrest in future.
5. The disciplinary authority, tentatively agreeing with the aforesaid findings of the Inquiry Officer, sent a copy of the same to the applicant on 20.07.2008 to enable him to make his representation against it. The applicant submitted his representation on 18.08.2006. However, agreeing with the report of the Inquiry Officer, the disciplinary authority vide its Annexure A-2 impugned order imposed the punishment of censure upon the applicant. The relevant part of his order is as under:
I have carefully gone through the findings of the Enquiry Officer, written representation of the defaulter, statements of the PWs/DWs, copy of order/judgement of Honble High Court of Delhi and the other material/record brought on the D.E. file. The basic controversy of the charge is that Akhtar Parvez was arrested by delinquent SI Harish Chander u/s 107/151 Cr.P.C. without sufficient reasons. He was not got medically examined before being put in the lock up. In the Body Inspection Memo. Of Akhtar Parvez prepared by SI Harish Chander, no injury was shown. However, in MLC of Akhtar Parvez, the doctor of Bara Hindu Rao Hospital has shown Alleged history of being beaten by police incustody, bruises, contusion, swelling, etc. No person was allowed to meet Akhtar Parvez in P.S. during in police custody. The defaulter SI has taken main pleas that the entire bunch of evidences establishes that there were sufficient and fool proof reasons for the arrest of said akhtar Parvez, who had also himself pleaded guilty in the SEM court and supporting documentary proof of the evidence has also been exhibited in this regard. Said Akhtar Parvez was asked for medical examination but he did not get the medical examination done and this fact has been admitted by himself during the course of cross-examination in departmental enquiry. There was no visible mark of any injury at the time of putting him behind the bar. However, he was got medically examined within 24 hours of arrest before producing in SEM court as per the instructions. The injuries mentioned in the MLC are in the shape of bruises, swelling and contusions etc. and as per statements of the doctor and eye witnesses examined as DWs-5,6 & 7, all such injuries may take place during scuffle and fallen on stones, rods etc. As regards not allowing any person to meet Akhtar Parvez in P.S. during in police custody, the defaulter has stated that his son and Advocate were allowed to see the accused and it has been fully supported by them during the proceedings. Besides, neither Akhtar Parvez brought all this to the notice of SEM when produced nor to the notice of night G.O. who himself personally checked the lock-up and made D.D. entry to that effect. Said Akhtar Parvez has a crime history as per his own admission during cross-examination. The allegations leveled by said Akhtar Parvez seem to be after thought. For the sake of natural justice and fairness, the defaulter was also heard in O.R. on 03.01.2007. Besides above pleas, he has added that case FIR No.284/2005 u/s 342/343/34 IPC registered against him at PS Bara Hindu Rao on similar allegations has been quashed by the Honble High Court of Delhi vide order/judgment dated 18.10.2006. However, on perusal of said judgment, it has been revealed that the subject matter of the said FIR has been amicably compromised between both the parties. Total 10 PWs and 7 DWs were examined during the DE proceedings and after their testimonies, the Enquiry Officer, in his findings, has not proved any of the articles of charge leveled against delinquent SI Harish Chander No.D-3528, but the E.O. has held the defaulter responsible for his failure in preparing a comprehensive Body Inspection Memo. and for giving unsatisfactory reply regarding the injuries caused to Akhtar Parvez during/after his arrest. However, said Akhtar Parvez is a B.C. and FIR got registered by him against the defaulter SI on similar allegations has been quashed by the Honble High Court of Delhi.
Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances, I, Atul Katiyar, Addl. Deputy Commissioner of Police, North District, Delhi take a lenient view and award SI Harish Chander No. D-3528 the punishment of censure for his above said lapse. His suspension period from 07.06.2005 to 19.07.2006 is also treated as period spent on duty for all intents and purposes.
6. The applicant has made the Annexure A-9 representation dated 23.11.2007 challenging the aforesaid order of the disciplinary authority. Thereafter, he approached this Tribunal vide OA 132/2008 challenging the aforesaid order of the disciplinary authority. However, this Tribunal vide Annexure A-5 order dated 15.05.2009 closed the aforesaid O.A. taking into consideration of the statement of the learned counsel for the respondents appearing in the said case that the appellate authority will look into the matter. Thereafter, the appellate authority has passed the Annexure A-3 impugned order dated 07.07.2009 stating that there were reasons to interfere with the order of punishing authority. The relevant part of its order is as under:
SI Harish Chander, No.D-3528 did not file appeal against the punishment order dated 10-01-07 within stipulated period and rather submitted representation against the said order after a lapse of more than 9 months and he has given reasons that he was facing three departmental action and also remained under suspension from 20-10-04 to 19-07-06 therefore, he could not find time to file an appeal. He was heard in O.R. During O.R. he has only repeated the pleas taken by him in his representation and further requested that he be pardoned. I have gone through the representation preferred by the appellant as well as record available on file. The reasons given by him that he was facing three departmental enquiries and also remained under suspension are not tenable for such a long delay. Further he has not given any cogent reason for his failure in preparing a Comprehensive Body Inspection Memo and about the injuries caused to Akhtar Parvez during/after his arrest. Moreover, Akhtar Parvez was not got medically examined before being put in the lock up. Keeping in view the totality of facts I find no reason to interfere with the order of punishing authority. Hence, the representation submitted by SI Harish Chander, No. D-3528 is hereby rejected.
7. According to the learned counsel for the applicant Shri Sachin Chauhan, when the Inquiry Officer has already recorded its findings that there was no conclusive and reliable evidence in support of the charge framed against the applicant and the same has not been proved, then in that case, the Inquiry Officer should not have considered any other allegations which are not part of the charge and give suggestions to the disciplinary authority. He submitted that what the Inquiry Officer has stated in his conclusion is that the applicant failed to prepare a comprehensive Body Inspection Memo and it was not a part of the charge framed against him and it was only an extraneous consideration. The disciplinary authority also did not apply its mind at all on the submissions and pleas of the applicant and imposed the punishment of Censure on the extraneous charge which was not framed against him in the departmental inquiry. He has also stated that it was on record that the complainant was subjected to medical examination and the doctor concerned has been examined as PW-8 and he has clearly deposed that injuries to the complainant could be caused as the result of any fall on bars/rods/fencing. Further, the complainant himself could not specify the name of the police man allegedly involved in beating him. The Inquiry Officer has further submitted that the disciplinary authority failed to appreciate that the complainant Akhtar Parvez refused to get his medical done on the day of arrest and the same fact has come on record in the cross examination of the very same witness in the departmental inquiry and thus it is wrong to say that the applicant failed to prepare a comprehensive body inspection memo of the complainant. The inquiry officer and the disciplinary authority have also failed to appreciate and consider the statement given by the defence witnesses in the departmental inquiry and, therefore, the report of the inquiry officer and the order of the disciplinary authority are bad in law. The order of the appellate authority is also bad in law as it failed to appreciate the fact stated in the appeal.
8. The learned counsel for the applicant Shri Sachin Chauhan has also submitted that none of the requirements to be followed in arrest or detention as prescribed by the Apex Court in its judgment in D.K. Basu & Anr. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. (1997 (1) SCC 416), has been violated by the applicant. The relevant part of the said judgment is as under:
36. We, therefore, consider it appropriate to issue the following requirements to be followed in all cases of arrest or detention till legal provisions are made in that behalf as preventive measures :
(1) The police personnel carrying out the arrest and handling the interrogation of the arrestee should bear accurate, visible and clear identification and name tags with their designations. The particulars of all such police personnel who handle interrogation of the arrestee must be recorded in a register.
(2) That the police officer carrying out the arrest of the arrestee shall prepare a memo of arrest at the time of arrest and such memo shall be attested by at least one witness, who may be either a member of the family of the arrestee or a respectable person of the locality from where the arrest is made. It shall also be countersigned by the arrestee and shall contain the time and date of arrest.
(3) A person who has been arrested or detained and is being held in custody in a police station or interrogation centre or other lock-up, shall be entitled to have one friend or relative or other person known to him or having interest in his welfare being informed, as soon as practicable, that he has been arrested and is being detained at the particular place, unless the attesting witness of the memo of arrest is himself such a friend or a relative of the arrestee.
(4) The time, place of arrest and venue of custody of an arrestee must be notified by the police where the next friend or relative of the arrestee lives outside the district or and through the Legal Aid Organisation in the District and the police station of the area concerned telegraphically within a period of 8 to 12 hours after the arrest.
(5) The person arrested must be made aware of this right to have someone informed of his arrest or detention as soon as he is put under arrest or is detained.
(6) An entry must be made in the diary at the place of detention regarding the arrest of the person which shall also disclose the name of the next friend of the person who has been informed of the arrest and the names and particulars of the police officials in whose custody the arrestee is.
(7) The arrestee should, where he so requests, be also examined at the time of his arrest and major and minor injuries, if any, present on his/her body, must be recorded at that time. The "Inspection Memo" must be signed both by the arrestee and the police officer effecting the arrest and its copy provided to the arrestee.
(8) The arrestee should be subjected to medical examination by a trained doctor every 48 hours during his detention in custody by a doctor on the panel of approved doctors appointed by Director, Health Services of the concerned State or Union Territory, Director, Health Services should prepare such a panel for all Tehsils and Districts as well.
(9) Copies of all the documents including the memo of arrest, referred to above, should be sent to the (sic) Magistrate for his record.
(10) The arrestee may be permitted to meet his lawyer during interrogation, though not throughout the interrogation.
(11) A police control room should be provided at all district and State headquarters, where information regarding the arrest and the place of custody of the arrestee shall be communicated by the officer causing the arrest, within 12 hours of effecting the arrest and at the police control room it should be displayed on a conspicuous police board.
9. He has also submitted that the allegations made against the applicant are absolutely wrong and there was no misconduct on his part. In this regard, he has relied upon the order of a co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in OA 2210/2006- G.P. Sewalia Vs. Union of India & Anr. in which it has been held as under:
8. Having given our anxious thoughts, we have come to a firm conclusion that there is distinction between misconduct and not performing the duties as efficiently as another person similarly situate may be able to perform. Misconduct has to have some element of delinquency, may be, even gross negligence. It is only when the allegations subject matter of charge may tantamount to misconduct that a person can be proceeded for inflicting any of the punishments prescribed in the rules. Non-performance of duties, which may have no element of unlawful behaviour, wilful in character, improper or wrong behaviour, misdemeanor, misdeed, impropriety or a forbidden act, may some time amount to not carrying out the duties efficiently, but the same cannot be construed to be misconduct
10. The applicant has, therefore, sought a direction to set aside the impugned order at Annexure-1, A-2 and A-3 with all consequential benefits including seniority, promotion and pay and allowances.
11. The respondents in their reply have submitted that it is for the disciplinary authority to accept the findings submitted by the inquiry officer or reject it considering the grounds/statements recorded during the departmental inquiry proceedings. In this case, the inquiry officer in its finding categorically stated that the applicant failed to prepare the body inspection memo and gave unsatisfactory reply regarding injuries caused to Akhtar Parvez during his arrest. It was only after carefully examining the facts/circumstances of the case and supplying the copy of inquiry report to the applicant the disciplinary authority has imposed the punishment of censure. They have also stated that it is a part of the charge sheet that in the body inspection no injury was shown whereas as per report of MLC there were number of injuries which applicant, being inquiry officer of the case, could not explain.
12. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. We find merit in the submissions of the applicants counsel. It is the categorical finding of the Inquiry Officer that there were no credible, legal or reliable evidence available to support any of the articles of charge levelled against the applicant. In other words, the charges have not been proved during the departmental inquiry for want of evidence against the applicant. In our considered view, the further suggestion of the Inquiry Officer to award punishment to the applicant for his failure to prepare a Comprehensive Body Inspection Memo and to give satisfactory reply regarding the injuries caused to Akhtar Parvez during/after his arrest is an unsolicited one. In fact, in the allegations against the applicant itself, it has been stated that he had prepared the Body Inspection Memo of Akhtar Parvez but the lapse on his part was that he did not show any injury in the said Memo and gave unsatisfactory reply regarding the injuries caused during/after his arrest. However, the Inquiry Officer himself has stated that the documents on record would prove that SHO/Bara Hindu Rao was present at the spot when Akhtar Parvez was arrested hence, if Akhtar Parvez had any injury on his body then it must have been in the knowledge of the SHO. The SHO in his deposition has stated that Akhtar Ahmed himself did not complain to him about any beating by the applicant. The doctor who prepared the MLC was also a prosecution witness and in his deposition he has given the possible reason for the bruises on the body of Akhtar Ahmed as those which could have been caused as a result of fall on bars/rods/fencing etc. We, therefore, do not find any misconduct on the part of the applicant. Neither the disciplinary authority nor the appellate authority have applied their mind on the aforesaid position. Though the punishment is censure, comparatively a very minor penalty, it has a cascading effect on the career of an official in Delhi Police.
13. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we allow the O.A. and quash and set aside the impugned Annexures A-1, A-2 and A-3 orders with all consequential benefits. No costs.
(Dr. A.K. Mishra) (G. George Paracken)
Member (A) Member (J)
`SRD