Gujarat High Court
Shubha Sudhir Thakur vs Maharashtra Shikshan Mandal on 11 May, 2018
Bench: Akil Kureshi, B.N. Karia
C/LPA/1271/2008 CAV JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 1271 of 2008
In
In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 677 of 1997
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE :
HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
and
HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE B.N. KARIA
==============================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the No
judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? No
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? No
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the No
interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order made
thereunder ?
==============================================================
SHUBHA SUDHIR THAKUR
Versus
MAHARASHTRA SHIKSHAN MANDAL
==============================================================
Appearance :
Mr. KM PATEL, Sr Advocate with Mr VARUN K.PATEL, Advocate for PETITIONER
Ms. SHRUTI PATHAK, AGP for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 4
Mr. RAHIL P JAIN, Advocate for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1.2
RULE SERVED for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1.1,2,3,5
==============================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
and
HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE B.N. KARIA
11th May 2018
CAV JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE B.N. KARIA)
1. This Appeal, preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 2nd Page 1 of 22 C/LPA/1271/2008 CAV JUDGMENT November 2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 677 of 1997, whereby, the learned Single Judge has confirmed the Order dated 6th January 1997 passed by the Gujarat Secondary Education Tribunal, Ahmedabad in Application No. 251 of 1995 preferred against the order of dismissal dated 2nd June 1995 of the appellant herein by the respondent-School management.
2. Necessary facts are briefly stated hereunder :
2.1 The appellant was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the respondents' School in the year 1978, which is run by the respondent no. 1-Maharashtra Shikshan Mandal. Thereafter, she was selected and appointed as a Principal in the very school by an appointment order dated 28th May 1992. She joined duties as Principal on 1st June 1992. Thereafter, on the ground of incidents of misconduct, she came to be suspended from service by an Order dated 27th April 1993 followed by a show cause notice/chargesheet issued by the management of the School consisting 18 charges on 28th June 1993, whereby, the appellant was called upon to submit her reply within a period of fifteen days. As the appellant failed to submit her reply to the said notice, the school management initiated inquiry and after passing of six months, but in the midst of the inquiry proceedings, she submitted her reply to the chargesheet Page 2 of 22 C/LPA/1271/2008 CAV JUDGMENT on 25th December 1993, which was taken on record. As per the decision of the school management, it was decided to proceed against the appellant departmentally, and therefore, by a Resolution dated 29th August 1993, Inquiry Officer & Presiding Officer were appointed. After completion of inquiry, a report dated 10th May 1995 was handed over to the appellant on 12th May 1995. Thereafter, second show cause notice dated 14th May 1995 was issued to the appellant calling upon her to explain as to why she should not be dismissed from service. Appellant submitted her reply on 23rd May 1995 which was considered by the school management and by a resolution dated 28th May 1995, resolved to dismiss the services of the appellant from the school, and accordingly, by an Order dated 2nd June 1995, the appellant was dismissed from service with a disqualification for future employment. The petitioner challenged order of her dismissal from service dated 2nd June 1995 by filing Application No. 251 of 1995 before the Gujarat Secondary Education Tribunal at Ahmedabad [for short "the Tribunal"]. The Tribunal, after hearing the otherside was pleased to dismiss the application preferred by the appellant and thereby confirmed the order passed by the respondents dismissing her service. The said order came to be challenged by the appellant before this Court by filing Special Civil Page 3 of 22 C/LPA/1271/2008 CAV JUDGMENT Application No. 677 of 1997. This Court, after considering the facts, hearing all the respective parties had, by an Order dated 2nd November 2007, dismissed the above writ petition and hence, this Letters Patent Appeal.
3. Heard Shri KM Patel, learned senor advocate appearing for the appellant; Mr. Rahil P Jain, learned advocate for the respondent-School Management and Ms. Shruti Pathak, learned AGP for the respondent-State of Gujarat.
4. Learned counsel Shri Patel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the impugned order dated 2nd November 2007 passed by the learned Single Judge is contrary to law.
Counsel urged that the Court has erred in treating newly added Regulation 27A, which came into force w.e.f 20th May 1992, as an integral part of Regulation 27 and in holding that in view of provisions contained in Regulation 43, the newly added Regulation 27A was not applicable to the schools run by minority institutions. Counsel for the appellant pointed out that what was exempt from application of minority schools was Regulation 27; as originally framed. He added that if there is subsequent amendment in Regulation 27 and a new provision is added, the same cannot be held covered by the exempting provisions contained in Regulation 43 by the principles of analogous to legislation by incorporation. Page 4 of 22 C/LPA/1271/2008 CAV JUDGMENT That, there were in all eighteen charges framed in the chargesheet against the appellant. That, in the Departmental Inquiry, Charge no. 1A, 1D, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 11, 12 & 17; Charge no. 1B, 8, 10 were taken as partly proved. Charge No. 6 & 18 were cancelled; Charge No. 7, 13, 14, 15 & 16 were taken as not proved. That, as per the report of the Inquiry Officer, it was not proved that the price quoted by Swastik Printery were higher than the prevailing market rate. That, the appellant had followed the procedure and had given the works contract to a party which was in the interest of the Institution. That, the School is getting printing work done from the said Swastik Printery only, and even the new management got stationery printed from the said party at a much higher price, after the appellant came to be suspended from service. That, the management had failed to prove charge of financial irregularity against the appellant. That, the proposal for reduction of Class-X standard was consequential action, as earlier a proposal for reduction of one Class of Standard XI was already made and no decision was taken by the DEO till the end of academic year. That, proposal for reduction of Standard XII was also taken by the previous management and the action was bona fide in the interest of the School. That, no opportunity was given to the appellant for cross-examination of the management witnesses viz., [i] Shri Page 5 of 22 C/LPA/1271/2008 CAV JUDGMENT Khadke; [ii] Shri Parab; [iii] Shri Gaurav; [iv] Shri Poddar and [v] Shri Shinde and left the cross examination half the way. That, similarly one Mrs. Charutalata Pilapure, who was examined in support of the charge of class reduction also had stated that she does not wish to appear any further in the inquiry proceedings and she was permitted by the Inquiry Officer, and thus, deprived the appellant to cross examine her. That, the action of the management witnesses in leaving the cross examination half-the-way has resulted in denial of opportunity to cross examine them. That, Dhabewala, who was the Presiding Officer was examined as a management witness and no cross examination was permitted to the appellant. That, this action vitiates the entire proceedings of inquiry. According to the learned counsel, as per the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Mohd. Mia v. State of West Bengal & Ors., reported in 2000 [III] LLJ [Suppli.] 1147, the Presenting Officer cannot be permitted to be examined in an inquiry proceedings. The learned Single Judge has erred in accepting the findings of the Inquiry Officer in respect of the charges relating to quotation for printing of the answer books. That, the charge has erroneously been proved against the petitioner by relying upon Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act. That, the request of the petitioner for engaging the next friend as a Page 6 of 22 C/LPA/1271/2008 CAV JUDGMENT defending representative was rejected by the Inquiry Officer. That, serious prejudice was caused to the appellant on account of denial of getting permission to engage the next friend. That, even the conclusion of the learned Single Judge on this issue has caused prejudice to her. That, the request to supply documents relating to inquiry proceedings has caused serious prejudice to the case of the appellant. That, the learned Single Judge has overlooked all the relevant and vital documents which were in the exclusive custody of the petitioner. That, the appellant was denied reasonable opportunity of getting relevant documents. That, the order of dismissal from service of the appellant is too harsh a punishment which is required to be commensurate with the proved charges. Hence, it was requested by learned counsel Shri K.M Patel appearing on behalf of the appellant to quash and set-aside the impugned judgment and order 2nd November 2007 by allowing this Appeal.
5. Per contra, learned advocate Shri Rahil P Jain appearing on behalf of the respondent-School management submitted that the charges levelled against the appellant-delinquent were duly proved as per the report of the Inquiry Officer. That, the findings of the Inquiry Officer were accepted by the School management and it served second show cause notice to the appellant alongwith a copy Page 7 of 22 C/LPA/1271/2008 CAV JUDGMENT of Inquiry Report and after considering reply, on 2nd June 1995, an order of dismissal from service came to be passed by the management dismissing the services of the appellant. It is further submitted that Regulation 27A only provides for procedural safe- guards before the disciplinary action is taken against the delinquent. But, it in no way curtails or interferes with the rights of the minority institutions to pass an order of dismissal on the basis of charge provided in an inquiry to be held in consonance with Regulation 27A. That, no error is committed by the learned Single Judge in confirming the order passed by the school-management as well as by the Tribunal in dismissing the appellant from service. That sufficient opportunity was given to the appellant even for cross examination of the witnesses examined by the school- management. That there were no cross examination by the appellant for a considerable period, and therefore, they were compelled to be left for their cross examination. That, necessary documents to defend the appellant before the Inquiry Officer in the departmental inquiry were provided to her. That, the request to engage a friend, as a representative though was made by the appellant during the course of inquiry proceedings at a very belated stage, was accepted by the management. That no prejudice was caused to the appellant in the entire departmental inquiry Page 8 of 22 C/LPA/1271/2008 CAV JUDGMENT proceedings. That, the charges against the appellant were serious in nature and therefore, it was not in the interest of the Institution to continue her in service, and therefore, services of the appellant came to be terminated after following the requisite procedure. That, the Tribunal as well as learned Single Judge, after considering the facts of the case, have rightly dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant, and hence, no interference need to be made. Concluding the arguments, learned advocate Shri Jain appearing on behalf of the respondent-School management requested this Court to dismiss the appeal.
6. Learned AGP Ms. Shruti Pathak appearing on behalf of the respondent-State supported the arguments advanced by Shri Rahil P Jain appearing on behalf of the management. She contended that sufficient opportunity was given to the appellant in the departmental proceedings and no prejudice was caused to her at any point of time. She further submitted that the findings of the Inquiry Officer in his report cannot be disturbed by this Court in the Letters Patent Appeal. She further urged that the appellant was working against the interest of respondent-Institution, and therefore, her services came to be discontinued after following the procedure laid down under the law. It was ultimately urged by Ms. Pathak, learned AGP to dismiss the present Appeal. Page 9 of 22 C/LPA/1271/2008 CAV JUDGMENT
7. With reference to aforesaid rival legal contentions urged on behalf of the respective parties and the evidence on record, we have carefully examined the following points to find out as to whether the impugned judgment and order warrant interference in this Appeal.
[a] Whether the concurrent finding of facts recorded by the learned Single Judge in not interfering with the order of the Tribunal, confirming the decision of dismissal from service of the appellant is legal and valid.
[b] What order ?
8. It is pertinent to note that in all eighteen charges were framed against the appellant by issuing a Chargesheet dated 28th June 1993. In an inquiry, the Inquiry Officer has taken as proved, Charge No. 1A, 1D and Charge Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 11, 12 & 17. While charge no. 1B, 8 & 10 were taken as partly proved. Charge No. 6 & 18 were cancelled as well as Charge No. 7, 13, 14, 15 & 16 were taken as not proved. With a view to short cut the matter and save the time of the Court, the School management made a statement that charges which have been taken as partially proved by the Inquiry Officer ie., Charge No. 1B, 8 & 10 may be considered as not proved. It is found from the record that Charges No. 1A, 1C & 1D were the main charges framed against the appellant, and they are necessary to be described as under : Page 10 of 22 C/LPA/1271/2008 CAV JUDGMENT
"Charge No. 1A, 1C & 1D :
[1A] That for the purpose of printing of answer books and supplementaries for School, you had invited rates/quotations and out of those quotations, quotation dated 29.03.1993 of M/s. Gaurang Printing and quotation dated 2.04.1993 of Khodiyar Printing Press appeared to be bogus and no such printeries or printing press where in existence at that time. Under the circumstances, with an intention to commit financial irregularities, you have obtained to bogus quotations and entrusted the work to the Swastik Printery and for that purpose you have not obtained prior approval of management disregarding the resolution of the Governing Body dated 14.03.1993. The rates of Swastik Printery were higher than the prevailing rates and thereby you have committed misconduct.
Charge No. 1C :
That in April 1993 you have got the question papers printed from Swastik Printery and for that purpose also you have obtained quotations from the two other printing presses viz., Shrimangal Mudranalya dated 6.04.1993 and Khodiyar Printing Press dated 2.4.1993. These two printing presses were not in existence and these two quotations appeared to be bogus. For printing these question papers also, you had not obtained prior approval of the Managing Page 11 of 22 C/LPA/1271/2008 CAV JUDGMENT Committee. The rates paid to the Swastik Printery appeared to be higher than the rates prevailing in the market. Thus, in this transaction also, you have committed financial irregularities.
Charge No. 1D :
That for the year 1992-93 the first test question papers you have got printed and for that purpose apart from Swastik Printery quotations of M/s. Printwell dated 2nd September 1992 and M/s. K.S Star Printers were obtained and they appeared to be bogus. No press with these names was in existence either at that time or even now. Though rates of Swastik Printery was higher than the market rates by entrusting the work to the Swastik Printery you have committed misconduct." It transpires from the aforesaid three charges that for three different transactions where tenders were invited by the appellant in connection with this issue, three parties had forwarded their tenders. Out of these three parties M/s. Swastik Printery was a common party to whom work-order was given for all the three items, for all the three times. The quotations received from three different parties were produced on record of the inquiry. Rate quoted by Swastik Printery was the lowest amongst rest of the parties and therefore, work-order was given to M/s. Swastik Page 12 of 22 C/LPA/1271/2008 CAV JUDGMENT Printery by the appellant. The management confirmed existence of other two parties, that is of M/s. Gaurang Printers and M/s. Khodiyar Printing Press. It was found that there was no such press in existence. It was submitted by the petitioner that before giving the work-order to Swastik Printery, the appellant had called for quotations and had received quotations in the ordinary course and found that the rates quoted by Swastik Printery were the lowest and reasonable and in the interest of School-management and therefore, work-orders were given to Swastik Printery. Inquiry Officer was of the opinion that the allegation against the appellant of imputation of short supply as shown in the Charge 1B was not proved by the management, however, the Inquiry Officer was of the opinion that the charges 1A, 1C & 1D about the misconduct were proved against the appellant; except higher rates of Swastik Printery than the market rates. Therefore, it cannot be said that for any financial benefit, the work order was given by the appellant to the said Swastik Printery.
8.1 The other Charges no. 2, 3, 4 & 5 are in respect of reduction in Class-room without prior permission of the management; of sending a proposal in that respect to the DEO by the appellant and of declaring surplus Smt. Surekha Amin and Smt. Piplapure as "surplus teachers" and thereby harassing them and compelling Page 13 of 22 C/LPA/1271/2008 CAV JUDGMENT them to rush to the Tribunal, though the appellant was instructed by the School-management to start procedure for filling up four vacant posts of Assistant Teachers, instead of doing so, the appellant sent a proposal for reduction of Classes and thereby disobeyed the instructions of the management.
8.2 Another charge was that the School run by the respondent No. 1-Trust is a linguistic minor school requiring minimum attendance of twenty five pupils; as prescribed, however, on the pretext of lack of average attendance, the appellant sent a proposal for class reduction which shows her intention of damaging the interest of the Institution. The Inquiry Officer was of the opinion that considering the record as well as affidavit of Hon. Secretary and the fact that the newly elected body of the Trust had taken over management only with effect from 15th July 1992 and that the DEO had passed an order of reduction, the action of the appellant in sending a proposal dated 3rd July 1992 was not illegal. So far as proposal dated 18th August 1992 sent by the petitioner for reduction of Class in Standard X was found unjustifiable. 8.3 Charge No. 9 relates to harassment and mental torture to one senior teacher viz., Mr. PN Shimpee vide complaint/letters dated 23rd January 1993 and 31st March 1993. In this connection, explanation of the appellant was called for by the School Page 14 of 22 C/LPA/1271/2008 CAV JUDGMENT management vide communication dated 10th February 1993.
Instead of submitted her reply, the appellant as a Principal of the School, issued a letter dated 17th February 1993 calling upon the complainant-Mr. Shimpee to explain as to why he had entered into direct correspondence with the management and also called upon him to tender evidence in support of his allegations made in the said complaint.
8.4 Another charge ie., Charge no. 11 pertains to non-supply of information asked for by the school-management by its letter dated 3rd January 1993 and 18th March 1993 issued on behalf of the representation of Smt. Mendke dated 3rd August 1992 against the upgradation of Smt. G.M Patel. As per the information of the Inquiry Officer, both the charges ie., Charge No. 10 & 11 were found proved. Charge No. 12 was in connection with non compliance of instructions issued by the management. As per the reply submitted by the appellant, due to pressure of examination work as well as financial year ending work, was accepted by the Inquiry Officer.
8.5 If we consider Charge No. 17, a letter was written by the appellant on 6th May 1993 to the Tribunal showing the financial transactions of the management, as per the case of the management in which the respondent, while writing a letter Page 15 of 22 C/LPA/1271/2008 CAV JUDGMENT straightaway to the Secondary Education Tribunal, the appellant has tried to prevent the management from operating its Bank account with Maharashtra Bank. The Tribunal was of the opinion that when the appellant had approached the Tribunal, which is a Court, it cannot be said that such an act on her part would constitute a misconduct. If charge is to be considered as a misconduct then in every litigation where the employees fail, the management would charge the employee for misconduct for having approached the Court/Tribunal, and therefore, the said act on the part of the appellant cannot be termed as a misconduct.
9. True that certain charges of insubordination were proved against the appellant saying that she had disobeyed instructions of the management by not furnishing necessary information required by the management and therefore, it was found by the Tribunal that the appellant was in a habit of disobeying the orders of the management which is a serious misconduct, and therefore, submission made on behalf of the appellant that the punishment of dismissal from service was disproportionate to the guilt was not accepted by the Tribunal.
10. It is now well settled that it is open to the Court, in all circumstances, to consider whether the punishment imposed on the delinquent employee/officer; as the case may be, is Page 16 of 22 C/LPA/1271/2008 CAV JUDGMENT commensurate with the articles of charge levelled against him/her. The Court could interfere with the punishment of imposed by the employer, the quantum of punishment is so disproportionate to the proved charges as to shock the conscious of the Court. There is a deluge of decisions on this aspect and we do not propose to travel beyond what is held in a decision rendered in the case of Union of India v. S.S Ahluwalia, reported in [2007] 7 SCC 257, wherein it is held that if the conscience of the Court is shocked as to the severity or inappropriateness of the punishment imposed, it can remand the matter back for fresh consideration to the disciplinary authority concerned. In that case, the punishment that had been imposed was the deduction of 10% from the pension for a period of one year. The High Court had set aside the order. In those premises, the Apex Court did not think it expedient to remand the matter back to the disciplinary authority and instead approved decision of the High Court, considering the article of charges proved against the delinquent.
11. We do not find any substance in the submissions made by learned advocate that the Presiding Officer Mr. Dhabewala was permitted to be examined as a witness on behalf of the management or any part of cross examination of the witness examined by the management were given to the appellant by the Page 17 of 22 C/LPA/1271/2008 CAV JUDGMENT Inquiry Officer. From the record, it transpires that Mr. Dhabewala was a Presiding Officer on behalf of the Management. He was examined as a witness only to place the facts on the record of the inquiry case. So far as other witnesses whose cross examination was not permitted to the appellant, it appears that for a considerable long period, however, their examination-in-chief was over before the Inquiry and frequent request was made by the appellant to adjourn the inquiry proceedings which was granted from time to time, however, no cross examination was completed by the appellant side and ultimately, were allowed to left the proceedings.
12. Counsel had argued that procedure laid down under Regulation 27(A) of the Gujarat Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Regulations, 1974 was not followed. He drew our attention to Regulation 43 of the said regulations which provides that certain regulations mentioned therein shall apply to educational institution established and administered by a minority. He pointed out that Regulation 27 was one of them. However, regulation 27(A) was introduced later on which is not part of Regulation 27 and applicability thereof is not excluded by virtue of Regulation 43.
Page 18 of 22 C/LPA/1271/2008 CAV JUDGMENT 12.1 Regulation 27 contains title "Conduct and Discipline of Head-masters, teachers and members of non-teaching staff of registered private school". As the title suggests, this regulation makes various provisions for conduct and discipline of the teaching and non-teaching staff of the private registered schools. Regulation 43 excludes the applicability of certain regulations mentioned therein in case of any educational institution which is established and administered by minority. In another words, regulation mentioned in Regulation 43 would have no applicability of minority institution regulation 27 being one of them. Regulation 27(A) was introduced vide Government Resolution dated 20.05.1992. The said Regulation is numbered as 27(A) clearly indicating that it is a sub-regulation or a part of Regulation 27. It is also placed between sub-regulations (8) and (9) of Regulation 27. This sub-regulation so inserted provides that in addition to (provision made) instructions given elsewhere in the Regulations in respect of matters relating to mis-conduct and indiscipline by the teaching or non-teaching staff of a registered secondary school, the Principal/Head-master shall have the powers to take disciplinary action as shown in Appendix-I of these Regulations against members of teaching or non-teaching staff of a registered secondary school. First Appendix contains detailed provision for Page 19 of 22 C/LPA/1271/2008 CAV JUDGMENT conduct of disciplinary proceedings and is more than in the nature of conduct disciplinary appeal rules. It specifies misconduct and provides for major as well as minor penalties in addition to laying down a detailed procedure for imposition of such penalties. In clear terms, Regulation 27(A) is a part of or a sub-regulation of Regulation 27. It is against Regulation 43 therefore, when provides that the provision of Regulation 27 will not apply to a minority institution automatically even the applicability of newly inserted Clause (A) would not be excluded.
13. As discussed above, there is no financial irregularity or illegal benefit drawn by the appellant, or no charge was proved against the appellant. As per the record, the appellant had started her career as an Assistant Teacher in the year 1976 and thereafter, she came to be appointed as a Teacher in the respondent-School in the year 1978, which is run by the respondent no.1-Trust. She was thereafter selected as a Principal in the very same school and was given appointment order on 28th May 1992. Pursuant to the said appointment order, she resumed her duty as a Principal with effect from 1st June 1992. There is nothing adverse found from the record that starting her career as an Assistant Teacher from 1978 to 1992 for around 14 years, not a single incident of misconduct was placed on record. Thereafter, she has continued her service in the Page 20 of 22 C/LPA/1271/2008 CAV JUDGMENT respondent-School upto February 1997, as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner. She has also completed her pensionable service and as admitted by learned advocate for the appellant, she is getting pension, entitled for. At the time when the articles of charge came to be served to her, she had already given the best part of her life to the services of the respondent-School. In the present case, the appellant had served the respondent for a period of 14 years approximately and she came to be removed from service for the charges; as discussed above, which are not serious in nature, shocking the judicial conscience. We have noted that it is not upto the establishment that the appellant had, as a matter of habit or on a wide scape, made any financial irregularities or gained any income during the course of her service as a Principal with the respondent-School. However, since some of the charges have been proved, we are of the considered opinion that the imposition of punishment of dismissal from service ie., the penalty is too harsh, considering the facts and articles of charges proved against the appellant.
14. The appellant has crossed her age of superannuation from service. She was protected against dismissal by an order of this Court till January 1997. We take a lenient view by exercising discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution and set-aside the Page 21 of 22 C/LPA/1271/2008 CAV JUDGMENT order of dismissal. Instead, the petitioner shall retire from service compulsorily from 31st January 1997 with all post retirement benefits as per rules, which may be available to a similarly situated employee upon his/her normal superannuation, of course looking to the petitioner's length of service till then. These benefits may be calculated and released latest by 31st July 2018.
15. Having regard to the totality of the facts of the case, the impugned judgment dated 2nd November 2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 677 of 1997 is hereby modified.
Appeal stands disposed of in the above terms with no separate order as to the costs.
{Akil Kureshi, J.} {B.N Karia, J.} Prakash Page 22 of 22