Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Rajesh Khanna vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation on 1 June, 2022
OA-2318/2019
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench: New Delhi
O.A. No. 2318/2019
Reserved on : 05.05.2022.
Pronounced on : 01.06.2022.
Hon'ble Ms. Manjula Das, Chairman
Hon'ble Mr. Mohd. Jamshed, Member (A)
Sh. Rajesh Khanna, 57 years
Suptt. Engineer (Civil),
S/o Sh. K.L. Khanna,
R/o House No. 46, Phase-I,
Ashok Vihar, Delhi. .... Applicant
(through Sh. Rajeev Sharma, Advocate)
Versus
1. Lt. Governor of Delhi,
Government of NCT of Delhi,
Raj Niwas, New Delhi.
2. The Commissioner,
North Delhi Municipal Corporation,
4th Floor, Civic Centre, JLN Marg,
New Delhi. .... Respondents
(through Sh. R.V. Sinha, Advocate)
ORDER
Mr. Mohd. Jamshed, Member (A) The applicant is a graduate Civil Engineer and was appointed as Assistant Engineer (Civil) in 1990 .
2
OA-2318/2019 through direct recruitment. He was subsequently promoted as ad hoc Executive Engineer (Civil) on 14.09.2000 and regularized on the said post vide order dated 08.09.2008. He was promoted as Superintending Engineer (Civil) on ad hoc basis since 25.03.2010. It is stated that the case of the applicant for further promotion has been kept in sealed cover during the DPC held in 2015 on account of disciplinary proceedings, which are challenged in the present O.A.
2. It is submitted that the applicant was issued a charge memorandum on 22.04.2014 indicating several charges for various alleged irregularities and lapses while working as Executive Engineer (Project) during the period May, 2004 to 31.03.2010. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated and the Enquiry Officer (EO) was appointed. EO submitted his report on 10.03.2017 wherein Articles of Charge No.1 & 11 were held as „not proved‟ and Articles of Charge No. 2 to 10 & 12 were held as „proved‟. The enquiry report was served on the applicant on 07.04.2017. The applicant 3 OA-2318/2019 submitted his representation dated 27.04.2017 against the findings of the EO. The Disciplinary Authority (DA) vide order 07.12.2017 proposed to impose penalty of „removal from service, which shall not be a disqualification for future employment‟ upon the applicant. Vide order dated 01.10.2018, the successor of the DA reduced the said penalty to that of „reduction in pay by five stages in the time scale of pay for a period of three years with cumulative effect‟ upon the applicant. This was communicated to the applicant vide order dated 16.10.2018. An appeal was made against these orders, which was rejected vide order dated 24.07.2019 by the Appellate Authority (AA). It is the contention of the applicant that he cannot be held responsible for the charges as in the same case charge memorandum was issued to 11 other officers alleged to have been involved. The EO has held charges as „proved‟ against only two officers and most of these officers have been exonerated except the applicant and a Technical Officer. This 4 OA-2318/2019 action on the part of the respondents is, therefore, discriminatory and not based on the facts. The enquiry report is not only self contradictory but also full of unfounded facts and conclusions. It is submitted by the applicant that the DA and AA have not taken into account various facts submitted by him in his defence and have taken note of the incorrect facts in the EO‟s report. The DA has not discussed the case of the applicant on merit and imposed the penalty of „reduction in pay by five stages in the time scale of pay for a period of three years with cumulative effect‟. It is also submitted that the AA has gone beyond the scope of the present case and rejected the appeal of the applicant. Aggrieved by the action on the part of the respondents, the present O.A. has been filed by the applicant seeking the following relief(s):-
"(a) to quash the impugned orders dated 16.10.2018 and 24.7.2019 as illegal and unconstitutional.
(b) to issue direction to the respondents to give all consequential benefits to the applicant in view of prayer (a).5
OA-2318/2019
(c) the Hon‟ble Tribunal may pass any other order/direction as deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the present case and in the interest of justice."
The applicant is primarily seeking quashing of the impugned orders dated 16.10.2018 and 24.07.2019. The applicant has also relied upon the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 1763-1764 of 2002 (The State of Karnataka & Anr. Vs. Umesh) dated 22.03.2022 in support of his contentions.
3. The respondents have filed counter-affidavit opposing the O.A. At the outset, attention of the Tribunal has been drawn to the various judgments of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court wherein the role and the power of the Tribunals/Courts in disciplinary matters has been laid down. It is submitted that the Tribunals/Courts have no powers to substitute its own decision with that of departmental authorities. Respondents stated that in the audit report dated 25.02.2013 serious financial irregularities in execution of construction of Road Over Bridge (ROB)/Road Under Bridge (RUB) were 6 OA-2318/2019 highlighted. The Competent Authority directed the Chief Engineer-IV to conduct detailed investigation into the matter and fix responsibility of the concerned officers. The investigation report was submitted on 10.06.2013 and a number of officers involved in these irregularities were proceeded for major penalty action including the applicant. Advice of the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) was also sought confirming the proposed action.
4. The applicant while working as Executive Engineer (Project) during the period May, 2004 to 31.03.2010 was held responsible for committing a number of irregularities included in the charge memorandum. Accordingly, a charge memorandum was issued to him and EO was appointed to conduct the departmental enquiry. EO after conducting regular departmental enquiry and considering oral as well as written submissions, submitted his report on 10.03.2017 wherein Articles of Charge No.1 & 11 were held as „not proved‟ and Articles of Charge No. 2 to 10 & 12 were 7 OA-2318/2019 held as „proved‟. The enquiry was conducted in terms of the prescribed rules and regulations and all reasonable opportunities were extended to the applicant in accordance with principle of natural justice. The applicant submitted representation against the findings of the EO‟s report on 27.04.2017. The DA after considering the report of the EO proposed to impose the punishment of „removal from service, which shall not be disqualification for future employment‟ upon the applicant on 06.09.2017. CVC advice was also sought, which confirmed imposition of major penalty. DA on 07.12.2017 once again upheld the said penalty proposed to be inflicted upon the applicant. A Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 08.12.2017 was issued to the applicant, who submitted his reply on 02.01.2018. In the meantime, the applicant had filed OA-1100/89/2018, wherein directions were given to maintain status quo. The O.A. was disposed of on 05.07.2018 with directions to the applicant to submit his supplementary reply before the Disciplinary Authority. 8
OA-2318/2019 Additional representation dated 12.07.2018 was also submitted by the applicant. The Competent Authority after considering his representations and arguments advanced by the charged officer, reduced the proposed penalty of „removal from service which shall not be a disqualification for future employment‟ to that of „reduction in pay by five stages in the time scale of pay for a period of three years with cumulative effect‟. The applicant preferred an appeal dated 15.01.2019, which was rejected by the AA vide order dated 24.07.2019. It is further submitted that the applicant has never taken a single objection during the entire disciplinary proceedings and that no challenge has been made to the EO‟s report for any lapse or irregularity or for being against the prescribed rules. Respondents have also brought on record various judgments in support of their claim, such as, B.C. Chaturvedi Vs. UOI & Ors., (1995)6 SCC 749, UOI Vs. Parma Nanda, (1989) 2 SCC 177 and State Bank of Patiala and Ors. Vs. S.K. Sharma, (1996) 3 SCC 364 9 OA-2318/2019 wherein it has been held that the Tribunals/Courts have limited role to undertake judicial review in disciplinary proceedings and in deciding the quantum of punishment.
5. Heard Sh. Rajeev Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and Sh. R.V. Sinha, learned counsel for the respondents.
6. The applicant was issued a Charge Memorandum dated 22.04.2014 alleging many irregularities and lapses on his part. It was indicated that the applicant failed to maintain absolute integrity, devotion to duty and committed gross misconduct, which is unbecoming of Municipal employee and in contravention of Rule 3 (I)(i)(ii)(iii) 3 (2) of CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964.The Charges indicated in the Charge Memorandum are as under:-
"That Sh. Rajesh Khanna, while working as EE (Proj.) in Civil Line Zone during the period May-2004 to 31.03.2010 failed to maintained absolute integrity, devotion to duty and committed gross misconduct which is unbecoming of Municipal employee in as much as he committed gross misconduct on the following counts:10
OA-2318/2019
1. He in connivance with the contractor and his subordinate staff passed the 1st to 3rd Running Bill making excess payment of Rs.3,10,39,077/- to the contractor M/s Rama Const. Co. in Sawan Park Project, North Delhi near GT Karnal Road Industrial Area without verification of the actual lead and without any SLF slips. He made the payment taking the lead to 20 km in place of 10 km within which the dumping sites were available.
2. He failed to check the abnormal increase in the quantum of earth to be carriage as well as increase in the amount paid to the contractors of both the projects during his period and continued making huge amount to the contractors by passing running bills.
3. He also failed to check the justification of rates in Sawan Park Project & Rolshanara Garden project which was prepared by his subordinate staff.
4. He did not got the comparative statement of works prepared in the above both projects due to which, the huge inflated amount in the contractual amount in respect of both the projects could not be checked out.
5. He failed to negotiate with the contractor M/s Rama Const. Co. in a proper way being item rate due to which most of the items were beyond justification limit causing loss to the Corporation.
6. Being the Divisional Head, he failed to check the huge quantity of quantum shown in the estimate as well as justification in both the projects due to which there was huge increase in the contractual amount in both the cases of ROB/RUBs at Sawan Park as well as Roshan Ara Road."
7. He failed to get the signature of Ex. Engg.
(Planning) at the justification of rate for best reasons known to him and did not ascertain whether the 11 OA-2318/2019 justification worked out was correct or not resulting therein heavy increase in the contractual amount.
8. He failed to differentiate the unit i.e. between "per cum" & "per cum per km and got the bills prepared without considering the fact that there was huge increase in the quantum of earth as well as amount due to wrong multiplication with the justified rate with the quantity shown lead-wise.
9. He did not incorporated the clause deviation and variation in Sawan Park case in the tender condition raising suspense on his part.
10. He did not got the signature of the Consultant at the estimates prepared by him for both the projects and forwarded it to the SW & Planning Deptt. for checking.
11. He had shown the lead to 20 km in place of 10 km lead and made excess payment to the contractor.
12. He also failed to exercise proper supervision and control over the functioning of his subordinate staff. He, thereby, contravened Rule 3 (I) (i) (ii) (iii) 3 (2) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 as made applicable to the employees of NDMC."
It has also been submitted that these irregularities for which the Charge Memorandum has been issued were highlighted in the Audit Inspection report dated 25.02.2013. Serious financial irregularities in execution of construction of Road Over Bridge (ROB)/Road Under Bridge (RUB) had been noticed. The Competent 12 OA-2318/2019 Authority vide order dated 04.04.2013 directed the Chief Engineer-IV to conduct detailed investigations in the matter and fix responsibility of the concerned officers. As a result of the investigations, it was decided to initiate disciplinary proceedings against all involved officers including the applicant. Due opportunities were provided to the applicant to defend his case before the EO & DA. EO submitted his report on 10.03.2017 holding Articles of Charge No.1 & 11 as „not proved‟ and Articles of Charge No. 2 to 10 & 12 as „proved‟ against the applicant. The enquiry report was served on the applicant on 07.04.2017 to which the applicant submitted his representation dated 27.04.2017. The DA after considering the enquiry report proposed to impose penalty of „removal from service, which shall not be disqualification for future employment‟ vide his order dated 06.09.2017. This case was further referred to CVC for obtaining second stage advice by the respondents vide letter dated 09.06.2017. CVC vide its OM dated 18.10.2017 advised 13 OA-2318/2019 imposition of suitable major penalty upon the applicant. The DA after taking into account the advice of the CVC and considering all aspects of the case passed the order dated 07.12.2017 again proposing to impose the penalty of „removal from service which shall not be a disqualification for future employment. Accordingly, a SCN dated 08.12.2017 was issued to the applicant, who submitted his reply dated 02.01.2018 to the same. In the meantime, the applicant had also filed OA-100/89/2018 before this Tribunal, which was disposed of on 05.07.2018 with the direction to the applicant to file his supplementary reply before the DA. Additional representation of the applicant was also taken note of. The DA on consideration of defence submitted by the applicant and his additional representation reduced the proposed penalty of removal from service to that of „reduction in pay by five stages in the time scale of pay for a period of three years with cumulative effect‟ upon the applicant vide order dated 16.10.2018. 14
OA-2318/2019 Aggrieved by this penalty order, the applicant filed an appeal dated 15.01.2019, which was rejected by the AA vide order dated 24.07.2019. It is evident that the process of imposition of penalty has been followed as per the rules and there has been application of mind as the punishment initially proposed to be imposed i.e. „removal from service which shall not be a disqualification for future employment‟ was subsequently reduced i.e. „reduction in pay by five stages in the time scale of pay for a period of three years with cumulative effect‟ in the final order. The same was also upheld by the AA vide order dated 24.07.2019. In the detailed order passed by the AA, all these facts have been considered discussing at length the charges and the lapses committed by the charged officer. The order of the AA is as under:-
"This order will dispose off the appeal filed by Shi Rajesh Khanna, Superintending Engineer (Civil), North DMC, hereinafter referred to as the „the appellant‟, against the impugned order dated l6.10.2018, conveying the decision, dated 01.10.2018, of the Commissioner, North Delhi Municipal Corporation, as the Disciplinary Authority, 15 OA-2318/2019 imposing penalty of "reduction in pay in the time scale of pay by five stages for three years with cumulative effect', in RDA 3/56/2013.
2) Disciplinary Proceedings under Regulation 8 of DMC Services (Control & Appeal) Regulations 1959 were initiated against the appellant by the Disciplinary Authority, Commissioner, North DMC, as the outcome of an investigation carried out by Vigilance Department, MCD, to substantiate the allegation of serious financial irregularities committed during execution of the work "Construction of Road Over Bridge (ROB)/Road Under Bridge RUB)", which was brought out in the inspection report dated 25.2.2013 submitted by Audit Department, in respect of Accounts of E(Pr.)-I/ C.L.Zone for the year 2011-12.
3) The appellant was served Statement of Articles of Charge, vide charge memo No. 3/56/2013/CPC/Vig/N/V/2014/25 dated 22.04.2014.
The appellant vide representation dated 25.04.2014, summarily denied the Articles of Charge.
4) The Disciplinary Authority, vide orders dated 11.08.2014, appointed Director (Inquiries), North DMC to conduct formal inquiry. The Inquiring Authority, Shri Raminder Singh, submitted his report on 10.03.2017, wherein Articles of Charge NO. 1 & 11 were held as 'not proved' and Articles of Charge No. 2 to 10 & 12 were held as proved'.
5) The Inquiry Report was served on the appellant vide memo No. 3/56/13/Vig/P/HB/17/1842 dated 07.04.2017. The appellant submitted his representation, dated 27.04.2017, against the findings of the Inquiry Authority. The Disciplinary Authority Commissioner, North DMC, after considering the Inquiry Report and the said representation of the appellant, vide order dated 07.12.2017, proposed to impose penalty of 'removal 16 OA-2318/2019 from service which shall not be a disqualification for future employment upon the appellant.
6) The proposed penalty was conveyed to the appellant vide memo No. 3/56/13/Vig/P/RSB/17/2069 dated 08.12.2017. The appellant vixe his representation dated 02.01.2018, filed his arguments against the proposed penalty. Simultaneously, the appellant also filed OA No. 100/89/2018 before Hon‟ble Central Administrative Tribunal. Hon'ble CAT vide dasti order dated 09.01.2018 had initially directed the parties to maintain status quo. Subsequently, the said OA was disposed off on 05.07.2018. The operative para stated "declining to interfere with the impugned Show Cause Notice dated 08.12.2017, but leaving it open to the applicant to submit Explanation, if not already submitted. In case an explanation is already submitted, it shall be open to supplement the same with additional grounds or material within one week from today." The appellant, in pursuance, submitted supplementary representation dated 12.07.2018.
7) The Disciplinary Authority after considering the representations and record of the case decided to modify the proposed penalty as the impugned penalty, vide order dated 01.10.2018, which was conveyed to the appellant vide office order No. 3/56/2013/Vig/P/RSB/2018/445 dated 16.10.2018. Aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal petition before the Appellate Authority, which was received in Raj Niwas on 15.01.2019. In his appeal petition, the appellant has pleaded to set aside the penalty order on various grounds.
8) I have carefully gone through the contentions of the appellant in appeal petition, his representations to the Disciplinary Authority, Commissioner, North DMC, the impugned penalty order and relevant records of the case.
17
OA-2318/2019
9) As per records, the co-Charged Officer, Technical Assistant (TA), admitted that the appellant got Justification of rates (JOR) prepared by him, even though the justification of various items of RUB were to be prepared by the Consultant appointed for the Special projects. The TA also admitted that when he informed the appellant about not being conversant with the justified rates of items, the appellant had assured to forward it only after getting this finalized by the Consultant. Instead, the appellant directly submitted the draft JOR prepared by TA to Superintending Engineer (Planning). Subsequently, objections raised by the Planning Department were removed and certified by the appellant himself, without utilizing the services of the Consultant appointed for the Projects. It is also on record that the discrepancies committed in preparation/checking of JOR for items of carriage of material in the works of RUBs Sawan Park & Roshanara Garden were brought to light during Audit. The appellant then initiated recovery proceedings with respect to the excess payment made to the contractor. Had the appellant followed laid down norms, the question of excess payment would not have arisen in the first place.
10) The appellant has evidently acted irresponsibly, while making excess payment to the contractor. Besides, it would have remained unnoticed, but for the Audit report.
Hence, such misconduct cannot go unpunished and in fact merits to be meted out Commensurate penalty under the regulations.
11) In view of the totality of facts and circumstances of the case and in the absence of any credible defence put forward by the appellant, I am of the considered opinion that the averments made by the appellant in his appeal petition are devoid of merit. Hence, no interference of the Appellate Authority in 18 OA-2318/2019 respect of the impugned penalty is called for and the appeal petition merits to be rejected. I order accordingly.
The appellant Shri Rajesh Khanna, Superintending Engineer (Civil) be so informed."
7. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the applicant vehemently argued on charges dealt with by the EO & reiterated the submissions made by the charged officer in his defence. At the same time, in OA, the applicant has not challenged the EO‟s report. The main relief sought is also for quashing of impugned order of the DA dated 16.10.2018 and that of the AA dated 24.07.2019. It is obvious that second stage advice of CVC was sought before imposing the final punishment. The DA considered all these aspects and did not impose the punishment of „removal from service which shall not be a disqualification for future employment‟ but reduced it to that of „reduction in pay by five stages in the time scale of pay for a period of three years with cumulative effect‟. His appeal was also considered and rejected by passing a detailed reasoned order by the AA.
19
OA-2318/2019
8. This brings us to the question of role of the Tribunals/Courts on judicial review in disciplinary proceedings. In latest judgment dated 22.03.2022 of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in The State of Karnataka & Anr. Vs. Umesh(Civil Appeal Nos. 1763-1764 of 2022) various precious judgments have been discussed and it is held that:-
"17 In the exercise of judicial review, the Court does not act as an appellate forum over the findings of the disciplinary authority. The court does not re- appreciate the evidence on the basis of which the finding of misconduct has been arrived at in the course of a disciplinary enquiry. The Court in the exercise of judicial review must restrict its review to determine whether: (i) the rules of natural justice have been complied with; (ii) the finding of misconduct is based on some evidence; (iii) the statutory rules governing the conduct of the disciplinary enquiry have been observed; and (iv) whether the findings of the disciplinary authority suffer from perversity; and (vi) the penalty is disproportionate to the proven misconduct.11 However, none of the above tests for attracting the interference of the High Court were attracted in the present case. The Karnataka Administrative Tribunal having exercised the power of judicial review found no reason to interfere with the award of punishment of compulsory retirement. The Division Bench of the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Article 226 and trenched upon a domain which falls within the disciplinary jurisdiction of the employer. The enquiry was conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The findings of the inquiry officer and the disciplinary authority are sustainable with reference to the evidence which was adduced during the enquiry. The acquittal of the respondent in 20 OA-2318/2019 the course of the criminal trial did not impinge upon the authority of the disciplinary authority or the finding of misconduct in the disciplinary proceeding.
18. For these reasons, we allow the appeals and set aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court of Karnataka at the Kalaburagi Bench dated 29 November 2017 in Writ Petition Nos. 202250- 251/2016 (S-KAT). The Petition instituted by the respondent under Article 226 of the Constitution shall stand dismissed. The finding of misconduct and the punishment of compulsory retirement are restored."
In the past also in a catena of judgments including B.C. Chaturvedi Vs. UOI & Ors., (1995)6 SCC 749 and State Bank of Patiala and Ors. Vs. S.K. Sharma, (1996) 3 SCC 364, this aspect has been dealt with at length. In two recent judgments of the Tribunal in OA-1895/2018 (Alka Rajvanshi Jain Vs. UOI & Ors.) dated 23.03.2022 and OA-643/2021 (Arvind Kumar Vs. UOI & Ors.) dated 29.03.2022 these aspects have been considered and discussed. The relevant paras are as under:-
"14. We have also considered another issue of power of judicial review of the Tribunals and Courts in disciplinary proceedings. In this regard, Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Parma Nanda (supra) has held as under: "
"26. So much is, we think, established law on the scope of jurisdiction and the amplitude of powers of the Tribunal. However, of late we have been receiving a large number of appeals from the orders of Tribunals-Central and States complaining 21 OA-2318/2019 about the interference with the penalty awarded in the disciplinary proceedings. The Tribunals seem to take it within their discretion to interfere with the penalty on the ground that it is not commensurate with the delinquency of the official. The law already declared by this Court, which we reiterate discretion or power.
27. We must unequivocally state that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to interfere with the disciplinary matters or punishment cannot be equated with an appellate jurisdiction. The Tribunal cannot interfere with the findings of the 19 OA No. 1895/2018 Inquiry Officer or competent authority where they are not arbitrary or utterly perverse. It is appropriate to remember that the power to impose penalty on a delinquent officer is conferred on the competent authority either by an Act of legislature or rules made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. If there has been an enquiry consistent with the rules and in accordance with principles of natural justice what punishment would meet the ends of justice is a matter exclusively within the jurisdiction of the competent authority. If the penalty can lawfully be imposed and is imposed on the proved misconduct, the Tribunal has no power to substitute its own discretion for that of the authority. The adequacy of penalty unless it is mala fide is certainly not a matter for the Tribunal to concern with. The Tribunal also cannot interfere with the penalty if the conclusion of the Inquiry Officer or the competent authority is based on evidence even if some of it is found to be irrelevant or extraneous to the matter."
15. In another judgment dated 14.02.2020 in the State of Karnataka and Anr. vs. N. Gangaraj (supra), the Hon‟ble Apex Court considered the judgment of B.C. Chaturvedi vs. Union of India and Ors., (1995) 6 SCC 749, wherein it was held that power of judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. It also quoted State of Bikaner and Jaipur vs. Nemi Chand Nalwaya, (2011) 4 SCC 584 wherein it is held that the Courts will not act as an Appellate Court and reassess the evidence led in the domestic enquiry, 22 OA-2318/2019 nor interfere on the ground that another view is possible on the material on record. If the enquiry has been fairly and properly held and the findings are based on evidence, the question of adequacy or the reliable nature of the evidence will not be ground for interfering with the findings in departmental enquiries. 20 OA No. 1895/2018 Finally, it has relied upon the Hon‟ble Apex Court judgment in Union of India vs. P. Gunasekaran, (2015) 2 SCC 610, the same is extracted below:
"13. Under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not:
(i)re-appreciate the evidence;
(ii) interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case the same has been conducted in accordance with law;
(iii) go into the adequacy of the evidence;
(iv) go into the reliability of the evidence;
(v) interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be based.
(vi) correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be;
(vii) go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience."
9. The disciplinary proceedings have been conducted as per the rules according reasonable opportunities to the applicant to put forward his defence in accordance with law. In view of the above mentioned, we do not find any infirmity or illegality in 23 OA-2318/2019 the impugned orders dated 07.12.2017 of DA and dated 24.07.2019 of the AA.
10. The O.A. is devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Mohd. Jamshed) (Manjula Das) Member (A) Chairman /vinita/