Central Administrative Tribunal - Cuttack
Sudhansu Sekhar Routray vs Aviation Research Center on 4 April, 2025
1 O.A.260/00131 of 2023
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK
O.A.No. 260/00131 of 2023
Reserved on: 17.03.2025 Pronounced on: 04.04.2025
Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Sudhi Ranjan Mishra, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Pramod Kumar Das, Member (A)
Sudhansu Sekhar Routray, aged about 55 years, Son of Late
Narahari Routray, of Kalabuda, P.S. Patkura, Dist. Kendrapara.
..... Applicant
-Versus-
1. Union of India, represented by the Special Secretary, Cabinet
Secretariate, Govt. of India, New Delhi.
2. Director (1.A) Aviation Research Centre, At/P.O-Charbatia-
754028, Dist. Cuttack.
3. Under Secretary (Admn), Aviation Research Centre, At/P.O-
Charbatia-754028, Dist. Cuttack.
.....Respondents
For the Applicant : Mr. B. Pujari, Counsel
For the Respondents : Mr. J.K. Nayak, Counsel
O R D E R
SUDHI RANJAN MISHRA, MEMBER (J):
The Applicant challenging the order of punishment passed by the Disciplinary Authority dated 20.10.2022 ((Annexure-A/2), upheld by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 07.02.2023 (Annexure-
2 O.A.260/00131 of 2023 A/6) has filed the instant O.A. under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 praying for the following relief(s):
"i) ...quash the orders under Annexure-A/2)and A/6.
ii) direct the respondents to reinstate the applicant in service w.e.f. the date he was removed from service and that his service be counted as continuous and he be granted all service benefits on such basis.
(iii) And/or to provide reliefs to the applicant as deemed just and proper."
2. The case of applicant, in brief, is that, the Applicant while was working as Senior Field Assistant (GD) he was convicted for imprisonment for a period of 10 years, under section 498(A)/304(B)/306/34 IPC read with section-4 of DP Act. It is submitted that since the applicant was in jail he sought time, through the jailer to pursue the matter. However, without granting time, the Disciplinary Authority, in exercise of his power under Rule 19(i) of the CCS(CCA) Rules 1965, had imposed the punishment of removal from service vide order dated 20.10.2022. It is submitted that, being aggrieved with the order of Disciplinary Authority, the Applicant approached the Appellate Authority vide Appeal Memo dated 07.11.2022 and dated 17.11.2022 for reconsideration of his matter. It is submitted by the applicant that while the said Appeal was pending, the Applicant filed WP(C) No.35977/2022 before the 3 O.A.260/00131 of 2023 Hon'ble Orissa High Court, with a prayer to allow him to retain the Quarter (Govt. Accommodation) in the ARC campus till disposal of the Appeal by Appellate Authority. It is submitted that, Hon'ble Orissa High Court vide Order dated 04.01.2023 while allowing the plea of the Applicant have allowed to retain the Quarter in the ARC campus till decision of the Appellate Authority i.e. Special Secretary, ARC, with the payment of usual rent, till disposal of the Appeal in question.
3. It is further submitted that, vide letter dated 27.02.2023(Annexure-A/6) the Section Officer, ARC, Charbatia forwarded the copy of order dated 07.02.2023 passed by the Appellate Authority confirming the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority by rejecting the appeal. It is submitted that vide Memorandum dated 13.03.2023 (Annexure-A/8) the Respondent No.3 [Under Secretary (Admn.)] passed the order for eviction of the quarter allotted to the applicant. The above order inter alia reads as under :
"Sub: Vacation of Qtr. No. 2RB/171 occupled by Sh. Sudhansu Sekhar Routray, Ex-SFA(GD) at ARC Charbatia.
Reference is made to Hon'ble High Court Order dtd. 04.01.2023 wherein Hon'ble court disposed the writ petition No. W.P (C) No. 35977 of 2022 filed by Sh. Sudhansu Sekhar Routray, Ex-SFA(GD) by 4 O.A.260/00131 of 2023 allowing the petitioner to retain the Qtr.No. 2RB/171 at ARC Charbatia on payment of usual rent and other dues till disposal of the appeal pending before the Special Secretary ARC, New Delhi.
2. Special Secretary, ARC, New Delhi vide order No. ARC/Pers.IV/717/2014-Vol.II-1610 dtd. 17.02.2023 disposed the appeal of Sh. Routray, Ex- SFA(GD) by confirming the penalty of "Removal from Service imposed by the Disciplinary Authority.
3. In view of the above, Sh. Routray, Ex-SFA(GD) is hereby directed to vacate the Govt. Accommodation Qtr. No. 2RB/171 at ARC Charbatia within a week time from the date of issue of the Memo on clearance of all dues as admissible towards license fee and water charges. If fails to vacate, it will be treated as unauthorised occupation and action will be taken for eviction as per rules."
4. It is the contention of the applicant that the Disciplinary Authority passed the order imposing punishment when the applicant being in Jail was unable to have his say in the matter. Requirement of law has not been followed by neither of the Authorities. They have passed the impugned orders on the basis of CONVICTION and without considering the CONDUCT LEADING TO CONVICTION which lead to his conviction as required under Rule 19(i) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 as also under Articles 311, 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that the punishment imposed and confirmation thereof are also violative of the provision Under Article-311 and also provisions under Article 14 and 16 of the 5 O.A.260/00131 of 2023 Constitution of India. Hence the instant O.A. with the prayers as made above.
5. The Respondents in their counter inter alia submitted that after taking into cognizance of the above event, the disciplinary proceedings under Rule-14 of CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 was initiated against the applicant vide ARC HQ Memo dated 08.05.2014 with three article of charges i.e. (i) Concealing of lodging of FIR by I/IC Mahila Police Station, Cuttack against the applicant to Competent Authority, (ii) Shri Routray was absent from duty since 20.11.2013 without permission of Competent Authority and (iii) he defied the lawful order of AD(Pers), ARC, Charbatia to appear before IAC Mahila Police Station, Cuttack in connection with investigation in above said FIR. It is submitted that after conclusion of the DE Proceedings, a penalty of reduction of pay for a period of two years with cumulative effect was imposed upon the applicant. His punishment was further affirmed by the Appellate Authority vide ARC HQ Order dated 26.03.2015. However, departmental proceedings were not initiated in respect of the criminal charges framed against the applicant being grave in nature which involves complicated question of law and fact to be decided by the Court of law.
6 O.A.260/00131 of 2023
6. It is contended by the Respondents that on perusal of conviction order dtd.30.08.2022 of the applicant, the Disciplinary Authority was of the opinion that the applicant does not deserve to be shown any leniency and should not to be retained in Govt. Service, accordingly, the Disciplinary Authority, in accordance with the provision of the rule 19(i) of CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965, proposed to impose penalty of 'Removal from Service' and gave an opportunity to the applicant to make representation on the penalty proposed to be imposed upon him vide ARC HQ memorandum dated 27.09.2022 (Annexure-A/1 to the OA).
7. It is further contended by the Respondents that the Appellate Authority, after going through the material available on file and careful consideration of the appeal made by the applicant and the order of punishment passed by the Disciplinary Authority dated 20.10.2022 (Annexure-A/2), passed the order dated 07.02.2023 (Annexure-A/6) by upheld the punishment order of Disciplinary Authority. The order of Appellate Authority dated 07.02.2023 (Annexure-A/6) inter alia reads as follow:
"WHEREAS, Shri Sudhansu Sekhar Routray, Ex- SFA (GD) was convicted by the Hon'ble Court of Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack vide Order dated 30.08. 2022 on criminal charges under section(s) 498- A/304-B/306/34 of IPC, read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and imposed a sentence of 7 O.A.260/00131 of 2023 rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with fine(s) amounting to Rs 20,000/-.
2. AND WHEREAS, keeping in view facts & circumstances of the case, conduct and the gravity of the Charges against Shri S. S. Routray, Ex-SFA(GD) which led to his conviction, the Disciplinary Authority initiated action accordance with Rule 19 (1) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, by proposing penalty of removal from the Service of Shri Sudhansu Sekhar Routray vide Memo No. Pers.II/ CBT/VI/PF/Vol.3-
15743 dated 27.09.2022 and he was given. an opportunity to make representation on the penalty proposed to be imposed.
3 AND WHEREAS, in response to the above said Memo dated 27.09.2022, Shri S S Routray, Ex- SFA(GD) vide his reply / representation dated 06.10.2022, had requested for 4 months time for obtaining orders from Hon'ble Orissa High Court on review petition to be filed by him. He further claimed that being, the judgement of the Lower Court one sided, the same will be quashed on proper examination of his Review Petition and he will be acquitted from the charges by the Hon'ble High Court.
4. AND WHEREAS, after going through the Judgment/Order dated 30.08.2022 of Hon'ble Court of 1" Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack and considering his reply dated 06.10.2022, the Disciplinary Authority did not find that the judgment dated 30.08.2022 was one sided and proceeded ahead in accordance with GID(2) below Rule 19(1) of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 without waiting for Appeal to be filed in the 1" Court of Appeal by Shri SS Routray
5. AND WHEREAS, owing to the gravity of Charges and conviction by the Court of I aw, the Disciplinary Authority had imposed the Penalty of "Removal from service" upon Shri SS Rootray. Ex-SFA(GD) vide Order No.Pers.II/CBT/VI/PF/Vol.3-16610 dated 20.10.2022 with immediate effect.
6. AND WHEREAS, Appeal has been preferred by Shri S.S. Rout under Kule 21 of the CS(CCA) Rules, 1965 vide his letters dated 07.11 & 1711 2022 8 O.A.260/00131 of 2023 against the Penalty Order dated 20.10.2022. In his Appeal, requested to examine & consider the withdrawal/cancellation of his Punishment Order and his reinstatement in the service on the following grounds;-
(a) Order dated 20.10.2022 of Disciplinary Authority has been passed purely on technical ground and there is no evidence of the involvement of Appellant in the alleged offences.
(b) The Appellant has stated that Disciplinary Authority has passed the Penalty Order in derogation of Rule 19(1) and Principles of Natural Justice without considering all aspects and relevant paper. It is further stated by him that said order is not conform to the requirement of law and specifically provisions of Constitution of India under Articles 14 & 311.
(c) Appellant has specifically mentioned that neither he has been provided with sufficient opportunity to place his submissions nor the Order has been passed in consideration of all aspects reasonably required to be considered.
(d) Appellant has further referred interim remarks of the Hon'ble High Court mentioned in the Bail Order dated 01.11.2022 with respect to committing suicide by the deceased and allegation against Appellant are somewhat omnibus in nature.
7. AND WHEREAS, the undersigned, being the Appellate Authority, after going through the material available on file and careful consideration of the Appeal made by Shri S S Routray, is of the opinion that:-
(a) The findings/judgment dated 30.08.2022 of the Court of Law are warranted by evidence on record. Further, considering the gravity of crime & nature of sentence, the disciplinary authority has rightly decided to invoke Rule 19(i) to be followed in such cases.
(b) The Govt. Servant has been given opportunity to make representation against the proposed penalty of removal from service.
(C) With due consideration of GID(2) below Rule 19(1) of the CCS(CCA) Rules. 1965 without waiting for Appeal to be filed in the 1" Court of Appeal by Shri S S Routray, the Disciplinary Authority has awarded the penalty of removal from Govt. service.
9 O.A.260/00131 of 2023
(d) The grounds taken by the Appellant referring the Bail Order do not mitigate his conviction at all, as the Appeal in the criminal matter instant is subjudice before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa.
8. AND WHEREAS, in light of the above examination, the undersigned in of the firm view that the Order passed by the Disciplinary Authority removing Shri S S Routray. Ex-SFA(GD) from service is based on merits and is commensurate with the Charges framed and proved against the individual.
9 NOW THEREFORE, having considered the entire facts & circumstances of the case, the undersigned does not find any reason to interfere with the Order of the Disciplinary Authority and in exercise of the powers vested under Rule 27(2)(e)n of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, hereby confirms the Penalty of "Removal from the Service" imposed by the Disciplinary Authority upon Shri Sudhansu Sekhar Routray vide Order No. Pers.II/CBT/VI/PF/Vol.3-16610 dated 20.10.2022 and rejects his Appeal made vide his letters dated 07.11.2022 and 17.11.2022."
8. It is the contention of the Respondents that the penalty order and appellate order confirming penalty of removal from service were passed in conformity with the provisions laid down in CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 without any violation of the Article 311 of the Constitution of India. In view of the above, the applicant deserves no relief sought by him and the present OA being devoid of merit deserves to be dismissed.
9. Learned counsel for the applicant has also filed rejoinder reiterated the points raised in the instant O.A. 10 O.A.260/00131 of 2023
10. We have considered the matter in entirety and perused the records.
11. The wholesome case of the applicant is that the order of removal from service was passed without considering the proper fact, and the fact that, he has been convicted by an one sided order without any evidence and/or the evidence is such based on which no one can be imposed with the punishment as has been imposed on the applicant. Further it is his case that since the applicant has been released on bail and the fine imposed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack has been stayed by the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa, his removal from service is not sustainable in the eyes of law. These argument was countered by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents department by stating that once an employee is convicted by the appropriate Court of Law, unless and otherwise the same is set-aside by any Higher Court, the conviction order stands. The Hon'ble High Court of Orissa did not stay the order of conviction dated 30.08.2022 in Case NO.180 of 2014 (Trial No.26 of 2014) (Arising out of Commitment Order dat. 09.06.2014 passed by the learned S.D.J.M. Sadar, Cuttack in G.R. No.1843 of 2013 corresponding to Mahila P.S. Case No.171 of 2013) in the CRLA No.754 of 2022 filed by the applicant. The Hon'ble High 11 O.A.260/00131 of 2023 Court of Orissa directed to release on bail and stayed the realization of conviction order passed by the S.D.J.M. Sadar, Cuttack. The pious observation made by the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in order dated 01.11.2022 in CRLA No.754 of 2022 while granting the bail relied on by the applicant cannot be of any help to him. After his conviction he was issued show cause vide letter dated 27.09.2022 to which he has replied that he may be allowed four months time for obtaining orders from the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa on revision petition to be filed by him against his order of conviction. The respondents did not find any reason to allow him four months time as sought by him and therefore, imposed the order of punishment. He preferred appeal absolutely giving no ground except repeating the pious observation of the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in order dated 01.11.2022 in CRLA No.754 of 2022 / I.A No.1423 of 2022. The appeal was duly considered and the same was rejected. Since, the entire action has been taken strictly in accordance with the Rule 19(i) of CCS (CCA) Rule, 1965 and after giving the applicant in due opportunity, judicial intervention in the matter is not warranted and this O.A. is liable to be dismissed.
12 O.A.260/00131 of 2023
12. The operative portion of the order of conviction dated 30.08.2022 passed by 1ST Addl. Sessions Judge, Cuttack dated.30.08.2022 reads as under:-
"1ST Addl. Sessions Judge, Cuttack
dated.30.08.2022
HEARING ON THE QUESTION OF SENTENCE
26. Heard the convicts, their learned counsel so also learned Addl. P.P. The convicts on the ground of their innocence seeks lenience in the sentence. On the other hand, learned AddL..P.P. submits that since the offences committed by the convicts is not only against a person but also against the society at large, the maximum punishment as provided under the law should be awarded. Considering the fact that such crimes are on the rise, the punishment should be exemplary. Having regard to the nature of the offences and the manner in which those were committed by the convicts and taking note of the mitigating circumstances depicted from record and also in order to meet the interest justice, I hereby sentence the convicts namely Sudhir Kumar Biswal, Kamala Routray, Sudhansu Sekhar Routray & Shyam Sundar Biswal to undergo Rigors Imprisonment for 03 (three) years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- (three thousand), in default to RI for 03 (three) months for the offence Under Section 498 A of IPC to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 (ten) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- ten thousand) and in default to R (six) months for the offence Under Section 304 B of IPC, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 05 (five) years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (live thousand) and in default to R.1 for 06 (six) months for the offence Under Section 306 of IPC and further to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 01 (one) year and to pay a fine of Rs.2.000/- [two thousand) and in default to R.1 for 03 (three) months for the offence Under Section 4 of the D.P. Act. The period undergone as U.T.P by the aforesaid convicts shall be set off Under Section 428 of the Cr.P.C. The substantive sentence for all the offences shall TUD concurrently.
13 O.A.260/00131 of 2023
26. The seized Command Certificate may form part of the record, the seized ligature i.e saree if any, be destroyed and the zimanama under Ext 5 be cancelled four months after expiry of the appeal period, if no appeal is preferred. In case of appeal, the same be dealt with as per orders of the Hon'ble Appellate Court.
1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Cuttack. Dt.30.08.2022"
13. The Rule 19(i) of CCS (CCA) Rule, 1965 reads as under:
19.(i) Where any penalty is imposed on a Government servant on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge."
14. The Order dated 20.10.2022 of Disciplinary Authority (Annexure-A/2) reads as under:
"WHEREAS, Shri Sudhansu Sekhar Routray, Senior Field Assistant (GD) has been convicted by the Court of 1 Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack vide judgment did. 30th August, 2022 for charges under section 498 (A), 304-8, 302, 306, 406 and 34 of Indian Penal Code read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act resulting in award of sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and fine of ₹10,000/-.
2 AND WHEREAS, it was proposed to initiate action in accordance with Rule 19(i) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 to impose penalty of removal from service on Shri Sudhansu Sekhar Routray, SFA (GD) vide Meno. No. PERS. II/CBT/M/PF/VOL.3-15743 dtd. 27th September, 2022.
3. AND WHEREAS, Shri Sudhansu Sekhar Routray, SFA (GD) vide his reply dtd. 06th October, 2022 forwarded to this Office vide Circle Jail, Choudwar letter did. 10th October, 2022 requested for 4 months time for obtaining orders from Hon'ble Orissa High Court on review petition to be filed by him claiming that the judgment of the lower Court is one sided & may be quashed and he may be acquitted from the charges on proper examination on review petition to be filed in the Hon'ble High Court.
14 O.A.260/00131 of 2023
4. AND WHEREAS, undersigned in the capacity of Disciplinary Authority after going through the Judgment of Hon'ble 1 Additional Sessions Court, Cuttack and reply did. 06th October, 2022 received from Shri Routray, does not find the reply from Shri Routray convincing regarding the Court verdict being one sided. Further, in accordance with GID (2) below Rule 19 (1) of CCS (CCA) Rule, decision of imposing penalty should be issued without waiting for the period of filing an appeal or if appeal has been filed, without waiting for decision in the 1st Court of Appeal.
5. AND WHEREAS, undersigned is of the view that owing to the gravity of charges and conviction of Shri Routray in the Court of Law, Shri Roulray need not be retained in the Govt. service.
6. NOW, THEREFORE, in exercise of the powers conferred vide Rule 190 the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, undersigned imposes penalty of removal from service on Shri Sudhansu Sekhar Routray, Senior Field Assistant (GD) with immediate effect. It is also ordered that the period of suspension from 21.01.2014 to 30.12.2015, as referred to in the Order No. Pers.II/CBT/VI/PF/(Vol.2)- 20963 dld. 29.12.2015 revoking the Order of suspension with clause to regularise the period of suspension depending upon the judgment of Hon'ble Court in the criminal case, shall be treated as regularised as on duty and the Subsistance Allowance paid shall constitute the Pay and Allowance for the period. It is, further, ordered that the period of absence of Shri Routray from the date of conviction ie. 30 August, 2022 till the date of effect of this order of penalty shall be treated as dies non.
(PRADEEP SINGH) DIRECTOR (IA) & DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY"
15. The appeal dated 17.11.2022 (Annexure-A/4) preferred by the applicant reads as under:
"Appeal Against order No. PERS 11/CBT/VI/PF/VOL3-16609 dated 20.10.2022 Respected Sir, 15 O.A.260/00131 of 2023 This is in furtherance to my Appeal dated
7.11.2022.
Sir, my conviction for which the above said order has been passed, is purely on technical ground nor is there any evidence of my involvement in the offences alleged.
It may please be considered that the Hon'ble High Court, before whom the Appeal against my conviction is pending. has given reason while granting bail to me in order dt.1.11.22, P.W.5 referred to in the order is a Deputy Superintendent of Police.
With due deference I beg to submit that the above said order has is stated to have been passed in exercise of power U/Rule 19(1) of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965. But, in fact, the order has been passed in derogation of the said provision of law and Principles of Natural Justice.
Obviously, as is it very clear the order has been passed without considering all aspects and relevant papers. It also does not conform to requirement of law i.e. under Rule 19(i) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and also under the provisions of Constitution of India, especially those under Articles-14 and 311. I have not been provided sufficient opportunity to place my submissions nor has the order been passed in consideration of all aspects reasonably required to be considered.
1, therefore, humbly pray, sir, in the best interest of justice the order stated above may kindly be withdrawn/cancelled and I may be reinstated in service.
Faithfully yours, Sudhansu sekhar Routray.
SFA (GD)"
16. The Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the case of Vincent Varghese vs State Bank Of India, (2000)ILLJ1268KER held as under:
"20. In this case, the appellant has been convicted of an offence punishable under Section 498A IPC, which has been confirmed by the Sessions Court Though the High Court set aside the sentence and directed 16 O.A.260/00131 of 2023 the Court below to consider whether it was not in the fitness of things to release him on probation of good conduct, the finding of guilty and conviction remained untouched. In the circumstances, the appellant's release on probation of good conduct under the Probation of Offenders Act cannot be taken to preclude the department from taking departmental action for the misconduct leading to the offence and his conviction, as per law. It has been so held consistently by the Supreme Court in the various decisions cited and relied on by counsel for the respondent Bank. In the circumstances, the challenge of the appellant against Ext P8 order discharging the appellant from service cannot stand."
17. It is settled principle of law that Rule 19 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 is in nature of exception to the general Rules laid down in Rules 14-18 of CCS (CCA) Rules and thus, Rule specifically empowers the Disciplinary Authority to impose penalty upon delinquent, without any requirement of holding inquiry or serving the employee with charge sheet and in compliance of Rule 19 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 the DA had issued show-cause notice dated 27.09.2022 to applicant calling upon him to make representation, if any, against the proposed penalty of his removal from service, which Disciplinary Authority intended to impose upon him under Rule 19 of CCS (CCA) Rules and in his letter the applicant had prayed for four months time to file review against the order of his conviction. Thus, clearly the management had afforded opportunity to the workman to make representation against the proposed penalty, which the Disciplinary 17 O.A.260/00131 of 2023 Authority intended to inflict upon him, in terms of Rule 19 of CCS (CCA) Rules by serving upon his show cause notice dated 27.09.2022 and this Court accordingly, holds that management had lawfully invoked Rule 19 (i) of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 and had complied with letter and spirit and therefore, the ground that the authority passed the order without following the procedure held to be meritless.
18. Admittedly the order of conviction passed by the competent Court of Law still stands in the eyes of law. This Tribunal is not the authority to pass any comment on the order of the learned S.D.J.M. Sadar, Cuttack in G.R. No.1843 of 2013. On examination of the entire facts of the matter with reference to the discussions made above, we find no justification to interfere in this matter and to allow the relief sought for by the applicant. In view of the discussions made above, this O.A. stands dismissed.
(Pramod Kumar Das) (Sudhi Ranjan Mishra) Member (Admn.) Member (Judl.) KB