Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai
Krishna Vithal Desai W Rly vs M/O Railways on 5 March, 2026
1 OA No. 521/2018
IN THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
MUMBAI BENCH, MUMBAI
Original Application No. 521/2018
Order reserved on: 15/12/2025
Dated of order: 05/03/2026.
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Shri Krishna, Member (A)
Hon'ble Mr. Umesh Gajankush, Member (J)
Krishna Vithal Desai
Age - 60 years, Indian Inhabitant,
Retired as Dy. CCM (FM)
At Churchgate, Mumbai - 400 020
R/Add:
R/At: 9, New Shreyas CHS Ltd,
Dombivli (E)
Off/Add:
Retired as Dy. CCM (FM)
At Churchgate, Mumbai. ...Applicant
(By advocate: Shri V.A. Nagrani)
Versus
1. Union of India,
Railway Board,
Through the Chairman,
Rail Bhavan, New Delhi - 110 011
2. The General Manager
Western Railway,
At Churchgate, Mumbai - 400 020
Digitally signed by Rashmi
DN: C=IN, CN=Rashmi, O=Personal, ST=Delhi, postalCode=
110082, pseudonym=e43eb0e1e71d4e88b0ea71809694b4a7,
serialNumber=
Rashmi
5482fa3c129a1d4f404f610355a98ceb9582ace2c33499b07149
7409a4527c20, telephoneNumber=
bdfff08227607de07cc8a71f87733e1252492d43dbcae4331895
b03a11e5f3ff, title=0779
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.03.17 16:46:57+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0
2 OA No. 521/2018
3. Mr. R. Gopalakrishnan
Director POL (Petroleum Oil & Lubricant),
Railway Board, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi - 110 011
The then Sr DCM, Mumbai Central,
Mumbai - 400 011
(period 2008 to 8-2-2011)
4. Mr. D. Roy
CPTM (Chief Passenger & Transportation Manager),
East Coast Railway, Bhuvaneshwar, Pin-751023
The then DCM (Divisional Commercial Manager)
PM (Passenger Marketing), Mumbai Central,
Mumbai - 400 011
(Period 2006 -- to --2009)
5. Mr. Kailash Yadav
Retired as SCM (Sr Commercial Manager)
At Churchgate, Mumbai - 400 020
The then Assistant Commercial Manager (Advertising)
Mumbai Central, Mumbai - 400 011
(Period 2006 to 12-11-2008)
6. Mr. Santosh Nair
CCMI(Chief Commercial Inspector), HQ, Churchgate
Then CMI Advertising, Mumbai Central,
Mumbai - 400 011
(Period 2006 - to - 2007)
7. Aditya Kumar Mittal (Inquiry Officer)
Retired Member Engineering Railway Board
Inquiry Officer, At - Churchgate,
Mumbai 400 020 ...Respondents
(By Advocate: Mrs. N V Masurkar)
Digitally signed by Rashmi
DN: C=IN, CN=Rashmi, O=Personal, ST=Delhi, postalCode=
110082, pseudonym=e43eb0e1e71d4e88b0ea71809694b4a7,
serialNumber=
Rashmi
5482fa3c129a1d4f404f610355a98ceb9582ace2c33499b07149
7409a4527c20, telephoneNumber=
bdfff08227607de07cc8a71f87733e1252492d43dbcae4331895
b03a11e5f3ff, title=0779
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.03.17 16:46:57+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0
3 OA No. 521/2018
ORDER
Per: Mr. Umesh Gajankush, Member (J)
The present O.A. has been filed by the applicant seeking following reliefs:
a) That the Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to call for entire record and papers of the case of the Applicant.
b) This Hon'ble Tribunal after verification of entire records and papers of the case & in the light of facts and grounds stated above be pleased to hold and declare that impugned Chargesheet dated 23-9-2017 is false, baseless, incorrect and arbitrary and further be pleased to quash and set aside the same.
c) This Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to hold and declare that the applicant is innocent and exonerated from all the imputation of misconducts (1 to 9) and Article of Charges leveled/alleged against him and further be pleased to direct the respondent not to take any action on the basis of similar facts and subject matter of the Chargesheet dated 23-9-2017 in future.
d) This Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to direct the Respondent to grant/release all service benefits after retirement monitory or any other service benefits due to the applicant along with interest @ 18% PA from the date the was due till its realization.
e) Pending the present OA and final decision interim relief in terms of prayer clause 9 stated below be granted.
f) Be pleased to impose heavy cost of this original Application on the Respondents and the same may be awarded in favour of the Applicant.
g) Any other relief.
2. Brief facts of the case as stated by the applicant are that the applicant joined in the service with Western Railway on Digitally signed by Rashmi DN: C=IN, CN=Rashmi, O=Personal, ST=Delhi, postalCode= 110082, pseudonym=e43eb0e1e71d4e88b0ea71809694b4a7, serialNumber= Rashmi 5482fa3c129a1d4f404f610355a98ceb9582ace2c33499b07149 7409a4527c20, telephoneNumber= bdfff08227607de07cc8a71f87733e1252492d43dbcae4331895 b03a11e5f3ff, title=0779 Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.03.17 16:46:57+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 4 OA No. 521/2018 21.05.1978, on the post of Gangman. He worked as a Gangman upto August, 1984.
2.1. Thereafter, the applicant was promoted on various other posts in the Railway Administration and was superannuated on 30.09.2017 while working on the post of Deputy Chief Commercial Manager (FM).
2.2. It is stated that his entire service record was absolutely unblemished, clean and without any stigma while performing his duties and responsibilities on various posts for the last 39 years, 4 months and 10 days of entire service in the Western Railway Administration.
2.3. It is submitted that one anonymous complaint no.
2013/10/074/C was filed in the year 2013, alleging defaults in making payment of license fees by few contractors in respect of contract of display of Advertisement hoardings in the Railway's property.
2.4. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, the HQ Office at Churchgate, under the signature of Dy. CVO issued a letter no. E/161/2013/01/074/C dated 05.05.2015 to the applicant thereby called upon him to attend the Vigilance Office - at Churchgate on Digitally signed by Rashmi DN: C=IN, CN=Rashmi, O=Personal, ST=Delhi, postalCode= 110082, pseudonym=e43eb0e1e71d4e88b0ea71809694b4a7, serialNumber= Rashmi 5482fa3c129a1d4f404f610355a98ceb9582ace2c33499b07149 7409a4527c20, telephoneNumber= bdfff08227607de07cc8a71f87733e1252492d43dbcae4331895 b03a11e5f3ff, title=0779 Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.03.17 16:46:57+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 5 OA No. 521/2018 11.05.2015 at 11 AM for giving explanation/clarification as a part of investigation process on the said anonymous complaint. 2.5. It is submitted that in response to the aforesaid Letter dated 05.05.2015, the applicant attended the office of the Vigilance at Churchgate and replied to the Questionnaire. However, thereafter, no any action of any nature has been initiated against the applicant in respect of the allegations made in the said anonymous complaint and investigation conducted in respect thereof till 24.09.2017.
2.6. The applicant states that in spite of above due to some disgruntled and fraudulent subordinate and higher officers i.e. respondent no. 3 to 6 who are having a personal grudge, jealousy about the sincerity & hard work in performance of duties and responsibilities of the applicant, by hand in glove with each other on the basis of the so called alleged anonymous complaint filed in the year 2013 influenced the General Manager to issue a Memo chargesheet dated 23.09.2017 only against the applicant under his signature that too just before 5 days prior to his date of retirement on superannuation by levelling false frivolous, baseless and vague allegations/imputation of misconduct. The said chargesheet was received by the applicant on 25.09.2017. The Digitally signed by Rashmi DN: C=IN, CN=Rashmi, O=Personal, ST=Delhi, postalCode= 110082, pseudonym=e43eb0e1e71d4e88b0ea71809694b4a7, serialNumber= Rashmi 5482fa3c129a1d4f404f610355a98ceb9582ace2c33499b07149 7409a4527c20, telephoneNumber= bdfff08227607de07cc8a71f87733e1252492d43dbcae4331895 b03a11e5f3ff, title=0779 Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.03.17 16:46:57+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 6 OA No. 521/2018 said Memo of chargesheet was issued under Rule 9 of RS (D&A) Rules, 1968.
2.7. The applicant states that as per perusal of the chargesheet there is only one Article of charge allegedly framed against him.
According to the applicant, the said Article of Charge is absolutely false, baseless and levelled with a personal grudge against him. The Applicant states that even the period mentioned in the first paragraph of the Article of charge for which the applicant actually served as an ACM (Asst. Commercial Manager) is incorrect/false whereas the exact period for which the applicant worked as ACM (Advertising) BCT (Bombay Central) was w.e.f. 12.11.2008 to 07.05.2012.
2.8. It is stated that looking to the nature/particulars of events and allegations levelled in the article of charge and statement of allegations are pertaining to alleged events/facts happened in the year 2007-2008 when the respondents no 4 & 5 have allowed the Contractors of Advertisement of Hoardings without following the due procedure of law.
2.9. However, action on the part of the respondent no. 1 to issue chargesheet almost after seven to eight years pertains to those events by suppressing the material information about fraud and Digitally signed by Rashmi DN: C=IN, CN=Rashmi, O=Personal, ST=Delhi, postalCode= 110082, pseudonym=e43eb0e1e71d4e88b0ea71809694b4a7, serialNumber= Rashmi 5482fa3c129a1d4f404f610355a98ceb9582ace2c33499b07149 7409a4527c20, telephoneNumber= bdfff08227607de07cc8a71f87733e1252492d43dbcae4331895 b03a11e5f3ff, title=0779 Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.03.17 16:46:57+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 7 OA No. 521/2018 illegalities involved while allotting the contract when the applicant was not holding the charge clearly indicates malafide intention of the respondents to make the applicant as a scape goat to suppress the illegalities and irregularities done by them while allotting the Contract of Display hoardings to two contractors. 2.10. It is stated that there is gross and deliberate delay on the part of the Railway Administration to issue chargesheet. 2.11. It is submitted that the said chargesheet was issued deliberately particularly only against the applicant just before five days prior to his date of retirement of superannuation. 2.12. Under these circumstances, on the ground of delay and itself the chargesheet and allegations levelled therein against the applicant are unsustainable in law.
2.13. While the challenging the impugned chargesheet dated 23.09.2017 on the ground of delay, it is specifically contended by the applicant that:
(a) The action on the part of the respondent number 2 to issue the chargesheet dated 23.09.2017 on 25.09.2017 i.e. just 5 days prior to the retirement of the applicant on superannuation (i.e. on 30.09.2017) is utterly in violation of instructions issued from time to time by the respondent no. 01 as per letters mentioned below: -Digitally signed by Rashmi
DN: C=IN, CN=Rashmi, O=Personal, ST=Delhi, postalCode= 110082, pseudonym=e43eb0e1e71d4e88b0ea71809694b4a7, serialNumber= Rashmi 5482fa3c129a1d4f404f610355a98ceb9582ace2c33499b07149 7409a4527c20, telephoneNumber= bdfff08227607de07cc8a71f87733e1252492d43dbcae4331895 b03a11e5f3ff, title=0779 Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.03.17 16:46:57+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 8 OA No. 521/2018
1. Letter No 2009/V-1/CVC/1/1 dated 20/01/2009.
2. Letter No 2009/V-1/DAR/1/2 dated 25/03/2009.
3. Letter No. 2009/V-1/DAR/1/2 dated 1/7/2011.
4. Letter No. 2009/V-1/DAR/1/2 dated 12/6/2012.
5. Letter F.No. 2016/V-1/DAR/1/2 dated 11/4/2017
6. Circular No. 3/3/2011 dated 11/3/2011 issued by [CVC] Central Vigilance Commission, New Delhi.
(b) The gross negligence on the part of the Vigilance Officer, Western Railway, Churchgate, Mumbai by keeping complete silence on the anonymous complaint lodged in the year 2013 No. 2013/10/074/C without conducting investigation on the said complaint within the time limit of 2 months provided as per the instructions issued by the Director Vigilance (M), Railway Board is utterly in violation of the said instructions issued from time to time and hence the action on the part of the respondent number 2 to issue the chargesheet only 5 days before the retirement on superannuation of the applicant is with a malafide intention to cause harassment and mental torture. The instructions issued by the Director Vigilance, Railway Board in respect of the time limit given for investigation complaints and subsequently to expeditiously dispose of the disciplinary proceedings which are utterly violated by the respondent are mentioned as under:
1. Letter No 2010/V-1/CVC/1/4 dated /08/2010.
2. Letter No 2011/V-1/CVC/1/4 dated 28/04/2011. Digitally signed by Rashmi
DN: C=IN, CN=Rashmi, O=Personal, ST=Delhi, postalCode= 110082, pseudonym=e43eb0e1e71d4e88b0ea71809694b4a7, serialNumber= Rashmi 5482fa3c129a1d4f404f610355a98ceb9582ace2c33499b07149 7409a4527c20, telephoneNumber= bdfff08227607de07cc8a71f87733e1252492d43dbcae4331895 b03a11e5f3ff, title=0779 Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.03.17 16:46:57+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 9 OA No. 521/2018
3. Letter No 2017/V-1/CVC/1/1 dated 03/03/2017
4. Letter F.No. 2016/V-1/DAR/1/2 dated 11/4/2017
(c) Applicant submits that the anonymous complaint was lodged in the year, 2013 thereafter, the applicant was called upon for recording his statement on 11.05.2015 i.e. almost about after two years. Further, from 11.05.2015 to 25.09.2017 about 28 months and 12 days, no action was taken by the Railway Administration and all of a sudden almost after five years after receiving the said anonymous complaint issued an impugned chargesheet against the applicant five days before his retirement. Hence, there is a serious and abnormal delay and latches on the part of the respondent to issue a chargesheet against the applicant.
(d) There is an inordinate delay caused by the Railway administration to issue the impugned chargesheet. Moreover, no Show cause Notice issued/served to the applicant to give his detail explanation on the misconduct falsely alleged against him. Hence, the said action to issue the chargesheet for imposing major penalty by alleging Article of Charge and Imputation of misconducts is in violation of natural justice, Doctrine of Equity, Doctrine Reasonableness & good conscience. Therefore, chargesheet itself ultra vires and has no substance as per law.
2.14. It is contended that the applicant was promoted by Western Railway Administration after conducting due inquiry, seeking clearance from Vigilance Department of Western Railway and Digitally signed by Rashmi DN: C=IN, CN=Rashmi, O=Personal, ST=Delhi, postalCode= 110082, pseudonym=e43eb0e1e71d4e88b0ea71809694b4a7, serialNumber= Rashmi 5482fa3c129a1d4f404f610355a98ceb9582ace2c33499b07149 7409a4527c20, telephoneNumber= bdfff08227607de07cc8a71f87733e1252492d43dbcae4331895 b03a11e5f3ff, title=0779 Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.03.17 16:46:57+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 10 OA No. 521/2018 Railway Board to the post of Deputy Chief Commercial Manager (FM) on 11.08.2017.
2.15. It is further contended that the Railway Administration and Vigilance Department totally ignored and neglected the guidelines issued by the Director Vigilance, Railway Board dated 03.03.2017 in respect of the timeline given for investigation of complaints, submission of investigation report to CVC and for conducting disciplinary inquiry as a result of vigilance investigation on the complaint and CVC advice.
2.16. Further, the Vigilance Officer has utterly failed to seek first stage advice from CVC which is mandatory as per the guidelines issued by the Railway Board from time to time in cases of anonymous complaints filed against the applicant. Therefore, on the basis of the facts and grounds mentioned in the OA, the present OA has been filed.
2.17. Earlier this OA was heard on the question of admission and was disposed of vide order dated 10.08.2018 without inviting the reply from the official respondents. 2.18. The aforesaid order dated 10.08.2018 was challenged by the applicant before the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in Writ Digitally signed by Rashmi DN: C=IN, CN=Rashmi, O=Personal, ST=Delhi, postalCode= 110082, pseudonym=e43eb0e1e71d4e88b0ea71809694b4a7, serialNumber= Rashmi 5482fa3c129a1d4f404f610355a98ceb9582ace2c33499b07149 7409a4527c20, telephoneNumber= bdfff08227607de07cc8a71f87733e1252492d43dbcae4331895 b03a11e5f3ff, title=0779 Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.03.17 16:46:57+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 11 OA No. 521/2018 Petition No. 686/2019, which was disposed of with directions vide order dated 02.11.2020.
3. Thereafter, official respondents have filed the reply on 18.08.2021, stating that the crux of the matter is that the applicant whilst posted as an Assistant Commercial Manager was given the charge of handling the post of ACM (Advertising) for the period 18.03.2008 to 26.12.2012, during which he failed to take timely and appropriate action against the advertising contractors M/s. Simple Outdoor Advertising and M/s. Sanjay Arts regarding non- payment of licence fee to the tune of whopping Rs. 64,64,516/- in respect of M/s. Sanjay Arts and Rs. 1,09,90,210/- in respect of M/s. Simple Outdoor Advertising, thereby failing to maintain absolute integrity and exhibited lack of devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of Government servant thereby violating Rule 3.1 (i), (ii) and (iii) of the Railway Service (Conduct) Rules, 1966. The Applicant contends that the alleged incident is for the period 2008-2012, whereas the charge-sheet has come to be issued to him only in the year 2017 i.e. a couple of days before his superannuation on 30.09.2017 which consequently resulted in non-release of his retiral dues including Gratuity. The Applicant has been put on provisional pension as is the requirement of law. Digitally signed by Rashmi DN: C=IN, CN=Rashmi, O=Personal, ST=Delhi, postalCode= 110082, pseudonym=e43eb0e1e71d4e88b0ea71809694b4a7, serialNumber= Rashmi 5482fa3c129a1d4f404f610355a98ceb9582ace2c33499b07149 7409a4527c20, telephoneNumber= bdfff08227607de07cc8a71f87733e1252492d43dbcae4331895 b03a11e5f3ff, title=0779 Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.03.17 16:46:57+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 12 OA No. 521/2018 3.1. The applicant mainly contends that there is gross delay in issuance of charge-sheet and on this ground alone the charge-
sheet should fail, whereas a careful perusal of the list of dates and events given by the applicant clearly show that although the incident was of a period between 2008 and 2012, the applicant was granted promotion on 01.06.2012 to the post of Divisional Commercial Manager and on 11.08.2017 to the post of Deputy Chief Commercial Manager and was therefore, a net gainer on account of delay in issue of charge-sheet. It is not the case of the applicant that he was issued a chargesheet in 2012 and was made to be hauled over the coals over a period of 8 years and not granted any promotional during this period. The sole beneficiary of alleged delay in issuance of chargesheet to the applicant is the applicant himself in that he succeeded in obtaining two promotions to very senior positions, first being on 01.06.2012 to the post of Divisional Commercial Manager and next being on 11.08.2017 to the post of Deputy Chief Commercial Manager. 3.2. The applicant on his own admission states that the alleged misconduct of the applicant came to light upon receipt of an anonymous complaint in the year 2013 which also was not taken cognizance of a whopping two years until Vigilance Officer sought Digitally signed by Rashmi DN: C=IN, CN=Rashmi, O=Personal, ST=Delhi, postalCode= 110082, pseudonym=e43eb0e1e71d4e88b0ea71809694b4a7, serialNumber= Rashmi 5482fa3c129a1d4f404f610355a98ceb9582ace2c33499b07149 7409a4527c20, telephoneNumber= bdfff08227607de07cc8a71f87733e1252492d43dbcae4331895 b03a11e5f3ff, title=0779 Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.03.17 16:46:57+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 13 OA No. 521/2018 the Applicants clarification on May of 2015. This clearly shows that the applicant appears to be a net beneficiary in non-pursuit of the disciplinary case against him by the respondents, no prejudice has been caused to him.
3.3. The respondents respectfully submitted that the charge against the applicant is one of lack of integrity and gross negligence in non-recovery of outstanding dues to the tune more than Rs.1,74,00,000/-.
3.4. So far as, the applicant seeking to deal with the merits of the charge and the applicant's alleged defence thereto is concerned, the same is a matter of inquiry and can be gone into by the Inquiry Officer and eventually the Disciplinary Authority. The Applicant need not press on merits of the case before the Hon'ble Tribunal as the same is subject matter of the enquiry to be considered on merits by the IO and DA. Further, the respondents are ready and willing to conduct inquiry on a day-to-day basis and bring it to an early close. The present O.A. seeking interference at the hands of this Hon'ble Tribunal before completion of the departmental proceedings in respect of a case where the integrity of the individual is at doubt and the issue relates to causing of whopping Digitally signed by Rashmi DN: C=IN, CN=Rashmi, O=Personal, ST=Delhi, postalCode= 110082, pseudonym=e43eb0e1e71d4e88b0ea71809694b4a7, serialNumber= Rashmi 5482fa3c129a1d4f404f610355a98ceb9582ace2c33499b07149 7409a4527c20, telephoneNumber= bdfff08227607de07cc8a71f87733e1252492d43dbcae4331895 b03a11e5f3ff, title=0779 Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.03.17 16:46:57+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 14 OA No. 521/2018 loss of more than Rs.1,74,00,000/- to the public exchequer is a reason enough for dismissal of the O.A. with exemplary costs.
3.5. It is also stated that after the investigation is finalized, there is a procedure to be followed before the chargesheet is issued.
The representation submitted by the official, who investigated the case is submitted to Vigilance Officer and SDGM, who records their observation on the report.
3.6. Thereafter, the case is submitted to the concerned PHOD to whom the case pertains for his opinion. After obtaining the observation of the PHOD concerned, the case is submitted to GM for his orders through SDGM. With the recommendation of the GM, the case is referred to Railway Board Vigilance for obtaining CVC's advice. It is only on the receipt of CVC advice, a charge- sheet is issued to an officer.
3.7. It is stated that the action against the applicant is not a result of any personal grudge, as alleged and the charge-sheet is a result of thorough investigation conducted by Vigilance Department and the report has been deliberated by various authorities of Vigilance Department. There is no bar on investigation of an anonymous complaint. Digitally signed by Rashmi DN: C=IN, CN=Rashmi, O=Personal, ST=Delhi, postalCode= 110082, pseudonym=e43eb0e1e71d4e88b0ea71809694b4a7, serialNumber= Rashmi 5482fa3c129a1d4f404f610355a98ceb9582ace2c33499b07149 7409a4527c20, telephoneNumber= bdfff08227607de07cc8a71f87733e1252492d43dbcae4331895 b03a11e5f3ff, title=0779 Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.03.17 16:46:57+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 15 OA No. 521/2018 3.8. It is further submitted that the sole beneficiary of delay in issue of a chargesheet is the applicant himself as he succeeded in obtaining two promotions to very senior positions, the first being to the post of Divisional Commercial Manager on 01.06.2012 and the second being to the post of Deputy Chief Commercial Manager on 11.08.2017.
3.9. It is further contended that the relevant judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court are crystal clear in that there is no straight jacket formula which states that whenever there is delay in issuance of chargesheet, the same should be quashed. What has to be gone into is the charge against the applicant and whether the delay has caused any prejudice at all. In the present case, there is absolutely no prejudice caused by the delay as on the one hand the applicant has succeeded in obtaining two promotions, one in 2012 and another just before his superannuation in 2017 and there is no prejudice caused to the applicant on account of the delay.
3.10. It is contended that as and when a conscious decision is taken by the DA on finalization of the investigation to issue a chargesheet, same was issued.
Digitally signed by Rashmi
DN: C=IN, CN=Rashmi, O=Personal, ST=Delhi, postalCode= 110082, pseudonym=e43eb0e1e71d4e88b0ea71809694b4a7, serialNumber= Rashmi 5482fa3c129a1d4f404f610355a98ceb9582ace2c33499b07149 7409a4527c20, telephoneNumber= bdfff08227607de07cc8a71f87733e1252492d43dbcae4331895 b03a11e5f3ff, title=0779 Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.03.17 16:46:57+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 16 OA No. 521/2018
4. Therefore, on the basis of the reply the official respondents have prayed for the dismissal of the OA.
5. Thereafter, no rejoinder has been filed by the applicant.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and peruse the record.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant Shri Nagrani vehemently argued that looking to the charge memorandum dated 23.09.2017 Annexure A-1 and Annexure-1 to the chargesheet, it is clear that the allegations in respect of the period from 18.03.2008 to 26.12.2012, whereas chargesheet is issued about after 5 years of alleged misconduct.
8. It is submitted that even in respect of alleged irregularities, the anonymous complaint was received by the Department in the year 2013 and after about 2 years, the applicant was called upon to attend the Vigilance Office on 11.05.2015. The applicant attended office of the Vigilance at Churchgate and replied to the question. Further, thereafter, nothing has been done by the Department for about 2 years and just prior to 5 days of the date of retirement, impugned chargesheet dated 23.09.2017 has been issued.
Digitally signed by Rashmi DN: C=IN, CN=Rashmi, O=Personal, ST=Delhi, postalCode= 110082, pseudonym=e43eb0e1e71d4e88b0ea71809694b4a7, serialNumber= Rashmi 5482fa3c129a1d4f404f610355a98ceb9582ace2c33499b07149 7409a4527c20, telephoneNumber= bdfff08227607de07cc8a71f87733e1252492d43dbcae4331895 b03a11e5f3ff, title=0779 Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.03.17 16:46:57+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 17 OA No. 521/2018
9. It is submitted that there are various guidelines issued by the Railway Administration and the Vigilance Department in respect of investigation of complaints, submissions of investigation report and conducting the disciplinary inquiries as a result of Vigilance investigation.
10. However, without following the said guidelines, the impugned chargesheet has been issued belatedly just prior to 5 days of the date of retirement in arbitrary and malafide manner just to deprive the applicant from deferring/getting his statutory dues whether available to the government servant at the eve of retirement.
11. It is contended that the whole service career of the applicant of more than 39 years was unblemished, clean and without any stigma. In fact, while filing the reply, the official respondents have not disputed the facts stated in the para 4.3 to 4.4 of the OA and therefore, the said averments are deemed to be admitted by the respondents.
12. It is submitted that the Hon'ble High Court while passing the order dated 02.11.2020 in WP No. 686/2019 has specifically taken note of ground No. (d), which is in respect of the delayed chargesheet and while filing the reply before this Tribunal on 18.08.2021 to aforesaid paragraph 5(d), it is clear that no Digitally signed by Rashmi DN: C=IN, CN=Rashmi, O=Personal, ST=Delhi, postalCode= 110082, pseudonym=e43eb0e1e71d4e88b0ea71809694b4a7, serialNumber= Rashmi 5482fa3c129a1d4f404f610355a98ceb9582ace2c33499b07149 7409a4527c20, telephoneNumber= bdfff08227607de07cc8a71f87733e1252492d43dbcae4331895 b03a11e5f3ff, title=0779 Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.03.17 16:46:57+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 18 OA No. 521/2018 explanation much less any cogent explanation has been offered by the respondents for delay in issuing the chargesheet and stated that the sole beneficiary of the delay in issue of chargesheet is the applicant and no prejudice whatsoever has been caused to the applicant.
13. Since the applicant has succeeded in obtaining two promotions during the said period, it is submitted that issuance of impugned chargesheet just 5 days prior to the date of retirement is itself shows that it will cause prejudice as the post retiral benefit of the applicant can be withhold and in fact is withhold by the department, which is a fundamental and statutory right of the applicant to receive it at the eve of the retirement and to survival of post retiral life.
14. During the course of the argument, the learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the following judgements:
1. State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Bani Singh & Another 1990 (Supp) SCC 738
2. M.V. Bijlani Vs. Union of India & Ors. (2006) 5 SCC 88
3. P.V. Mahadevan Vs. MD, T.N. Housing Board (2005) 6 SCC 636
4. Amresh Shrivastava Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. in Civil Appeal No. 10590 of 2024.Digitally signed by Rashmi
DN: C=IN, CN=Rashmi, O=Personal, ST=Delhi, postalCode= 110082, pseudonym=e43eb0e1e71d4e88b0ea71809694b4a7, serialNumber= Rashmi 5482fa3c129a1d4f404f610355a98ceb9582ace2c33499b07149 7409a4527c20, telephoneNumber= bdfff08227607de07cc8a71f87733e1252492d43dbcae4331895 b03a11e5f3ff, title=0779 Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.03.17 16:46:57+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 19 OA No. 521/2018
15. On that basis, it is submitted that the impugned chargesheet and consequently, further proceedings are liable to be quashed.
16. On the other hand, Mrs. Masurkar vehemently opposed the contentions raised by the applicant.
17. It is submitted that merely on the ground of delay, the chargesheet cannot be quashed.
18. It is further submitted that after the receipt of the anonymous complaint, the due procedure was followed by the department and investigation was conducted and the case was processed at various levels and after completion of investigation only, the conscious decision has been taken by the Competent Authority to issue the chargesheet.
19. It is submitted that looking to the allegations/article of charge levelled against the applicant, the respondents are obliged to conduct the departmental inquiry as per the law.
20. It is further submitted that in view of the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the applicant has to satisfy that there is any prejudice caused to him because of delayed chargesheet. In fact, between the intervening period of year 2013 to 2017 when chargesheet was issued, the applicant got two Digitally signed by Rashmi DN: C=IN, CN=Rashmi, O=Personal, ST=Delhi, postalCode= 110082, pseudonym=e43eb0e1e71d4e88b0ea71809694b4a7, serialNumber= Rashmi 5482fa3c129a1d4f404f610355a98ceb9582ace2c33499b07149 7409a4527c20, telephoneNumber= bdfff08227607de07cc8a71f87733e1252492d43dbcae4331895 b03a11e5f3ff, title=0779 Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.03.17 16:46:57+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 20 OA No. 521/2018 promotions and therefore, it cannot be said that any prejudice is caused to the applicant, in fact he is the beneficiary of such delay.
21. During the course of the arguments, the learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of The Secretary, Min. Of Defence & Ors. Vs. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha in Civil Appeal No. 2333/2007 decided on 30.04.2007, in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically laid down that ordinary a Writ Petition does not lie against the chargesheet or Show Cause Notice for the reason that it does not give rise to any cause of actions.
22. Further, reliance has been placed on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, Forest Dept, & Ors. Vs. Abdur Rasul Chowdhury reported in AIR 2009 SC 2925, in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to allow the appeal of the State Government and direct the department to conclude the departmental proceedings.
23. Further, reliance has been placed in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Lalit Kumar decided on 09.01.2007, in which the Hon'ble High Court has given various guidelines/observations under which circumstances, chargesheet or departmental inquiry Digitally signed by Rashmi DN: C=IN, CN=Rashmi, O=Personal, ST=Delhi, postalCode= 110082, pseudonym=e43eb0e1e71d4e88b0ea71809694b4a7, serialNumber= Rashmi 5482fa3c129a1d4f404f610355a98ceb9582ace2c33499b07149 7409a4527c20, telephoneNumber= bdfff08227607de07cc8a71f87733e1252492d43dbcae4331895 b03a11e5f3ff, title=0779 Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.03.17 16:46:57+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 21 OA No. 521/2018 can be interfered with on the ground of inordinate delay and therefore, on the basis of the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel has prayed for the dismissal of the OA.
24. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, at the outset, it is necessary to reproduce the relevant paragraph of the order dated 02.11.2020 passed by the Hon'ble High Court in WP No. 686/2019 which reads under:
"3. The petitioner's principal grievance in regard to the impugned order is that, as the charge sheet was issued to the Petitioner after a gross delay of more than 5 years, a Departmental Enquiry could not have been initiated on a belated charge sheet. The Petitioner contends that he had raised the specific ground (being ground (d) in the original application) raising this issue. Our attention is also drawn to the reply affidavit filed in this petition wherein the Respondents contested such plea of the petitioner to contend that there was no delay much-less gross delay, in issuance of the charge sheet. Mr. Marne, the learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that this ground as expressly raised by the Petitioner before the Tribunal also finds a mention as recorded by the Tribunal in paragraph 2 of the impugned order. He submits that, the Tribunal, however, has not recorded any finding in this regard. For this reason, Mr. Marne would submit that the impugned order is required to be interfered in the present proceedings.
4. On the other hand, Ms. Masurkar, the learned counsel for the Respondents referring to the reply affidavit, would submit that there was no delay whatsoever on the part of the Respondents in issuing the charge sheet. Ms. Masurkar would accordingly submit that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order as passed by the Tribunal.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the impugned order, we find much substance in the contention as urged by Mr. Marne. We are of the opinion that when a specific ground was raised by the petitioner in regard to the delay in issuance of charge sheet, which in a given case would go to the root of the matter and which would be the foundation for a Departmental Enquiry, such contention ought to have been addressed by the Tribunal considering the rival contentions.Digitally signed by Rashmi
DN: C=IN, CN=Rashmi, O=Personal, ST=Delhi, postalCode= 110082, pseudonym=e43eb0e1e71d4e88b0ea71809694b4a7, serialNumber= Rashmi 5482fa3c129a1d4f404f610355a98ceb9582ace2c33499b07149 7409a4527c20, telephoneNumber= bdfff08227607de07cc8a71f87733e1252492d43dbcae4331895 b03a11e5f3ff, title=0779 Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.03.17 16:46:57+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 22 OA No. 521/2018
6. From a reading of the impugned order, it is clear that no finding has been recorded by the Tribunal with regard to this issue as urged by the Petitioner on delayed issuance of charge sheet. It would be hence, in the interest of justice, that the matter is remanded to the Tribunal, so that the Tribunal can hear the parties on this issue and pass appropriate orders.
7. We, accordingly, dispose of this Writ Petition with the following directions:
a. The parties are relegated to the Central Administrative Tribunal, to be heard on the issue of delayed issuance of Charge Sheet affecting the enquiry proceedings.
b. The Tribunal shall make an endavour to hear the parties as expeditiously as possible and within two months from today.
c. Till the issue is so decided, the enquiry shall remain in abeyance.
d. Needless to observe that the Tribunal shall decide the issue without being influenced by the impugned judgment and order.
e. All contentions of the parties are expressly kept open.
f. We have not examined any other issue. g. The parties would be at liberty to file such further pleadings as may be permitted by the Tribunal.
h. No order as to costs.
i. This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary of this Court. All concerned will act on a digitally signed copy of this order."
25. Looking to the directions of the Hon'ble High Court, the principal question which requires consideration by this Tribunal is, whether the impugned chargesheet dated 23.09.2017 (Annexure A-1) is liable to be quashed on the ground of delay. Digitally signed by Rashmi DN: C=IN, CN=Rashmi, O=Personal, ST=Delhi, postalCode= 110082, pseudonym=e43eb0e1e71d4e88b0ea71809694b4a7, serialNumber= Rashmi 5482fa3c129a1d4f404f610355a98ceb9582ace2c33499b07149 7409a4527c20, telephoneNumber= bdfff08227607de07cc8a71f87733e1252492d43dbcae4331895 b03a11e5f3ff, title=0779 Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.03.17 16:46:57+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 23 OA No. 521/2018
26. From the records, it is clear that in respect of the alleged misconduct, an anonymous complaint was received in the year 2013 thereafter, in the year 2015 i.e. May, 2015 (after about 2 years) the applicant was called upon to attend the Vigilance Office.
27. The applicant appeared before the authority and replied to the question here on 11.05.2015 and thereafter, impugned chargesheet was issued on 23.09.2017. It is not in dispute that the aforesaid chargesheet was issued just prior to the date of retirement i.e. 30.09.2017.
28. From the records, it is also clear that when the material facts have been stated by the applicant in the OA and a specific ground has been raised in respect of the delay, the reply filed by the respondents in respect of para 4.1 to 4.7, no comments have been offered by the respondents. Meaning thereby, the contentions/averments of the applicant that his more than 39 years of service is unblemished has not been disputed by the respondents.
29. So far as receipt of the complaint till the issuance of chargesheet in para 5 of the reply, it has been submitted that there is a procedure to be followed before the chargesheet is issued. The representation of the applicant was submitted to the Vigilance Digitally signed by Rashmi DN: C=IN, CN=Rashmi, O=Personal, ST=Delhi, postalCode= 110082, pseudonym=e43eb0e1e71d4e88b0ea71809694b4a7, serialNumber= Rashmi 5482fa3c129a1d4f404f610355a98ceb9582ace2c33499b07149 7409a4527c20, telephoneNumber= bdfff08227607de07cc8a71f87733e1252492d43dbcae4331895 b03a11e5f3ff, title=0779 Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.03.17 16:46:57+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 24 OA No. 521/2018 Officer and SDGM, who records their observation on the record, thereafter, the case is submitted to the concerned PHOD and after his opinion, the case was submitted to GM and after his orders through SDGM then the case was referred to the Railway Board Vigilance for obtaining CVC advice after receipt of the CVC advice, the chargesheet was issued.
30. In this whole paragraph or in the whole reply, no dates have been mentioned by the official respondents in respect of the investigation or submission of reports before the various authorities. In fact, along with reply, no documents are appended to justify that there is no delay on the basis of which interference can be made by this Tribunal in the chargesheet. That too when this reply has been filed by the official respondents after the order of the Hon'ble High Court dated 02.11.2020 by which the Hon'ble High Court has relegated this matter before the Tribunal to heard on the issue of delay of chargesheet.
31. The aforesaid facts clearly show that the respondents have failed to provide any explanation much less any cogent explanation for delay in issuing the impugned chargesheet.
32. In the case of Bani Singh (supra) and P.V. Mahadevan (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to quash the Digitally signed by Rashmi DN: C=IN, CN=Rashmi, O=Personal, ST=Delhi, postalCode= 110082, pseudonym=e43eb0e1e71d4e88b0ea71809694b4a7, serialNumber= Rashmi 5482fa3c129a1d4f404f610355a98ceb9582ace2c33499b07149 7409a4527c20, telephoneNumber= bdfff08227607de07cc8a71f87733e1252492d43dbcae4331895 b03a11e5f3ff, title=0779 Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.03.17 16:46:57+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 25 OA No. 521/2018 chargesheet on the ground of inordinate delay. Observing that no explanation was given by the department for issuance of chargesheet at a belated stage.
33. Further, in the case of Amresh Shrivastava, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to observe as under:
"17. As to the second question, regarding whether delay is a ground for stopping the departmental proceedings at the stage of the chargesheet itself, suffice it to say that this varies from case to case. However, in the instant case where there is unexplained inordinate delay in initiating departmental proceedings despite the alleged misconduct being within the knowledge of the department, but still no departmental proceedings are initiated, the answer must go in favour of the employee. However, there may be cases where the department was not even aware of such irregularities or the misconduct, which is of such a nature that it is indicative, based on material considerations of factors other than merit, such as extraneous influences and gratifications. In such cases, such a delay, by itself would not be a valid ground to scuttle the initiation of the process of departmental proceedings."
34. So far as the judgement relied by the learned counsel for the respondents in the case of Prabhash Chandra Mirdha (supra) is concerned, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold that ordinarily a Writ Petition does not lie against a chargesheet or show cause notice for the reason that it does not give any rise to the cause of action.
35. In the case of Lalit Kumar, the Hon'ble High Court was pleased to observe as under:
Digitally signed by Rashmi
DN: C=IN, CN=Rashmi, O=Personal, ST=Delhi, postalCode= 110082, pseudonym=e43eb0e1e71d4e88b0ea71809694b4a7, serialNumber= Rashmi 5482fa3c129a1d4f404f610355a98ceb9582ace2c33499b07149 7409a4527c20, telephoneNumber= bdfff08227607de07cc8a71f87733e1252492d43dbcae4331895 b03a11e5f3ff, title=0779 Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.03.17 16:46:57+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 26 OA No. 521/2018 "3. In our view the Tribunal has rightly followed the above position of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Division Bench of this Court. The above position of law was summarized by the Division Bench of this Court in DDA v. D.P. Bambah and Anr. in LPA No. 39/1999 dated 29.10.2003 as noted in R.P. Nanda v. DDA 2004(3) AISLJ 15 in the following terms:
In our opinion the legal position, when an action is brought seeking quashing of a charge-sheet on grounds of issuance of the charge- sheet or grounds of inordinate delay in completion of the disciplinary inquiry may be crystallized as under:
(i) Unless the statutory rules prescribe a period of limitation for initiating disciplinary proceedings, there is not period of limitation for initiating the disciplinary proceedings;
(ii) Since the delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings or concluding the same are likely to cause prejudice to the charged employee, courts would be entitled to intervene and grant appropriate relief where an action is brought;
(iii) If bona fide and reasonable explanation for delay is brought on record by the Disciplinary Authority, in the absence of any special enquiry, the Court would not intervene in the matter;
(iv) While considering these facts the Court has to consider that speedy trial is a part of the facet of a fair procedure to which every delinquent is entitled to vis-a-vis the handicaps which the department may be suffering in the initiation of the proceedings.
Balancing all the factors, it has to be considered whether prejudice to the defense on account of delay is made out and the delay is fatal, in the sense, that the delinquent is unable to effectively defend himself on account of delay.
(v) In considering the factual matrix, the Court would ordinarily lean against preventing trial of the delinquent who is facing grave charges on the mere ground of delay.
Quashing would not be ordered solely because of lapse of time between the date of commission of the offence and the date of service of the charge-sheet unless, of course, the right of defense is found to be denied as a consequence of delay.
Digitally signed by Rashmi DN: C=IN, CN=Rashmi, O=Personal, ST=Delhi, postalCode= 110082, pseudonym=e43eb0e1e71d4e88b0ea71809694b4a7, serialNumber= Rashmi 5482fa3c129a1d4f404f610355a98ceb9582ace2c33499b07149 7409a4527c20, telephoneNumber= bdfff08227607de07cc8a71f87733e1252492d43dbcae4331895 b03a11e5f3ff, title=0779 Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.03.17 16:46:57+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 27 OA No. 521/2018
(vi) It is for the delinquent officer to show the prejudice caused or deprivation of fair trial because of the delay.
(vii) The Sword of Democles cannot be allowed to be kept hanging over the head of an employee and every employee is entitled to claim that the disciplinary inquiry should be completed against him within a reasonable time. Speedy trial ins undoubtedly a part of reasonableness in every disciplinary inquiry, In determination of this, the first question which would have to be answered is whether on facts, is there a delay? If yes, how long?
Was the delay inevitable having regards to the nature of the charge? Was the delay beyond the control of the employer? Whether the employee wilfully contributed to the delay or was responsible for the delay? has prejudice caused to the defense? All questions would have to be answered. In a nutshell, the Court would have to weigh all the factors, both for and against the employee and come to the conclusion whether in the facts and circumstances prejudice has been shown as having been occasioned to the employee, justifying quashing of the charge- sheet either on account of delay in issuance of the charge-sheet or on account of delay in completion of the disciplinary proceedings."
36. In the case of Lalit Kumar, the Hon'ble High Court was pleased to observe that the delinquent officer is required to show the prejudice because of delay.
37. In the present case, the facts on record clearly shows that the allegations in respect of the year 2008 to 2012, the complaint was received in the year 2013, applicant was called by the Vigilance Department in the year 2015 and chargesheet was issued just prior to the date of retirement in September, 2017. It cannot be disputed that as to when chargesheet is issued to a delinquent employee, his right to receive the post Digitally signed by Rashmi DN: C=IN, CN=Rashmi, O=Personal, ST=Delhi, postalCode= 110082, pseudonym=e43eb0e1e71d4e88b0ea71809694b4a7, serialNumber= Rashmi 5482fa3c129a1d4f404f610355a98ceb9582ace2c33499b07149 7409a4527c20, telephoneNumber= bdfff08227607de07cc8a71f87733e1252492d43dbcae4331895 b03a11e5f3ff, title=0779 Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.03.17 16:46:57+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 28 OA No. 521/2018 retiral benefits comes under the cloud and in fact defer till the conclusion of departmental proceedings.
38. Under these circumstances, if the department fails to explain the delay properly and departmental inquiry is permitted to continue then, it would cause a prejudice to the employee concerned.
39. So far as the contentions of the respondents that during the year 2013-2017, the applicant has got two promotions and therefore, beneficiary of the delay is concerned, any employee gets his due promotion only subject to compliance of the statutory rules and if the applicant has complied with the criteria laid down for the promotion then, it cannot be said that no prejudice has been caused due to delay in issuance of the chargesheet or applicant is beneficiary of delay in issuing the chargesheet.
40. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion and in want of proper explanation by the official respondents for delay, we are inclined to quash the impugned chargesheet dated 23.09.2017.
Digitally signed by Rashmi DN: C=IN, CN=Rashmi, O=Personal, ST=Delhi, postalCode= 110082, pseudonym=e43eb0e1e71d4e88b0ea71809694b4a7, serialNumber= Rashmi 5482fa3c129a1d4f404f610355a98ceb9582ace2c33499b07149 7409a4527c20, telephoneNumber= bdfff08227607de07cc8a71f87733e1252492d43dbcae4331895 b03a11e5f3ff, title=0779 Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.03.17 16:46:57+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 29 OA No. 521/2018
41. The OA is allowed to the extent indicated above.
All Pending MAs, if any, stands closed. No orders as to cost.
(Umesh Gajankush) (Shri Krishna)
Member(J) Member(A)
R.
Digitally signed by Rashmi
DN: C=IN, CN=Rashmi, O=Personal, ST=Delhi, postalCode= 110082, pseudonym=e43eb0e1e71d4e88b0ea71809694b4a7, serialNumber= Rashmi 5482fa3c129a1d4f404f610355a98ceb9582ace2c33499b07149 7409a4527c20, telephoneNumber= bdfff08227607de07cc8a71f87733e1252492d43dbcae4331895 b03a11e5f3ff, title=0779 Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.03.17 16:46:57+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0