Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Dr.Pramod Ramjee Sahare vs Union Of India Through on 18 July, 2013
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench OA No.3551/2011 Reserved on: 19/03/2013 Pronounced on: 18/07/2013 Honble Mr. Justice Syed Rafat Alam, Chairman Honble Dr. Birendra Kumar Sinha, Member (A) Dr.Pramod Ramjee Sahare Sr. Divisinal Medical Officer retired, SG/IRMS/Central Railway R/o Plot No.206/B,Jariptaka Road, Bezonbagh, Nagpur-440004 . Applicant (Applicant in person) Versus Union of India through Secretary, Railway Board, Ministry of Railway Rail Bhavan,New Delhi-110001. General Manager, Central Railway, CST Mumbai-400001 . Respondents By Advocate: Shri R.N. Singh) O R D E R Dr. Birendra Kumar Sinha, Member (A):
This is the third round of litigation involving the parties. The applicant, who appeared in person in the instant case, is a Doctor, who retired from Medical Service of the Indian Railways. The grievance of the applicant is that two of his ACRs namely for the years 2006-07 and 2007-08 were recorded at sub-benchmark of Very Good on which account he was overlooked for promotion to the Senior Administrative Grade (SAG) for which DPC was held in 2008.
2. The applicant submitted a representation against the ACRs and when these were not duly considered to his satisfaction, the applicant filed Original Application No.2963/2010 for upgrading the two below benchmark ACRs in question, which was disposed of by this Tribunal vide its order dated 8th April, 2011 directing the competent authority to reconsider the appeal of the applicant dated 18.09.2009. The case of the applicant was that in the ACR for the year 2006-2007, the reporting officer graded him Very Good which was subsequently downgraded by the reviewing officer as Good. Likewise, the ACR for the year 2007-2008 was downgraded as Average. However, the Reviewing and the Accepting officers did not fulfil the mandatory obligation cast upon them of cautioning the applicant adequately prior to downgrading the ACRs. This omission on part of the Reviewing and the Accepting Officers had served to render the act of downgrading as non est and the remarks of the Reporting Officer, therefore, stood restored. The competent authority reconsidered the ACRs of the applicant in compliance of the direction of this Tribunal but declined to make any changes in the same. Resultantly, the appeal of the applicant was rejected by the respondents vide their letter dated 01.07.2011. Against the said rejection order, the applicant filed the instant OA, which came to be dismissed in limine by the Tribunal vide its order dated 30.09.2011. Feeling aggrieved with this, the applicant filed WP(C) 8972/2011 which was disposed of vide order dated 20.04.2012 by the Honble High Court of Delhi remanding the case to this Tribunal for re-consideration on the following two points:-
The applicant had taken appeal in the Writ Petition that the ACR for the year 2006-07 which was below the Bench Mark of very good could not have been taken into consideration by the DPC which was held on 31.12.2008. He had neither warned nor counseled, prior to the recording of the adverse entry remarks. However, this plea with regard to the ACR for the year 2006-07 had been raised by the petitioner in the OA, there is no discussion in respect thereof in the impugned order.
The second contention of the applicant in the Writ Petition was that the ACR for the year 2007-08 could not, at all, have been considered by the DPC held on 31.12.2008 in view of the DOP&T letter no.22011/9/98-Estt.(D)dated 16.06.2000. This plea had also been taken by the petitioner in his OA. But, once again, we find that this has not been addressed in the impugned order.
The matter was remanded to the Tribunal vide the very same order with the following directives on the above two points:-
Since both these contentions raised before the Tribunal, the petitioner, go to the root of the matter, we feel that it would be for the Tribunal to return a finding on these aspects. Consequently, we set aside the impugned order and remit the matter to the Tribunal to consider the same afresh and also to consider the above two pleas raised by the petitioner. While we are remitting this matter to the Tribunal, we make it clear that we have not expressed any view either way on the above two aspects. It is open to the Tribunal to take such view as it feels would be in accordance with law.
3. Accordingly, at the outset, it is stated that the consideration of this OA, as per the directives of the Honble High Court of Delhi, is limited to the aforecited two issues. As regards the first issue, the applicant, who appeared in person, has argued that it is the general practice in the Indian Railways that ACRs are written after the close of the financial year. The ACRs communicated to the applicant for the year ending 31.03.2007 vide GM/C.Rly. Confidential Letter No.CON.216/Adv/ 2006-07 dated 14.06.2007 was received by him on 25.06.2007(Annexure-A/15) with the following remarks:-
Lacks commitment tends to avoid work. The Doctor is too dogmatic, not very co- operative.
4. The applicant submitted his representation to GM/C.Rly. for expunction of adverse remarks on 17.07.2007 (AnnexureA/16) through CMS/Nagpur, stating that he had never received any warning/ displeasure/reprimand during the period of said ACR of the year ending 31st March,2007 and fulfilled all the targets given by the CMS (Reporting Officer). The applicants representation was considered by GM/C.Rly. and the decision taken thereon was communicated to him vide Letter No.CON.216/Adv/2006-07 dated 8th July, 2008 with the following remarks:-
Since no new/additional facts have been brought out, the remarks in the ACR may stand good. The aforesaid letter was received by the applicant on 16.07.2008. According to the applicant, his representation was disposed of without a reasoned and speaking order and that too after a gap of 11 months. Thereupon, the applicant submitted another appeal to CRB/New Delhi on 07.08.2008, which was decided as follows:-
Remarks of Part IV and Part V communicated to you are retained. It is the case of the applicant that the order passed on his appeal was not a reasoned and speaking one and the same was passed after a gap of 7 months.
5. It is to be noted that the applicant has drawn our attention to the facts that he had been given Very Good grading and Yes for promotion in fitness column while DRM/NGP one Sunil Kumar Agarwal (Reviewing Authority) has downgraded the grading from Very Good to Good and written No for Promotion in fitness column, which was agreed by CMD/C.Rly Dr. Smt. Mina Sarin (Second Reviewing Authority) and accepted by GM/C.Rly Sh.V.K.Kaul (Accepting Authority). All these issues were considered in OA No.2963/2010 which had been disposed of by the Tribunal vide orders dated 8th April, 2011.
6. The competent authority has reconsidered this issue and has passed a detailed and speaking order which, for the sake of convenience, is being reproduced below :-
3. From the comments of both DG/RHS and Member Staff, Railway Board reproduced above, it is clear that appellate authority (the then Member, Staff) has passed the orders after due consideration of the points raised by Dr.PR Sahare in his representation/appeal. Sufficient reasons have been given by them for their decisions. There does not appear to be any reason for arriving at a different conclusion and no malafide is found. In view of this, I have come to the conclusion that no revision of the gradings/ACRs of 2006-07 and 2007-08 is justified.
4. As regard to SA Grade promotion, it is found that Dr.PR Sahare was considered for promotion to SA Grade in the panels approved on 31.12.2008 and 15.09.2009. DPC has taken into account all the relevant factors including Annual Confidential Reports in terms of Railway Boards letter dated 03.06.2002 and found him unfit on the basis of his performance. Since there is no change in the entries of grading in the ACRs even after consideration of his appeal, there is no justification for review of the DPC proceedings,
5. Dr. PR Sahare is requested to acknowledge the receipt of this memorandum.
7. This Tribunal vide order dated 30.09.2011 has taken note of the fact that the performance of the applicant, as reflected in his ACRs, had been quite good till the end of year 2006-07 whereas it deteriorated in 2007-2008. The Tribunal, in this regard, has further noted that it is not a case where the concerned authorities may have simply graded him below benchmark without referring to his attributes. His performance has been commented to be lackluster, resulting into complaints and his transfer, which further deteriorated his performance leading to discontent amongst railway employees and patients. Further, we also take note of the submissions of the applicant that his arguments have neither been fully considered nor covered and accepted. In this regard, the limited issue before us, as directed by the Honble High Court vide remand order dated 20.04.2012, is whether the applicant had been adequately cautioned prior to recording of the adverse remarks, and had been framed by the Honble High Court into the twin questions to be considered by us.
8. The learned counsel for the respondents has drawn our attention to the facts that the duties of the applicant also involved public dealings and that the ACRs of the applicant have been recorded based upon doctor-patient-guardian interface. It is based upon the incident where a patient was taken to the operation theatre for operation and after having been administered anesthesia the patient was returned without being operated upon on account of the fact that the applicant had refused to perform the operation. The applicant had been duly cautioned by the superior authorities, who recorded that the operation should have taken place after anesthesia had been administered to the patient. He has further drawn our attention that the Tribunals role is not as that of the appellate authority over the validity of the remarks. The only role of the Tribunal is to see whether the recording of remarks has been manned by some malafide and/or is against some special provisions of the rules and/or there have been some departures from the guidelines/procedures prescribed. The Tribunals are not empowered to go into the factum of proof or to measure the degree of justiciability in recording of ACRs for adjudicating the matter. It is necessary to go into the process as to how the ACRs were recorded. It is to be noted that the assessment of the applicant was recorded in the following form:-
3. Overall assessment with reference to strength and shortcomings, attitude towards Rajbhasha, also draw attention to qualities not covered by the earlier entries.
Attitude to work rajbhasha good. He was working very good as Gynecologist before July 2007 refused to work after July 2007. Put Administration in hardship.
4. Any adverse remarks including penalties imposed or warnings/ displeasures communicated.
Serious role for non-cooperates 20/7/2007. One sides decision stop. Specialist work 24/12/2007. Displeasure counseling to help.
5. An officer should not be graded outstanding. Unless exceptional qualities and performance have been noted: grounds for giving such a grading should be clearly brought out).
He took one sided decision not to work as specialists July 2007. Put Administration in hardship. Not examined ANC for which enquiry conducted more cases referred to outside by him after July 2007.
1. Clinical work as gynecologist
2. In-charge Medical Examination Section
3. In-charge of Group C & D Staff of Hospital
4. Medical Examination of candidate & Employee
5. To promote family welfare programme
6. To strengthening of MCH programme
7. Casualty duties by rotation
8. To maintain fair and transparent working for service.
9. It is significant to note that while filling up the self-appraisal, the applicant had given a list of his duties. As per this list, clinic work as Gynecologist was the first of the items of work and as such it has got priority. The other items of work include In-charge, Medical Examination Section; In-charge Group C & D staff of hospital; Medical Examination of candidates and employees; to promote family welfare programme; to strengthen MCH programme; casualty duties by rotation; and to maintain fair and transparent working atmosphere. It is further significant to note that in the next part the applicant claimed that he has achieved 100% of the target in all items mentioned. The reporting authority has agreed with him in quality of duty to be as recorded in column 3 of part III of the form, which is as under:-
3. clinical knowledge is excellent, performed 37 number of major surgeries without any complications is any case and there is a scope for improvement. The reporting authority has further recorded in Part IV point no.(iii) that lacks commitments tends to avoid work.
10. The reviewing authority recorded in column (3) of part V that the doctor is too dogmatic, not very cooperative and has downgraded ACR. He further records: I agree with the assessment of the DRM Good. The accepting authority has agreed with the reviewing authority. It appears from Annexure A-2 that the remarks were duly communicated to the applicant and he has submitted his explanation as well. There is a specific case which has been cited by Dr. Suhash Nandgave CMS/NGP (reporting authority) in this regard alleging that Mrs. Sarla w/o one Rajendra Shyamrao was admitted on 12.01.2007. The case was postponed after the patient was administered Anesthesia because the applicant had refused to operate upon her. This issue was taken up by recognized Union and also appeared in the Media. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the Railway is a labour oriented organization and such incidents led to difficulties being created for the Administration while undermining the labour relations. In the instant case, this is precisely what has happened. The applicant has relied upon a Circular dated 16.09.1998, relevant para whereof is as under:-
3.24. The report writing officer should devote much time and thought while writing ACR. It should not be done in a casual manner. It should be ensured that opportunity has been given to the officer reported upon to improve by way of advice, warning etc., during the year before an adverse remark is recorded in the ACR.
4.4. a copy of the warning/displeasure/ reprimand referred to in the Confidential Report should be placed in the Confidential Report dossier 4.5. Railway servant so warned will have the right to represent against the same in accordance with the procedure relating to communication of adverse remarks and consideration of representations against, unless an opportunity has already been given the Railway Servant concerned to make a representation in the matter relating to the relevant incident of faults and such representation has been duly considered and a decision taken before the warning or reprimand was administered or the displeasure communicated to him. In terms of para 1608 of IREC A Gazetted railway servant shall not ordinarily be given an unfavourable confidential report before an opportunity has been taken, by means of a personal interview and/or, by means of a personal letter/memo pointing out to him the direction in which his work has been unsatisfactory or the faults of character or temperament, which are required to be remedied. The manner and method of conveying to the Gazetted railway servant that his work needs improvement in certain directions must be such that the advice given and the warning or censure administered, whether orally or in writing, shall, having regard to the temperament of the Gazetted railway servant, be most beneficial to him. If, in spite of this, there is no appreciable improvement and an adverse confidential report has to be made, the facts on which the remarks are based should be clearly brought out in the confidential report itself.
11. It is relevant to mention that there was complaint against the applicant in writing as well as oral. He was counseled orally, and during the year 2007-08 certain written communication were also made.
12. Considering these facts together, we arrive at the conclusion that indeed a patient was administered anesthesia, brought to the operation theatre and returned because the applicant refused to perform the operation on the ground that trained nurse was not available with him. This can definitely be a situation of crisis but the same had to be resolved by discussion between the applicant and his superior authorities. We do not understand that in such a pathetic situation where life of a patient was in danger, why an attempt to resolve the internal crisis was not made/or why it had not been ascertained before administering anesthesia to the patient as to whether trained nurse was available or not. We also take note of the fact that the applicant is a trained Gynecologist and he has been regularly receiving special allowances for specialization. It was, therefore, his bounden duty to ensure that before getting ready for undertaking an operation, the required support staff and equipments were in place otherwise the patient should not have been brought to the operation table at all. This plea of the applicant has already been considered and found flimsy. It is relevant to quote the letter dated 16.011.2007 of the CCM(PM) of the Central Railway:-
It was found that whenever the Doctor was deputed for medical examination he was hardly performing other duties including routine operation. This is certainly not expected from a senior Doctor who is under consideration for SAG.
As regards his dogmatic attitude, there was a case in which an operation was postponed after the patient was given anesthesia on the flimsy excuse of not having trained nurse whereas ground situation was that sufficiently trained nurse was available. Even after the intervention of CMS, Dr.Sahare refused to operate the patient. The Unions raised huge uproar on this issue. This case clearly indicates that Dr.Sahare does not have co-operative bent of mind, which is so much necessary in medical field.
13. The applicant has also brought on record a number of allegations against the Hospital Administration stating that undue benefits were being rendered to private Doctors who have been called to assist in the operations there being insufficient justification for the same involving huge costs. The applicant has further submitted that based upon the complaints filed by him enquiries were conducted and two of the officers were duly punished. It, however, has to be clarified here that it is not within the scope of this Tribunal to go into the allegations levelled by the applicant.
14. It appears from the general statement above and from other submissions made by the rival parties that returning a patient from the operation theatre after she had been administered anesthesia is not a daily occurrence in the hospital. The hospital authorities had taken a due note of it and the applicant was requested to undertake the operation as the authorities were bound to take due note of it. The remaining submissions, which are common to both the ACRs i.e. that ending 31.3.2007 and 31.3.2008, have been dealt with in the remaining part of the order.
15. We now take up the ACR ending 31.3.2008. It is to be noted that the Reporting Officer has graded him very good. It has been further recorded that the applicant lacks in commitment and tends to avoid work. Where such remarks have been recorded in respect of an officer, it detracts from the value of the grading. The two remarks cannot co-exist. Now we take up the ACR for the year ending 31.3.2008 wherein the duty of Gynecologist OPD has been listed as the No.1 priority in his assignment of duties of the applicant while filling up his statistical supplements.
16. It is to be noted here that the reporting officer in response to the queries that whether he agreed with the answers relating to objectives, targets, achievements and shortfalls, recorded as under:-
Agree with duties objectives and shortfalls. Except he refused to work as gynecologist after 20.07.2007.He did not examined ANC for blaming higher officials. As regards Quality and Output quality of performance as regard to the standard of work and prograamme objectives, constraints, excellence in his work, etc., he had recorded as under:-
For non performance of work issued displeasures and working dated 20.07.2007 and dated 19.01.2008 and 24.12.2007. As regards Aptitude & Potential column, indicating the applicant needed improvement, the Reporting Officer recorded as Behaviour skills. Regarding interest taken in family welfare, primary health, patient care and any other special points for medical officers, the reporting officer has recorded that Not taken in best after July, 2007 refusal to work as specialist patient case . Average.
17. The applicant has been graded Average by the reporting authority. Both the reviewing and the accepting authorities are in agreement with this position. Further, we find at page 241 of the paper book that the applicant has already been communicated vide order dated 04.04.2007 regarding postponement of operation and there is another communication dated 16.11.2007 to this effect. It is significant to note that vide communication dated 20.07.2007, his attention is drawn to the following case:-
On 19.07.2007, one patient (married daughter of railway employee, Sh.Pardesi, Mech. Deptt/C.Rly/NGP) who was taking treatment as ANC case at Railway Hospital from Dr. (Mrs) Hedaoo, Sr.DMO (Gynaec.). As Dr. Hedaoo for training, you were advised to look after the case, you have not examined the case on the plea that it is PNM item at HQrs and no reply is received by you for the letter dated 04.01.2005 addressed to CMD.CSTM.
I have personally discussed with you and told that no such PNM item is (not legible) at HQrs. In my knowledge, You were advised to act as per IRMM 2000 (not legible). But you were reluctant to comply with and did not examine the patient.
18. This is a repeated instance despite the fact that he has already been cautioned in respect of the case of Mrs. Sarla earlier. Again on 20.07.2007, we find that he has been advised to work as a team.
19. Considering both these cases together, we find that it is also to be placed on record that because of this particular attitude, Dr. Sahare had to be removed from duty of Gynecologist and put on general duty despite the fact that he was trained and qualified as a Gynecologist. We find that the Railway Administration had cautioned the applicant sufficiently on number of occasions, so much so when occurrence of such incident started undermining the interest of the patients admitted to the hospital and, therefore, it was deemed necessary to remove/shift him from specialized duty to a general duty. While considering both the ACRs, we are compelled to take a note of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents that it may not always feasible to issue warning in good time. For instance, where the assessed officer defaults in his duties at the end of the month of March, how does the Reporting Authority warn him before indicating in his confidential remarks. Here, the recording authorities are faced with Hobbesian Dilemma meaning thereby they either do not record and let the organization suffer or they record at the peril of the remarks being graded.
20. As stated earlier, these two ACRs are covered under the procedure prescribed for recording of the ACRs. We are constrained to remark that the authorities have been lenient in not drawing up a proceeding against the applicant. Instead, they have recorded it within remarks in his ACRs. Here, the two remarks have to be read in harmonious construction on the point whether the applicant has been given sufficient opportunity to improve his conduct and if that is so the same can also take the form of oral advice. It has to be appreciated that in day-to-day working it is not always possible, particularly in organizations like the Railways to reduce everything to writing, otherwise the wheels of the Railways may come to grinding halt and the Organization will sink under the weight of papers. The sense of injustice cannot be carried to a ridiculous extend; it has to be moderated by doctrine of reasonableness and proportionality.
21. We have sufficient material on record to conclude that even in the year 2007 the applicant had been spoken to. It also stands to reasons that when two different patients were returned from operation table on separate occasions, this needed to have been considered by superior authorities. We are further constrained to make a note, without offering any comments on the merit of his allegations regarding corruption in Railway, that the respondents have placed sufficient material on record to indicate that the applicant had been adequately cautioned prior to recording his ACRs. We further take note of the fact that these remarks have been recorded by three different officers and all of them cannot be accused of bias.
22. The applicant has relied upon certain judgments of the Honble Supreme Court in support of this claim. In the case of Coal India Limited & Ors. vs. Saroj Kumar Mishra [Civil Appeal No.1998/2007 @ SLP (C) No.16569/2006] the Honble Supreme Court held that the vigilance clearance can be held up on the ground that the officer is under suspension or when a charge sheet has been issued against him for criminal case or when he is being departmentally proceeded against. The facts and the ratio deci dendi of this case are clearly not applicable to the instant case which challenges the remarks of superior officers. In the case of Indu Bhushan Dwivedi vs. State of Jharkhand and Another, the applicant was a Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, who was placed under suspension on the basis of newspaper report. His dismissal from service was recommended. The Honble Supreme Court found the decision of the Honble High Court, contrary to the case of State of UP vs. Harish Chandra Singh [AIR 1969 SC 1020] where the earlier ACR was considered for deciding the quantum of punishment was not sustained by his ACRs and was accordingly set aside. Hence, this case is not applicable to the facts of the case in hand. In the matter of Union of India and Others versus Sangram Keshari Nayak, the issues involved were different as sealed cover proceeding could be resorted to only under specific circumstances where the employees was under suspension, or where the departmental proceedings were pending or where a charge sheet had been issued against the delinquent before a Court of competent jurisdiction. In the case of Sri M.A.Rajasekhar & Anr. vs. the state of Karnataka & Another, it was held that where the remarks do not act dispassionately when faced with dilemma, then the assessed employee should be provided by another opportunity. In our opinion, this case too is not fully applicable to the facts of the present case because here the issue involved pertains to the confidential remarks and he was provided sufficient opportunities to correct himself.
23. In yet another case i.e. State of UP vs. Yamuna Shanker Misra & Another, the issue involved was that the adverse remarks had been recorded in respect of the ACRs for the years 1987-88 and 1988-89 of the applicant on the basis of which he was denied promotion. The Service Tribunal held that the remarks were marred by bias and resultantly quashed the same. The High Court affirmed the same. The Honble Supreme Court, however, held that though it was a fact that prior to the years under reference, the respondent earned consistently Good remarks, still the recording officer was not a co-nominee to the proceedings and had no opportunity to explain his position which violates the principles of natural justice. Moreover, a vigilance enquiry was pending against the respondent and unless he was to be cleared of the charges, his conduct and integrity could not be certified. Hence, the remarks could not be said to smack of arbitrariness.
24. In the case of Sukhdeo vs. Commissioner Amravati Division. Amravati & Anr., [(1996) 5 SCC 103 paragraph 6], the Supreme Court has held as under:-
It is settled law that when the Government resorts to compulsorily retire a Government servant, the entire record of service, particularly, in the last period of service is required to be closely scrutinized and the power would be reasonably exercised. In State Bank of India vs. Kashinath Kher [JT (1996) 2 SC 569 at 578 para 15], this Court had held that the controlling officer while writing confidential and character roll report, should be a superior officer higher above the cadres of the officer whose confidential reports are written. Such officer should show objectivity, impartiality and fair assessment without any prejudice whatsoever with highest sense of responsibility to inculcate in the officers get demoralized which would be deleterious to be efficacy and efficiency of public service. In that case it was pointed out that confidential reports written and submitted by the officer of the same cadre and adopted without any independent scrutiny and assessment by the committee was held to be illegal. In this case, the power exercised is illegal and it is not expected to from that high responsible officer who made the remarks. When an officer makes the remarks, he must eschew making vague remarks causing jeopardy to the service of the subordinate officer. He must bestow careful attention to collect all correct and truthful information and given necessary particulars when he seeks to make adverse remarks against the subordinate officer whose career prospect and service were in jeopardy. In this case, the controlling officer has not used due diligence in making remarks. It would be salutary that the controlling officer before writing adverse remarks would give prior sufficient opportunity in writing by informing him of the deficiency be noticed for improvement. In spite of the opportunity given if the officer/employee does not improve then it would be a obvious fact and would from material basis in support of the adverse remarks. It should also be mentioned that he had given prior opportunity in writing for improvement and yet was not availed of so that it would form part of the record.
25. In the instant case the applicant has not been put to compulsory retirement. Instead his ACRs have been downgraded which has the effect of denying promotion to him. However, in view of the categorical findings that adequate opportunities had been extended to the applicant to improve himself, there is no infirmity to be noted in the order. The decision rendered in the case of M. Srinivasa Prasad & Ors. vs. Controller and Auditor General of India & Ors. (supra) relates to seniority and, hence, is not applicable to the facts of the instant case.
26. At the end, we would further like to observe that in consideration of the facts discussed above in respect of both the issues remanded back, we find that there is no infirmity in the earlier order of this Tribunal as full and sufficient opportunity for improvement had been extended to the applicant to improve his conduct.
27. We would also like to state that the individual has to work in an organization and sometime under imperfect circumstances. A policy of non-cooperation though certainly appreciable in political arena as legitimate tools of redressal of grievances is not permitted within government organizations, which have sufficient channels for the same. We are fully satisfied that the remarks in question have been given after due consideration of the facts and the opportunity having been granted to the applicant to improve his conduct.
28. In totality of facts and circumstances of the case as also in view of our above discussion, we find the OA bereft of merit and the same is, therefore, disallowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Dr. Birendra Kumar Sinha) (Syed Rafat Alam)
Member (A) Chairman
uma