Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Ex. Constable Vinod Kumar vs The Commissioner Of Police (Delhi) on 24 December, 2010
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI OA 685/2010 New Delhi, this the 24th day of December, 2010 HONBLE MRS. MEERA CHHIBBER, MEMBER (J) HONBLE MR. SHAILENDRA PANDEY, MEMBER (A) Ex. Constable Vinod Kumar, S/o Shri Bhopal Singh, R/o A-76, A-Block, Gali No.6, Meet Nagar, Delhi-94. ..Applicant By Advocate: None. Versus 1. The Commissioner of Police (Delhi), PHQ, M.S.O. Building, I.P. Estate, ITO, New Delhi. 2. The Dy. Commissioner of Police, 2nd Bn. DAP , Delhi. 3. The Sr. Addl. Commissioner of Police, A & T Delhi. Respondents By Advocate : Mrs. Renu George. O R D E R
By Honble Mrs. Meera Chhibber, Member (J) Applicant has challenged order dated 12.12.1996 whereby he has been dismissed from service by attracting Article 311 (2) (b) of the Constitution by observing as follows:-
In my view holding of a regular departmental enquiry against Const. Vinod Kumar No.1853/DAP is not reasonably practicable because it is not uncommon in such cases to find the witnesses turning hostile due to fear of reprisals. Terrorizing, threatening or intimidating the witnesses, who will come forward to give evidence against him in the D.E. are common tactics, adopted by the criminal defaulters. It is also reasonably certain that he would use not only his position but also physical help from others the witnesses. The desperate and daring criminal Constable who indulged in such a heinous crime shows would indulge in any criminal act to harm the witnesses to obstruct the holding of enquiry in normal way. It needs lot of courage to depose against an ordinary criminal and much more courage has to be shown to depose against a hardened criminal in the guise of a police man.
2. The brief facts as alleged by the applicant are that he joined Delhi Police on 02.01.1982 and had been performing his duties with devotion and sincerity.
3. On 14.11.1996, an FIR No.1132/96 was lodged and applicant was arrested on the basis of disclosure statement of the accused. The department took cognizance of same and dismissed the applicant without finding out the truth or even affording an opportunity to the applicant to defend himself.
4. Being aggrieved, applicant submitted an appeal but his appeal was also rejected vide order dated 27.03.1997.
5. It is submitted by the applicant that he could not have been dismissed simply on the basis of disclosure statement of an accused without verifying the same. In fact on the alleged date of incident, i.e. 14.11.1996 at 11.30 a.m., applicant was on duty at Kingsway Camp 2nd Bn. DAP along with Inspector Sultan Singh which is evident from the Roznamcha of the police record.
6. Even if respondents had any doubt, they should have held a departmental enquiry. There is no justification to dispense with the enquiry. He has placed reliance on Delhi Cloth Mill Ltd. vs. Kaushal Bhan, AIR 1960 SC 806 and has prayed that the O.A. may be allowed. At the time of arguments, applicant informed us, his judgment is likely to be pronounced in criminal case on 22.12.2010.
7. Respondents have opposed this O.A. They have stated that on 14.11.1996, one Shri Daya Nand Singh cashier of Roadwing International Company, Room No.301, 2nd Floor, B.D. Chamber, 54/10, Desh Bandhu Gupta Road, New Delhi was traveling in a blue line bus with cash Rs.75,000/- in his brief case. He was standing in the bus and brief case was kept near his feet. When the bus reached near Regal Cinema outer circle, Connaught Place, he noticed the cash missing. He immediately, raised alarm and urged the driver to stop the bus. One person, later on identified as Mukhtiar Alam s/o Sheikh Nasiruddin R/o 206/D, Block B.C. Shalimar Bagh, jumped from the bus and started running. The complainant chased him and Constable Shree Pal Singh, No.3053/PCR who had come there for some private work also chased and apprehended Mukhtiar Alam. The matter was reported to PS Connaught Place, New Delhi and a criminal case was registered.
8. During the course of investigation, accused Mukhtiar Alam disclosed that he belongs to Calcutta and is staying in Delhi for the last six years. He has a gang of pick-pockets comprising (1) Mohd. Mustaq, (2) Sheikh Safi and (3) Mohd. Izar etc. who operate in the crowded buses mainly in Connaught Place, Pahar Ganj etc. Constable Vinod Kumar is also a member of his gang. In this case he along with Mohd. Mustaq, Mohd. Izar, Sheikh Safi, Shakeel and Constable Vinod Kumar had committed theft. The stolen money was with Constable Vinod Kumar. Accordingly, Constable Vinod Kumar (applicant), Mohd. Mustaq and Sheikh were arrested in the case on the pointing out and identification of Mukhtiar Alam. The case property of Rs.3,000/- was recovered from Mohd. Mustaq and Rs.70,000/- was recovered at the instance of Constable Vinod Kumar. Mukhtiar Alam, Sheikh Safi and Constable Vinod Kumar also disclosed to have committed such thefts on fifteen different occasions in the past. A sum of Rs.25,000/- one camera, one stereo and several purses have also been recovered from the house of accused Mukhtiar Alam.
9. They have thus stated the above act on the part of applicant is most reprehensible and totally unexpected from a member of disciplined/uniformed force. He was involved in a very heinous offence. His act, as a member of disciplined force, was very serious and has affected the image of Delhi Police in the eyes of public at large. This incident would also shake the faith of a citizen on the police whom they see as their protectors. The involvement of the Constable in criminal activities followed by the registration of criminal case shows that he is a criminal character and his continuance in the police force is hazardous to the public. Hence, he is completely unfit to retain in the police force.
10. A regular departmental enquiry against the applicant was not reasonably practicable because it was not uncommon in such cases to find the witnesses turning hostile due to fear of reprisals. Terrorizing, threatening or intimidating the witnesses, who will come forward to give evidence against him in the D.E., are common tactics adopted by the criminal defaulters. It is also reasonably certain that he would use not only his position but also physical help from other witnesses. The desperate and daring criminal Constable, who indulged in such a heinous crime shows he would indulge in any criminal act to harm the witnesses and to obstruct the holding of enquiry in normal way. It is a lot of courage to depose against an ordinary criminal and much more courage has to be shown to depose against a hardened criminal in the guise of a police man.
11. Assessing the above mentioned circumstances and considering all relevant aspects and fully satisfying himself the disciplinary authority had came to the conclusion that it will not be reasonably practicable to hold a regular departmental enquiry against the Constable, who by his act has clearly indicated criminal tendencies in him. He is criminal minded person and absolutely unfit to retain in Government service. The disciplinary authority dismissed the applicant under the provision of Article 311 (2)(b) of the Constitution of India vide order No.11925-12025/HAP-II Bn. DAP dated 12.12.1996.
12. The appeal was rejected after considering all the facts on 27.3.1997 whereas OA has been filed on 17.2.2010, therefore, it is barred by limitation. The OA may, therefore, be dismissed.
13. Applicant has filed MA No. 499/2010 for condonation of delay on the ground that he was waiting for the criminal case to be decided but even after 14 years, the case has not yet been decided, therefore, the delay may be condoned.
14. We have heard counsel for the respondents. Since counsel for the applicant had withdrawn from the case on the ground that he is not able to contact the applicant, we had issued notice to the applicant on 25.11.2010 informing him the case would be listed on 16.12.2010. On 16.12.2010 though applicant appeared but has neither filed any vakalatnama engaging another counsel nor any advocate appeared for him. We have thus perused his pleadings.
15. The question which confronts us in this matter is, as to whether the reasoning of the respondents concluding that it was not reasonably practicable to hold an enquiry before dismissing the respondents from their services by invoking second proviso to sub clause (b) of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India in the prevailing circumstances at the relevant time was justified or not?
16. The circumstances in which enquiry can be dispensed with now stands explained in the guidelines forming part of Rule 19 of the CCS(CCA) Rules after the pronouncement of the judgment in the case of Union of India Vs. Tulsiram Patel (1985) 3 SCC 398 by the Hon?ble Supreme Court of India which for ready reference reads as under:-
5-A ( C) Cases falling under Rule 19 (ii): A question has been raised whether, in a case where clause (b) of the second proviso to Article 311 (2) of the Constitution is invoked, the disciplinary authority may dispense with the issuing of charge memo listing the charges. Clause (b) is attracted in a case where the disciplinary authority concludes, that it is not reasonably practicable to hold such an inquiry. The circumstances leading to such a conclusion may exist either before the inquiry is commenced or may develop in the course of the inquiry. In the Tulsi Ram Patel case, the Supreme Court observed as under:-
It is not necessary that a situation which makes the holding of an inquiry not reasonably practicable should exist before the disciplinary inquiry is initiated against a Government servant. Such a situation can also come into existence subsequently during the course of an inquiry, for instance, after the service of a charge-sheet upon the Government servant or after he has filed his written statement thereto or even after the evidence had been led in part. In such a case also, the disciplinary authority would be entitled to apply clause (b) of the second proviso because the word inquiry in that clause includes part of an inquiry.
Article 311 (2) of the Constitution concerns itself with the punishment of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank, which comes in the category of major punishment under the service rules providing the procedure for disciplinary action against Government servants. The first step in that procedure is the service of a memorandum of charges or a charge-sheet, as popularly known, on the Government servant, listing the charges against him and calling upon him, by a specified date, to furnish a reply either denying or accepting all or any of the charges. An inquiry hence commences under the service rules with the service of the charge-sheet. Obviously, if the circumstances even before the commencement of an inquiry are such that the disciplinary authority holds that it is not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry, no action by way of service of charge-sheet would be necessary. On the other hand, if such circumstances develop in the course of inquiry, a charge-sheet would already have been served on the Government servant concerned.
6. There are two conditions precedent which must be satisfied before action under Clause (b) of second proviso is taken against a Government servant. These conditions are:-
(i) There must exist a situation which makes the holding of an inquiry contemplated by Article 311 (2) not reasonably practicable. What is required is that holding of inquiry is not practicable in the opinion of the reasonable man taking a reasonable view of the prevailing situation. It is not possible to enumerate all the cases in which it would not be reasonably practicable to hold the inquiry. Illustrative cases would be :-
(a) Where a civil servant, through or together with his associates, terrorises, threatens or intimidates witnesses who are likely to give evidence against him with fear of reprisal in order to prevent them from doing so; or
(b) Where the civil servant by himself or with or through others threatens, intimidates and terrorises the officer who is disciplinary authority or members of his family so that the officer is afraid to hold the inquiry or direct it to be held; or
(c) Where an atmosphere of violence or of general indiscipline and insubordination prevails at the time the attempt to hold the inquiry is made.
The disciplinary authority is not expected to dispense with a disciplinary inquiry lightly or arbitrarily or out of ulterior motives or merely in order to avoid the holding of an inquiry or because the Departments case against the civil servant is weak and is, therefore, bound to fail.
It is important to note that the circumstances of the nature given in the illustrative cases, or other circumstances which make the disciplinary authority conclude that it is not reasonably practicable to hold the inquiry, should actually subsist at the time when the conclusion is arrived at. The threat, intimidation or the atmosphere of violence or of a general indiscipline and insubordination, for example, referred to in the illustrative cases, should be subsisting at the time when the disciplinary authority arrives at his conclusion. It will not be correct on the part of the disciplinary authority to anticipate such circumstances as those that are likely to arise, possibly later in time, as grounds for holding that it is not reasonably practicable to hold the inquiry and, on that basis, dispense with serving a charge-sheet on the Government servant.
(ii) Another important condition precedent to the application of clause (b) of the second proviso to Article 311 (2), or rule 19 (ii) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 or any other similar rule is that the disciplinary authority should record in writing the reason or reasons for its satisfaction that it was not reasonably practicable to hold the inquiry contemplated by Article 311 (2) or corresponding provisions in the service rules. This is a constitutional obligation and, if the reasons are not recorded in writing, the order dispensing with the inquiry and the order of penalty following it would both be void and unconstitutional. It should also be kept in mind that the recording in writing of the reasons for dispensing with the inquiry must precede an order imposing the penalty. Legally speaking, the reasons for dispensing with the inquiry need not find a place in the final order itself, though they should be recorded separately in the relevant file. In spite of this legal position, it would be of advantage to incorporate briefly the reasons which led the disciplinary authority to the conclusion that it was not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry, in the order of penalty. While the reasons so given may be brief, they should not be vague or they should not be just a repetition of the language of the relevant rules.
17. It is thus seen that the three conditions mentioned in sub-clause (6) to Rule 19 of the CCS (CCA), relevant for invoking of sub-clause (b) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) provides that:
(a) Where a civil servant, alone or together with his associates terrorizes, threatens or intimidates witnesses who are likely to give evidence against him with fear or reprisal in order to prevent them from doing so; or
(b) Where the civil servant by himself or though others threatens, intimidates and terrorizes the officer who is the disciplinary authority or members of his family so that the officer is afraid to hold the enquiry or direct it to be held; or
(c) Where an atmosphere of violence or of general indiscipline and insubordination pevails at the time of the attempt to hold the enquiry is made.
It is also clear that the disciplinary authority is not expected to dispense with a disciplinary enquiry lightly or arbitrarily or out of ulterior motives or merely in order to avoid the holding of an enquiry or because the Departments case against the civil servant is weak and is, therefore, bound to fall.
18. In this backdrop if, the reasons given to dispense with the enquiry in order dated 12.12.1996 are seen, we find there is no material available on record on the basis of which the opinion has been formed by the disciplinary authority to dispense with the enquiry. All that is noted is what is generally happening and likelihood of applicant terrorizing the witnesses. This according to us is not sufficient to dispense with the enquiry.
19. At this juncture it would be advantageous to refer to the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in Tarsem Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Others reported in 2008 (2) SCC (L&S) 140 wherein it was clearly held that subjective satisfaction of authority for dispensing with departmental enquiry must be based on objective criteria. The short facts of the case were that Tarsem Singh, a police constable, was charge-sheeted for commission of misconduct, viz., outraging modesty of a woman by entering her house along with his accomplices, having carnal intercourse against the law of nature with a migrant labourer by stuffing cloth in his month and causing threats of dire consequences to anyone deposing against him in an inquiry/ investigation. The concerned authority, on being satisfied that the constable could win over aggrieved people as well as witnesses from giving evidence by threatening or other means, dispensed with the formal departmental proceeding. Report of the preliminary enquiry conducted by the DSP was also taken into consideration to hold that regular departmental enquiry need not be held, yet the order of dismissal was set aside by the Honble Supreme Court.
20. In Sudesh Kumar v State of Haryana & Others [(2005) 11 SCC 525], Honble Supreme Court was dealing with adequacy of reasons for dispensing with an enquiry. Reason for such satisfaction as stated was that the complainant being a foreigner may leave the country in the midst of the enquiry and that he was not likely to name the delinquent official during the departmental proceedings. Brief facts of the case revealed that Sudesh Kumar, appellant, was recruited as a constable in Haryana Police. At the relevant time he was holding the post of head constable and posted in the executive clerical branch at Gurgaon. On the basis of a complaint lodged by one Japanese national, investigation was carried out by Deputy Superintendent of Police, and on the basis thereof services of the appellant were terminated by resorting to the provisions of Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution, dispensing with the enquiry. In the order terminating the services of the appellant, it was mentioned that a news item appeared in a Hindi daily on 1.12.1999 wherein reference was made to an allegation made by a Japanese national regarding bribe money paid by him for securing extension of his visa in Gurgaon. Deputy Superintendent of Police was asked to conduct an enquiry into the matter and to fix responsibility. The enquiry officer submitted his report in which he held the dealing hand HC Sudesh Kumar guilty of accepting bribe of Rs.2840/- from the Japanese national. Visa of the Japanese national was to expire on 21.12.1999 and he applied for extension of visa for a period of one year. He was made to pay a total of Rs.5000/- to the dealing clerk, out of which Rs.2160/- was the extension fee and rest of money was pocketed by Sudesh Kumar. The Japanese national was also threatened by him that in case of non-payment of bribe money, he (foreign national) would face difficulty and his case would not be favourably recommended. Only on payment of the bribe money, the case of the foreign national was processed and forwarded to Deputy Commissioner, Gurgaon. The enquiry officer also stated in the report that the foreign national refused to name the dealing clerk as he feared harassment, but the statement of ASI Shiv Dutt, in-charge, security branch, and ASI Lal Singh clearly revealed that it was HC Sudesh Kumar who was posted as foreign registration clerk in the district police office on 1.10.1999, and he had processed the visa extension case of the foreign national, and that he had also deposited the extension fee of Rs.2160/- in State Bank of Patiala. Therefore, there was no doubt whatsoever about the identity of Sudesh Kumar who accepted illegal gratification. It was also mentioned in the order that the Japanese national was likely to leave the country. Despite the facts, as mentioned above, the order of dismissal of the appellant was set aside by observing as follows:-
It is now established principle of law that an inquiry under Article 311(2) is a rule and dispensing with the inquiry is an exception.
A reasonable opportunity of hearing enshrined in Article 311(2) of the Constitution would include an opportunity to defend himself and establish his innocence by cross-examining the prosecution witnesses produced against him and by examining the defence witnesses in his favour, if any. This he can do only if inquiry is held where he has been informed of the charges levelled against him. In the instant case, the mandate of Article 311(2) of the Constitution has been violated depriving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant.
The respondents were given liberty to hold an enquiry against the appellant by affording him a reasonable opportunity of hearing and thereafter pass any order as it may deem fit and proper in accordance with law.
21. In Ex-Constable Chote Lal vs. Union of India & Others reported in 2000 (10) SCC 196 the appellant was dismissed from service by dispensing with the enquiry on the ground that he himself being a Police Constable could have influenced the witness who would come in the departmental enquiry, therefore, it would not be practicable to hold the enquiry. Honble Supreme Court observed as follows :-
We have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the order dispensing with the departmental enquiry is not in accordance with law and necessarily the order of dismissal cannot be sustained.
22. From above judgments, it is clear that Art. 311 (2) (b) cannot be attracted as an easy way out to avoid departmental enquiry or for adopting short cut method. The normal rule is enquiry must be held before a person is dismissed, removed or compulsory retired by way of punishment. Clause (b) is only an exception and in order to attract it, there must be material available on record to form the opinion. In the absence of material, satisfaction of disciplinary authority cannot be said to be based on objective material and that would vitiate the order.
23. In the instant case, the only reason recorded by the authorities for dispensing with his service is that he is involved in a heinous offence which has affected the image of Delhi Police in the eyes of public and it is not uncommon in such cases to find the witnesses turning hostile due to fear of reprisals. Terrorizing, threatening or intimidating the witnesses, who will come forward to give evidence against him in the D.E. are common tactics, adopted by the criminal defaulters. He is likely to harm the witnesses and obstruct the holding of enquiry in normal way.
24. This is all imagined by the disciplinary authority and there is no material on record to come to the conclusion that he would threaten or intimidate the witnesses, therefore, the order dated 12.12.1996 is not sustainable.
25. Being aggrieved by the order of dismissal, applicant had given an appeal to the next authority stating therein he has been victimized by the criminal gang. The criminal case is still pending meaning, therefore, he has not yet been proved to be guilty. In fact, he has been condemned without giving him an opportunity to defend himself as no departmental enquiry has been held, thus the order of dismissal is not sustainable in law, yet appeal was dismissed on the ground that he had confessed in the disclosure statement about his past and an amount of Rs.70,000/- was recovered at his instance.
26. At this juncture, it would be relevant to refer to the Full Bench judgment in O.A. No.2546/06 with connected matters decided on 31.08.2009. This was a case where number of employees were dismissed by attracting Art 311 (2) (b) on the basis of a programme Tihar Jail bana ghoose mahal telecast in the news channel Aaj Tak on television on 04.05.2005 at 9.30 p.m. on the ground that Aaj Tak has refused to attend the departmental enquiry, therefore, it would not be practicable to hold the departmental enquiry.
27. The contention of the respondents in this case was, when the employees were clearly shown accepting bribe on television at their work place and it was not denied by the employees, there was no requirement of holding an enquiry especially when the staff of Aaj Tak was not willing to depose in the departmental enquiry. The Full Bench rejected this contention by observing as follows:
We may observe at the very outset that the concerned authorities had such evidence in their possession which may substantially prove the guilt of the employees, does not appear to be a ground to dispense with the enquiry. If that was to be so, no enquiry may be held in any sting operation. Such course to be adopted would be fraught with dangerous propositions and evil propensities. The media, and in particular the electronic media, would then assume the role of complainant, prosecutor and judge, all rolled in one. The basic or fundamental governance, be it administrative or judicial, in our country is based upon checks and balances. If the media is to be made so powerful without any checks and balances, some times, if not always, most innocent citizens may suffer having been framed up. We may not illustrate, but there is no dearth of cases where sting operations have been found to be doctored or morphed. There is no dearth of cases as well which may appear to be open and shut cases, but when put to trial, they end up in a smoke. It is not unknown that in trap cases where an employee may have accepted bribe and caught on spot, the courts in the consequent trials have held the money to have been thrust upon the employee out of sheer grudge, vindictiveness or mala fides. In our considered view, no one in this country can be condemned without being heard. No doubt, insofar as the employees are concerned, enquiry against them can be dispensed with, but that has to be based upon cogent grounds to be mentioned in writing, and we do not accept the contention raised by Shri Khanna that if the evidence available with the prosecution or the department may clearly show it to be a case of delinquency of an employee, it would be a good ground to dispense with the enquiry.
28. It was further observed the counsel representing the respondents would, however, endeavour for us to take a view that the conduct of the employees only may be the proof of their misconduct. We are not prepared to accept this contention of the learned counsel. We reiterate, the conduct is seen in the context of the evidence that may be led by the department or prosecution. Further, we do not find that the employees were given any opportunity to deny the allegations leveled against them. Surely, they were not issued even a show cause before passing the order of dismissal. There was thus, no show cause, no enquiry, nor even a fact-finding enquiry by associating the employees.
29. Ultimately OAs were allowed. Liberty was given to hold enquiry. The above judgment was challenged by the Government of NCT of Delhi before the Honble High Court of Delhi. It was held by their Lordships as under:-
In a case where it is proved to the hilt that the witnesses who could prove the charge were intimidated, harassed and threatened with their lives, would certainly have no parity with the facts of the present case only because the witnesses have expressed their inability to join investigation being busy, cannot be a reason for dispensing with the enquiry as their presence can be secured by application of law available in the Statute Books for their appearance.
One of the basic principle embodied in Rule of Law is to abide by Principles of Natural Justice which imbibes inherent principles of audi alteram partem, that is to say, nobody is condemned unheard.
.As observed by the Apex Court the rule of audi alteram partem requires an opportunity of hearing to a person who is likely to be affected in a decision to be taken by a disciplinary authority. He or she is certainly entitled to hearing may be only by issuance of a show cause notice even if the situation is urgent.
30. It was finally held as under:-
While we are of the opinion that to dispense with the enquiry was wrong, we should not be understood as saying that the depth of the enquiry should be equivalent to that of a trial before a criminal court. The least which could have been done was to initiate an enquiry, place a copy of the cassette on the enquiry file, supply a copy of the cassette as telecast to the employee, give the employee opportunity to explain, though not necessarily record all explanations that he gives. Evidence of someone like a committee of officers who have seen the telecast and/or of those who carried out the telecast could be recorded. Thereafter, the committee or the enquiry officer can view and come to their conclusion as to whether it would be in the interests of justice to prematurely terminate the services or take some other action as may be thought proper.
A modicum of depth at the enquiry would have sufficed. We should also not be understood as saying that the witnesses from the channel would be required for such enquiry. We need not go into further details of what ought to be done at the enquiry as it is for the disciplinary authority/enquiry officer to determine, and rest, content with noting that in our view the dispensing with the enquiry was not justified.
31. From above it is clear that no person can be condemned without putting the person on notice or without complying with the principles of natural justice. In the instant case, admittedly before applicant was dismissed, he was not even given an opportunity to defend himself, therefore, orders dated 12.12.1996 and 27.3.1997 are both quashed and set aside. However, liberty is given to the respondents to proceed against the applicant in accordance with law. We are not passing any order of reinstatement. The respondents may place him under deemed suspension, if so advised. We would further like to clarify that applicant would not be entitled to any back wages because he was dismissed on 12.12.1996, his appeal was also rejected on 27.3.1997 but he has filed the present OA only on 17.2.2010. Since he has approached the court with delay, he would not be entitled to any back wages.
32. Applicant shall cooperate with the respondents. In case of non-cooperation, respondents may proceed ex-parte against the applicant for passing appropriate order in accordance with law. OA stands allowed to the above extent. No costs.
(SHAILDENDRA PANDEY) (MRS. MEERA CHHIBBER)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
Rakesh