Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Basant Kumar Jain vs M/O Communications on 11 March, 2026
1 O.A No. 2960/2016
Item 46 (C-2)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
O.A. No. 2960/2016
Reserved on : 17.02.2026
Pronounced on : 11.03.2026
Hon'ble Mrs. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A)
Basant Kumar Jain, (Aged about 49 years)
S/o late Sh. Narendra Kumar Jain,
Working as Postal Assistant
Head Post Office, Firozabad (U.P) 283203
R/o C/o Sh. Rajesh Verma,
Mohalla Misrana, Shikohabad,
District Firozabad (UP)-283135 ......Applicant
(By Advocate : Mr. Basab Sen Gupta for Mr. G. S. Lobana)
Vs.
1. Union of India
Through its Secretary
Department of Posts,
Dak Bhavan, New Delhi-110001
2. The Director Postal Services
O/o Post Master General
Agra Region, Agra-282001
3. The Superintendent of Post Offices
Mainpuri Division,
Maipuri (UP)-205001 ....Respondents
(By Advocate : Mr. Gyanendra Singh)
ORDER
Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A) :
This is the second round of litigation. The instant OA has been filed by the applicant u/s 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs :-
MAYA B TARAGI 2026.03.12 15:08:29+05'30' 2 O.A No. 2960/2016 Item 46 (C-2) "(a) Quash and set aside the impugned orders viz., penalty order dated 22.7.2015 and appellate order dt. 15.6.2016;
(b) Consequently, order and direct the respondents to restore the increment withheld and refund the amount already recovered from the salary of the applicant, till date, alongwith interest of 9%;
(c) Pass such other /or further orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case."
2. The factual matrix of the case as per the counsel of the applicant is that on 11th February, 2015 the applicant was posted as a Postal Assistant at the Sub-Post Office (SPO) in Shikohabad (U.P). On 07.06.2015 he was posted as officiating cashier at the same location. On 10.06.2015 while transporting cash from the SPO to the Treasury the applicant was looted of Rs. 18,25,471/- at gunpoint. He subsequently lodged an FIR regarding the incident. However, he was suspended on the following day i.e., on 11.06.2015 and was also issued Memorandum dated 16.06.2015 under Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 proposing disciplinary action against him. Aggrieved, the applicant submitted a representation against the proposed action on 16.07.2015. Thereafter, on 18.07.2015 six individuals were arrested for the robbery, and Rs. 4.24 lakh was recovered. However, on 22nd July, 2015 the applicant's suspension was revoked, but he was hit with significant penalties such as :- total recovery of Rs. 8,30,700/- (to be paid in 45 monthly installments) and the withholding of his next salary increment for one year. The applicant filed appeal against these penalties on 07.09.2015 but to no avail and when no decision was made and salary deductions continued, he approached this Tribunal vide OA No. 1255/2016 to expedite his appeal and stay the recovery of funds. Subsequently, on MAYA B TARAGI 2026.03.12 15:08:29+05'30' 3 O.A No. 2960/2016 Item 46 (C-2) 18.03.2016 his petition for transfer of his case to the Principal Bench was allowed. Later, on 07.04.2016 the said OA was disposed of with a direction to the Director of Postal Services in the Agra Region to decide on the applicant's appeal within two months. The Director of Postal Services dismissed the applicant's appeal on 15.06.2016. Consequently, in August 2016, the applicant moved the Tribunal once again to quash the penalties and stay the recovery from his salary.
3. The counsel of the applicant argued assiduously on the following grounds :-
"A. The applicant was not provided 10 (ten) of the documents requested by him (Para 3 of representation dt. 16.7.2015); this is evident from the observation of Respondent No. 3 in order dated 22.7.2015 that out of 33 documents sought 23 documents had been provided to him. The Appellate Authority/Respondent No. 2 ignored this categorical statement while making observation about all available documents having been made available.
No reasons have been recorded by the Respondents for not making available the documents in question. The refusal/denial as aforesaid has resulted in violation of principles of natural justice as the applicants was denied a reasonable opportunity to defend himself while making his representation.
B. The observation made by Respondent No. 3 in order dt. 22.7.2015 regarding closure of the Post Office Counters at 14.00 hours (Para 11) is wrong. As per the information obtained by the applicant under RTI Act, 2005 the hours of business of 'Bara Bazar Shikohabad' Sub Post Office is upto 15:00 hrs. for all purposes except for sale of Postal tickets and postal material, for which the hour of business is upto 16.00 hours. Thus, the conclusion arrived at by Respondent No. 3 that it was possible to send the money from Post Office to Bank between 14.00 hrs 16.00 hrs is not correct.
C. The applicant had been charged with failure to take his sub- post master alongwith him and, failure to take Police assistance while transporting cash. The respondents have levelled this allegation without appreciating that being a subordinate employee, the applicant was neither authorized to requisition the service of the police nor was he competent to order his superior, viz., Sub-Post Master to accompany him.
MAYA B TARAGI 2026.03.12 15:08:29+05'30' 4 O.A No. 2960/2016 Item 46 (C-2) D. The applicant has been charged with taking an outsider instead of a Departmental Employee, alongwith him while carrying the cash. However, the respondents have failed to appreciate that having been ordered to officiate as cashier only the other day, the applicant was bound to follow the prevalent practice. That this was the then existing practice evident from the fact that this was in full knowledge of his superior, viz., Sub-Post Master, in respect of which there is no dispute whatsoever. This was also in knowledge of the superior officers, none of whom had ever raised any objection. Moreover, Sh. Jagan Ram is a retired Postal Employee, whose credentials are not in doubt.
E. The instructions of the Govt. regarding imposition of penalty of recovery, as contained in D.G.P&T Order No. 12 below Rule 11 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 (encapsulating Rules 106, 107 and 111. of P&T Manual Vol. III and D.G.P&T Order No. 114/176/78-Disc. II dated 13.2.1981) inter alia provide that :-
"(i)... While an official can be punished for good and sufficient reasons, the penalty of recovery can be awarded only if the lapses on his part have either led to the commission of the fraud or misappropriation or frustrated the inquiries as a result of which it has not been possible to locate the real culprit. It is therefore, obligatory that the charge sheet should be quite elaborate and should not only indicate clearly the nature of lapses on the part of the particular official but also indicate the modus operandi of the frauds and their particulars and how it can be alleged that but for the lapses on the part of the officials, the fraud or misappropriation could be avoided or that successful enquiries could be made to locate the stage at which the particular fraud had been committed by particular person.... The Disciplinary Authority is also required to give a clear finding in the punishment order on both the points. If it is not done, the order, awarding the penalty of recovery will be liable to be set aside...."
"(ii) in the case of loss caused to the Government, the Competent Disciplinary Authority should correctly assess in a realistic manner the contributory negligence on the part of the officer, and while determining any omission or lapses on the part of an officer, the bearing of such lapses on the loss considered and the extenuating circumstances in which the duties were performed by the officer, shall be given due weight.
The amount of recovery of loss ordered as a measure of penalty can be reduced by the punishing authority if at any later stage it is found that the amount of loss sustained by the Government is less than that originally calculated..." The procedure prescribed, as explained hereinabove, has not been observed before/imposition of penalty of recovery on the applicant. Neither any charge sheet been issued, nor has any enquiry been conducted, nor has it been appreciated that the real culprits/most of them have been apprehended and part of the MAYA B TARAGI 2026.03.12 15:08:29+05'30' 5 O.A No. 2960/2016 Item 46 (C-2) looted amount recovered. The extenuating circumstances in which the applicant performed his duties have also not been appreciated by the respondents.
The respondents have not taken note of factors like non- availability of personnel which compelled the staff to take help of a retired employee. Nor have they appreciated that there was no vehicle available for carrying cash and staff had to use their own motor-cycles, that ad-hocism reigned supreme with no institutional arrangement being in place for taking care of sensitive assignments like handling transportation of cash, that subordinate staff were left to fend for themselves without any guidance from their superiors, that there was a total failure of supervision on the part of superior officers. Therefore, the penalty imposed on the applicant is non-est in the eyes of law. F. The respondents have failed to produce any order/direction of Respondent No. 3 regarding disposal of surplus cash to the Bank/Treasury by this post office, which the applicant has allegedly violated. In fact, Respondent No. 3 has not issued any such order for disposal of cash by this Post Office which he is required to do for all post offices in his division. G. Without prejudice to the above, due to imposition of two penalties the applicant herein has been subjected to double jeopardy which is bad in law as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court and various High Courts in a catena of judgements. The double jeopardy also tends to infringe the letter and spirit of DGP&T's instructions contained in Order No. 105/26/81-Vig. III dt. 30.3.1981, which inter alia provide that normally there should be no necessity for imposing two penalties at a time, and that in case of imposition of two penalties, one of which is recovery form pay, the net cumulative effect on Govt. servant should not be of such a severity so as to make it impossible for him to bear the strain.
H. The instructions/norms laid down by DGP&T also provide that recovery from the pay of a Government Servant as penalty should not exceed 1/3rd of his hash pay and should not spread over a period more than 3 years.
However, in the instant matter not only the recovery has been spread over a period of more than 3 years, but almost his entire basic pay is being recovered. This, alongwith the penalty of withholding the next increment has had the effect of putting the applicant under a financial strain which is virtually impossible for him to bear."
4. The counsel of the applicant relied upon and handed across the Bar the following judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court :-
MAYA B TARAGI 2026.03.12 15:08:29+05'30' 6 O.A No. 2960/2016 Item 46 (C-2) "i) Union of India vs. J. Ahmad (1979) 2 SCC 286 - Paras 9, 11 and 17 of which are reproduced below :-
"9. .................................Allegations in the various charges do not specify any act or omission in derogation of or contrary to Conduct Rules save the general Rule 3 prescribing devotion to duty. It is, however, difficult to believe that lack of efficiency, failure to attain the highest standard of administrative ability while holding a high post would themselves constitute misconduct. If it is so, every officer rated average would be guilty of misconduct. Charges in this case as stated earlier clearly indicate lack of efficiency, lack of foresight and indecisiveness as serious lapses on the part of the respondent. These deficiencies in personal character or personal ability would not constitute misconduct for the purpose of disciplinary proceedings.
11. .................. Misconduct means, misconduct arising from ill motive; acts of negligence, errors of judgment, or innocent mistake, do not constitute such misconduct.................."
17. It thus appears crystal clear that there was no case stricto sensu for a disciplinary proceeding against the respondent. In fact the inquiry was held to establish that the respondent was not fit to hold a responsible post. The respondent was actually retiring from service and there was no question of his any more holding a responsible position. Yet not only the inquiry was initiated but he was retained in service beyond the date of his normal retirement till the final order was made on October 11, 1963 when he was removed from the Indian Administrative Service. It appears that there were large scale disturbances in the State. There followed the usual search for a scapegoat and the respondent came handy. Some charges were framed none of which could constitute misconduct in law. Some charges were mere surmises. Substance of the allegations was that he was not a very efficient officer and lacked the quality of leadership and was deficient in the faculty of decision making. These deficiencies in capacity would not constitute misconduct. If the respondent were a young man and was to continue in the post for a long period, such an inquiry may be made whether he should be retained in the responsible post. He may or may not be retained but to retain him in service beyond the period of his normal retirement with a view to punishing him was wholly unjustified. The High Court was, therefore, right in coming to the conclusion that the respondent was no longer in service on the date on which an order removing him from service was made and, therefore, the order was illegal and void.
ii) Inspector Prem Chand vs. GNCT of Delhi & Ors. (2007) 4 SCC 566- Para 12 of which is quoted below :-
"12. It is not in dispute that a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the appellant in terms of the provisions of the MAYA B TARAGI 2026.03.12 15:08:29+05'30' 7 O.A No. 2960/2016 Item 46 (C-2) Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980. the proviserefore, necessary for the disciplinary authority to arrive at a finding of fact that the appellant was guilty of an unlawful behaviour in relation to discharge of his duties in service, which was wilful in character. No such finding was arrived at. An error of judgment, as noticed hereinbefore, per schis not a misconduct. A negligence simpliciter also would not be a misconduct. In Union of India v. J. Ahmed whereupon Mr Sharan himself has placed reliance, this Court held so stating:
(SCC pp. 292-93, para 11) "11. Code of conduct as set out in the Conduct Rules clearly indicates the conduct expected of a member of the service.
It would follow that conduct which is blameworthy for the government servant in the context of Conduct Rules would be misconduct. If a servant conducts himself in a way inconsistent with duc and faithful discharge of his duty in service, it is misconduct (see Pierce v. Foster). A disregard of an essential condition of the contract of service may constitute misconduct [see Laws v. London Chronicle (Indicator Newspapers)]. This view was adopted in Shardaprasad Onkarprasad Tiwari v. Divisional Supdt., Central Rly., Nagpur Division, Nagpur and Satubha K. Vaghela v. Moosa Raza. The High Court has noted the definition of misconduct in Stroud's Judicial Dictionary which runs as under:-
a "Misconduct means, misconduct arising from ill motive; acts of negligence, errors of judgment, or innocent mistake, do not constitute such misconduct."
(emphasis supplied)"
iii) Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgment in Munna Lal Sharma vs. UOI (2009) wherein vide para 12 the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under :-
"We will now deal with the applicant's contention as to denial of reasonable opportunity of being heard as a result of non- supply of the documents sought by him in his defence. As far back as in 1961, Government have issued instructions as to supply of copies of documents and affording access to official records to the delinquent official which view hold good even today. For better appreciation of the issue involved in this case it would be appropriate to reproduce paras 1 to 5 of Government of India, M.H.A., O.M. No. F.30/5/61-AVD dated 25th August, 1961:-
"1. The question often arises whether a document or set of documents asked for by a Government servant involved in a departmental enquiry should be made available to him or not and pending the decision on the question, the submission of the written statement by the MAYA B TARAGI 2026.03.12 15:08:29+05'30' 8 O.A No. 2960/2016 Item 46 (C-2) Government servant concerned is delayed, in some cases for months. In view of this and also of the judgment pronounced by the Supreme Court in Raizada Trilock Nath v. The Union of India, in which it has been decided that failure to furnish copies of documents such as the First Information Report and statements recorded during investigation amounts to a violation of Article 311(2) of the Constitution, the whole question of the extent of access of official records to which a Government servant is entitled under the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules or Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules has been examined in consultation with the Ministry of Law.
2. The right of access to official records is not unlimited and it is open to the Government to deny access if in its opinion such records are not relevant to the case, or it is not desirable in the public interest to allow such access. The power to refuse access to official records should, however, be very sparingly exercised. The question of relevancy should be looked at from the point of view of the defence and if there is any possible line of defence to which the document may, in some way, be relevant, though the relevance is not clear to the Disciplinary Authority at the time the request is made, the request for access should not be rejected. The power to deny access on the ground of public interest should be exercised only when there are reasonable and sufficient grounds to believe that public interest will clearly suffer. Cases of the latter type are likely to be very few and normally occasion for refusal to access on the ground that it is not in public interest should not arise if the document is intended to be used in proof of the charge and if it is proposed to produce such a document before the Inquiry Officer, if an enquiry comes to be held. It has to be remembered that serious difficulties arise when the Courts do not accept as correct the refusal by the Disciplinary Authority, of access to documents. In any case, where it is decided to refuse access, reasons for refusal should be cogent and substantial and should invariably be recorded in writing.
3. Government servants involved in departmental enquiries often ask for access to and/or supply of copies of--
documents to which reference has been made in the statement of allegations;
documents and records not so referred to in the statement of allegations but which the Government servant concerned considers are relevant for the purpose of his defence;
MAYA B TARAGI 2026.03.12 15:08:29+05'30' 9 O.A No. 2960/2016 Item 46 (C-2) statements of witnesses recorded in the course of
(a) a preliminary enquiry conducted by the department;
or
(b) investigation made by the Police;
reports submitted to Government or other Competent Authority including the Disciplinary Authority, by an officer appointed to hold a preliminary inquiry to ascertain facts; and reports submitted to Government or other Competent Authority including the Disciplinary Authority by the Police after investigation.
4. A list of the documents which are proposed to be relied upon to prove the charge and the facts stated in the statement of allegations should be drawn up at the time of framing the charge (this will incidentally reduce the delay that usually occurs between the service of the charge-sheet and the submission of the written statement). This list should normally include Anonymous and pseudonymous complaints on the basis of which inquiries were started need not be included in the list. The list so prepared should be supplied to the officer either along with the charge-sheet or as soon thereafter as possible. The officer should be permitted access to the documents mentioned in the list, if he so desires.
5. If the officer requests for any official records other than those included in the list, the request should ordinarily be acceded to in the light of what has been stated In Paragraph 2 above.
We may now examine the present case in the light of the aforesaid instructions. The applicant asked the inquiry officer to provide him 15 documents in his defence, which he would be requiring to defend himself. The Inquiry officer denied the access to three of these documents but without recording any reasons therefor. As regards the remaining documents, which were directed to be provided to the applicant by the Inquiry officer, five documents were not actually provided to him on account of non-availability. No reasons have been assigned for the same. The thrust of the respondents argument in this regard has been that relied upon documents have been provided to the applicant therefore no prejudice has been caused to him. We are not inclined to subscribe to this. Documents or record not so referred to in the statement of allegations may be relevant for the purpose of defence of the delinquent officer/charged officer. Relevancy of the documents has already been determined by the inquiry officer by directing the supply of the same to the applicant. Non-supply of the same would certainly operate to the prejudice of the applicant and to that extent, it can be said that the applicant has been denied reasonable opportunity of hearing in the matter." MAYA B TARAGI 2026.03.12 15:08:29+05'30' 10 O.A No. 2960/2016 Item 46 (C-2)
iv) High Court of Delhi in WP(C) No. 5165/2010 on 03.08.2010 in UOI & Anr. vs. Sh Munnna Lal Sharma has held vide para 9 as under :-
"9. In the instant case, the relevance of the documents as essential for the defence has been established before the Inquiry Officer, who, denied production of 3 documents and directed production of 12 after holding that the 12 were relevant for the defence. Thus, 5 out of said 12 documents not being produced would be a case of defence being prejudiced".
5. Per contra, the counsel of the respondents vehemently opposed the arguments of the counsel of the applicant and vociferously argued stating that the impugned orders dated 22.07.2015 and 15.06.2016 were passed in accordance with law and applicable rules. He further argued that on 10.06.2015 the applicant carried a security cash bag containing Rs. 18,25,471/- for overnight deposit in the Sub Treasury. He transported the said cash on a motorcycle and took along an unauthorized retired Group-D employee instead of authorized staff. On the way the security cash bag was looted by unknown persons for which an FIR was lodged and investigation was conducted by the police authorities. A preliminary inquiry dated 12.06.2015 identified lapses on the part of the applicant. The applicant was found negligent in the discharge of his official duties. Thereafter, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him under Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. He was also issued a charge memorandum and given opportunity to submit his representation. For submitting his response the applicant was allowed to inspect certain relevant documents available with the department. After considering the material on record, the Disciplinary Authority imposed penalty of recovery of Rs. 8,30,700/- in 45 installments. The said penalty also included withholding of one increment for one year MAYA B TARAGI 2026.03.12 15:08:29+05'30' 11 O.A No. 2960/2016 Item 46 (C-2) without cumulative effect. The punishment was imposed to adjust the loss caused to Government due to his negligence. The applicant preferred an appeal against the punishment order which was considered by the Appellate Authority who upheld the punishment. According to the counsel, the appeal was decided in compliance with the directions of the Hon'ble Tribunal and thus there is no violation of principles of natural justice. He highlighted that the applicant was afforded reasonable opportunity of defence and the recovery from his pay is permissible under departmental rules. He added that the recovery amount has been spread over installments in accordance with Government instructions and the punishment is proportionate to the misconduct and negligence proved. Thus, the applicant is not entitled to any relief as prayed for in the OA.
6. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions; examined the documents on record and perused the relevant judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court and High Courts. The applicant's defence is basically three fold:--
(i) The Preliminary Inquiry Report was not shared with him and he was not given all the documents demanded by him.
(ii) He is a victim of unfortunate circumstances -- it was his bad luck that though being a Postal Assistant he was given the responsibility of acting Cashier on the very second day. He was waylaid by robbers and robbed of the cash while going to the Tehsil Treasury for depositing the cash.
MAYA B TARAGI 2026.03.12 15:08:29+05'30' 12 O.A No. 2960/2016 Item 46 (C-2)
(iii) Deficiencies in personal character or personal ability do not constitute misconduct for taking disciplinary proceedings. Negligence in performance of duty or inefficiency in discharge of duty are not acts of 'commission or omission'.
On the first arm of defence, we have observed that most of the documents were shared by the applicant (the delinquent/charged officer). We have also noted that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted under Rule 16 of CCS (CCA) Rules - Procedures for imposing minor penalties and not under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules - Procedure for imposing major penalties. The procedure for imposing minor penalties is a short inquiry as compared to procedure for imposing major penalties which is a very elaborate and cumbersome process. Therefore, this arm of defence does not sustain. On his second arm of defence, we have noted that having been bestowed the additional onerous and pecuniary responsibility of 'acting cashier' besides discharging the duties of a Postal Assistant, the applicant should have been more responsible, vigilant and circumspect. We fail to understand that why the applicant did not follow the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) of taking the Sub Post Master (SPM) - Mr. Akber Singh with him and instead chose to take a retired class IV employee - Jagat Ram with him which proved fatal. Normally when one is new to a job, he/she follows the SOPs very meticulously and scrupulously and any carelessness or negligence creeps in later with the efflux of time. But here the applicant became complacent and careless from the very beginning and had to pay a heavy price for this. On the applicant's third arm of defence that failure to maintain MAYA B TARAGI 2026.03.12 15:08:29+05'30' 13 O.A No. 2960/2016 Item 46 (C-2) 'devotion to duty', negligence in performance of duty or inefficiency in discharge of duty are not acts of commission or omission under the Discipline and Appeal Rules, we are of the considered opinion that such deficiencies in personal character or personal ability may not constitute misconduct for taking disciplinary proceeding but then these need to be viewed in the right 'context' and 'background'. The inefficiency and negligence of the applicant caused a loss of lakhs of rupees to the State exchequer which cannot be ignored. In our considered view the applicant therefore was rightly subjected to a disciplinary proceeding (DP).
7. It is a settled principle in administrative law and service jurisprudence that the Tribunal is not an Appellate Tribunal. It cannot re- appreciate the evidence. It does not have the powers to substitute its own decision / discretion / judgment vis-a-vis the Inquiring Officer (IO) / Disciplinary Authority (DA) / Appellate Authority (AA). Given the ratio extracted from a catena of Judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in :-
(i) Union of India v. Parma Nanda - (1989)
2 SCC 177
(ii) SBI vs. S.K. Endow - (1994) 2 SCC 537;
(iii) B.C. Chaturvedi vs. UOI & others - (1995) 6 SCC 749 and
(iv) UOI vs. Gunasekaran - (2015) 2 SCC 610 It is a settled principle in administrative law and service jurisprudence that Judicial review in a Disciplinary Proceeding can take place only if the orders of the Inquiry Officer (IO) / Disciplinary Authority (DA) / Appellate Authority (AA) are illegal / irrational / violative of the Principles of Natural Justice / MAYA B TARAGI 2026.03.12 15:08:29+05'30' 14 O.A No. 2960/2016 Item 46 (C-2) disproportionate to the charge proved and shock the conscience of the Court / perverse / arbitrary. In our thoughtful consideration none of the above grounds stand in the instant OA that warrant our interference and judicial review. In the light of the above we are of the considered opinion that the balance of convenience in the instant OA lies with the respondents. The instant OA is devoid of merit; deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. MAs if any are also disposed of in similar manner. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
(Dr. Sumeet Jerath) (Harvinder Kaur Oberoi)
Member (A) Member (J)
/Mbt/
MAYA B TARAGI 2026.03.12 15:08:29+05'30'