Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Head Constable (Driver) vs Commissioner Of Police on 22 May, 2013
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi O.A.No.1067/2012 Order reserved on 26.04.2013 Order pronounced on 22.05.2013 Honble Shri George Paracken, Member (J) Honble Mr. Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A) 1. Head Constable (Driver) Satbir Singh S/o Late Shri Ram Chander R/o Village and Post Office Khera Dabar, New Delhi-110073. 2. Constable (Driver) Surender Kumar S/o Shri Kharg Singh R/o Village & Post Office Daultapur, New Delhi-110043. ..Applicants (By Advocate: Shri Arun Bhardwaj). Versus 1. Commissioner of Police, Police Headquarter, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 2. Jt. Commissioner of Police, Southern Range, PHQ, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 3. Dy. Commissioner of Police, South District, Hauz Khas, New Delhi. 4. Additional Dy. Commissioner of Police, South District, Hauz Khas, New Delhi. Respondents (By Advocate: Mrs. Sumedha Sharma). O R D E R
Honble Sh. G. George Paracken:
Applicants have filed this Original Application aggrieved by the impugned Annexure A-3 report of the Enquiry Officer dated 14.09.2011, impugned Annexure A-2 order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 14.10.2011 and the impugned Annexure A-1 order of the Appellate Authority dated 29.12.2011.
2. In the joint enquiry proceedings initiated against the Applicants under the provisions of Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980 they were served with the following allegations:-
It is alleged against HC (Dvr) Satbir Singh No.2061/S now 604/SD (PIS No.28824855) and Ct. (Dvr) Surender No.2190/SW now 708/SD (PIS No.28920184) that while posted in South West District HC (Dvr) Satvir No.2061/SW was detailed in Distt Line/SW and Ct (Dvr) Surender No.2190/SW was detailed in Operation Cell/SWD and during that period they were found indulged in corruption activities which were duly videogrpahed by one Mr. Chetan Sharma S/o Shri Babu Lal Sharma R/o G-248, Vishwash Park Uttam Nagar New Delhi on which a case vide FIR No.383/07 dated 07.05.2007 u/s 7/13 (i) D (ii) prevention of corruption Act was registered against them and investigation of the said case is being carried out by SIT Section Crime Branch, Delhi Police.
The above act on the part of HC (Dvr) Satbir Singh No.2061/SW now 604/SD (PIS No.28824855) and Ct. (Dvr) Surender No.2190/SW now 708/SD (PIS No.28920184) amounts to gross negligence carelessness and unbecoming of a police officer which renders them liable to be dealt with departmentally punishable under the Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980.
3. There were 5 listed prosecution witnesses. The first witness was Shri Chetan Sharma who has videographed the alleged corrupt activities of the Applicants. They were required to prove during the departmental enquiry that he had actually recorded the illegal activities of the Applicants and it was on his complaint, FIR No.383/07 u/s 7/13 POC Act was registered with the Police Station Dabri, New Delhi. The second witness Chitha Munshi of the Distt. Lines/SWD was required to prove that one of the Applicants HC (Dvr) Satbir Singh was detailed on driver duty with Gama-3. The third prosecution witness Chitha Munshi Operation Cell/SWD was to prove that the other Applicant Ct. (Dvr) Surender was detailed on driver duty in operation Cell/SW. The fourth prosecution witness MHC . PS Dabri New Delhi was to produce the aforesaid FIR No. 383/07 in original. The 5th prosecution witness who was the Investigating Officer of Crime Branch which was investigating the said case vide FIR No.383/07 and he was to prove that he had actually investigated the said case.
4. During the enquiry proceedings, HC Shambu Dayal was examined as the Ist Prosecution Witness (PW for short). He produced a copy of the FIR No.383 dated 07.05.2007 filed u/s 7/13 of POC Act registered against some policemen taking money. According to the said FIR, Shri Chetan Prakash had made a cassette showing the policemen taking bribe money. The PW-2, Constable Deepak has produced the posting record of the Applicants during the enquiry proceedings. The PW-3 Dr. Joy Tirkey, Additional DCP/SIT Crime, New Delhi stated that on 07.05.2007 he was posted as ACP/Crime Branch and on that day, the then ACP(Crime Branch) Shri J.S. Joon has got FIR No.383 registered at PS Dabri on the statement of one Shri Chetan Prakash and the investigation of the case was entrusted to him and the same is still continuing. In the cross-examination by the defence assistant, the said PW-3 submitted that no arrest was effected on the basis of the said FIR.
5. The Applicants did not produce any defence witnesses. However, they asked for certain additional documents to prepare and submit their defence statement. But the Dy. Commissioner of Police, Crime and Railways who was the custodian of those documents, vide his letter dated 04.08.2011 informed the Dy. Commissioner of Police DE Cell that none of those documents asked for cannot be provided as they may influence the investigation of the case. On receipt of the said letter, the Applicants submitted a letter dated 30.08.2001 to the Enquiry Officer stated that if copies of the documents are not provided before summoning the witnesses, applicants are bound to suffer serious prejudice. But it was for the authorities to decide if they are interested in investigation of the case or to conduct the DE without causing prejudice to the applicants. In that regard they have also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Jag Singh Vs. Delhi Administration 1970 SLR 400 wherein it was held as under:-
A Government servant has a right to two types of documents in order to defend himself. In the first class are the documents on which the enquiry officer relies, that is to say documents which are intended to be used by the prosecution agency to prove the charges. In second class fall the documents, which, even if are not relied upon by Prosecution/Enquiry officer, are nevertheless required by the defaulter for his defence. The Government servant has a right to ask for copies of documents, which in his opinion are useful to contradict the prosecution witness or to impeach their creditability. Such a right is included in the minimum content of the rules of natural justice applicable to a disciplinary proceedings.
6. However, according to the Applicants, the Enquiry Officer without waiting for the defence statement submitted his report on 14.09.2011 holding that they have submitted their defence statement under Rule 16 (vii) of Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980 in which the following were taken:-
1. Pleaded that it was shocking that they were denied the demand for additional documents on the ground that it may effect the investigation.
2. Cited the court decision.
3. The applicant is bound to suffer a serious prejudice without the copies of the additional documents.
The Enquiry Officer stated further in his report that PW-1 Shri Chetan Sharma was to prove that on his complaint the FIR No.383/07 u/s 7/13 POC Act was registered but he did not join the DE proceedings, despite given summon repeatedly and since there was no possibility of his joining the DE proceedings any further and to avoid unwanted delay, he was dropped from the list of witnesses in terms of Rule of Rule 16 (iii) of Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980.
7. According to the Enquiry Officer, the main allegations against the Applicants were that while they were posted in South-West District HC (Dvr) Satbir No.2061/SW was detailed in District Line/SW and Constable (Driver) Surender No.2190/SW was detailed in Operation Cell/SWD. During that period they were found indulged in corruption activities which were duly videographed by one Shri Chetan Sharma and based on the same a case FIR No.383/07 dated 07.05.2007 u/s 7/13 (i) D (ii) POC Act was registered against them and investigation of the said case is being carried out by SIT Section Crime Brach, Delhi Police. Further, according to the Enquiry Officers report out of the five PWs only three were examined and in the case of one PW his previous statement recorded has been brought on record as he had not joined the departmental proceedings. PW-1 HC Shambu Dayal proved the FIR No.383 dated 07.05.2007 u/s 7/13 POC Act and the PW-2 Ct. Deepak proved the posting of delinquents. PW-3 Dr. Joy Tirkey, Additional DCP deposed that the then ACP, Crime Branch Shri J.S. Joon had got the FIR registered at PS Dabri subsequently. The Enquiry Officer has, therefore, come to the conclusion that the Applicants were found indulged in corruption activities which were duly videographed by one Shri Chetan Sharma though he was the main and material witness but failed to join the departmental proceedings and the videography was also not available as the case was under investigation.
8. Agreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishment of forfeiture of 2 years approved service temporarily upon the Applicants. Their suspension period was also decided to be treated as period not spent on duty for all intents and purposes. The operative part of the said order reads as under-
I have carefully gone through the findings of E.O., statements of PWs, exhibits and other material/record available on record with reference to the finding of the Enquiry Officer as well as representation of the delinquent. The pleas put-forth by the defaulter HC (Dvr.) Satbir Singh, No.604/SD & Cont (Dvr.) Surender, No.708/SD are not acceptable in the fate of cogent evidences. In nutshell it is concluded that the Enquiry Officer has proved the charge on merit of the case and there is no reason to disagree with the findings of Enquiry Officer as the witnesses/documents/evidence have supported the prosecution. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, I, Suernder Kumar, Additional Dy. Commissioner of Police, South District, New Delhi, do hereby award the punishment of forfeiture of two years approved service temporarily to HC (Dvr.) Satbir Singh, No.604/SD & Const. (Dvr.) Surender, No.708/SD entailing proportionate reduction in their pay from Rs.11250/- + 2800 to Rs.10400/- + 2800/- and Rs.6930/- + 2000/- to Rs.6410/- + 2000/- respectively. Suspension period of HC (Dvr.) Satbir Singh, No.604/sD from 24.1.2006 to 17.02.2011 and Const. (Dvr.) Surender, No.798/SD from 27.12.2005 to 17.02.2011 is decided as period spend on duty for all intents and purposes.
Let a copy of this order be given to HC (Dvr.) Satbir Singh, No.604/SD & Cons. (Dvr.) Surender, No.708/SD, free of cost. They can file an appeal against the order to Joint CP/Southern Range, New Delhi within 30 days of its receipt on a non-judicial stamp paper worth Rs.00.75 paise by enclosing a copy of this order, if they so desire.
9. The Appellate Authority, vide impugned order dated 29.12.2012, upheld the aforesaid order of the Disciplinary Authority and rejected the appeal made by the Applicants against the said order. The operative part of the said order reads as under:-
I have perused the appeal, entire DE file and punishment order issued by the Disciplinary Authority. I have also heard both the appellants in OR. The pleas taken by the appellants in their appeal are identical with what have already been well discussed by the Disciplinary Authority in punishment order under appeal. During which they did not put forth any fresh plea for consideration. Their plea that there is no evidence on record to prove the charge against them carries no weight. The EO has rightly proved the Charge within the ambit of rules. However, the evidence required to prove the Charge in criminal proceedings and departmental proceedings are not identical. Keeping in view the evidence brought on record during DE proceedings, I find no merit in both the appeals. The appeals filed by Head Constable (Driver) Satbir Sigh No.604/SD (PI No.28824855) and Constable (Driver) Surender Singh No.2190/SW (now 708/SD) (PIS No.28920184) are hereby rejected.
10. Applicants have challenged the report of the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authoritys order and the Appellate Authoritys order on the ground that they have been passed without application of mind and without having any material on record and the same is in violation of principles of natural justice and in violation of the settled law of land. Further, according to them, the enquiry was conducted in violation of Rule 16(i) of Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980 which provides as under:-
(i) A police officer accused of misconduct shall be required to appear before the disciplinary authority, or such Enquiry Officer as may be appointed by the disciplinary authority. The Enquiry Officer shall prepare a statement summarizing the misconduct alleged against the accused officer in such a manner as to give full notice to him of the circumstances in regard to the evidence is to be regarded.
But in the present case, the Enquiry Officer did not supply any of the relied upon documents except the copy of the FIR No. 383/07. They have also stated that when they asked for additional documents, the Respondents categorically denied them on the plea that they may influence the investigation of the criminal case registered under FIR 383/07.
11. Again, according to the Applicants, the Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry in violation of Rule 16 (iii) of Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980 according to which the statements and documents so brought on record in the Departmental Enquiry shall also be read out to the accused officer and he shall be given an opportunity to take notes. But the Enquiry Officer never read out the previously recorded statement of PW-4 and they did not give any opportunity to them to take notes of the same. Further, the Respondents did not mention the specific reasons for not supplying the statement of Chetan Sharma and videgraphed CD which was demanded by the Applicants for preparing Defence Statement.
12. The other contention of the Applicants is that none of the PWs deposed anything against the Applicants. The PW-1 merely produced FIR 383 dated 7.5.2007, PW-2 produced the posting record of the Applicants and PW-3 deposed that investigation in FIR 383 is till going on. No other witnesses joined the Departmental Enquiry. None of the witnesses deposed anything against the Applicants. However, according to them, even though in the discussion of evidence, the Enquiry Officer himself has held that the main and material witness failed to join the DE proceedings and videography was also not available, he justified the aforesaid action of the Respondents on the ground that registration of FIR No.383/07 u/s 7/13 (i) (D) (ii) POC Act against the delinquents was itself sufficient to prove the delinquents indulgence in corruption. The Enquiry Officer, thus held that the allegations against the Applicants were proved.
13. In this regard, the learned counsel for the Applicants has relied upon the Apex Court judgment in the case of Hardwari Lal Vs. State of U.P. & Others 1999 (8) SCC 582 wherein it was clearly held that in a departmental enquiry charge cannot be sustained on mere conjectures in absence of evidence. The relevant part of the said judgment reads as under:-
3. Before us the sole ground urged is as to the non-observance of the principles of natural justice in not examining the complainant, Shri Virender Singh, and witness, Jagdish Ram. The Tribunal as well as the High Court have brushed aside the grievance made by the appellant that the non-examination of those two persons has prejudiced his case. Examination of these two witnesses would have revealed as to whether the complaint made by Virender Singh was correct or not and to establish that he was the best person to speak to its veracity. So also, Jagdish Ram, who had accompanied the appellant to the hospital for medical examination, would have been an important witness to prove the state or the condition of the appellant. We do not think the Tribunal and the High Court were justified in thinking that non-examination of these two persons could not be material. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the High Court and the Tribunal erred in not attaching importance to this contention of the appellant.
4. However, Shri Goel, the learned Addl. Advocate General, State of Uttar Pradesh, has submitted that there was other material which was sufficient to come to the conclusion one way or the other and he has taken us through the same. But while appreciating the evidence on record the impact of the testimony of the complainant cannot be visualised. Similarly, the evidence of Jagdish Ram would also bear upon the state of inebriation, if any, of the appellant.
5. In the circumstances, we are satisfied that there was no proper enquiry held by the authorities and on this short ground we quash the order of dismissal passed against the appellant by setting aside the order made by the High Court affirming the order of the Tribunal and direct that the appellant be reinstated in service. Considering the fact of long lapse of time before the date of dismissal and reinstatement, and no blame can be put only on the door of the respondents, we think it appropriate to award 50 per cent of the back salary being payable to the appellant. We thus allow the appeal filed by the appellant. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
14. He has also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Assam Vs. Mohan Chandra Kalita and Others AIR 1972 SC 2535. The relevant part of the said order reads as under:-
6. As we said earlier, there was no charge against the respondent that he had not paid the full amounts to those entitled to compensation or that he had authorised anyone to collect any fee.This enquiry into extraneous allegations with which the respondent was not charged must have certainly prejudiced the enquiry officer against the respondent. Even if we were to ignore this aspect, there is no evidence to connect the respondent with the allegation that he had authorised the collection of Garibhara much less can it be said, as averred in the charge, that he realized from those persons to whom compensation was being paid certain percentage of compensation money due to them for payment of hire charges of the vehicle in which he had visited the office of the Mauzadar from Dhekiajuli.
7. The learned advocate for the State submits that there is evidence in the case to connect the respondent with the collection by Tajmudin of the Garibhara charges. This evidence however does not substantiate his contention. Mathew Kosla, witness No. 3, Jiban Deka, witness No. 4 and P.C. Deka, witness No. 5 and Rathu Kurmi, witness No. 6 though they say that amounts were collected by Bharat Chandra Das and Tajmudin, some of them had protested but they did not go to the S.D.C. to complain about the collection. None of them stated that the S.D.C. had asked for collection of the amounts. Tajmudin, witness No. 8 admitted that he had collected the money for Garibhara. He says the reason for this collection was that on a certain day before 25th September 1963, many people were waiting at Mouzadar's office for S.D.C. to come and make payment. He came at about 12 noon by bus from Dekiajuli and told them that it was a school bus and that he will not come again to Missamari to make payment and that all people should go to Dhekiajuli to receive payment. The crowd stated that it would be very inconvenient and troublesome for them to go to Dhekiajuli. As such the crowed themselves decided that they would contribute for the Garibhara of the S.D.C. to come and make payment at Missamari. As a result of the above agreement, Moni Gaonbura collected Garibhara for S.D.C. on 24th September 1963 and on 25th September the A.D.M. Shri Deka who came to Missamari found him collecting moneys. Hiren Saikia entered on a paper the names of the contributors and he collected the money and Bharat Das collected the Pooja subscription. He further says that he learnt that Mohindar Deka and Moniram Gaonbura also collected Garibhara for the S.D.C. According to him when A.D.M. Deka enquired of him as to on whose behalf he collected the money, he told him that S.D.C. Shri Kalita asked him to collect. As will be noticed this is not what A.D.M. Deka says. It was suggested to him in cross-examination that he collected the money for himself which of course he denied. Mohidar Deka who is a Moherrer of Mouzadar said he was collecting the arrears of land revenue and that Tajimudin was collecting the Garibhara for S.D.C. from the recipients money and Hiren Saikia entered their names on a paper. This collection was in pursuance of the peoples' decision the previous day to pay for the Garibhara of the S.D.C. and as such as soon as each came out of the room he willingly contributed for the Garibhara and the contributor's name was entered on a paper by Hiren Saika and that when A.D.M. asked the S.D.C. as to why Garibhara was being collected, the S.D.C. said he did not know anything. He also admits that no one informed him that the S.D.C. asked him to collect the Garibhara. Shri Paresh Chandra Sharma is the Mouzadar of Missamari. He says he heard the S.D.C. saying that he cannot come the next day and that the public would have to go to Dhekiajuli to receive payment. He admits that he did not know anything about the collection of Garibhara nor did he hear the S.D.C. demanding it nor did he complain to him that Garibhara was being collected. Hiran Chandra Saika, witness No. 14, though he admits that he did not meet S.D.C. on the 25th September 1963 nonetheless volunteers that the S.D.C. asked all people present there to pay for the taxi charge. Obviously this witness cannot be relied upon. The A.D.M. Shri Deka says that when he enquired of Tajimuddin he tld him he was collecting the money at the instance of Hiren Saika who according to the A.D.M. ran away as soon as he entered. There is no mention of his ever having asked the S.D.C. as to why this amount was being collected towards Garibhara and without even getting his explanation he had reported the matter to the D.O. in writing. This he did in spite of his further admission that no person had complained to him that the S.D.C. had personally collected the money from them.
8. This evidence does not establish that the S.D.C. had either authorised the collection or that the amount was collected at his instance or that he even connived at it. On the other hand as the A.D.M. Deka admitted, when he asked Tajimudin he informed him that the amount was being collected at the instance of Hiren Saika who immediately on seeing him ran away. According to Tajimudin, two other persons, namely, Mohidar Deka and Moniram Gaonbura were also collecting Garibhara amounts. It appears to us that because compensation amounts were being paid everyone was trying to collect whatever he could from those recipients. There was no need for the respondent to collect any money for payment of taxi charges because he could recover those from the Government and in fact he had recovered that amount from the government. There is no dispute that he did express his difficulty in finding a conveyance to come to Missamari as indeed he had to come there on that day in a school bus. He was not sure whether he could get a conveyance to come there the next day and naturally he informed those concerned that if he cannot get any conveyance and come there they should go to Dhekiajuli. It is at that stage that they suggested that he should come in a taxi and they will pay for it; but this did not imply that the S.D.C. had consented to anyone collecting moneys for the hire or much less permit them to pay for the hire on his behalf. All this merely shows that the suggestion that they should come to Dhekiajuli would seriously inconvenience them and they were even prepared to pay his taxi fare if he came to Missamari. Their earnest entreaties must have persuaded the S.D.C. to come there in a taxi. Beyond this, there is no evidence to show that he had wanted them to pay for his taxi or authorised them to collect money for it. The High Court was therefore right in quashing the order of the A.D.M. Tezpur on the ground that there was no evidence to sustain the charge. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs.
15. The Respondents have filed their reply and stated that the request for providing additional documents was considered by the Enquiry Officer and the documents in question were asked by the DCP/Crime & Railways, Delhi who intimated that the case FIR 383/07 dated 07.05.2007 u/s 7/13 POC Act PS Dabri was under investigation and, therefore, none of the documents as asked for cannot be provided as they would influence the investigation in the matter. They have also stated that the Enquiry Officer proved the charge after considering the deposition of the PWs and the relevant record of the proceedings. Again they have stated that the main prosecution witness Shri Chetan Sharma was dropped in accordance with the provisions contained in Rule 16(iii) of Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980 and, therefore, it was in accordance with the rules.
16. They have also stated that Disciplinary Authority has carefully gone into the findings of the Enquiry Officer, written representation with reference to the findings submitted by the defaulters, statements of PWs, exhibits and other material/relevant records placed on file etc. Thereafter, agreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, he imposed the punishment of forfeiture of 2 years approved service temporarily entailing reduction in their pay upon the Applicants and their suspension period was also decided to be treated as period not spent on duty for all intents and purposes.
17. We have heard the learned counsel for the Applicant, Shri Arun Bhardwaj and learned counsel for the Respondents, Mrs. Sumedha Sharma. The charge against the Applicants were that while they were on duty, they indulged in corrupt activities and those activities were videgoraphed by one Chetan Sharma. Based on that videograph FIR No.383/07 u/s 7/13(i) D(ii) was registered on 07.05.2007 and the investigation in the said case was being carried out by the Crime Branch. As the allegations against the Applicants revolve around the said Chetan Sharma and his videograph about the applicants, he was made the main prosecution witness and he was supposed to prove that he had recorded the alleged illegal action of the Applicants and on his aforesaid complaint, the FIR was registered. It is quite strange that the said complainant in the said FIR and the prime witness in the departmental enquiry could not be produced by the prosecution in the enquiry proceedings. As rightly relied upon by the Applicants counsel, the case of the Applicants is squarely covered by the judgment of the Apex Court in Hardwari Lals case (supra). In the said case also the respondents failed to examine the complainant in the departmental enquiry and the Apex Court held that his non-examination has greatly prejudiced his case. Further, the Apex Court held that his examination would have revealed the veracity of the complaint. On this ground alone, the Enquiry Officers report and the order of the Disciplinary Authority based on it are liable to be set aside.
18. Further, we observe that the report of the Enquiry Officer is quite perverse. Not a single PW has stated anything connected with the allegations made against the Applicant. Still the Enquiry Officer held that the charge was proved on the basis of the previously recorded statement of the PW Chetan Sharma who has never been produced in the enquiry and subjected to cross examination by the Applicant. Even otherwise, the said statement was not even a listed document in the enquiry proceedings. Another aspect of the enquiry held against the Applicant is that the Enquiry Officer did not make available any of the material documents relied upon by him. The previously recorded statement of Shri Chetan Sharma was never supplied to him on the specific plea that if they are provided, it would influence the investigation of the case. In that case, what the Respondents could do was not to hold any departmental enquiry while the criminal case is going on. Again, another equally important document is the alleged videograph supplied by Shri Chetan Sharma. The Applicants have sought its production also but the Respondents refuse to produce it for the same reason.
19. Yet another aspect about the enquiry is that the Enquiry Officer did not provide the opportunity to the Applicants to submit their defence statements. In fact the Applicants have specifically requested the Respondents to provide them additional documents to prepare their defence statement. It is on record that those documents were not given and the Applicants have not submitted their defence statement. Even then, for extraneous and untenable reason, the Enquiry Officer held that the Applicants have submitted their defence statement and he considered them before submitting his report.
20. In short, in our considered view, the enquiry has been held in total violation of the principles of natural justice and the report of the Enquiry Officer is absolutely perverse as the same is not based on only admissible evidences. Hence, we quash and set aside the said report of the Enquiry Officer. Consequently, the orders of the Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority based on the aforesaid report is also quashed and set aside. Further, we quash and set aside the decision of the Respondents to treat the period of suspension of the Applicants as period not spent on duty for all intents and purposes.
21. With the aforesaid orders/directions, we allow the OA and direct the respondents to pass appropriate consequential orders in compliance thereof within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The respondents will, however, be at liberty to proceed afresh against the applicants in accordance with law, if they so desire. There shall be no order as to costs.
(SHEKHAR AGARWAL) (G.GEROGE PARACKEN)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
Rakesh