Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Naresh Kumar vs Govt. Of Nctd on 16 January, 2025
1
OA No. 3137/2016
Item No. 32/C-II
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
O. A. No. 3137/2016
Reserved on: - 30.11.2024
Pronounced on: - 31.01.2025
Hon'ble Mr. R. N. Singh, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A)
Naresh Kumar, Aged-48 Years,
S/o Sh. Ghamandi Ram,
Working as Grade-II (DASS),
Posted in the office of Controller of Accounts,
Principal Accounts Office, New Delhi
R/o 550, Sector-47, Gurgaon ... Applicant
(By Advocate: - Mr. Yogesh Sharma)
Versus
1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
Through the Chief Secretary,
Delhi Secretariat, New Delhi
2. The Principal Secretary (Finance),
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
Finance Department, Delhi Secretariat,
New Delhi.
3. The Secretary (services)
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
Delhi Secretariat, New Delhi.
4. The Deputy Commissioner (South),
GNCT of Delhi,
M. B. Road, Saket, New Delhi. ... Respondents
(By Advocate: - Mr. Amit Anand)
2
OA No. 3137/2016
Item No. 32/C-II
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A):-
By way of the present OA filed u/s 19 of the AT Act, 1985, the applicant, in para 8 of the OA has prayed for the following reliefs: -
"(i) That the Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order of quashing the impugned penalty order dated 29.04.2014 (Annex.A/1), Appellate Authority order dated 13.07.2016 (Annex.A/2), Charge Sheet dated 21.11.2002 (Annex.A/3), I.O. Report dated 12.10.2010 (Annex.A/4) and entire disciplinary proceedings declaring to the effect that the same are illegal, arbitrary and against the principle of natural justice and consequently pass an order directing the respondents to grant all the consequential benefits to the applicant including the arrears of difference of pay and allowances, back promotions, grant of financial up-gradation etc., with all benefits.
(ii) Any other relief which the Hon'ble Tribunal deem fit and proper may also be granted to the applicant."
FACTS IN THE MATTER
2. The brief facts of the present case are that the applicant was initially appointed in Govt. of NCT of Delhi w.e.f. 07.06.1995 to the post of Grade-II (DASS)/ Head Clerk. A Departmental Inquiry was initiated against the applicant while he was posted in the Revenue Department in the O/o D.C. to the post of Naib Tehsildar at Hauz Khas in South District, and he was charge sheeted vide memorandum dated 21.11.2002 and the following charge was framed against him:-
3OA No. 3137/2016
Item No. 32/C-II "Article-I That the said Sh. Naresh Kumar, N.T. while working as N.T. (Hauz Khas) sanctioned mutations no.3725 and 3726 both dated 19.3.99 in respect of Village Satbari on the basis of sale deed registered in Bombay.
That the said Sh. Naresh Kumar, N.T. did not verify from the vendor/objector company whether the sale deed has been affected or not and whether the possession has been delivered or not.
That the said Sh. Naresh Kumar, N.T. neither called objector company nor general attorney and special attorney to verify the truth of transaction and ordered mutation without any verification.
That the said Sh. Naresh Kumar, N.T. sanctioned mutations for the purpose of withdrawing the compensation, which clearly proves that while sanctioning mutations, the said Sh. Naresh Kumar, N.T. was aware of the fact that the land is an acquired land.
That the said Sh. Naresh Kumar, N.T. did not follow the correct and fair procedure of sanctioning mutation and had he followed/adopted the correct procedure, he would have known the validity of the sale-deed which was fraudulent and forged and forgery would have been detected while processing the case of sanctioning of mutation and thereby illegal mutation could have been avoided.
That the said Shri Naresh Kumar, N.T. sanctioned mutations on the basis of sale deeds registered in Bombay by the parties misusing Section 30(2) of Indian Registration Act, 1908 which otherwise could not have been possible in Delhi due to violations inter-alia of (a) section 33 of DLR Act, (b) transfer of the land where bhoomidari rights have been conferred u/s 74(4) of the DLR Act to the genuine allottee of panchayat land under 20 point programme, (c) land notified u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act where transfer is prohibited under the provisions of Delhi Land (Restriction of Transfer) Act 1972
(d) land forming part of joint khata where the partition has not been affected (e) the proceedings u/s 81 are pending for vesting land in Gram Sabha for non agriculture use and thus registration has been done by circumventing the laid down procedure and violating the legal provisions.4 OA No. 3137/2016
Item No. 32/C-II That the said Shri Naresh Kumar, N.T., was fully aware of the fact that sale deeds have been registered in Bombay as registration of sale deed of land was not possible in Delhi as NOC for registration was not possible in Delhi. That the said Shri Naresh Kumar, N.T. sanctioned mutations despite order No. F. 1(23)/RAGE/DC/89-90 dated 28.8.90 of Deputy Commissioner, Delhi No. F. 1(2)/PA/ADM(R)/DC/96/1628 dated 3.10.96 of ADM (R) Delhi directing not to carry out mutation of agricultural land on the basis of sale deed registered outside Delhi. Thus in the aforesaid manner the said Shri Naresh Kumar, N.T. acted in the manner unbecoming of a Govt. Servant and failed to maintain absolute integrity thus violating Rule 3 (1)
(i) and (iii) of CCS Conduct Rules, 1964."
3. The applicant submits that the above noted charge was based on four relied upon documents and the statement of three witnesses but along with the charge sheet neither the copies of the relied upon documents nor the statement of the witnesses recorded earlier were supplied to the applicant. He also states that as on 21.11.2002, the applicant was working in the Directorate of Education and the Disciplinary Authority of the applicant was Director of Education, whereas, the charge sheet was issued by the incompetent authority i.e. the Deputy Commissioner South who was not the disciplinary authority of the applicant at the relevant time. A representation dated 30.11.2002 was submitted by the applicant requesting to grant ten days more time to submit his defense. In the detailed representation dated 10.12.2002, the applicant requested to grant an opportunity of personal hearing as per the memorandum dated 21.11.2002 but the disciplinary 5 OA No. 3137/2016 Item No. 32/C-II authority failed to grant any opportunity of personal hearing. After submitting the representation against the charge sheet, a number of inquiry officers were appointed, one after another, but the inquiry was not conducted by any of the inquiry officer despite representations by the applicant to conduct inquiry in expedited manner.
4. The applicant contends that on 28.04.2008 Smt. Richa, SDM Kalkaji was appointed as Inquiry Officer. Applicant submitted a representation dated 23.01.2010 to the I.O. and requested her to supply the certified copies of relied upon documents as mentioned in Annexure III of the charge sheet and also requested to supply the copies of pre-recorded statement of the listed witnesses mentioned in Annexure IV of the charge sheet. To supply the copies of minutes of the inquiry proceedings was also requested. It is submitted that out of four relied upon documents, document No. 3 i.e. copy of the order dated 29.08.1990 of Deputy Commissioner was not supplied and the relied upon document No.4 i.e., the copy of the order dated 03.10.1996 of ADM (R) was although supplied but same was not legible and readable. It is submitted that during the entire inquiry in spite of the directions of the I.O., the copy of legible and readable documents i.e. order dated 03.10.1996 of ADM was never supplied to the applicant. 6 OA No. 3137/2016 Item No. 32/C-II
5. This is the second round of litigation. Earlier also, the applicant filed an OA No. 2861/2009 before this Tribunal and the same was decided on 25.01.2010 with the following directions:-
"This OA stands disposed of with a direction to the respondents to complete the inquiry by giving a finding within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order subject to utmost cooperation and non-adoption of dilatory tactics by the applicant, failing which the inquiry shall abate. No costs."
6. The applicant contends that the respondents failed to implement the judgment of this Tribunal and failed to complete the inquiry within the stipulated period of four months and therefore, the inquiry became abate as per the directions of the Hon'ble Tribunal.
7. When the respondents continued the inquiry, the applicant filed a Contempt Petition No. 814/2011 before this Tribunal and on the other hand, the respondents filed Writ Petition (C) No. 469/2012 before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and the same was decided vide order dated 10.07.2013 with the directions to the respondents that the disciplinary authority would take into account the delay in completing the inquiry proceedings and the consequence thereof being loss of promotion to the petitioner whose entitlement to be promoted are lying in sealed cover.
8. The applicant states that the inquiry officer conducted the inquiry totally in biased manner, without following the rules, 7 OA No. 3137/2016 Item No. 32/C-II without following the prescribed procedure and the principle of natural justice. He submits that the inquiry officer conducted the inquiry not like a judge but like a prosecutor which can be seen from the I.O. report itself. It is submitted that the inquiry officer failed to consider the statement of the witnesses, failed to consider the defense of the applicant and pre-minded submitted her report in which proved all the charges against the applicant. It is submitted that the copy of the I.O. report was supplied to the applicant on 04.04.2012.
9. Against the I.O. report, the applicant made a detailed representation dated 23/26.08.2013 in which the applicant explained every point and as to how the inquiry officer report is perverse and not sustainable in the light of the facts placed on record as well as in the light of the rules. Applicant states that in the representation dated 23/26.08.2013, the applicant requested for grant of personal hearing. The disciplinary authority without granting any personal hearing and without considering any of the point raised by the applicant in his representation dated 23/26.08.2013 against the I.O. report passed the impugned penalty order dated 29.04.2014 (Annexure- A/1) and imposed a penalty of reduction in the time scale of pay by three stages for a period of four years w.e.f. 01.05.2014 with further direction that during the period of such reduction, he will not earn the 8 OA No. 3137/2016 Item No. 32/C-II increments of pay and on the expiry of such period, the reduction will have the effect of postponing the future increments of his pay by passing a non speaking and unreasoned order. It is also mentioned that while passing the impugned order of penalty, the disciplinary authority failed to consider the observation and directions given by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in its judgment dated 10.07.2013 in W. P. (C) No. 469/2012, meaning thereby the disciplinary authority failed to implement the judgment dated 10.07.2013 passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. Against the disciplinary authority order dated 29.04.2014, the applicant submitted a detailed appeal dated 09.05.2014 to the appellate authority but the appellate authority rejected the appeal of the applicant vide order dated 13.07.2016 without considering and without discussing any of the plea taken by the applicant in his appeal by passing a non speaking and unreasoned order. The applicant also contends that the whole action of the respondents passing the impugned orders and the entire disciplinary proceedings are illegal, unjust, and arbitrary against the rules and against the principle of natural justice. Hence, this O.A. SUBMISSION MADE BY RESPONDENTS
10. The respondents have filed their counter reply on 16.02.2017 following which a rejoinder on 24.04.2017 has been filed by the applicant. In the counter reply, the respondents have averred that 9 OA No. 3137/2016 Item No. 32/C-II the act of the applicant is unbecoming of a Govt. Servant and he failed to maintain absolute integrity and violated Rule 3 (1) (i) and
(iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules. 1964.
11. The respondents have filed their reply on 16.02.2017 wherein they have stated that disciplinary action was initiated against the applicant when he was working as Naib Tehsildar (Hauz Khas) in South District, Revenue Deparment and a chargesheet under CCS (CCA), 1965 was initiated against him for the alleged misconduct conducted by him during the year 1999.
12. The respondents have also stated that the applicant was transferred to work in Deputy Commissioner Office in the year 1998. He was given Show Cause Notice in November 2019 for certain lapses in some mutation cases. The applicant was transferred to Directorate of Education in September 2002. A chargesheet under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 was issued to him in November 2002. The applicant filed an OA No. 2861/2009 for quashing a chargesheet and release of his promotion. This Tribunal directed the respondents to complete the inquiry within four months failing which inquiry shall abate. In pursuance of the Order of this Tribunal, Inquiry Officer was appointed and Inquiry was completed on 12.10.2010. Since the directions of this Tribunal to complete inquiry within four months could not be made, MA No. 3480/2010 for implementation of 10 OA No. 3137/2016 Item No. 32/C-II order dated 25.01.2010 of this Tribunal in OA No. 2681/2009 and sought promotion from the date of promotion of his junior. This OA was dismissed as not maintainable. The applicant filed CP No. 814/2011 in OA No. 2861/2009 and prayed for passing an appropriate order against the respondents for treating the Inquiry abated. On 18.05.2012, the respondents were directed to comply with the order dated 25.01.2010 of this Tribunal.
13. Aggrieved by the decisions of this Tribunal dated 25.01.2010 and 18.05.2012, the respondents vide Writ Petition (Civil) No. 4694/2012 titled GNCTD of Delhi and Ors. VS. Naresh Kumar in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 10.07.2013 passed an order setting aside the impugned order dated 25.01.2010 requiring inquiry to have been abated. However, the disciplinary authority was directed to take into account the delay in completion of Inquiry proceedings and the consequence thereof being loss of promotion to the petitioner whose entitlement to be promoted are lying in a sealed cover.
14. The inquiry report was served upon the applicant on 04.02.2012. The applicant submitted his representation on 23.07.2013. In the meanwhile, applicant was transferred as Head Clerk in the Principal Account Office on 01.02.2013. The Principal Secretary (Finance) being the Disciplinary Authority of the applicant imposed major penalty of reduction in the time scale of 11 OA No. 3137/2016 Item No. 32/C-II pay by three stages for a period of four years w.e.f 01.05.2014, with the further direction that during the period of such reduction, he will not earn the increments of pay and on the expiry of such period, the reduction will have the effect of postponing the future increments of his pay. The applicant filed an appeal against the order and the same was rejected by the respondents vide order dated 13.07.2016. Aggrieved by the decision of Disciplinary Authority and rejection of his appeal, the applicant filed the present OA.
15. In rejoinder to the contents of brief facts of the counter affidavit, the applicant submitted that as on 21.11.2002 he was working in the Directorate of Education and the Disciplinary Authority of the applicant was Director of Education whereas the charge sheet was issued by the incompetent authority i.e. the Deputy Commissioner South who was not the disciplinary authority of the applicant at the relevant time.
16. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the judgments decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in (i) W.P. (C) No. 19170-71/2004 in the case of The Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Chamal Lal & Ors. decided on 06.02.2007; (ii) W. P. (C) No. 4757/2007 in the case of Union of India Vs. V. K. Sareen decided on 03.07.2009; (iii) W.P. (C) No. 750/2010 in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. M. S. Bhatia decided 12 OA No. 3137/2016 Item No. 32/C-II on 05.02.2010; (iv) W.P. (C) No. 3657/2010 in the case of Union of India Vs. Deepak Sinha & Ors. decided on 25.05.2010; and (v) W. P. (C) No. 8171/2008 in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Yateendra Singh decided on 02.07.2012.
17. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant further submits that this Tribunal has also followed same law while deciding, (i) O.A. No. 1202/2008 titled Ashok Aggarwal Vs. Union of India decided on 30.03.2009; (ii) OA No. 3737/2010 titled Shri Krishan Kant Vs. Council of Scientific and Industrial decided on 25.02.2011; and (iii) OA No. 3507/2010 titled Shri S K Ahuja Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi decided on 10.01.2012. ANALYSIS:-
18. The applicant is relying upon contentions which have two limbs. One limb of the argument is that the chargesheet is not issued to him by the competent authority while the other argument is that the respondents have taken too long time to conclude inquiry from the date of issuance of chargesheet till finalization of proceedings.
19. In so far as first limb of contentions of the applicant is concerned, for facility of reference, an extract of Service Book submitted by the respondents needs to be referred to. The Service Book extract dated 07.01.2003 reveals as under: 13 OA No. 3137/2016
Item No. 32/C-II "Transferred to Dte. of education deptt., Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi in pursuance of Dy. Secy. (Services) Order No.F.3/25/2000/S-II/Vol-II/4158-4163 dated 9-9-02 and stand relieved vide Dy. Secy (Services) order No. F.3/29/2002/S-II/Vol-1/5040-5046 dt.9.10.2002 with effect from 16-10-02 (A/N) O.S. (GA) D.C South"
19.1. From the above entry in the Service Book, it is clear that the applicant stands relieved vide order dated 09.10.2002 with effect from 16.10.2002 afternoon. When the applicant stood relieved on 16.10.2002, how can the Memorandum of Charge dated 21.11.2002 be issued to him by Deputy Commissioner (South) proposing initiation of major penalty proceeding against the applicant.
19.2. In Para 4.4 of this OA, a contention has been raised by the applicant that the chargesheet issued to him on 21.11.2002 when he was working in the Directorate of Education by Deputy Commissioner (South) Disciplinary Authority is not valid as Deputy Commissioner (South) was not the competent disciplinary authority of the applicant at the relevant point of time. In their counter reply dated 16.02.2017 and while replying to para 4.4 of the OA, the respondents have denied the contentions of the applicant and have stated that the incident leading to issuance of chargesheet took place in D.C. Office in the year 1999, the applicant was transferred to Education 14 OA No. 3137/2016 Item No. 32/C-II Department, GNCTD in routine transfer procedure in September 2002 and the chargesheet was served by the D.C. Office in November 2002. The records pertaining to disciplinary proceedings against the applicant was transferred to Education Department to further proceed with the case since the Disciplinary Authority was now Education Department.
19.3 A close reading of the above reply of the respondents clearly reveals that on 21.11.2002, Deputy Commissioner (South) was not the Disciplinary Authority and it has been admitted by the respondents in their reply that Disciplinary Authority of the applicant was Education Department. When the Disciplinary Authority of the applicant was Education Department, Deputy Commissioner (South) was not empowered to act as Disciplinary Authority and initiate disciplinary proceedings against the applicant in form of issuance of chargesheet on 21.11.2002 under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. Therefore, issuance of chargesheet by the Deputy Commissioner (South) in the capacity as disciplinary authority is ab initio void.
19.4 In the matter of State of Punjab vs. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar and others 2; the following was held: -
"72. It is a settled legal proposition that if initial action is not in consonance with law, all subsequent and consequential proceedings would fall through for the reason that illegality strikes at the root of the order. In such a fact-situation, the legal maxim "sublato fundamento cadit opus" meaning 15 OA No. 3137/2016 Item No. 32/C-II thereby that foundation being removed, structure/work falls, comes into play and applies on all scores in the present case.
73. In Badrinath v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors., AIR 2000 SC 3243; and State of Kerala v. Puthenkavu N.S.S. Karayogam & Anr., (2001) 10 SCC 191, this Court observed that once the basis of a proceeding is gone, all consequential acts, actions, orders would fall to the ground automatically and this principle is applicable to judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative proceedings equally.
74. Similarly in Mangal Prasad Tamoli (dead) by Lrs. v. Narvadeshwar Mishra (dead) by Lrs. & Ors., (2005) 3 SCC 422, this Court held that if an order at the initial stage is bad in law, then all further proceedings, consequent thereto, will be non est and have to be necessarily set aside.
75. In C. Albert Morris v. K. Chandrasekaran & Ors., (2006) 1 SCC 228, this Court held that a right in law exists only and only when it has a lawful origin. (See also: Upen Chandra Gogoi v. State of Assam & Ors., (1998) 3 SCC 381;
Satchidananda Misra v. State of Orissa & Ors., (2004) 8 SCC 599; Regional Manager, SBI v. Rakesh Kumar Tewari, (2006) 1 SCC 530; and Ritesh Tewari & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors., AIR 2010 SC 3823)."
20. The second contention of the applicant is that the respondents have taken too long time in deciding his disciplinary case. It is apparent from the pleadings in this case that the chargesheet was issued to the applicant on 02.11.2002 and the punishment order was issued on 29.04.2014. The appeal of the applicant was rejected by the appellate authority on 13.07.2016. Excluding the appeal period, the respondents have taken over 11 years to decide the disciplinary proceedings matter of the applicant. The applicant has relied upon the following judgments:
16OA No. 3137/2016
Item No. 32/C-II 20.1 Para 19 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Andhra Pradesh vs N. Radhakrishan [1998 AIR 1833, 1998 (2) SCR 693, 1998 (4) SCC 154 reads as under:
"19. It is not possible to lay down any pre-determined principles applicable to all cases and in all situations where there is delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings. Whether on that ground the disciplinary proceedings are to be terminated each case has to be examined on the facts and circumstances in that case.
The essence of the matter is that the court has to take into consideration all relevant factors and to balance and weight them to determine if it is in the interest of clean and honest administration that the disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to terminate after delay particularly when delay is abnormal and there is no explanation for the delay. The delinquent employee has a right that disciplinary proceedings against him are concluded expeditiously and he is not made to undergo mental agony and also monetary loss when these are unnecessarily prolonged without any fault on his part in delaying the proceedings. In considering whether delay has vitiated the disciplinary proceedings the Court has to consider the nature of charge, its complexity and on what account the delay has occurred. If the delay is unexplained prejudice to the delinquent employee is writ large on the face of it. It could also be seen as to how much disciplinary authority is serious in pursuing the charges against its employee. It is the basic principle of administrative justice that an officer entrusted with a particular job has to perform his duties honestly, efficiently and in accordance with the rules. If he deviates from this path he is to suffer a penalty prescribed. Normally, disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to take its course as per relevant rules but then delay defeats justice. Delay causes prejudice to the charged officer unless it can be shown that he is to or when there is proper explanation for the delay in conducting the disciplinary proceedings. Ultimately, the court is to balance these two diverse considerations."
20.2 Para 14 of P.V. Mahadevan vs M.D. Tamil Nadu Housing Board [2006 AIR 207; 2005 (6) SCC 636] reads as under:
17OA No. 3137/2016
Item No. 32/C-II "14. Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that allowing the respondent to proceed further with the departmental proceedings at this distance of time will be very prejudicial to the appellant. Keeping a higher government official under charges of corruption and disputed integrity would cause unbearable mental agony and distress to the officer concerned. The protracted disciplinary enquiry against a government employee should, therefore, be avoided not only in the interests of the government employee but in public interest and also in the interests of inspiring confidence in the minds of the government employees. At this stage, it is necessary to draw the curtain and to put an end to the enquiry. The appellant had already suffered enough and more on account of the disciplinary proceedings. As a matter of fact, the mental agony and sufferings of the appellant due to the protracted disciplinary proceedings would be much more than the punishment. For the mistakes committed by the department in the procedure for initiating the disciplinary proceedings, the appellant should not be made to suffer."
20.3 Para 15 of the Union of India vs V.K. Sareen - W.P.(C) No.4757/2007 of Delhi High Court decided on 3.07.2009 reads as under:
"15. In these circumstances when we find no convincing explanation for the delay in instituting the disciplinary proceedings as well as in taking final decision on the Enquiry Report despite specific order of this court and also considering the fact that some relevant documents were not made available to the respondent, which prejudiced him in making his defence; he has superannuated during pendency of this Writ Petition and has since been engaged as a Consultant, we do not find any valid justification for interfering with the orders of the Tribunal in exercise of our extra-ordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution"
21. The judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of M.P. Vs. Bani Singh & Ors. AIR 1990 SC; 1990 (Supp) SCC 738, State of Punjab Vs. Chaman Lal Goyal 1995 (2) SCC 570 and the order of this Tribunal in the case of S.K. Ahuja Vs. 18 OA No. 3137/2016 Item No. 32/C-II GNCTD decided on 10.01.2012 in OA No. 3507/2010 relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant are not applicable in the present case as the facts in those cases are different as compared to the case in hand.
22. In view of the above, the following directions are issued:
a) The Impugned order dated 29.04.2014 (Annexure A-1) imposing penalty on the applicant and the Appellate Authority order dated 13.07.2016 (Annexure A-2) are quashed and set aside.
b) The applicant is entitled to all consequential benefits. The respondents shall take action on the consequential benefits accrued to the applicant on quashing the orders dated 29.04.2014 ( Annexure A-1) & 13.07.2016 (Annexure A-2) within ten weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
c) A cost of Rs. 25,000/- (Rs. twenty five thousand only) is imposed on Respondent No. 4. The cost shall be paid to the applicant within the above mentioned 10 weeks (ten weeks).
d) Pending MAs, if any, stand closed.
(Rajinder Kashyap) (R.N. Singh)
Member (A) Member (J)
/neetu/ks