Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Gulshan Kumar Batra vs Lt. Governor on 4 January, 2012
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench
OA NO. 2522/2011
New Delhi this the 4th day of January, 2012
Honble Mr.G.George Paracken, Member(J)
Honble Dr. A.K.Mishra, Member (A)
Gulshan Kumar Batra
S/o Late Sh. Satram Dass Batra,
Ex. Sub-Regional Employment Officer
Office of Director Employment
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
r/o C-8/6, 2nd Floor,
Miasnwali Nagar, New Delhi.
. Applicant
(By Advocate: Ms. Meenu Mainee)
Versus
Lt. Governor
Through Chief Secretary,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
5th Level Delhi Secretariat,
New Delhi.
Chief Secretary
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Delhi Secretariat, ITO,
New Delhi.
Secretary,
Labour & employment,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
5 Sham Nath Marg, Delhi.
.. Respondents
(By Advocate: Sh. N.K.Singh for Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat)
O R D E R
Honble Shri George Paracken:
The applicant has made this Original Application against the impugned memorandum No. F.7[04]/2004/DOV/1195 dated 25.2.2010 proposing to hold an enquiry against him under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The statement of charge against him was as under:
Sh. G.K.Batra while functioning as Tehsildar, Najafgarh during the period September 1996 to January 1998 committed gross misconduct in as much as he effected mutation of land comprising in Khasra No.36/19 (4-16), 20/1(1-0), 21/1(1-12), 21/2(2-4) 22 min (3-16) total measuring 13 Bigha 08 Biswa situated in Village Paprawat, Tehsil Najafgarh on the basis of a sale deed executed at Bomay by somebody else other than the Bhoomidhar owner and also submitted/signed by some one else other than the applicant for mutation on 17th October, 1996, with regard to the sale of land. Shri G.K.Batra passed the order of mutation in the back date in violation of the circular dated 3rd October 1996 issued by ADM (Revenue) which imposed restrictions on mutation of lands situated in Delhi on the basis of Sale Deed executed/registered outside Delhi by deliberately avoiding the said circular. Sh. G.K.Batra inspite of his knowledge of the restriction imposed vide circular dated 3rd October 1996, marked the application to the Kanoongo putting the date under his signature as 17.9.96 whereas the application was dated as 17.10.96. Sh. G.K.Batra passed the mutation order on 2nd October 1996 when the office was closed for a National Holiday on account of Mahatma Gandhis Birthay. Then he tempered with the official records by changing the date from 2.10.96 to 3.10.96 by making the digit 2 as 3 by overwriting. Shri G.K.Batra has thus deliberately avoided and violated the circular dated 3.10.96 with a design and scheming mind to entertain an application of mutation received after the restrictions imposed on mutations of lands by tempering the official records and also by abusing his official position in getting the undated reports from concerned Kanoongo etc. and getting the record fabricated, all with malafide intention and ulterior motive.
2. The statement of imputation of misconduct alleged against him are as under:
An application bearing type written date as 17.10.96 from Shri Sunder Singh S/o Shri Sardar Singh R/o Village Madhupura, Tehsil & Distt. Bhind (M.P.) but signed in Hindi as Shri Surender Singh marking for on behalf of Shri Sunder Singh was received in the office of Shri Sh. G.K.Batra, the then Tehsildar, Najafgarh. The said application was for mutation of agricultural land bearing Khasra No.36/19(4-16), 20/1(1-0), 21/1(1-12), 21/2(2-4) 22 min (3-16) total measuring 13 Bigha 08 Biswa situated in Village Paprawat, Tehsil Najafgarh. The date on the application was typed as 17.10.96 but Shri G.K.Batra marked the application to the Kanoongo mentioning the date as 17.09.96 intentionally with a motivated purpose.
The mutation was sought on the basis of Sale Deed dated 26.08.96 executed at Bombay by one Shri Jasbir Singh S/o Shri D.B.Singh R/o No.2607 N.B.N.Garh, New Delhi in favour of one Shri Sunder Singh S/o Shri Sardar Singh R/o Village Madhupura, Tehsil & Distt. Bhind (M.P.). the said sale deed was stated to have been executed by Shri Jasbir Singh S/o shri D.B.Singh through Attorney Shri Rakesh Chopra S/o Shri S.P.Chopra meaning thereby that Shri Rakesh Chopra had practically executed the deed. However, the Deed contained the signatures of Shri Jasbir Singh as executants of the deed.
The said sale deed executed at Bombay on 26th day of August, 1996 by Shri Jasbir Singh S/o Shri D.B.Singh, resident of No.2607, N.B.N. Garh, New Delhi, through his attorney Shri Rakesh Chopra, S/o shri S.P.Chopra, resident of B-5, 130 Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi though the vendor had mentioned in the Sale Deed that he was a resident of Delhi and the suit land was also situated at Delhi. The said Sale Deed had been executed in favour of Shri Sunder Singh S/o Shri Sardar Singh resident of Village Madhupura, Tehsil Bhind, Distt. Bhind Madhya Pradesh.
The sale deed was executed at Bombay apparently to avoid various legal norms and restrictions i.e. No Objection Certificate of Revenue Authorities, Income Tax Clearance Certificate, photographs and thumb impressions etc. which were required for registration at Delhi. Also accompanying the application was a copy of GPA stated to have been executed on 29.08.95 by Shri Rakesh chopra S/o S.P.Chopra R/o B-5/30, Safdar Enclave, New Delhi in favour of Shri Jasbir Singh S/o Shri D.B.Singh R/o PN-2607/N.B.N. Garh, New Delhi. As per the said GPA, Shri Jasbir Singhs current address was Mission House, Pipli Road, Kurukshetra 132118. It was further mentioned in the GPA that Shri Jasbir Singh was the General Attorney of Shri Badlu S/o Shri Tulsiram & Shri Ram Kishan s/o Shri Tula, Village-Paprawat, Delhi. The GPA contained confusing statement in as much as it said that Shri Jasbir Singh was GPA of Shri Badlu S/o Shri Tulsi Ram and Shri Ram Kishan S/o Shri Tula Village Paprawat, Delhi in that capacity he was again being made the GPA of the executants Shri Rakesh Chopra S/o Shri S.P.Chopra, R.o B-5/30, Safdar Enclave, New Delhi in respect of the land of Khasra No. 36/19(4-16), 20/1(1-0), 21/1(1-12), 21/2(2-4) 22 min (3-16) total measuring 13 Bigha 08 Biswa situated in Village Paprawat, Tehsil Najafgarh. He proceeded to pass sanction/mutation inspite of the above glaring facts being in his knowledge.
Further, the G.P.A. contained the condition that allowed the attorney execute sale deed only in Delhi. Thus the sale Deed had been executed in contravention of the conditions contained in the GPA.
The said Sh. G.K.Batra did not make any efforts to question these inconsistencies also and sanctioned the mutation contrary to the provisions of law.
The said Shri G.K.Batra committed further gross misconduct with malafide intention, as he ignored the fact that application for mutation was filed by Sh. Surender Singh on behalf of Sh. Sunder Singh, but fathers name & address of Surender Singh and his relationship with Sunder Singh was not mentioned. No notices were issued to the signatory Sh. Surender Singh. The statement of Sh. Jasbir Singh only was recorded for the reasons best known to the said Sh. Batra.
The said Sh. G.K.Batra also ignored the contents of application as well as sale deed, which, mentioned that the suit land had been sold by Sh. Jasbir Singh, through his attorney Sh. Rakesh Chopra. It was clear from the revenue record that Sh. Rakesh Chopra was himself the Bhoomidhar and any Sale Deed or application for mutation from a person stating Sh. Rakesh Chopra to be his Attorney, was enough to raise the doubt about the legality of the transaction.
The said Sh. G.K.Batra passed the mutation order on application dated 17.10.1996 on 2.10.1996 i.e. 15 days before the date of application and that too on the National holiday on account of Mahatma Gandhis Birthday.
The notice issued by the said Sh. G.K.Batra revealed that one notice was issued on 17.09.1996 for 02.10.96 to Sh. Rakesh Chopra at the address B-5/130, Safdarjung Enclave but the same was served upon Sh. Jasbir Singh and the other notice was issued in the name of Sh. Sunder Singh on the same date at the address of Madhupura, Bhind (MP) but it was served upon Sh. Kishan Gaur. Thus the notices were issued for 02.10.1996 and were served upon on the same day to two different persons other than those to whom they were addressed.
The said Sh. G.K.Batra issued notices for 02.10.1996 for hearing of the case but subsequently discovering his blunder by putting the date as 2nd October was a national holiday, it was tempered by overwriting as 03.10.1996. Further, on the back of Proclamation notice the date given by process server was 31.10.1996 and subsequently it was tempered as 31.09.1996. But while tampering the said Sh. G.K.Batra forgot the fact that there were only 30 days in the month of September, 31.09.96 could not be possible. The order sheet dated 2.10.1996 initially written by the said Sh. G.K.Batra was changed to 3.10.96 in order to cover up the misdeed.
Also as per rule 141 of the Delhi Land Revenue Rules, 1962, The P-I should bear the signature of Patwari and date of filing and also signature of N.O.K. along with date but P-I accepted by the said Sh. G.K.Batra did not bear date of filing by the Patwari or the date of signature of N.O.K. in violation of Rule 143 of Delhi Land Revenue Rules 1962.
The said Sh. G.K.Batra ignored the report of the Patwari in P-I, wherein he reported in the column of Bhoomidhar the name of Sh. Rakesh Chopra, as also the fact that the sale deed had been made by Sh. Jasbir Singh.
In the 0-2 register at serial No.1 the date of mutation order had been mentioned as 2.10.1996 which was subsequently tampered as 3.10.1996.
In the 0-4 register the order dated 24.09.96 was implemented at Sl. No.722, the orders dated 24.10.96 were implemented from Sl. No.723 to 727, the order dated 02.10.96 which later on tampered as 03.10.96 was implemented at Sl. No.728 & order dated 26.11.96 was implemented at Sl. No.729.
This shows that the order dated 02.10.96 was passed by Sh. G.K.Batra on or after 24.10.96 but was issued on 02.10.96 which was later on tempered as 03.10.96.
A circular No, F.1(2)/PA/ADM(R)/DC/96/628 dated 03.10.96 was issued by ADM (Revenue) wherein it was directed that the sale deeds registered in Bombay or any other presidency town should not be entertained for mutation of land in Delhi.
In view of the fact mentioned above, it is clear that Shri G.K.Batra in order to avoid the implementation of the Circular dated 3.10.96 issued by ADM (Revenue) manipulated the officials records in collusion with the private party/subordinate officials to sanction mutation of the above said land, the tempering was done on the some related records like the 0-4 & 0-2 register where 2.10.1996 was visible, but Sh. G.K.Batra could not remember to tamper the record of the Khatoni wherein the Patwari entered the date of mutation as 2.10.96 after making entry the said detail by the concerned Kanoongo in 0-4 register.
Thus, the said Sh. G.K.Batra by his act of commission and omission failed to maintain integrity and devotion to duty and exhibited conduct unbecoming of a Government servant thereby violating the provisions of Rule 3 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
3. Earlier the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Najafgarh filed a complaint against the applicant on 16.2.2006 to SHO Najafgarh in the above matter. Thereafter, a FIR case was registered against him vide No.145/06 u/s 420/468/471/34 IPC dated 17.2.2006 in PS Najafgarh. The said FIR reads as under:
Office of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, SDM Office complex, Najafgarh New Delhi 4, NBo. F. SDM/NG/2006/1081 dated 17.2.06. Sub FIR against officer/officials and other concerned persons in case of forgery related to mutation case of village Paprawat, New Delhi. I am directed to inform you that Shri G.K.Batra, while functioning as Tehsildar, Najafgarh, had sanctioned a mutation order in respect of land bearing Kh. No. 36/19(4-16), 20/1(1-0), 21/1(1-12), 21/2(2-4) 22 min (3-16) total measuring 13 Bigha 08 Biswa situated in Village Paprawat, New Delhi, Sh. Rakesh Chopra s/o S.P.Chopra, resident of B-5, 130 Safdarjung Enclave New Delhi was the recorded owner of the said land. The mutation order dated 3.10.96 was passed in favour of Sh. Sunder Singh s/o Sardar Singh resident of Village Madhupura, Tehsil Bhid, Distt. Bhind, Madhya Pradesh on the basis of fake documents executed in fictitious name. The following Govt. officer/officlas involved in the above said case at the time of mutation order dated 3.10.96 is as under S.No.1 Sh. G.K.Batra, Ex-Tehsildar, Najafgarh, 2. Sh. Harpal Singh Ex-Office Kanungo, 3 Sh. Hawa Singh Ex-halqa patwari, Village Paprawat. It has revealed during the case of appeal proceedings against the said mutation order in the court of the then Dy. Commissioner (South West) Harpal Singh, Kanungo, Sh. Hawa Singh Patwari had helped to forged the documents. The addresses of the persons involved in the racket for forging the documents besides above mentioned Govt. officials S.No.1 Sh. Sunder Singh s/o Sh. Sardar Singh village Madhupura, Tehsil Bhind Distt. Bhind, Madhya Pradesh 2. Sh. Jasbir Singh s/o Sh. D.B.Singh, 2607 NBN Garh, New Delhi. 3. Sh. Kishan Gaur s/o late Sh. Lal House No.4, Jiya Sarai, Delhi 4. Sh. Dhan Raj s/o Amar Singh 4/6 Ber Sarai, Delhi Further action as per law may be initiated against the above mentioned officer/official and other persons.
4. Thereafter, the applicant was arrested on 12.6.2008 and the Metropolitan Magistrate (MM for short) New Delhi sent him in police custody on 13.6.2008 but released on bail on 16.6.2008. The respondents placed him under deemed suspension under Rule 10 (2) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, vide order dated 31.6.2008 w.e.f. 12.6.2008. The period of suspension was extended from time to time. His request for revocation of suspension was not agreed to by the respondents. He had, therefore, filed OA No.3376/2009 before this Tribunal seeking a direction to set aside the impugned orders dated 31.7.2008, 9.9.2008, 9.3.2009 and 4.9.2009 extending the period of suspension for different spells. Subsequently, the applicant retired on superannuation from service on 28.2.2010.
5. The applicant has challenged the aforesaid impugned memorandum dated 25.2.2010 initiating the disciplinary proceedings against him under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 mainly on the ground of delay. According to him, the alleged misconduct committed by the applicant relates back to the period from September 1996 to January 1998. There was an unexplained delay of about 13 years. The respondents have not given any reason as to why there was delay in initiating the disciplinary proceedings against him. In this regard, applicant has relied upon the judgment of Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Bani Singh and another, 1990 Supp. SCC 738, State of A.P. Vs. N.Radhakrishnan, (1998) 4 SCC 154 and P.V. Mahadevan vs. M.D. Tamil Nadu Housing Board, 2006 (1) AISLJ 67.
(i) State of M.P. v. Bani Singh, 1990 (Supp) SCC 738, It is unreasonable to think that they would have taken more than 12 years to initiate the disciplinary proceedings as stated by the Tribunal. There is no satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay in issuing the charge memo and we are also of the view that it will be unfair to permit the departmental enquiry to be proceeded with at this stage.
(ii) P.V. Mahadevan v. MD, T.N. Housing Board,(2005) 6 SCC 636 There is also no acceptable explanation on the side of the respondent explaining the inordinate delay in initiating departmental disciplinary proceedings.
(iii) State of A.P. v. N. Radhakishan, (1998) 4 SCC 154 19. It is not possible to lay down any predetermined 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 the relevant factors and to balance and weigh 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 the 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 the 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 the 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 their 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 blame for the delay or when there is proper explanation for the delay in conducting the disciplinary proceedings. Ultimately, the court is to balance these two diverse considerations.
6. Applicant has also relied upon an order of Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in Than Singh Tyagi vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi. In the said case, the applicant therein was to attain superannuation on 13.10.2009. Just two hours before he demitted the office of the respondents, the charge memo proposing to hold an enquiry against him under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 was issued with regard to an incident of the year 1998, which was more than a decade ago. According to the charge sheet, while he was working as Sub Registrar Narela during July 1998, he committed the gross misconduct by registering a sale deed executed by one Mahnder Singh, general attorney of Mange Ram in faovur of Smt. Kesar Wati, Smt. Savita Gupta and Smt. Kiran Gupta, even though the land as per revenue records, belonged to Makbooja Kumharan. This Tribunal vide its order dated 8.8.2011 in the aforesaid OA has held that even though there was an allegation that the applicant registered a sale deed with a view to give undue advantage to the party, there was nothing to substantiate the said allegation neither the article of charges nor the reply filed on behalf of the respondents, there was any mention of the facts and circumstances which would show any ulterior motive on the part of the applicant. Even during the course of arguments, nothing was pointed out to that extent but it was only a presumption that it was a case of illegal registration of the sale deed. The delay occurred in initiating the proceedings was also unexplained.
7. Relying on the judgment of Apex Court in Bani Singhs case (supra), the applicant argued that when there was no reasonable explanation for delay in initiating the disciplinary proceedings, the delay would itself constitute denial of reasonable opportunity. The Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal has also relied upon a number of judicial precedents on this issue. In the totality of the facts and circumstances of the said case, this Tribunal vide order dated 8.8.2011 set aside the charge memo dated 30.10.2009 thereby entitling the applicant full pension and also payment of withheld post retiral dues.
8. The respondents in the reply to this OA has submitted that the applicant has approached this Tribunal at the interlocutory stage and, therefore, this application is premature. They have also submitted that they are taking action against the applicant departmentally where he would be given full opportunity to defend his case. The misconduct alleged against him is quite serious and it constitutes offence of forgery and cheating in transfer of revenue record on the basis of sale deed not executed by the Bhoomidar from Bombay on a back date. They have also stated that the police had arrested the applicant in FIR filed against him on 12.6.2008 and he was released on bail on 16.6.2008. Simultaneously action is also being taken against him departmentally.
9. The learned counsel for the respondents has also relied upon an order of the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in OA-1339/2010 Sh. Rajinder Singh vs. Delhi Transport Corporation. In the said case action was initiated against the applicant therein under the provisions of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 vide memorandum of charge dated 23.2.2010 for the alleged offence committed by him that he produced fake educational certificates to the effect that he had passed the High School examination in 1968. The complaint in this regard was received only on 11.7.2008. The applicant challenged the aforesaid action before this Tribunal on the ground that under Rule 9 (2) (b) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 departmental proceedings could not be instituted against an employee in respect of any event which took place more than four years before the institution of the departmental proceedings. While dismissing the OA, this Tribunal held that the limitation of four years prescribed in Rule 9 (2) (b) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 would not apply in the facts and circumstances of the case because the departmental proceedings were not initiated against the applicant for the misconduct and delinquency made in the performance of his duties but the departmental enquiry which was being conducted was for trying to secure promotion by producing forged certificates.
10. Counsel for respondents has also relied upon the judgment of High court of Delhi in WP (C) No. 6715-6716 of 2006 decided on 4.7.2008 - Lt. Governor of Delhi and anr. vs. Narain Singh. The petitioner in the said case retired from service as the Sales Tax Officer. The chargesheet was issued against him on 22.4.2004 under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The applicant challenged the aforesaid proceedings before this Tribunal for holding enquiry against him on the ground of delay. This Tribunal allowed the OA filed by him vide its order dated 7.2.2006. The High Court considered the fact that the charges leveled against the respondents in the case were very serious in nature. Honble High Court further held that the charge sheet should not be quashed, particularly when the charge was related to the irregularities and other serious misconduct committed by the applicant and the writ petition challenging the same should be dismissed as premature. Whatever the accused employee has to say in his defence, he can say during the enquiry. It is not proper for the Court to exercise its writ jurisdiction at that stage particularly when there are serious allegations of irregularities particularly passing the bills beyond the prescribed period. Accordingly, writ petition filed by the applicant was dismissed.
11. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. No doubt, there is a delay of about 13 years in initiating the departmental proceedings against the applicant. The main ground taken by the applicant to challenge the Respondents action in initiating the departmental proceedings against him also of delay. Now the first question is whether the delay was unexplained or undue. The second question is with regard to the gravity of the alleged misconduct committed by the applicant. As regards the question of delay is concerned, of course, the Apex Court in Bani Singhs case (supra) has held that unexplained long delay is good and sufficient reason to set aside the memorandum of charge. However, the question is whether the delay was totally unexplained. Even though the alleged incident had taken place during the period from September 1996 to January 1998, it came into light only when the Sub Divisional Magistrate Najafgarh filed a complaint against the applicant to the SHO Najafgarh. Thereafter, an FIR No.145/06 under Section 420/468/471/34 IPC dated 17.2.2006 was registered against him. The criminal case filed against him subsequently is in progress. The department has, however, decided to hold an enquiry under the powers conferred upon it under the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 while the aforesaid criminal case is pending. It is seen that there was no deliberate attempt on the part of the respondents, not to take any action against the applicant against the alleged misconduct committed by him. It has been held clearly in the case of N.Radhakrishnas case (supra) that it is not possible to lay down in pre-determined principles applicable to all cases and all situations where there is delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings. Again, in the case of P.V.Mahadevan, the Apex Court has allowed the petition on the ground that explanation offered by the respondents in initiating the departmental enquiry against the petitioner therein after a long delay was not at all convincing. But that is not the case in the present case. As regards the gravity of the case is concerned, in our considered view, it is quite serious. According to the statement of imputation, applicant has committed gross misconduct with the malafide intention as he ignored the fact that the application for mutation was filed by Sh. Surender Singh on behalf of Sh. Sunder Singh, but the fathers name and address of Surender Singh and his relationship with Sunder Singh was not mentioned. Applicant has also ignored the contents of the application as well as sale deed which mentioned that the suit land has been sold by Sh. Jasbir Singh through his attorney Sh. Rakesh Chopra. When it was clear from the record that Sh. Rakesh Chopra was himself the Bhoomidhar and any sale deed or application for mutation from a person stating Sh. Rakesh Chopra to be his attorney, was enough to raise the doubt about the legality of the transaction.
12. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, we would not like to interfere with the departmental proceedings initiated against the applicant, even though it was just few days before his retirement from service. Since the allegation against him was of grave nature, it is necessary that he has to come out clean in the departmental proceedings. Moreover, there is also a criminal case pending against him on the basis of the complaint made by the SDM on 16.2.2006. We, therefore, dismiss this OA. However, since the applicant has already retired from service, we direct the respondents to conclude the enquiry as early as possible so that the applicants claim for full pension as well as for release of the withheld post-retiral dues can be settled earlier. We also direct the applicant to give full cooperation in the enquiry proceedings being held against him so that the matter could be decided without any further delay. There shall be no order as to costs.
( Dr. A.K. Mishra ) ( George Paracken )
Member (A) Member (J)
sd