Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Munnu Lal Mishra vs Kendriya Vidyalaya Sanghthan on 31 May, 2022
OA No. 330/00284/2021
Reserved on 10.05.2022
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD BENCH
ALLAHABAD.
Allahabad this the 31st day of ___MAY____, 2022
Original Application No. 330/00284/2021
Hon'ble Mr. Tarun Shridhar, Member (Administrative)
Hon'ble Ms. Pratima K Gupta, Member (Judicial)
Munnu Lal Mishra, Assistant Commissioner, Group „A‟, Working at
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, Regional Office, Agra, aged about
56 years, Son of Sri Harsh Narayan Shastri, Resident of House
No.128, Defence State, Phase-1, Agra, Uttar Pradesh - 282001.
. . .Applicant
By Advocate : Shri Anil Kumar Singh
Shri Rohit Singh
Shri Ram Ji Singh
VERSUS
1. Union of India through the Secretary, Govt. of India, Ministry
of Human Resource Development, Department of School
Education & Literacy, Shastari Bhawan, New Delhi 110001.
2. Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, 18,
Institutional Area, Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg, New Delhi-
110016.
3. Sri K.S. Yadav, Son of Sri G.S. Yadav, Assistant
Commissioner/Officiating Deputy Commissioner, of Patna
Regional Office of K.V.S. Patna (Retried) Resident of House
No.1/57, Bahar-A, Sahara Estate, Jankipuram, Lucknow.
4. Sri Ajay Pant, S/o Sri Laxman Dutt Pant, No.1, Dr. Hamid
Building, Kamala Nehru Marg, Chawk, Lucknow- 226003.
5. Sri Santosh Kumar Mall, Ex-Commissioner of Kendriya
Vidyalaya Sangthan, Presently/Officiating Secretary (IT) of
Department of Information Technology 2nd Floor,
Technology Bhawan, Vishveshwaraiya Bhavan Campus,
Bailey Road, Patna - 800015.
. . .Respondents
By Adv: Shri N.P. Singh
Page 1 of 20
OA No. 330/00284/2021
ORDER
By Hon'ble Ms. Pratima K Gupta, Member (Judicial) Shri Anil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri N.P. Singh, learned counsel for the respondents are present.
2. By this OA, the applicant has sought the following reliefs :
" (i) To quash the memorandum of charges dated 21.05.2020 (Annexure-A-1) in the interest of Justice..
(ii) To command the respondents not to initiate further the departmental enquiry against the applicant at so belated stage on the same facts and evidences in view of the law laid down by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in several cases.
(iii) To pass such other and further orders which their lordships of this Hon‟ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the existing facts and circumstances of the case.
(iv) Award the cost of application in favour of the applicant."
3. The brief facts of the case are that a complaint was received by the respondents on 30.11.2016 with respect to certain irregularities in appointment of Teachers on contractual basis during the year 2016-2017. A preliminary inquiry was conducted by Shri Ajay Pant, Inquiry Officer who submitted his report on 27.04.2017. This was followed by a show cause notice dated 10.06.2019 and thereafter the impugned charge sheet dated 21.05.2020. The applicant claims that he was not provided the Page 2 of 20 OA No. 330/00284/2021 relied upon documents along with the charge sheet, therefore by way of a representation the applicant sought these documents. The same were still not provided. Aggrieved by the aforesaid circumstances, the applicant preferred an OA No.368 of 2020, seeking identical relief, which read as under:-
"(i) To quash the memorandum of charges dated 21.05.2020
(ii) To command the respondents not to initiate further the departmental enquiry against the applicant at so belated stage on the same facts and evidences in view of the law laid down by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in several cases.
(iii) To pass such other and further orders which their lordships of this Hon‟ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the existing facts and circumstances of the case.
(iv) Award the cost of application in favour of the applicant."
The said OA was disposed of by this Tribunal on 20.08.2020. The operative part of the order is reproduced below:-
"10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and in view of the peculiar facts of present OA, (the applicant being a blind person) it appears that no fruitful purpose will be served in keeping this matter pending.Page 3 of 20
OA No. 330/00284/2021 Accordingly, it is disposed of finally at admission stage, with a direction to the respondents to provide English translation of all the documents, which the disciplinary authority is going to rely upon during final enquiry proceedings, to the applicant, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
11. For a period of four weeks or till the English version of documents are provided to the applicant, further proceeding in pursuance of the aforesaid charge memo dated 21.05.2020 shall remain stayed."
4. The applicant sought certain documents by way of an application dated 03.09.2020 which he considered essential to defend his cause. The applicant once again made an application on 20.10.2020 requesting for all the relevant documents as mentioned in the earlier application dated 03.09.2020. Yet the documents were not provided to him, as he preferred a contempt petition No. 66 of 2020 in OA No.368 of 2020, which is still pending and listed on 06.08.2022 before this Tribunal. It would be relevant to refer to the order sheet dated 18.01.2022 of this contempt petition :-
"We have joined this Division Bench online through video conferencing.
Shri Suresh Kumar Maurya holding brief of Shri A.K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri N.P. Singh, learned counsel for the respondents are present. Learned brief holder of the petitioner's counsel requests for a short adjournment on the grounds that Page 4 of 20 OA No. 330/00284/2021 the main counsel Shri Anil Kumar Singh is unwell and hence he is not in a position to attend the Court today. Learned counsel for the respondents points out that in the instant matter he has already filed two compliance affidavits and four supplementary affidavits to demonstrate that the order passed by this Tribunal while disposing of the OA No.368 of 2020 has been fully complied with in letter and spirit.
i. Learned counsel for the respondents particularly draws attention to the operative part of the order passed in the aforesaid OA, wherein two directions were given :- English translation of all the documents relied upon by the Disciplinary Authority shall be provided to the applicant. ii. For a period of four weeks or till such documents are provided in English to the applicant, further disciplinary proceedings shall remain stayed. Learned counsel for the respondents points out that both these directions have fully complied with and now nothing sustained in the contempt petition. In accordance with the request of learned brief holder of the petitioner's counsel, the case is adjourned. List on 03.02.2022."
5. The applicant (In Para 31 of the OA) claims, that he is in receipt of 324 pages out of 333 pages of the preliminary inquiry report dated 27.04.2018. He further states that most of the 324 pages provided to him, are illegible. Accordingly, the applicant is unable to defend himself, thus he alleges violation of principles of natural justice. The applicant is a visually handicapped person and is unable to help himself without English translation of the said inquiry report. Therefore, by way of this original application he prays that the said charge sheet may be quashed. Page 5 of 20
OA No. 330/00284/2021
6. The applicant has filed written submission in support of his case, adding to the grounds mentioned in the OA. These submissions are :-
(6.1) There was an unexplained Delay that initiates the proceedings, so much so that the inquiry officer initiated the inquiry after a lapse of 65 days as the order of the initiation of inquiry was dated 10.01.2017 and he initiated the inquiry on 17.03.2017. He submits that the inquiry officer has completed the said inquiry on 27.04.2018 arbitrarily after a lapse of 01 year 01 month and 10 days. This delay of the fact finding inquiry has caused prejudice to the cause of the applicant. He adds that the disciplinary authority has issued the show cause notice dated 10.06.2019 after a lapse of 01year 01 month and 17 days after the said preliminary inquiry was completed on 27.04.2018. He adds that without waiting for the explanation of the applicant the respondents have proceeded with issuing of the impugned charge sheet dated 21.05.2020 which is after a lapse of 11 months and 11 days after show cause notice.
(6.2) Principles of natural justice have been violated as the documents including the preliminary inquiry report have not been provided and the documents so provided were illegible in spite of there being clear direction for the same, the applicant is unable to defend himself. Page 6 of 20
OA No. 330/00284/2021 (6.3) No ill motive or misconduct can be attributed to the applicant. He submits that the applicant fulfilled his duty as per the order of Deputy Commissioner while the applicant was posted as Assistant Commissioner KVS, Patna. He submitted that he had only followed the direction of his senior and therefore there has been no misconduct on account of the applicant. There is no element of corruption and misuse of power therefore; no misconduct can be attributed by the applicant. He submits that it was not in dispute as there was a fire on 01.06.2016 in the office of respondents, relevant documents were burnt and accordingly the applicant was forced to prepare a fresh panel.
(6.4) Charges against the applicant are vague and based on stale facts and therefore the intervention of this Tribunal is warranted and charge sheet be quashed.
(6.5) the charge sheet has been issued without any application of mind at end of disciplinary authority. (6.6) that it was a case of no evidence.
7. He relies upon the judgment of Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of State of Orissa Vs. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei & ors, which reads as under :-
" Even an administrative order which involves civil consequences must be made consistently with the Page 7 of 20 OA No. 330/00284/2021 rules of natural justice. The person concerned must be informed of the case, the evidence in support thereof supplied and must be given a fair opportunity to meet the case before an adverse decision is taken. Since no such opportunity was given it was held that superannuation was in violation of principles of natural justice."
And the judgment of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India & ors Vs. Kunisettey Styanarayana reported in AIR 2007 SC 906, it has been held as under :-
"It is well settled by a series of decisions of this Court that ordinarily no writ lies against a charge sheet or show cause notice. That indeed is true. Normally, charge sheet or show cause notice should not be quashed by any judicial forum, but there are indeed exceptions to the same and delay in initiating or finalizing the departmental proceedings is certainly one such exception."
8. The learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently opposed the OA and argued that the applicant has approached this Tribunal prematurely against the charge sheet dated 21.05.2020 as he has failed to file any representation against the same. Therefore, the OA is not maintainable as it stands barred by Section 20 of the A.T. Act, 1985.
Page 8 of 20
OA No. 330/00284/2021
9. Learned counsel for the respondents denies that the applicant has not been provided with the English translation of the charge sheet or the inquiry report. In fact, both have been translated in English and provided to the applicant in compliance of the order of this Tribunal passed in OA No.368 of 2020 and rather he has been provided with a fair opportunity to defend himself. A show cause notice was issued to the applicant on 10.06.2019 with a direction to submit his reply within 15 days. However, the applicant has chosen not to respond to the same. The respondents have waited for almost 11 months before issuing the impugned charge sheet.
10. Learned counsel for the respondents too has filed written submissions. The relevant paragraphs of the written submission are reproduced below:
Para 6. That vide letter dated 16.02.2021 the respondents have issued a letter addressed to Dr. P. Devakumar, Deputy Commissioner, K.V.S. RO Chandigarh region (inquiry officer in case of applicant) and inform the inquiry officer that in compliance of C.A.T. order dated 20.08.2020 passed in OA No.368 of 2020 and 25.01.2021 passed in contempt application No.66 of 2020 the competent authority has directed to stop the inquiry proceedings will to provide all the English translated relied upon documents in inquiry proceedings to the applicant.Page 9 of 20
OA No. 330/00284/2021 Para 7. That during the course of hearing the respondents counsel has invited to the applicant to give the details of those documents which are not been supplied till today but he fails to do so before the court.
Para 12. That from bare perusal of the aforesaid extracts which has been collected during the course of preliminary inquiry the integrity of the applicant was found doubtful because one hand he has submitted the letter to the department that all the documents pertaining to contractual teacher has been burn then how it is possible to the applicant to issue subsequent appointment letters in favour of different candidates whose name are not reflected in select panel. Hence, a charge sheet dated 21.05.2020 (A-1 of OA) has been issued by the K.V.S. to inquire the matter and along with charge-sheet Annexure No.II appended and in the aforesaid Annexure No.II the relied upon documents has been shown from serial No.I to XXVIII and these all the documents has been supplied by the respondents along with the charge sheet dated 21.05.2020 and when the applicant has approached the Tribunal on the ground in first OA No.368 of 2020 the translated copies of the relied upon documents were supplied once again vide letter dated 12.10.2020.
Para 13. That the respondents has supplied the minutes of meeting regarding contractual candidates dated Page 10 of 20 OA No. 330/00284/2021 09.04.2016 along with fact finding inquiry report furnished by the then inquiry officer, Ajay Pant, Deputy Commissioner, K.V.S. R.O. Lucknow.
Para 14. That the respondents has supplied last relied upon document i.e. panel/selection list of Primary Teacher (Contractual).
Para 15. That the respondents has supplied the English translation of inquiry report which established on the face of records that the respondents have fully complied the orders passed by this Hon‟ble Court dated 20.08.2020 passed in OA No.368 of 2020 and subsequent order dated 25.01.2021 passed in C.P. No.66 of 2020.
11. He further submits that the judgments relied upon by the applicant are not applicable in the present case as it is established that the applicant is himself responsible for the delay by creating hindrances and adopting delaying tactics so that the disciplinary proceedings do not proceed. He draws attention to para 68 of his counter affidavit wherein the details of the documents so provided to the applicant as demanded by him are given. Para 68 and 69 of the counter affidavit read as under:
"68. That the contents of paragraph no.4.25 & 4.26 of the original application are not correct as stated hence denied. In reply it is submitted that KVS (HQ) vide their letter dated F.30062/ 22/2018-KVS (Vigilance) / 2138-41 dated
12.10.20220 has already complied with the Hon'ble CAT Page 11 of 20 OA No. 330/00284/2021 decision dated 20.08.2020 in OA No.330/368/2020 and provided English translation (total 8 pages) of Hindi charge sheet issued to him vide letter F.30062/ 22/2018-KVS (Vigilance)/ 1988-89 dated 21.05.2020 along with English translation (total 5 pages) of Hindi Inquiry report (Total 5 pages).
In spite of above, all necessary documents as per annexure-III of charge sheet are already provided to applicant. These were altogether 49 documents, out of which 41 documents were in English and remaining 08 in Hindi language.
69. That the contents of paragraph no.4.27 of the original application are not correct as stated hence denied. In reply it is submitted that applicant is constantly forwarding unnecessary letters dated 04.09.2020, 07.09.2020, 11.09.2020, 21.09.2020, 20.10.2020, 27.10.2020 and 29.12.2020 and seeking other documents as well as personal hearing. Applicant has raised many points which are not only baseless but also a dilatory tactic for evading the inquiry proceedings against him at this stage because all necessary documents as per annexure-III of charge sheet are already provided to applicant.
But, the competent authority, KVS after taking lenient view on the above representations and provided the following documents vide letter No.F.30062/22/2018-KVS (Vigilance)/ 2319-23 dated 01.02.2021. The details of documents are as under:-
1. Inquiry report (page No.1 to 5)
2. Annexure of fact finding inquiry report. (Annexure 1 to
32) (total 334 pages)
3. English translation (8 pages) of 08 Hindi letters issued with charge sheet.Page 12 of 20
OA No. 330/00284/2021 However all 49 documents of the Annexure-III of the charge sheet were provided to Sh. M.L. Mishra, Assistant Commissioner, KVS, RO, Agra in English language.
It is also stated that Shri M.L. Mishra is designated in the post of Assistant Commissioner in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, Agra Region, which is considered as Grade-I classification in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan wherein working knowledge of Hindi and English are desirable and as per record his qualification is MA (Sanskrit). It is further submitted that vide order dated 20.08.2020 passed in OA No.368 of 2020, the relevant portion of the pronouncement at para -10 is quoted below:-
"10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and in view of the peculiar facts of present OA, (the applicant being a blind person) it appears that no fruitful purpose will be served in keeping this matter pending. Accordingly, it is disposed of finally at admission stage, with a direction to the respondents to provide English translation of all the documents, which the disciplinary authority is going to rely upon during final enquiry proceedings, to the applicant, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order." Respondents has provided all the relied upon documents to the applicant.
12. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
13. In order to decide this OA we may refer to the charge sheet which reads as under:-Page 13 of 20
OA No. 330/00284/2021 F.30062/22/2018-KVS (Vig.) Dated 21.05.2020 MEMORANDUM The undersigned proposes to hold an inquiry against Shri M.L. Mishra, Assistant Commissioner, KVS, RO, Agra under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1965 as extended to the employees of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan. The substance of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour in respect of which the inquiry is proposed to be held is set out in the enclosed statement of articles of charge (Annexure-1). A statement of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviours in support of each article of charge is enclosed (Annexure-II). A list of documents by which, and a list of witnesses by whom, the articles of charge are proposed to be sustained are also enclosed (Annexure-III and IV).
2. Shri M.L. Mishra, Assistant Commissioner, KVS, RO, Agra is directed to submit within 15 days of the receipt of this Memorandum a written statement of his Defence and also to state whether he desired to be heard in person.
3. He is informed that an inquiry will be held only in respect of those articles of charge as are not admitted. He should, therefore, specifically admit or deny each article of charge.
4. Shri M.L. Mishra, Assistant Commissioner, KVS, RO, Agra is further informed that if he does not submit his written statement of Defence on or before the date specified in Para 2 above, or does not appear in person before the Inquiry Authority or otherwise fails or refuses to comply with the provisions of Rule-14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, or the orders/directions issued in pursuance of the said rule, the Inquiry Authority may hold the inquiry against him ex-parte.
5. Attention of Shri M.L. Mishra, Assistant Commissioner, KVS, RO, Agra is invited to Rule 20 of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 as prescribed in Article 59 (27) of the Page 14 of 20 OA No. 330/00284/2021 Education Code for Kendriya Vidyalays under which no Government Servant shall bring or attempt to bring any political or outside influence to bear upon any superior authority to further his interest in respect of matters pertaining to his service under the Sangathan. If any representation is received on his behalf from another person in respect of any matter dealt with in these proceedings, it will be presumed that Shri M.L. Mishra, Assistant Commissioner, KVS, RO, Agra is aware of such a representation and that it has been made at his instance and action will be taken against him for violation of Rule-20 of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
6. The receipt of the Memorandum may be acknowledged.
STATEMENT OF ARTICLES OF CHARGE FRAMED AGAINST SHRI M.L.MISHRA, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, KVS, RO, AGRA ARTICLE-1 That the said Sheri M.L. Mishap, Assistant Commissioner, KVS, RO, Agra while working as Assistant Commissioner, KVS, RO, Patna during the year 2016-17 issued orders to various Principal under Patna Region for getting the services of Primary Teachers on contractual basis for the year 2016-17 in various Kendriya Vidyalayas, in which details of the names of teachers whose services were proposed to be appointed on contract basis in the said Vidyalaya. But in the list issued by Mr. Mishra, the names of many teachers who were ordered to be appointed were not in the original list (S.No.1 to 715) selected by the selection committee. The orders of many such teachers were issued by Mr. Mishra to get the appointment as contractual PRT, whose name were not included in the original selection list (S. No.1 to 715). The details of such teachers are as follows:
Page 15 of 20
OA No. 330/00284/2021 S. Name of the Kendriya Vidyalays The name of PRT No. (Contractual) whose name was not included in the original selection list (S.No.1 to 715).
1. Kendriya Vidyalaya, Mashrak 1.Gagon Kumar Saran 2.Yugesh Kumar
3.Arvind Kumar
2. Kendriya Vidyalaya, AFS, Bihta 1.Sonam Kohli
2.R.K. Tiwari
3. Kendriya Vidyalaya, Siwan 1.Pallavi Kumari (Bihar) 2.Jyoti Kumari
3.Ruby Kumari
4.Menna Gupta
5.Ravi Kumar
6.Shalini Kumari
7.Pawan Kumar
8.Rana Anupam Raj
4. Kendriya Vidyalaya, Maharajganj 1.Priyanka Pal
5. Kendriya Vidyalaya, Rau Pusa 1.Surbhi Kumari (Samastipur) 2.Sita Ram Ray
3.Shalini Kumari
6. Kendriya Vidyalaya, ECR, 1.Laxmi Kumari Samastipur 2.Sita Ram Rai
7. Kendriya Vidyalaya, Hajipur 1.Priyam Bharti
2.Ranveer Kumar
3.Sanjeela Kumari
4.Hemlata Kumari
8. Kendriya Vidyalaya, Rau Wheel 1.Sandeep Kumar Plant Bela Page 16 of 20 OA No. 330/00284/2021 The teachers recommended by Mr. Mishra were not selected by the Selection Committee of KVS, RO, Patna, but nonetheless he selected the contractual PRT in an arbitrary manner in violation of the rules, therefore, committing serious misconduct. Thus, this act of Shri M.L. Mishra, Assistant Commissioner, is a violation of the Rule 3 (1)(i) (ii) & (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 as extended to the employees of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan.
ARTICLE- II After the interview conducted on 13 and 14 February, 2016 for the selection of contractual teachers in Kendriya Vidyalaya, Danapur Cantt., a subsequent meeting was organised on 09.04.2016 by the members of the selection committee for selection of teachers for the appointment of contractual teachers. The minutes prepared were arbitrary, unfair, a mess in the name of student welfare, promoting corruption and completely against the appointment process of the KVS. The minutes were prepared on the instructions of Mr. M.L. Mishra and signed by Mr. Mishra.
Thus the said Shri M.L Mishra, by his aforesaid act, has committed a misconduct which is violation of Rule 3(1) (i) (ii) & (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 as extended to the employees of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan.
14. It is seen that the charges against the applicant are clear and unambiguous. It is also seen that the applicant chose not to respond to the show cause notice for almost 11 months nor has he replied to the charge sheet till today and instead approached this Tribunal challenging the impugned charge sheet. The applicant has mainly raised a single issue that in the absence of relevant documents in English, he is unable to defend himself and Page 17 of 20 OA No. 330/00284/2021 accordingly there is a violation of principles of natural justice. We are clear that the applicant has himself to a great extent contributed to the delay and tried to scuttle the administrative process. In our view, this amounts to an abuse of the process of law. We are conscious that there are limited circumstances where judicial interference is warranted at the stage of the charge sheet. In this regard it would be relevant to refer to the judgement of the Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Than Singh vs. Union of India (UOI) And Ors. Decided on 19 September, 2002.
"12. It is not in dispute that after the petitioner submitted his explanation in the years 1982 and 1983, no further action had been taken. The petitioner had been promoted twice unconditionally. He obtained and vigilance clearance. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the writ petitioner was entitled to raise the question of delay as also the condensation of misconduct. The learned Tribunal, unfortunately, did not address itself to the right question. It is now a well-
settled principle of law that validity of a charge-sheet can be questioned on a limited ground. It is also well-
settled that normally the court or the Tribunal does not interfere at the stage of show-cause. However, once the disciplinary proceedings are over, there does not exist any bar in the way of delinquent officer to raise all contentions including ones relating to invalidity of the Page 18 of 20 OA No. 330/00284/2021 charge-sheet. The grounds upon which the correctness or otherwise of the charge-sheet can be questioned are:
(i) If it is not in conformity with law.
(ii) If it discloses bias or pre-judgment of the guilt of the charged employee.
(iii)There is non-application of mind in issuing the charge-sheet.
(iv) If it does not disclose any misconduct.
(v) If it is vague.
(vi) If it is based on stale allegations.
(vii) If it is issued mala fide.
15. It is seen that none of the circumstances mentioned in the said judgment exist in the present OA. As there is no adverse order against the applicant at this stage, no interference is called for. It is established that all the relevant documents have been duly provided to the applicant. It is pertinent to note that the applicant is in fact Masters in Sanskrit, and his insistence upon documents in English seems to be a strategic ploy to delay the proceedings. The right course before the applicant is to participate in the inquiry proceedings in pursuance to the charge sheet dated 21.05.2020. However, the respondents too should complete the inquiry proceedings as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months. Needless to observe that any delay in Page 19 of 20 OA No. 330/00284/2021 finalising the disciplinary proceedings shall be detrimental to the cause of the applicant.
16. In the light of the facts and circumstances detailed above, the OA is dismissed. No order as to costs.
17. All the MAs associated with this original application stand disposed of.
(Pratima K Gupta) (Tarun Shridhar)
Member(Judicial) Member(Administrative)
RKM/
Page 20 of 20