Karnataka High Court
Sri. Govindaraju. M vs Karnataka Power Transmission ... on 2 September, 2022
Author: S. Sunil Dutt Yadav
Bench: S. Sunil Dutt Yadav
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV
WRIT PETITION No.10467 OF 2022 (S-DE)
BETWEEN:
SRI GOVINDARAJU M.
S/O LATE MARISWAMY H.
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
R/AT NIDAGHATTA VILLAGE & POST
ATHAGUR HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 433. ... PETITIONER
(BY SMT. B.V. VIDYULATHA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LIMITED
CAUVERY BHAVAN,
K.G. ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 009
REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
2. THE DIRECTOR
ADMINISTRATION & HUMAN RESOURCE
THE KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LIMITED
CAUVERY BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 009.
3. KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA
M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU - 560 001
REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR
OF ENQUIRIES - 11. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. RAKSHITHA D.J., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2;
SRI VENKATESH S. ARABATTI, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
2
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED
27.08.2018 OF THE R2 AT ANNEXURE-J TO THE PETITION AND QUASH
THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS PENDING BEFORE THE R3 LOKAYUKTHA
AT ANNEXURE-Q1 TO THE PETITION AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
25.07.2022 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV. J This Order has been divided into the following Sections to facilitate analysis:
I FACTS OF THE CASE 3 II RELIEF SOUGHT 4 III CHIEF CONTENTIONS 5 IV ANALYSIS:- 6 A. PARALLEL PROCEEDINGS 6
B. CONTENTION OF BIAS AND REQUIREMENT OF 18 ENTRUSTMENT OF DISCIPLINARY ENQUIRY TO OFFICER OTHER THAN UPA-LOKAYUKTA C. WHETHER PREJUDICE IS CAUSED BY 26 NON-SUPPLY OF DOCUMENTS 3 I. FACTS OF THE CASE:-
The petitioner is working in City Sub-Division, CHESCOM, Maddur Taluk, Mandya District. It is alleged that the petitioner is stated to have demanded a bribe of Rs.25,000/- for installation of a transformer to the borewell in the lands of Sri Puttaswamy S/o Boregowda and Smt.Rathnamma. It is further alleged that part of the bribe amount was paid and further demand was also made.
2. The Karnataka Lokayukta Police is stated to have registered a case in Crime No.4/2015 and had conducted a trap while apparently the petitioner was receiving Rs.10,000/- as bribe from Sri G.B. Boregowda.
3. The Police Inspector, Karnataka Lokayukta had submitted the charge sheet against the petitioner before the Court of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Mandya in Spl.C.No.90/2017 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ['P.C. Act' for brevity]. 4
4. Further, as regards the same incident, the Karnataka Lokayukta had prepared an Observation Note at Annexure-'C' dated 31.07.2017 alleging that the petitioner had committed misconduct and was asked to show cause why recommendation was not to be made to the competent Authority to initiate the disciplinary proceedings.
II. RELIEF SOUGHT:-
5. The petitioner has sought for setting aside of the order at Annexure-'J' dated 27.08.2018 whereby the employer has resolved to hold a departmental enquiry and has sought for entrusting the same to Upa-Lokayukta; for setting aside of the entirety of proceedings before the Karnataka Lokayukta; has sought for a direction to the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to pass fresh orders under Regulation 14(A)(1) of the Karnataka Electricity Board Employees' (Classification, Disciplinary, Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1987 ['KEB Regulations, 1987' for brevity] after independently considering all the material on record and has also sought for a direction to the respondent Nos.1 5 and 2 to appoint a Retired District and Sessions Judge as Enquiry Officer to conduct a fresh enquiry of the alleged misconduct against the petitioner or in the alternative to consider the representation dated 10.02.2022 at Annexure-'P.' III. CHIEF CONTENTIONS:-
6. The main contentions raised in this petition are as follows:-
(a) Non-supply of documents relied upon in the disciplinary proceedings resulting in violation of principles of natural justice which has prejudiced the petitioner.
(b) The disciplinary proceedings entrusted to the respondent No.3 which is the Investigating Agency, must be entrusted to some other Agency, including a Retired District and Sessions Judge for the purpose of having a fair and proper enquiry. 6
(c) There ought to be stay of disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner till the statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. is recorded in Spl.C.No.90/2017 pending consideration before the Court of Principal District & Sessions Judge, Mandya.
IV. ANALYSIS:-
A. PARALLEL PROCEEDINGS:-
7. It has been contended that:
(i) The charges framed in the criminal case i.e.,
in Spl.C.No.90/2017 is identical to the Article of Charges framed in the disciplinary proceedings.
(ii) The employee should not be allowed to disclose his defence when parallel proceedings are held on the basis of identical charge and same evidence.
(iii) If before recording of statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the employee is forced to 7 make his defence in the disciplinary proceedings and his defence that may be taken in criminal proceedings would stand revealed causing prejudice.
8. The law regarding holding of departmental proceedings simultaneous with the criminal proceedings is encapsulated by the judgment of Apex Court in Stanzen Toyotetsu India Private Limited v. Girish V. and others1. The relevant portion of the decision, i.e. paras-13 to 16 are extracted hereinbelow:-
"13. It is unnecessary to multiply decisions on the subject for the legal position as emerging from the above pronouncements and the earlier pronouncements of this Court in a large number of similar cases is well settled that disciplinary proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case can proceed simultaneously in the absence of any legal bar to such simultaneity. It is also evident that while seriousness of the charge levelled against the employees is a consideration, the same is not by itself sufficient unless the case also involves complicated questions of law and fact. Even when 1 (2014) 3 SCC 636 8 the charge is found to be serious and complicated questions of fact and law that arise for consideration, the court will have to keep in mind the fact that departmental proceedings cannot be suspended indefinitely or delayed unduly.
(emphasis supplied)
14. In Paul Anthony [Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., (1999) 3 SCC 679 : 1999 SCC (L&S) 810] this Court went a step further to hold that departmental proceedings can be resumed and proceeded even when they may have been stayed earlier in cases where the criminal trial does not make any headway.
15. To the same effect is the decision of this Court in State of Rajasthan v. B.K. Meena [(1996) 6 SCC 417 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 1455] , where this Court reiterated that there was no legal bar for both proceedings to go on simultaneously unless there is a likelihood of the employee suffering prejudice in the criminal trial. What is significant is that the likelihood of prejudice itself is hedged by providing that not only should the charge be grave but even the case must involve complicated questions of law and fact. Stay of proceedings at any rate cannot and should not be a matter of course. The following passage is in this regard apposite: (B.K. Meena case 9 [(1996) 6 SCC 417 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 1455] , SCC pp. 422-23, paras 14-15) (emphasis supplied) "14. ... there is no legal bar for both proceedings to go on simultaneously and then say that in certain situations, it may not be 'desirable', 'advisable' or 'appropriate' to proceed with the disciplinary enquiry when a criminal case is pending on identical charges. The staying of disciplinary proceedings, it is emphasised, is a matter to be determined having regard to the facts and circumstances of a given case and that no hard-and-fast rules can be enunciated in that behalf. The only ground suggested in the above decisions as constituting a valid ground for staying the disciplinary proceedings is that 'the defence of the employee in the criminal case may not be prejudiced'. This ground has, however, been hedged in by providing further that this may be done in cases of grave nature involving questions of fact and law. In our respectful opinion, it means that not only the charges must be grave but that the case must involve complicated questions of law and fact. Moreover, 'advisability', 'desirability' or 'propriety', as the case may be, has to be determined in each case taking into 10 consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case. ... While it is not possible to enumerate the various factors, for and against the stay of disciplinary proceedings, we found it necessary to emphasise some of the important considerations in view of the fact that very often the disciplinary proceedings are being stayed for long periods pending criminal proceedings. Stay of disciplinary proceedings cannot be, and should not be, a matter of course. All the relevant factors, for and against, should be weighed and a decision taken keeping in view the various principles laid down in the decisions referred to above.
15. ... Indeed, in such cases, it is all the more in the interest of the charged officer that the proceedings are expeditiously concluded. Delay in such cases really works against him."
(emphasis supplied)
16. Suffice it to say that while there is no legal bar to the holding of the disciplinary proceedings and the criminal trial simultaneously, stay of disciplinary proceedings may be an advisable course in cases where the criminal charge against the employee is grave and continuance of the disciplinary proceedings is likely to prejudice their defence before 11 the criminal court. Gravity of the charge is, however, not by itself enough to determine the question unless the charge involves complicated question of law and fact. The court examining the question must also keep in mind that criminal trials get prolonged indefinitely especially where the number of accused arraigned for trial is large as is the case at hand and so are the number of witnesses cited by the prosecution. The court, therefore, has to draw a balance between the need for a fair trial to the accused on the one hand and the competing demand for an expeditious conclusion of the ongoing disciplinary proceedings on the other. An early conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings has itself been seen by this Court to be in the interest of the employees."
9. The tests that could be deduced are as follows:-
(a) As a general principle, the disciplinary proceedings and the proceedings in a criminal case can proceed simultaneously in the absence of any legal bar to such simultaneity.
(b) The defence of the employee in the criminal case may not be prejudiced. This is however hedged with further requirement that this would 12 arise in cases of grave nature involving the complicated questions of law and fact.
(c) Even when the charge is found to be serious and complicated questions of law and fact arise for consideration, the departmental proceedings cannot be suspended indefinitely or delayed unduly.
10. In the present case, the charge framed in the criminal case is as follows:-
(a) That on 26.11.2015, the accused had demanded Rs.20,000/- in respect of an official act to install the transformer to give electricity connection to the bore well situated in the land of complainant and thereby committed an offence under Section 7 of the P.C. Act;
(b) The demand made and accepting the bribe amount of Rs.20,000/- in order to do an official act results in committing of an offence 13 under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act;
11. The charge in the departmental proceedings are:-
(i) That the employee by his acts by obtaining Rs.10,000/- on 26.11.2015 and earlier demanded and taken Rs.3,000/- in relation to installation of transformer to give power connection to the bore well in the land of Sri Boregowda S/o Puttaswamy and Rathnamma and thereby committed breach of duty and failed to satisfactorily explain the possession of Rs.10,000/- acted in a manner of unbecoming of Government Employee and had violated Regulation 3(1)(i) of the Karnataka Electricity Board Employees Services (Conduct) Regulations, 1988 ('KEB Regulations, 1988' for brevity).14
(ii) That the employee was caught red-handed while accepting the bribe amount of Rs.10,000/-
in the presence of shadow witness on 26.11.2015 and committed breach of duty and behaving in a manner unbecoming of a Government Servant in terms of Rule 3(1) of the Karnataka Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1966.
12. The nature of misconduct under the provisions of KEB (Conduct) Regulations, 1988, in specific, Regulation 3(1) reads as follows:-
"(a) 3(1) Every Board employee shall at all time
(i) Maintain absolute integrity.
(ii) Maintain devotion to duty and
(iii) Do nothing which is unbecoming of a Board employee.
13. On the other hand, the conduct constituting offence under the P.C. Act is as follows:-
(i) Section 7 of the P.C. Act - accepts or obtains gratification to do or forbearing to do any official act. 15
(ii) Section 13(1)(d) - commits an act of misconduct by obtaining any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage by corrupt or illegal means; or by abusing his position; or while holding office as public servant.
(iii) Section 13(2) - A public servant who commits misconduct shall be punishable with imprisonment which shall not be less than four years and may extend to ten years and also be liable to fine.
14. Accordingly, it is clear at the outset that the subject matter of enquiry though relates to the same incident, the proceedings under the P.C. Act relates to commission of an offence which is punishable with imprisonment, if the ingredients are proved beyond the reasonable doubt.
On the other hand, the departmental proceedings relate to the misconduct of unbecoming an employee, the punishment for which is different from that under the provisions of P.C. Act. The procedure to be adopted in the 16 enquiry proceedings is also distinct and the standard of proof applicable is on a preponderance of probabilities.
15. Hence, at the very outset, though it is an identical incident, the same gives rise to different proceedings, the subject matter of which are different and consequences are different. By no sense of logic, both the proceedings can be said to be identical.
16. Insofar as the plea that there must be a stay of the disciplinary proceedings atleast till the statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. is recorded in the criminal proceedings, the same needs to be considered in light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Stanzen Toyotetsu India Private Limited (supra). The clinching requirement is that not only there has to be prejudice, but the case must also involve complicated questions of law and fact.
17. Though this concept of complicated question of law and fact has not been defined, but it appears that the 17 complicated question of law and fact are such as not warranting simultaneous parallel proceedings.
18. In the present case, the undisputed facts point out to the alleged demand and payment of bribe and the petitioner was caught in the presence of a shadow witness while accepting the amount in trap proceedings. There is no warrant for stay of the disciplinary proceedings in the above factual matrix. Further, there is no complicated question of fact, much less, the complicated question of law involved.
19. It must be noted that the subject matter of enquiry in the departmental proceedings relates to proof of misconduct of unbecoming of a Government Servant as stipulated under the relevant Service Rules, whereas the criminal proceedings relate to offence and its establishment by proof of ingredients. As both are capable of being proved independently, the question of prejudice would not arise.
18B. CONTENTION OF BIAS AND REQUIREMENT OF ENTRUSTMENT OF DISCIPLINARY ENQUIRY TO OFFICER OTHER THAN UPA-LOKAYUKTA
20. It must be noted that suo motu investigation under Section 7(2) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 was taken up on the basis of material submitted in Crime No.4/2015 registered on the file of Karnataka Lokayukta Police, Mandya in the trap case against the petitioner.
21. The investigation was taken up under Section 9 of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act after invoking Section 7(2) as regards misconduct found to have been committed. By this time, on the basis of complaint registered in Crime No.4/2015, a case was registered by the Lokayukta Police. Subsequently, after conclusion of the investigation, the charge sheet has been submitted before the Special Court, Mandya for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act, 1988.
22. The copy of the Observation Note was also sent to the petitioner to show cause as to why recommendation was not to be made to the competent Authority for initiating 19 the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. After consideration of the reply made by the petitioner, Upa-lokayukta has made recommendation under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act to the competent Authority to initiate the departmental disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner and to entrust enquiry to Upa-lokayukta. Under Section 12(4) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, the competent Authority is to examine the report and intimate to Lokayukta or to Upa-lokayukta the action taken or proposed to be taken on the basis of the report.
23. In the meanwhile, the competent Authority as per the order at Annexure-'J' dated 27.08.2018 after noticing the recommendation made under Section 12(3) of Karnataka Lokayukta Act vide order dated 19.06.2018 in exercise of power under Regulation 14A(1) of the KEB Regulations, 1987 has passed an order to hold the departmental enquiry and to entrust the same to the 20 Upa-Lokayukta. Regulation 14(A) of the said Regulations reads as follows:-
"14(A) SPECIAL PROCEDURE IN CERTAIN CASES OF MISCONDUCT (1) The following provisions shall, notwithstanding anything contained in Regulations 10 to 11 (A) and 13 be applicable for purposes of proceeding against Board employees whose alleged misconduct has been investigated into by the Vigilance Commission / Lokayukta / Upalokayukta either suo-moto or on a reference from the Board or from any other authority, viz.
(a) where on investigation into any
allegation against -
i) a member of the Board services Group A, B, C or D in respect of an allegation of a serious nature; the Vigilance Commissioner / Lokayukta / Upa Lokayukta or any Officer of the Vigilance Commission / Lokayukta / Upa Lokayukta authorised by him in writing under sub-rule 2 of Rule 5 of Karnataka State Vigilance Commission's Rules 1980 / Rule 12 of the Karnataka Lokayukta / Upa Lokayukta Act, 1984 is of the opinion that disciplinary proceedings shall be taken, he shall forward the record of investigation along with his recommendations to the Board and the Board 21 after examining such records, may either direct an inquiry into the case by the Vigilance Commission/ Lokayukta/ Upa Lokayukta or direct the appropriate disciplinary authority to take action in accordance with Regulation 11.
(b) Where the Vigilance Commission / Lokayukta / Upa Lokayukta is directed to hold an inquiry into a case under clause (a) the inquiry may be conducted either by the Vigilance Commission / Lokayukta / Upa Lokayukta authorised by the Vigilance Commissioner / Lokayukta / Upa Lokayukta to conduct the inquiry.
Provided that the inquiry of a case relating to a Board employee shall not be conducted by an officer lower in rank than that of such Board employee;
c) The Vigilance Commissioner / Lokayukta / Upa Lokayukta or the officer authorised to conduct the inquiry under clause (b) shall conduct the inquiry in accordance with the provisions of sub- regulation (2) to (20) and sub-regulation (23) of Regulation 11 and for the purposes of conducting such inquiry, shall have the power 22 of the disciplinary authority referred to in the said Regulation.
d) After the inquiry is completed, the records of the case with the findings of the inquiring officer and the recommendations of the Vigilance Commissioner / Lokayukta / Upa Lokayukta shall be sent to the Board.
e) On receipt of the records under clause (d), the Board shall take action in accordance with the provisions of sub-regulation (21) and sub-regulation (23) of Regulation 11 and Regulation 11(A), and in all such cases the Board shall be competent to impose any of the penalties specified in Regulation 9. Explanation: In this Regulation, the expressions Vigilance Commission / Lokayukta / Upa Lokayukta and Vigilance Commissioner / Lokayukta / Upa Lokayukta shall respectively have the meanings assigned to them in the respective Rules / Act and further amendments made to the above from time to time."
24. In terms of Regulation 14A(1) of the KEB Regulations, 1987 wherever misconduct has been investigated by the Lokayukta / Upa-lokayukta suo motu as 23 in the present case and Upa-lokayukta is of the opinion that disciplinary proceedings are to be taken in terms of Section 12 of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act upon recommendation being received by the Board, the Board may direct an enquiry by the Upa-lokayukta.
25. In terms of the order at Annexure-'J' in exercise of power under Regulation 14A(1) of the KEB Regulations, 1987 the enquiry has been entrusted to Upa-lokayukta, which is in accordance with the procedure under the KEB Regulations, 1987.
26. Learned counsel for the petitioner has sought to rely upon amendment to Regulation 14(A) by insertion of Regulation 14(A)(2), which provides as follows:-
"Regulation 14(A)(2):
The following provisions shall be applicable for purposes of proceeding against KPTCL employees whose alleged misconduct has been investigated into by the Anti Corruption Bureau, in Trap Cases." 24
27. Under Regulation 14(A)(2)[3] of the KEB Regulations, 1987 after receipt of reply of the employee to the charges and where it is found necessary to conduct a departmental enquiry, the Authority is empowered to appoint a Retired District and Sessions Judge as Enquiry Officer to conduct the enquiry and submit a report.
28. The reliance of learned counsel for the petitioner on Regulation 14A(2) of the KEB Regulations, 1987 as inserted by Amendment dated 04.11.2020 cannot be accepted, as the order of entrusting the enquiry to Upa-lokayukta in the present case has been passed on 27.08.2018, much before the amendment effected to Regulation 14A(2) of the KEB Regulations, 1987.
29. The contention that the enquiry conducted by Upa-lokayukta would be biased as the criminal case was also registered by Lokayukta Police and the Authority would be interested in ensuring the findings are recorded in the affirmative regarding the misconduct cannot be accepted. The delinquent employee cannot have a choice in the 25 conduct of disciplinary proceedings by a Retired District and Sessions Judge.
30. The apprehension that case having been registered by Lokayukta Police and charge sheet having been filed, there would be bias in the departmental enquiry conducted by the same Authority is not legally entertainable.
31. The criminal complaint by Karnataka Lokayukta Police leading to the registration of Crime No.04/2105 is by a separate wing of Lokayukta, which was subsequently taken away and entrusted to Anti Corruption Bureau.
32. The proceedings under Sections 7(2), 9 and 12 of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act relate to recommendation made by Lokayukta after investigation relating to misconduct in performance of duty and upon such recommendation, the competent Authority is to take a decision.
26
33. The registration of criminal complaint by Lokayukta Police has nothing to do with the action under Sections 7(2), 9 and 12 of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act. When a statutory provision under Regulation 14A(1) of the KEB Regulations 1987, provide for entrustment of disciplinary enquiry to Upa-lokayukta, such decision being permissible in law cannot be assailed on the ground of bias, as entrustment of enquiry by the employer to Lokayukta being permissible under the Rules, the question of raising the ground of legal bias does not arise.
34. All other grounds relating to bias in conducting the enquiry proceedings cannot be raised at this pre-mature stage and is available to be raised after conclusion of the proceedings.
C. WHETHER PREJUDICE IS CAUSED BY NON-SUPPLY OF DOCUMENTS:-
35. The petitioner has contended that the conduct of enquiry is not fair, as the petitioner has not been furnished with documents at the appropriate stage as mandated 27 under Regulation 11(4) of the KEB Regulations, 1987 which has caused prejudice and reflects bias.
36. In terms of Regulation 11(4), the Disciplinary Authority is required to deliver to the employee a copy of the Articles of Charge, Statement of Imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour and a list of documents and witnesses by which each Articles of Charge is proposed to be sustained and the employee is required to submit a written statement of his defence.
37. The Articles of Charge at Annexure-'L' has been delivered on 20.06.2020. Annexure-'4' to the Articles of Charge is bald and only states that after the petitioner appears before the Additional Registrar (Enquiries), he could make a request for documents and they would be furnished. However, the copies as sought for were ordered to be given as per the order dated 08.09.2020.
38. The respondent No.3 has however contended that the charge sheet furnished in compliance of mandate 28 under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. on 10.08.2017 contains all the documents that the petitioner has sought for and the request lacks bona fides.
39. It must be noted that the written statement of defence was filed on 03.06.2021, but by then, the order was passed on 08.09.2020 to furnish the documents.
40. Whether the lapse in non-compliance of Regulation 11(4) has not resulted in prejudice in light of the contention of respondent No.3 that all such documents were part of the charge sheet furnished to the petitioner in the proceedings before the Criminal Court is a factual aspect that requires to be demonstrated in the enquiry itself.
41. As regards the request for documents prior to the stage of furnishing of Articles of Charge as rightly contended, much cannot be made out of the same, as the furnishing of copy of complaint would suffice and there is no warrant to mandate furnishing of documents at such preliminary stage.
29
42. Insofar as the contention relating to violation of principles of natural justice, the same is always open to be canvassed, in the event the Enquiry records a finding against the employee and it would be premature at this stage to intervene by way of judicial review and consider the request at Annexure-'N' dated 27.07.2021.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed off, subject to the above observations.
Sd/-
JUDGE VGR