Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
K.J. Gandhi vs Union Of India Represented By on 23 July, 2009
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ERNAKULAM BENCH Original Application No. 155 of 2003 Thursday, this the 23rd day of July, 2009 C O R A M : HON'BLE DR. K B S RAJAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE MR. K. GEORGE JOSEPH, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER K.J. Gandhi, S/o. Koil Pillai, Booking Supervisor, Southern Railway, Tirunelveli, Residing at : Alavandan Kulam, Pallikkottai Post, Sankar Nagar, Tirunelveli District. ... Applicant. (By Advocate Mr. T,C. Govindaswamy) v e r s u s 1. Union of India represented by The General Manager, Southern Railway, Headquarters Office, Chennai 3. 2. The Chief Commercial Manager, Southern Railway, Headquarters Office, Chennai 3. 3. The Additional Divisional Railway Manager, Southern Railway, Palghat Division, Palghat. 4. The Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Southern Railway, Palghat Division, Palghat. ... Respondents. (By Advocate Mr. P. Haridas) The Original Application having been heard on 16.07.09, this Tribunal on 23.07.09 delivered the following : O R D E R
HON'BLE DR. K B S RAJAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER This OA was earlier decided, vide order dated 16-02-2006 allowing the same by quashing the penalty orders impugned therein, and directing the respondents to pass appropriate orders granting consequential benefits to the applicants. On the said order having been challenged before the High Court, the High Court has held as under:
"2. The brief facts of the case are the following:
The respondent was charge-sheeted for having received extra amount for booking a consignment. The respondent was trapped on 6.4.2000. An R.P.F. Constable pretending himself to be a passenger, booked a parcel. Though the booking charge was only Rs. 520/-, the respondent allegedly received Rs. 580/-. The notes paid were previously marked under a mahazar. The respondent was served with Annexure A4 charge memo dated 23.06.2000. Since he denied the charges, an enquiry officer was appointed, who submitted Annexure-A7 report dated 31.5.2001. After following the due procedure, by Annexure-A1 dated 3.9.2001, a penalty of reduction of pay by one stage for a period of two years with recurring effect was imposed on him. He filed Annexure-A9 appeal. The appeal was dismissed by Annexure-A2 order. He filed Annexure-A10 revision, which was dismissed by Annexure-A3 order. Challenging Annexures-A1 to A3, the OA was filed. The C.A.T., by Ext. P5 order dated 16.02.2006, allowed the O.A. And quashed Annexures A1 to A3 orders. Hence this Writ Petition.
3. Before the C.A.T., the main point canvassed was that the trap was laid and executed not as provided under the Manual governing vigilance proceedings.
According to the relevant provisions in the Manual, as far as possible, two gazetted officers should be asked to be present as witnesses. Only in exceptional cases, the services of non-gazetted officers could be utilized. Admittedly, in this case, gazetted officers were not present as witnesses. The Tribunal found that it is a serious irregularity, which goes to the root of the matter. Relying on a decision of the C.A.T., Hyderabad bench, which was affirmed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, the Tribunal allowed the O.A. and quashed the impugned orders.
4. Now, it is common case that the decision of the Hyderabad Bench, relied on by the Ernakulam Bench of the C.A.T. in the present impugned order has been reversed by the Apex Court by the decision in Chief Commercial manager & Ors. v. G. Ratnam, (2007) 8 SCC
212).
5. Anyone, who has anything to do with the appreciation of evidence must know that there cannot be any hard and fast rule concerning reliability of witnesses. Non-gazetted officers, who are witnesses, may be, in some cases, more reliable than gazetted officers. That will depend upon the facts of each case. So, there is no reason or justification to reject the evidence of non-gazetted officers at the threshold. Further, the guidelines in the Manual are generally meant to guide and not to govern. Unless prejudice is shown, violation of the provisions in the Manual does not ipso facto nullify the entire proceedings. In this case, we notice that the Tribunal did not venture to consider the case on merits. But, it is simply followed the decision of the Hyderabad Bench. We also notice that the respondent has got other grounds also to impugn the orders, Annexures A1 to A3. In view of the above position, the impugned order of the C.A.T. is set aside and O.A. No. 155/2003 is remitted for fresh disposal in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of being heard to both sides. The Tribunal shall endeavour to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible. The Tribunal shall examine the records of the enquiry and find out whether any prejudice has been caused by the violation of provisions in the Manual and whether the evidence on record could be acted upon, even if the witnesses are non-gazetted officers. Needless to say, the Tribunal shall also consider the other contentions raised on behalf of the respondent/applicant.
The Writ Petition is allowed as above."
Thus, the case has been heard again.
2. The challenge is against the order of penalty (Annexure Annexure A-1), order of the Appellate Authority, (Annexure A-2) and order of the Revision Authority (Annexure A-3). Charge sheet containing the charges is at Annexure A-4. Annexure A-5 is the entire proceedings in the disciplinary matter, while Annexure A-6 is the defence statement of the applicant. The inquiry report is at Annexure A-7 and Annexure A-8 is the representation against Annexure A-7 inquiry report. While Annexure A-9 is an appeal before the Appellate Authority, Annexure A-10 is revision petition. Annexure A-11 is a copy of the Hyderabad Bench order dated 31st August, 2001.
3. Counsel for the applicant submitted that the rules provide for the prescribed procedure in respect of trap cases vide Para 705 of the Railway Vigilance Manual, which reads as under:
"705 Departmental Traps :
For Departmental Traps, the following instructions in addition to those contained under Para 704 are to be followed.
(a) The Investigating Officer / Inspector should arrange two Gazetted Officers from Railways to act as independent witnesses so far as possible. However, in certain exceptional cases when two gazetted officers are not available immediately, the services, of non-gazetted staff can be utilized. All Railway employees, particularly gazetted officers should assist the witness a trap whenever they are approached by any officer of vigilance branch. He Head of Department/Office, will, when requested by any officer of the vigilance branch, detail a suitable person or persons to be present at the scene of trap. Refusal to assist or witness a trap without a just cause/without sufficient reason, may be regarded a breach of duty, making him liable to disciplinary action."
4. In the instant case, there are no two independent witnesses, much less gazetted officer. The list of witnesses as furnished with the charge sheet (Annexure A-4) contains the names of (a) Mathialagan (the decoy), Shri S. Selvaraj (stated to be independent witness), and others who belonged to the trapping team. Save Selvaraj none other is stated to be the independent witness. The counsel argued that, if the depositions are scanned it would reflect that even this so called independent witness (Selvaraj) cannot be termed as an independent witness but is a part of decoy. He had taken us through the said depositions and the same are as under:
(a) Deposition of Shri Mathialagan, Con/130/RPF/TPJ..
SW 3:
"Q.52. : Can you recollect and say on 6.4.2000 did you participate in a departmental vigilance check at PO/KKR, if so, narrate the details in brief ?
Ans.: I was asked ....... ......... We furnished the PWB to Shri Gandhi, the duty parcel clerk, the consignment was weighed and we have been told to pay Rs. 580/-. I gave him Rs. 500x1 and Rs. 50x2, he gave me balance Rs. 20/-but the receipt was made for Rs. 520/-, the balance Rs. 60/-was kept with him and he told me that it was for him. When we are go to move out he gave the money to a person in Khaki Uniform, the porter. Then Shri Selvaraj had been to the VIs at the portigue and the VIs came to the scene and proceeded with the check."
(b) Deposition of Shri S. Selvaraj, Cons. 283/RPF/TPJ SW 5:
Q. 97. : Can you recollect and say did you participate in a vigilance check on 6.4.2000, if so, narrate the details in brief ?
Ans. : Yes. I had participated ......... ............. They have been loaded in a mini van and we proceeded KRR. Myself and Mathialagan had accompanied the van. After reaching PO/KRR, as directed, application to book the consignment was preferred by Shri Mathialagan, C/o. VRC Industries, Vadugapatti, consignee was mentioned as self, CSTM. Totally we have paid 580/-towards 520.00. While paying Rs. 600/0, Rs. 20/- was returned to us. The amount paid was in the denomination of Rs. 100x5 and Rs. 50x2. Chief Parcel Clerk/KRR gave a receipt wherein it was found that Rs. 520/-alone mentioned against Rs. + 60 collected. He gave part of money to the porter available on that day. Porter kept the money in his pocket. We came out and reported the matter to CVIs who were waiting for us. Mr. Subramanian and Venkateswaran entered in to PO/KRR. After that, myself and Shri Chandrasekharan, CVI came to parcel office via PF1. When we entered there was argument between VIs and CPC. The CPC stating that he did not collect any money. Afterwards, the Porter Shri Mohan accepted and said that it was the fact that money was collected and part of it was given to him also. He also said that collection of money was seen by us."
5. The counsel further argued that procedure for asking the mandatory question has not been followed. In this regard, attention was invited to the relevant portion of the deposition and the same is as under:
"Mandatory Questions to CO:
Q.146. : With the examination of SW.6 the witnesses on behalf of administrative witness is over. Would you like to produce any defence documents / witnesses to be examined/produced on your behalf?
Ans.: No. Q.147.: Do you admit the charges now?
Ans. : No. I still deny charges.
Q.148. : Do you wish to be examined as a witness in your case. If not, what is your way of defence? Ans. :I do not want to be examined. I may be permitted to submit as a way of defence.
6. The counsel further submitted that the decision in the case of Chief Commercial Manager & Others vs G. Ratnam, (2007) 8 SCC 212, relied upon by the respondents before the High Court, and referred to in the High Court judgment, has been referred to in a subsequent judgment of Moni Shankar vs Union of India, (2008) 3 AISLJ 325, and in this judgment, the Apex Court has explained comprehensively as to the procedure to be adopted in matters of trap cases. This judgment holds the fort and the same is in favour of the applicant.
7. Counsel for the respondents submitted the fact that the receipt of the amount of Rs 60 having been accepted by the Parcel Porter would go to show that the applicant is guilty of having accepted the bribe.
8. Arguments were heard and documents perused. As reflected in the High Court judgment, the case has been remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration as the earlier decision relied upon the Hyderabad Bench Judgment, which stood upset by the Apex Court in the case of Chief Commercial Manager & Others vs G. Ratnam (supra). If the above said judgment has been clarified by the later decision of the Apex Court and the said decision goes in favour of the applicant, then the applicant would become entitled to the relief sought for.
9. In the case of Moni Shankar, (2008) 3 SCC 484, the Apex Court has first discussed the trap cases in general and the case of G. Ratnam as under:
10. We may at the outset notice that with a view to protect innocent employees from such traps, appropriate safeguards have been provided in the Railway Manual. Paras 704 and 705 thereof read thus:
"704. Traps.(i)-(iv) ***
(v) When laying a trap, the following important points have to be kept in view:
(a) Two or more independent witnesses must hear the conversation, which should establish that the money was being passed as illegal gratification to meet the defence that the money was actually received as a loan or something else, if put up by the accused.
(b) The transaction should be within the sight and hearing of two independent witnesses.
(c) There should be an opportunity to catch the culprit red-handed immediately after passing of the illegal gratification so that the accused may not be able to dispose it of.
(d) The witnesses selected should be responsible witnesses who have not appeared as witnesses in earlier cases of the Department or the police and are men of status, considering the status of the accused. It is safer to take witnesses who are government employees and of other departments.
(e) After satisfying the above conditions, the investigating officer should take the decoy to the SP/SPE and pass on the information to him for necessary action. If the office of the SP, SPE, is not nearby and immediate action is required for laying the trap, the help of the local police may be obtained. It may be noted that the trap can be laid only by an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Local Police. After the SPE or local police official have been entrusted with the work, all arrangements for laying the trap and execution of the same should be done by them. All necessary help required by them should be rendered.
(vi)-(vii) ***
705. Departmental traps.For departmental traps, the following instructions in addition to those contained under Para 704 are to be followed:
(a) The investigating officer/Inspector should arrange two gazetted officers from Railways to act as independent witnesses as far as possible.
However, in certain exceptional cases where two gazetted officers are not available immediately, the services of non-gazetted staff can be utilised. All employees, particularly, gazetted officers, should assist and witness a trap whenever they are approached by any officer or branch. The Head of Branch should detail a suitable person or persons to be present at the scene of trap. Refusal to assist or witness a trap without a just cause/without sufficient reason may be regarded as a breach of duty, making him liable to disciplinary action.
(b) The decoy will present the money which he will give to the defaulting officers/employees as bribe money on demand. A memo should be prepared by the investigating officer/Inspector in the presence of the independent witnesses and the decoy indicating the numbers of the GC notes for legal and illegal transactions. The memo, thus prepared should bear the signature of decoy, independent witnesses and the investigating officer/Inspector. Another memo, for returning the GD notes to the decoy will be prepared for making over the GC notes to the delinquent employee on demand. This memo should also contain signatures of decoy, witnesses and investigating officer/Inspector. The independent witnesses will take up position at such a place wherefrom they can see the transaction and also hear the conversation between the decoy and delinquent, with a view to satisfy themselves that the money was demanded, given and accepted as bribe a fact to which they will be deposing in the departmental proceeding at a later date. After the money has been passed on, the investigating officer/Inspector should disclose the identity and demand, in the presence of the witnesses, to produce all money including private, and bribe money. Then the total money produced will be verified from relevant records and memo for seizure of the money and verification particulars will be prepared. The recovered notes will be kept in an envelope sealed in the presence of the witnesses, decoy and the accused as also his immediate superior who should be called as a witness in case the accused refuses to sign the recovery memo, and sealing of the notes in the envelope.
(c)-(d)***"
11. The trap was laid by the members of the Railway Protection Force (RPF). It was a pre-arranged trap. It was, therefore, not a case which can be said to be an exceptional one where two gazetted officers as independent witnesses were not available.
12. Indisputably the decoy passenger was a constable of RPF. Only one Head Constable from the said organisation was deputed to witness the operation. The number of witnesses was, thus, not only one, in place of two but also was a non-gazetted officer. It was a pre-planned trap and thus even independent witnesses could have also been made available.
13. When the decoy passenger purchased the ticket, the Head Constable was at a distance of 30 metres. The booking counter was a busy one. It normally remains crowded. Before the enquiry officer, the said decoy passenger accepted that he had not counted the balance amount received from the appellant after buying the ticket. It was only half an hour later that the vigilance team arrived and searched the appellant.
14. While we say so we must place on record that this Court in Chief Commercial Manager, South Central Railway v. G. Ratnam1 opined that non-adherence to the instructions laid down in Paras 704 and 705 of the Vigilance Manual would not invalidate a departmental proceeding, stating:
"17. We shall now examine whether on the facts and the material available on record, nonadherence of the instructions as laid down in Paras 704 and 705 of the Manual would invalidate the departmental proceedings initiated against the respondents and rendering the consequential orders of penalty imposed upon the respondents by the authorities, as held by the High Court in the impugned order. It is not in dispute that the departmental traps were conducted by the investigating officers when the respondents were on official duty undertaking journey on trains going from one destination to another destination. The Tribunal in its order noticed that the decoy passengers deployed by the investigating officers were RPF constables in whose presence the respondents allegedly collected excess amount for arranging sleeper class reservation accommodation, etc. to the passengers. The transaction between the decoy passengers and the respondents was reported to have been witnessed by the RPF constables. In the facts and circumstances of the matters, the Tribunal held that the investigations were conducted by the investigating officers in violation of the mandatory instructions contained in Paras 704 and 705 of the Vigilance Manual, 1996, on the basis of which inquiries were held by the enquiry officer which finally resulted in the imposition of penalty upon the respondents by the Railway Authority. The High Court in its impugned judgment has come to the conclusion that the inquiry reports in the absence of joining any independent witnesses in the departmental traps, are found inadequate and where the instructions relating to such departmental trap cases are not fully adhered to, the punishment imposed upon the basis of such defective traps are not sustainable under law. The High Court has observed that in the present cases the service of some RPF constables and railway staff attached to the Vigilance Wing were utilised as decoy passengers and they were also associated as witnesses in the traps. The RPF constables, in no terms, can be said to be independent witnesses and non-association of independent witnesses by the investigating officers in the investigation of the departmental trap cases has caused prejudice to the rights of the respondents in their defence before the enquiry officers.
18. We are not inclined to agree that the non adherence of the mandatory instructions and guidelines contained in Paras 704 and 705 of the Vigilance Manual has vitiated the departmental proceedings initiated against the respondents by the Railway Authority. In our view, such finding and reasoning are wholly unjustified and cannot be sustained."
15. It has been noticed in that judgment that Paras 704 and 705 cover the procedures and guidelines to be followed by the investigating officers, who are entrusted with the task of investigation of trap cases and departmental trap cases against the railway officials. This Court proceeded on the premise that the executive orders do not confer any legally enforceable rights on any person and impose no legal obligation on the subordinate authorities for whose guidance they are issued.
16. We have, as noticed hereinbefore, proceeded on the assumption that the said paragraphs being executive instructions do not create any legal right but we intend to emphasise that total violation of the guidelines together with other factors could be taken into consideration for the purpose of arriving at a conclusion as to whether the Department has been able to prove the charges against the delinquent official.
17. The departmental proceeding is a quasi-judicial one. Although the provisions of the Evidence Act are not applicable in the said proceeding, principles of natural justice are required to be complied with. The courts exercising power of judicial review are entitled to consider as to whether while inferring commission of misconduct on the part of a delinquent officer relevant piece of evidence has been taken into consideration and irrelevant facts have been excluded therefrom. Inference on facts must be based on evidence which meet the requirements of legal principles. The Tribunal was, thus, entitled to arrive at its own conclusion on the premise that the evidence adduced by the Department, even if it is taken on its face value to be correct in its entirety, meet the requirements of burden of proof, namely, preponderance of probability. If on such evidences, the test of the doctrine of proportionality has not been satisfied, the Tribunal was within its domain to interfere. We must place on record that the doctrine of unreasonableness is giving way to the doctrine of proportionality. (See State of U.P. v. Sheo Shanker Lal Srivastava and Coimbatore District Central Coop. Bank v. Employees Assn.) *** *** ***
20. The enquiry officer had put the following questions to the appellant:
"Having heard all the PWs, please state if you plead guilty? Please state if you require any additional documents/witness in your defence at this stage? Do you wish to submit your oral defence or written defence brief? Are you satisfied with the enquiry proceedings and can I conclude the enquiry?
21. Such a question does not comply with Rule 9(21) of the Rules. What were the circumstances appearing against the appellant had not been disclosed.
10. The above decision when applied upon the facts of the case, the same fits in all the four squares. Just as in the other case there was only one independent witness instead of two and that too a non gazetted official, in the instant case also, there has been only one and that too non gazetted official. In fact, the sequence of events would even go to show that this witness is also a party of decoy and not exactly a witness. Similarly, the mandatory question asked also is not in the manner as required by the rules. Thus, the inquiry has been vitiated for non following of the stipulated procedure.
11. The appellate authority's order is too cryptic and without any discussion on the grounds raised. The manner in which an appeal has to be dealt with and decided has been given in the following decisions of the Apex Court :
1) Ram Chander v. Union of India, (1986) 3 SCC 103 :
"4. The duty to give reasons is an incident of the judicial process. So, in R.P. Bhatt v. Union of India (1986) 2 SCC 651 this Court, in somewhat similar circumstances, interpreting Rule 27 (2) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 which provision is in pari materia with Rule 22(2) of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968, observed:
It is clear upon the terms of Rule 27(2) that the appellate authority is required to consider ( 1 ) whether the procedure laid down in the rules has been complied with; and if not, whether such non-compliance has resulted in violation of any of the provisions of the Constitution of India or in failure of justice : ( 2 ) whether the findings of the disciplinary authority are warranted by the evidence on record; and ( 3 ) whether the penalty imposed is adequate; and thereafter pass orders confirming, enhancing etc. the penalty, or remit the case to the authority which imposed the same.
It was held that the word consider in Rule 27(2) of the Rules implied due application of mind. The Court emphasized that the appellate authority discharging quasi-judicial functions in accordance with natural justice must give reasons for its decision. There was in that case, as here, no indication in the impugned order that the Director General, Border Road Organisation, New Delhi was satisfied as to the aforesaid requirements. The Court observed that he had not recorded any finding on the crucial question as to whether the findings of the disciplinary authority were warranted by the evidence on record."
(2) Narinder Mohan Arya v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2006) 4 SCC 713 :
"31. We may for the aforementioned purpose take note of the extant rules operating in the field. Requirements of consideration in an appeal from an order of the disciplinary authority by the appellate authority is contained in Rule 37 whereas the provisions as regards filing of a memorial are contained in Rule 40 thereof, which read as under:
"37. Consideration of appeals . (1) In case of an appeal against an order of suspension, the Appellate Authority shall consider whether in the light of the provisions of Rule 20 and having regard to the circumstances of the case the order of suspension is justified or not and confirm or revoke the other accordingly.
(2) In the case of an appeal against an order imposing any of the penalties specified in Rule 23, the Appellate Authority shall consider:
(a) whether the procedure prescribed in these Rules has been complied with and if not, whether such noncompliance has resulted in failure of justice;
b) whether the findings are justified; and
(c) whether the penalty imposed is excessive, adequate or inadequate, and pass orders:
I. setting aside, reducing, confirming or enhancing the penalty; or II. remitting the case to the authority which imposed the penalty or to any other authority with such direction as it may deem fit in the circumstances of the case.
* * * * * *"
32. The Appellate Authority, therefore, while disposing of the appeal is required to apply his mind with regard to the factors enumerated in sub-rule (2) of Rule 37 of the Rules. ..... He was required to show that he applied his mind to the relevant facts. He could not have without expressing his mind simply ignored the same.
33. An appellate order if it is in agreement with that of the disciplinary authority may not be a speaking order but the authority passing the same must show that there had been proper application of mind on his part as regards the compliance with the requirements of law while exercising his jurisdiction under Rule 37 of the Rules.
34. In Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K. Chopra which has heavily been relied upon by Mr Gupta, this Court stated:
"16 . The High Court appears to have overlooked the settled position that in departmental proceedings, the disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts and in case an appeal is presented to the Appellate Authority, the Appellate Authority has also the power/and jurisdiction to reappreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion, on facts, being the sole fact-finding authorities." (emphasis supplied)
35. The Appellate Authority, therefore, could not ignore to exercise the said power.
36. The order of the Appellate Authority demonstrates total non-application of mind. The Appellate Authority, when the Rules require application of mind on several factors and serious contentions have been raised, was bound to assign reasons so as to enable the writ court to ascertain as to whether he had applied his mind to the relevant factors which the statute requires him to do. The expression consider is of some significance. In the context of the Rules, the Appellate Authority was required to see as to whether ( i ) the procedure laid down in the Rules was complied with; ( ii ) the enquiry officer was justified in arriving at the finding that the delinquent officer was guilty of the misconduct alleged against him; and ( iii ) whether penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority was excessive."
12. Of course, it could be argued that the deficiency of the appellate authority has been rectified by the comprehensive decision by the Revision authority. But the Apex Court has held in the case of Union of India v. Naman Singh Shekhawat, (2008) 4 SCC 1, wherein the Apex Court has held as under:
"32. We may notice that in Ajit Kumar Nag (2005) 2 SCC 764 the order of dismissal was found to have been legally proved despite the fact that the delinquent was acquitted by the court of law. If the inquiry officer is biased, no action could have been taken on the basis thereof. It renders the proceeding a nullity. Such an inherent defect in the disciplinary proceeding cannot be cured by an order of the appellate authority. An order which is void cannot be validated by the appellate authority as the materials which were not brought on record could not be taken into consideration by it."
13. Thus, in view of the fact that the provisions of Rule 702 of the Vigilance Manual have not been complied with coupled with the fact that the mandatory question has also not been dealt with properly, as held in the case of Moni Shankar (supra) the impugned orders at Annexure A1 to A-3 are hereby quashed and set aside. The applicant is entitled restoration of his reduced pay to the pay drawn by him at the time of imposition of penalty and arrears thereof shall be payable to him. In addition, he is entitled to other consequential benefits, such as if his promotion was due, the same should also be considered as if no proceedings were pending at the relevant point of time. Suitable orders be passed in this regard and the arrears paid to the applicant within a period of four months from the date of communication of this order. O.A. is disposed of on the above terms. Under the circumstances, there shall be no orders as to costs.
(Dated, the 23rd July, 2009) (K. GEORGE JOSEPH) (Dr. K B S RAJAN) ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER cvr.