Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Mrs. Amrita Wife Of Shri Rattan Kumar vs Union Of India & Others) on 11 October, 2013
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH Order pronounced on: 11.10.2013 (Order reserved on:03.10.2013 ) CORAM: HONBLE MR. SANJEEV KAUSHIK, MEMBER (J) HONBLE MS. RAJWANT SANDHU, MEMBER (A) (I)O.A.NO.296-PB-2012 Mrs. Amrita wife of Shri Rattan Kumar, age 53 years, presently working as Postal Assistant, Jalandhar City, Head Post Office. By: Mr. K.B. Sharma, Advocate, proxy counsel for Mr. D.R.Sharma, Advocate. Applicant 1.Union of India, Ministry of Communications and Information Technology through Secretary-cum-Director General Posts, Department of Posts, Dak Bhawan, New Delhi. 2.Chief Postmaster General, Punjab Circle, Chandigarh. 3.Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar. By : Mr. Deepak Agnihotri, Advocate. Respondents (II)O.A.NO.628-PB-2012 Kiran Gupta Wife of Sh. Vikas Gupta, aged 40 years, presently working Sub Post Master, Sub Post Office Patiala City (Punjab). By: Mr. K.B. Sharma, Advocate, proxy counsel for Mr. D.R.Sharma, Advocate. Applicant 1.Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Information and Technology, Department of Posts, Dak Bhawan, New Delhi. 2.The Chief Postmaster General, Punjab Circle, Chandigarh. 3.Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Patiala Division, Patiala. By : Mr. Suresh Verma, Advocate. Respondents (III)O.A.NO.630-PB-2012 Smt. Rajwinder Kaur wife of Sh. Pradeep Singh aged 39 years, presently working Postal Assistant, Sub Post Office Tripri (Punjab). By : Mr. K.B. Sharma, Advocate, proxy counsel for Mr. D.R.Sharma, Advocate. Applicant 1.Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Information and Technology, Department of Posts, Dak Bhawan, New Delhi. 2.Chief Postmaster General, Punjab Circle, Chandigarh. 3.Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Patiala Division, Patiala. By : Mr. Suresh Verma, Advocate. Respondents (IV)O.A.NO.634-PB-2012 Kirna wife of Sh. Japinder Singh aged 39 years, presently working as Postal Assistant in the office of National Speed Post Centre Patiala (Punjab). By : Mr. K.B. Sharma, Advocate, proxy counsel for Mr. D.R.Sharma, Advocate. Applicant 1.Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Information and Technology, Department of Posts, Dak Bhawan, New Delhi. 2.Chief Postmaster General, Punjab Circle, Chandigarh. 3.Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Patiala Division, Patiala. By: Mr. Suresh Verma, Advocate. Respondents (V)O.A.NO.794-PB-2012 Smt. Gurmeet Kaur wife of Sh., Shurinder Kumar age 56 years presently working as APM (Counter), Patiala, Head Post Office, Patiala (Punjab). By: Mr. K.B. Sharma, Advocate, proxy counsel for Mr. D.R.Sharma, Advocate. Applicant 1.Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Information and Technology, Department of Posts, Dak Bhawan, New Delhi. 2.Chief Postmaster General, Punjab Circle, Chandigarh. 3.Senior Postmaster Patiala HO, Patiala-147001. By: Mr. Deepak Agnihotri, Advocate. Respondents (VI)O.A.NO.794-PB-2012 Smt. Gurmeet Kaur wife of Sh. Shurinder Kumar aged 56 years presently working as APM (Counter), Patiala, Head Post Office, Patiala (Punjab). By: Mr. K.B. Sharma, Advocate, proxy counsel for Mr. D.R.Sharma, Advocate. Applicant 1.Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Information and Technology, Department of Posts, Dak Bhawan, New Delhi. 2.Chief Postmaster General, Punjab Circle, Chandigarh. 3.Senior Postmaster Patiala HO, Patiala-147001. By: Mr. Deepak Agnihotri, Advocate. Respondents (VII)O.A.NO.1244-PB-2012 Asha W/o Sh. Madan Gopal age 56 years presently working as Assistant Post Master (APM) SBSO in the office of Senior Post Master, Head Office, Patiala (Punjab). By: Mr. K.B. Sharma, Advocate, Proxy counsel for Mr. D.R.Sharma, Advocate. Applicant 1.Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Information and Technology, Department of Posts, Dak Bhawan, New Delhi. 2.Chief Postmaster General, Punjab Circle, Chandigarh. 3.Senior Postmaster, Patiala HO, Patiala-147001. By : Mr. K.P.S. Dhillon, Advocate. Respondents O R D E R
HONBLE MR. SANJEEV KAUSHIK , MEMBER (J) Both the sides are in agreement that the facts of the case and points of law involved in these Original Applications are common and as such these have been taken up for disposal by a common order. For the facility of convenience, facts have been taken from O.A.No. 296-PB-2012 (Mrs. Amrita Vs. Union of India & Others).
2. A charge-sheet dated 3.12.2008 under rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, came to be issued to the applicant, with allegations that while working as Postal Assistant, SBSO, Jalandhar City HO, during 2001 to 12.5.2007, she had failed to get verified the heavy withdrawals of Padhiana Single Handed SO, through SDI. She also failed to compare balance written in SB-7 with the balance available in SBSO record and also did not compare the signature of depositor on withdrawal form with SB-3 held in SBSO, which facilitated Sh. Chander Parkash Khurana, the then SPM Padhiana, SO making fraudulent withdrawals from various SB accounts on different dates (43 no.) mentioned therein. Thus, she allegedly violated the provisions of Rule 38 and 85 of Post Office Saving Bank Manual Volume-I.
3. The applicant filed a reply to charge-sheet claiming that she has not been ever punished during last 26 years of service and there is no complaint against her work and conduct from public or the Administration. She has discharged her duties faithfully, honestly and sincerely. She performed her duties as per Oral Book, Nominal Roll and Attendance Register. She was to attend the work of S.Os starting from alphabets A to F & LC 2nd P.A. was to attend work of alphabets G to T Padhiana. She has no role qua work of Alphabets P onwards. Thus, the real culprit may be caught and punished. However, during preliminary inquiry the applicant in her statement dated 10.8.2007 accepted that she had to work as LC-1 and LC-II also on verbal orders of APM. Thus, she was held responsible for the amount of loss and as such a penalty of recovery of Rs.3,41,000/- was imposed upon her to be recovered in equal monthly installments of Rs.3,000/- per month vide order dated 16.4.2010.
4. The applicant claims that issue as to whether recovery for any negligence recovery of loss caused to the Government, can be made or not stands settled in O.A.No.459-PB-2009 titled Smt. Veena Mahay & Others Vs.UOI etc.) decided on 24.08.2009 by a co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal. The plea raised in that case was that the applicant was not directly responsible for mis-appropriation of alleged amount / fraud, which was committed by late Sh. Chander Parkash Khurana, SPM, Padhiana and as such no charge can be attributed to the applicant. Reliance in support thereof was placed upon decisions in J.K. Makwana Vs. UOI, ATJ 2002 (1) 283 and Smt. Kalpana Shinde and Others vs. UOI & Others, ATJ 2005 (1) 45. Placing reliance on J.M. Makwana (supra), the Bench held that fraud was committed by another employee and holding the applicant responsible on the plea that due to negligence, fraud was not detected and making recovery on that basis is not sustainable. Similar view was taken in the case of Kalpana Shinde (supra).
5. The applicant has sought to impugn Annexure A-1, penalty order on the basis of three cases mentioned in para 4 above on the premises that she was not directly responsible for any fraud or loss. For violation of rule 44 and 48 of Post Office Saving Bank Manual Volume I, one cannot be punished as same has no statutory force and for violation of a non-statutory rules, an employee cannot be punished under rule 11 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. Allegation of negligence cannot be compared to an act causing pecuniary loss to the Government. There is no charge of her having intentionally played any fraud. These grounds are based on view taken in aforesaid three decisions.
6. The applicant has, thus, prayed for quashing the order dated 16.4.2010 (Annexure A-1) and for a declaration that she is entitled to benefit of the decision, Annexure A-3.
7. The respondents have filed a reply to contest the Original Application. They submit that applicant should have firstly filed an appeal / petition to the Appellate Authority / Revisional Authority under rules 23 and 29 respectively, of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and as such O.A. is pre-mature and deserves to be dismissed. Reliance is placed on Balkrishan Sorab Vs. UOI etc. (1995) 29 ATC, 261. They have given history of the incident resulting ultimately into passing of Annexure A-1. They have submitted that inter departmental enquiry was conducted and it came to notice that Sh. Chander Parkash Khurana misappropriate an amount of Rs.26,57,665 from 121 SB Accounts and Rs.1633806 from 30 TD accounts on different dates during the period from 29.7.2003 to 9.8.2006. During enquiry, the applicant was identified as subsidiary offender as she had failed to carry out proper duties resulting into facilitating the fraudulent withdrawals. If proper check and balance had been carried out, fraud would not have taken place or at least could be detected easily. As per D.G P&T Order No. 12, below Rule 11 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 if the government servant is responsible for particular act or breach of orders or rules and that such negligence or breach caused the loss to the Government, the penalty of recover can be imposed on a Government servants. Appendix-4 (under GFR 37) of Financial Hand Book Volume-I (Annexure-11) envisages that if the loss has occurred through fraud, every endeavour should be made to recover the whole amount lost from the guilty persons and if laxity of supervision has facilitated the fraud, the supervising officer at fault may properly be penalized either directly by requiring him to make good in money or sufficient proportion of the loss or indirectly by reduction o stoppage of has increment of pay. Thus, penalty of recovery was correctly imposed.
8. The applicant has not filed any rejoinder.
9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also examined the material available on record including common written submissions in all these cases on behalf of the applicants.
10. Let us first deal with the plea of non-maintainability of the Original Application on the ground that the applicants have failed to avail remedy of appeal or revision under the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. Learned counsel for the respondents pressed into service decision in the case of Balkrishan Sorab (supra), rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal that an applicant can file an O.A. only after exhausting all the remedies. To rebut this, learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on M.P. State Agro Industries Development Corporation Ltd. & Another, 2007 (4) RSJ, 585 and Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, AIR 1999 SC 22 in which it was held that exclusion of the writ jurisdiction due to availability of an alternative remedy is a rule of description and not of compulsion and in appropriate cases a Writ Petition can be entertained.
11. Act 13 of 1985 was enacted to provide for adjudication or trial by Administrative Tribunals of disputes and complaints with respect to recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of any State or of any local or other authority within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India or of any corporation or society owned or controlled by the Government in pursuance of Article 323-A of the Constitution and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. Section 14 of the Act deals with Jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Central Administrative Tribunal. Section 15 of the Act deals with Jurisdiction, powers and authority of State Administrative Tribunals. Section 19 of the Act deals with Applications to Tribunals. Section 20 of the Act is dealing with Applications not to be admitted unless other remedies exhausted, reads as hereunder:
(1) A Tribunal shall not ordinarily admit an application unless it is satisfied that the applicant had availed of all the remedies available to him under the relevant service rules as to redressal of grievances.
(2) For the purposes of Sub-section (1), a person shall be deemed to have availed of all the remedies available to him under the relevant service rules as to redressal of grievances,-
(a) if a final Order has been made by Government or other authority or officer or other person competent to pass such Order under such Rules, rejecting any appeal preferred or representation made by such person in connection with the grievance; or
(b) where no final Order has been made by the Government or other authority or officer or other person competent to pass such Order with regard to the appeal preferred or representation made by such person, if a period of six months from the date on which such appeal was preferred or representation was made has expired.
(3) For the purposes of Sub-sections (1) and (2), any remedy available to an applicant by way of submission of a memorial to the President or to the Governor of a State or any other functionary shall not be deemed to be one of the remedies which are available unless the applicant had elected to submit such memorial."
As per Sub-section (1) of Section 20 "......the Tribunal shall not ordinarily admit an application unless it is satisfied that the applicant had availed of all the remedies available to him under the relevant service rules as to redressal of grievances." The term "ordinarily" in the context means generally, but not always in all cases. The provision does not bar the ultimate jurisdiction of the Administrative Tribunal but it only requires the party to exhaust the other remedies available. The aim of introducing this provision is to provide for an additional forum and certain opportunities to the redressal of grievances and to prevent short-circuiting of normal Departmental procedures specified under the service rules. In the case of Kailash Chandra v. Union of India, while dealing with the interpretation of the words "should ordinarily be retained" the Honble Apex Court held that the intention is made clear and beyond by the use of the word "ordinarily" and ordinarily means in the large majority of cases, but not invariably. In the decision referred (4) supra, it was held at paras 16, 19 and 20 as thus :-
"The Rules relating to disciplinary proceedings do provide for an appeal against the orders of punishment imposed on public servants. Some Rules provide even a second appeal or a revision. The purport of Section 20 of the Administrative Tribunals Act is to give effect to the Disciplinary Rules and the exhaustion of the remedies available thereunder is a condition precedent to maintaining of claims under the Administrative Tribunals Act. Administrative Tribunals have been set up for Government servants of the Centre and several States have already set up such tribunals under the Act for the employees of the respective States. The law is soon going to get crystallized on the line laid down under Section 20 of the Administrative Tribunals Act.
.......
.......
The question of consideration is whether it should be disposal of one appeal or the entire hierarchy of reliefs as may have been provided. Statutory guidance is available from the provisions of Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 20 of the Administrative Tribunals Act. There, it has been laid down:
"20.(2) For the purposes of Sub-section (1), a person shall be deemed to have availed of all the remedies available to him under the relevant service rules as to redressal of grievances,-
(a) If a final Order has been made by the Government or other authority or officer or other person competent to pass such Order under such rules, rejecting any appeal preferred or representation made by such person in connection with the grievance; or
(b) where no final Order has been made by the Government or other authority or officer or other person competent to pass such Order with regard to the appeal preferred or representation made by such person, if a period of six months from the date on which such appeal was preferred or representation was made has expired.
(3) For the purposes of Sub-sections (1) and (2), any remedy available to an applicant by way of submission of a memorial to the President or the Governor of a State or to any other functionary shall not be deemed to be one of the remedies which are available unless the applicant had elected to submit such memorial.
12. Similar issue came to be considered before the Honble Andhra High Court in P. Chandra Mouli vs Govt. Of A.P. & Others, 2005 (4) ALD 663, 2005 (3) ALT 162 and while thrashing the question of alternative remedy, it was held as under :-
8. The existence of alternative remedy and exercising of power of judicial review under Articles 226 and 32 of the Constitution of India and the principles relating thereto are well settled. It is needless to say that in service matters the Tribunal is competent even to go into the validity of the provisions and the rules. Exercise of jurisdiction in this regard is just akin to Constitutional Courts exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India though this power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India had been well retained on the ground that it is basic structure of the Constitution of India by virtue of the ratio laid down in Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, 1997 (3) Supreme 147. In the light of the peculiar facts and circumstances, especially when several details had been narrated under what circumstances the Order which had been impugned in the O.A. had been made, the judicial discretion on the part of the Tribunal would require examining the matter on merits instead of driving the writ petitioner to avail the statutory appeal provided under Rule 33 of the Rule. Hence, the bald proposition that under no circumstances whatever may be the reason explained, the O.A. cannot be entertained unless other remedies available under the service rules had been completely exhausted, may not be an acceptable proposition. It is suffice to state that this power is discretionary to be exercised in a given set of facts and circumstances.
13. Having regard to the view discussed above in the conspectus of facts of this case we are of the view that since the full facts including stand taken by both sides is before us and the matter can be disposed of by taking a view it would not be proper to remit the case to the departmental authorities more so when matter has remained pending here since 28.3.2012. In the facts of this case thus we would choose to exercise the discretion in favour of the applicants holding that the O.A. is maintainable.
14. Learned counsel for applicants on the basis of Rule 106 of POSB Manual, argued that in this case the proceeding could taken place only if it was established that the government servant was responsible for a particular act or acts of negligence or breach of orders. However, the applicants were charged for negligence on account of non-adherence of provisions of rules whereas fraud had already taken place and not committed by the applicants. We do not find any merit in the plea as impugned order, Annexure A-1, clearly indicates that had the applicants performed their duties bonafide by following rules and procedure and with care the fraud could not have taken place or at least detection could have been made. Thus, the act of applicants was contributory to the fraud, may be indirectly and as such it cannot be said that they had no responsibility at all in the entire matter. P&T is dealing with public money. In the case of V.K. Bahadur vs. State Bank of India. 2001 L&IC 935, the Honble Apex Court following the judgment in State Bank of India v. T.J. Paul. AIR 1999 SC 1994; Kailash Nath Gupta v. Inquiry Officer : 1997 (1) AWC 2.63 (NOC): 1997 ACJ 896, has held that where financial irregularities of serious nature are found proved against the bank employee no lenient view should be taken. A bank runs on public confidence. A greater integrity and devotion is required from bank employee in comparison to employees of other organizations. If the allegation of embezzlement, misappropriation or gross negligence is found to be established causing pecuniary loss to the bank on account of delinquent employee, the amount of loss must be made good by him.
15. Placing reliance on decision of Honble High Court in CWP No. 380 of 2012 Union of India & Others Vs. C.A.T & Surjit Kaur, decided on 30.10.2012 (which apparently is relied upon by respondents as well) it is argued that the respondents were under obligation to have firstly quantified amount of negligence to each individual and only then impose amount of recovery proportionately which has not been done and as such recovery cannot be done in the manner it has been done by the respondents. We do not find any merit in this plea of applicant as different amounts are sought to be recovered from different applicants and as such there appears to have been application of mind on the part of the respondents to quantify the loss and amount to be recovered from the applicants. The successful investigation mention by respondents is in a totally different context and is not with regard to amount of loss. The applicants have pleaded that in this case other supervisory officers and audit people should also be taken to task instead of implicating the them only. This plea cannot be accepted in the facts of this case where the specific negligent act has been pointed out against the applicant and if it is due to their negligent act and conduct that fraud could not be detected, the applicants should concentrate on their own defence rather than raising fingers towards all and sundry. It has been held in Harash Vardhan v. Union of India, 2006 (2) RCR (Civil) page 447, that the plaintiff has to prove his own case and would have to stand on his own legs and not on the weakness of the defendants.
16. In so far as plea that fraud had already taken place is concerned, it may be noticed here that there is specific allegation of negligence against each applicant due to which fraud has taken place or could not be detected. Apparently, if a fraud is detected within a reasonable time it would be easy to catch hold of guilty in time and take action. In any case, the applicants cannot save their own skin by levelling counter allegations. They should prove their own case. The allegation that unauthorized person were allowed to handle official record does not carry any weight for reasons explained above that applicants have to prove their own innocence instead of levelling counter allegations. The disciplinary authority has recorded a finding of fact on negligence of applicants which has not been challenged in appeal or revision and in fact they have chosen not to file any rejoinder also. In any case, attempt has been made in written submissions to save their own skin by applicants by making counter allegations. Just because earlier no irregularity was pointed out by any body does not mean that it would act as an estoppels upon authorities from taking action against the applicants. In any case the pleas now taken were never taken before the authorities and as such cannot now be allowed to taken. The Honble Apex Court in Devkinandan Sharma v. UOI, 2001 SCC (L&S) 1079 has not permitted raising of ground not raised before the concerned authorities in a disciplinary matter.
17. It could not be disputed that the matter at hand stands settled by Honble High Court in CWP NO.380/2012 in which it was held as under :-
We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties and gone through the impugned order as well as the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority.
Rule 11 of the Rules of 1965, which enunciates for minor penalties, reads as under:-
Penalties The following penalties may, for good and sufficient reasons and as hereinafter provided, be imposed on a Government servant, namely:-
Minor Penalties-
(i)Censure;
(ii)Withholding of his promotion;
(iii)Recovery from his pay or part of any pecuniary loss caused by him to the Government by negligence or breach of orders;
(iii) (a) reduction to a lower stage in the time-scale of pay for a period not exceeding 3 years, without cumulative effect and not adversely affecting his pension.
(iv) withholding of increments of pay. A perusal of the provisions contained in Rule 11 (iii) reveals that recovery from the pay of the Government servant can be effected on account of negligence or breach of orders by such Government servant and any pecuniary loss caused by him to the Government. Under this Clause it is not required that to recover such amount it has to be proved that such Government servant has misappropriated the said amount. In the present case a finding of fact has been recorded by the Disciplinary Authority that due to the negligence on part of the respondents huge loss was caused to the Department and if they had checked and pointed out the irregularity the misappropriation of the amount by Hardev and Sodhi Ram Kalia could have been detected then and there. This finding of fact has been affirmed in appeal as well as revision. The Tribunal has also affirmed the finding to the effect that negligence on part of the respondents has been established. Once the negligence of the respondents has been established which has resulted into loss to the Government, the Disciplinary Authority was well within its jurisdiction to order recovery of the said amount while imposing minor penalties. The finding with regard to negligence as well as causing of loss is a finding of fact which has been affirmed by all the authorities. In our opinion, the Tribunal has taken wholly erroneous view that no recovery can be ordered from the respondents unless it is proved that they had misappropriated the amount which is sought to be recovered from them. The Tribunal while coming to the aforesaid conclusion has relied upon three judicial pronouncements on the subject which in our view are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case as in all those three cases there was no allegation of causing any pecuniary loss to the Government due to the negligence acts of the delinquent employees. In our view, the impugned orders passed by the Tribunal are totally contrary to Rule 11(iii) where there is no such stipulation. Merely because the principal offender, namely, Hardev, who had misappropriated the huge amount, had been imposed the punishment of withholding of his pension and gratuity in full, permanently, the respondents cannot be exonerated from making payment of the loss caused by them to the Department solely on the ground that part of the amount was already ordered to be recovered from the principal offender.
It is pertinent to mention here that in this case Hardev and Sodhi Ram Kalia had misappropriated the amount running into lakhs of rupees. The whole amount could not be recovered from them. Therefore, the remaining amount which was directly related to the negligence of the respondents could be recovered from the respondents. Therefore, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondents that in view of the fact that part of the amount was already ordered to be recovered from the principal offender by withholding of his pension and gratuity, no amount can be recovered from them, cannot be accepted.
During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon two orders, i.e., Annexure A11 dated 25.06.2009 and Annexure A12 dated 16.07.2009 passed by the Chief Post Master General, Punjab Circle, Chandigarh in case of two similarly situated employees, who despite having been found negligent no recovery order was passed against them. A perusal of those orders reveals that in case of those two employees a finding was recorded that they did not cause any loss to the Government as during the period they acted negligently no misappropriation was made. Therefore, those orders do not help the respondents.
In view of the above, the writ petitions are allowed and the impugned orders dated 02.11.2011 and 17.02.2012 passed by the Tribunal being not sustainable are set aside and the orders of the Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority and Revisional Authority are upheld.
18. A perusal of the order of the Honble High Court makes it clear that identical facts and law were involved therein and similar pleas were taken by the employees as in these cases. Though this Tribunal had allowed the O.A. qua recovery but the Honble High Court took a view that there was no fault in making recovery from the applicants. The identical pleas as taken in these cases were brushed aside.
19. The applicants herein have tried to distinguish the facts of the case in CWP No. 380/2012. However, we do not find any distinguishing feature as questions of facts and law are identical and applicants have made half hearted attempt to distinguish the case. In any case, as discussed above, the facts of these cases are on similar lines and as such the view taken by Honble High Court applies on all fours to facts of this case and resultantly all these O.As have to fail.
20. In view of the above discussion these Original Applications turn out to be denuded of any merit and as such are dismissed. No costs. Needless to mention that the interim orders shall stand vacated.
(SANJEEV KAUSHIK) MEMBER(J) (RAJWANT SANDHU) MEMBER (A) Place: Chandigarh Dated: 11.10.2013 HC*