Heard Sri P v. Krishnaiah

Order

Heard Sri P. V. Krishnaiah, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Sri M.P'K. Aditya, learned Standing Counsel for Telangana Vaidya Vidhana Parishad, appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services - II, appearing on behalf of respondent No.2.

2. The etitioner a ooroached the Court seekinq oraver as under: "...to grant appropriate relief more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India declaring Memo Rc.No. 792lvc/2018 dated L2l7 / 2023 issued by the 1't respondent as arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory, mala fide and uncons[itutional of violating 2 s\. .l \\p 217N1 l0l i articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution ( I India apart from contrary to Rule 20 of CCA Rules and :3t aside the same and pass... ". 3 Th averme s the oetiti oner, in brie f, as per the e case of nt made an the affidavit filed bvt e petitloner !n t rt of the present Writ Petition i asu r der:- The petitioner was appolnted as Civil Ass:tant Surgeon on

04.02.2008. For the panel year 2022-23, the -:titioner became fully eligible for promotion to the post of Civil S t rgeon Specialist, in terms of Rule 6 of the State and Subordin r e Service Rules. The petitioner was falsely implicated in a crimi ral case and was arrested on 22.12.2018, and thereafter renr, nded to judicial custody from 23.12.2018 for more than '1ll hours. On that ground alone, the petitioner was placed undt't suspension vide proceedings dated 02.01.2019. Subsequently, he petitioner was reinstated into service vide proceedings date(i 06.06.2020, and was posted as Civil Assistant Surgeon at Areir Hospital. Gajwel, which was the post held by the petitioner p .i )r to suspension. Petitioner was acquitted of the said r:ri ninal case vide S.C. No. 963 of 2019, dated 07.O7.2022 befo': the Court of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Medchal- t lalkajgiri District' Learned Sessions Court acquitted all eight acrcL sed, including the i l I + , 3 SN. J rvp 24781 2023 petitioner (A-B), vide ludgment dated 07'07'2022' Despite the clean acquittal, respondent No'1 issued a Charge Memo dated 12.07.2023, alleging that the petitioner was arrested at a resort rave Party on 22.72.2018' After in Shamirpet for attending a receipt of the said charge memo, the Petitioner submitted rB .ot .2023 , 26 -07 .2023 , a n d detailed exPlanations on 10.08.2023, requesting respondent No'1 to consider petitioner's case for promotion. However, the respondent authorities had not considered the said representations as on date' Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ Petition. 4 ER s DTH ERE o D (A) T r r dL2 7 2 b r hereu nder: 1 h iti ner ls d d OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER, TELANGANA VAIDYA VIDHANA PARISHAD: HYDERABAD D ated: l2'O7 '2023 Memo.Rc. No.lg2/VCl2O1'3 ABSTRACT - PUBLIC SERVICES - TVVP - DT.K.MAhiPAI, 3"q.6. lp".,"rist (Anea), Area Hospital' Gajwel' Siddipet -I arr"rt"d by Shamirpet Police in a J[iri., 6fllur-iip"t for attending RAVE partv on 22 12'2ol8- ^R.esort Crirninuf Case filed-Kept under ludicial Remand for more nouis placed under suspension Proceedings under il;;8 Rule-20 of the Telangana State Civil Services (classification t""ir"i""a rppeal) {ules, 1991-Article of charges-Issued' 4 $$$$$ SN. J r\p 2.178r l0ll f . it is proposed to hold an inquiry Dr.K.t"] : ripal, C.A.S. Specialist (Anea), Area Hospital, Gajwel, Sil lrpet district who arrested by Shamirpet Police in a Reso-t tt Shamirpet For attending RAVE party on 22.12.2Ot8, - iminal Case filed and kept under Judicial Remand for rr rre than 48 hours in accordance with lhe procedure laid own in Rule 20 of the Telangana State Civil Services {.lassification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991. 2. The Substances of the imputation of misco duct or mis- behaviour / Unauthorized absence in respec, of which the inquiry is proposed to be held is set out r :he enclosed statement of article of charges (ANNEXURE-1) 3. Dr.K.Mahipal, C.A.S. Specialist (Anea), I rea Hospital Gajwel, Siddipet district is directed to subnr within ( 10) days from the date of receipt of this m€ r ]o a written statement of his/her defence. 4. He/She is informed that an inquiry will br held only in respect of those articles of charges as are noI admitted. He should therefore specifically admit or deny : tch article of charge. 5. He/She is further informed that if he does I ot submit his written statement of defense on or be1( re the date specified in Para 3 above, further action wil be processed based on the material available. 6. His/Her attention is invited to Rule-24 tf Telangana State Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 1964, L r der which no Government servant shall bring or attemp - to bring any political or outside influence to bear upor any superior authority to further his interest in resp::t of matter pertarning to his behalf from another perso^ in respect oF any matter dealt with in these proceedir ;s it will be presumed that Dr.K.Mahipal, C.A.S. Speciali; (Anea), Area Hospital, Gajwel, Siddipet district is a \ rre of such representation and that it has been madr: , t his interest and action will be taken against him/her 1r violation of Rule -24 of Telangana State Civil Services (( cnduct) Rules t964. 7. The receipt of this Memorandurr should be acknowledged. / /r.c.f .tt.o./ / Sd/-Dr , .Ajaya Kumar Con rlissioner Section Officer i 1i i: i , 5 SN. J !\'p 247117 l0l-'l To, o-rlx.uanipat, c.a.s. Specialist (Anea)' Area.Hospital' ;:il;i, ;id;;p"i dirt.i.t ihrouen the superintendent' Dist' ie-ad quu.tert Hospital, Siddipet District Copy to: 1 . The Superintendent, District Hearl, Quarters i"!iit.i, Siddipet district (In duplicate)' I",i:-1"-o:^"tt"d serve the Charge t'lemo and return the duplicate copy duly trtu aLt"o acknowledgment of the cha.rged officer ;,;i.;; and return the same immediitely' In case ,the.charged not submit his explanation within the stipulated l;. ;"me should brought to the notice of the "#,."iala ;;; Commissioner, TVVP, Hyderabad through E-marr' (B) 07 7 T 2 J d Med h v n o d he learn o J d e Ass ta t al-Mal ls rl t s ron No 6 of 2O f he et r n P ra o 6 ise ra ed hereu de r:

"In the result, accused No' 1 to 8 are found not guilty for th;';;;;.;;;unishable under sectron 370 IPc and offence ;;t ;; ;, !.;'and 7 of Immoral traffic prevention-act' 1956' accordingly, they are utq'itt"d u/s' 235(1) cr'P'C' The bail ;;.rsed, be in force for six months from todav' ;;;;;;i ;;;;.""r*v-cash or ns' t-,oa'ooo/- which is not claimed to be confiscated to the state' rhe mobile ;; ;;'p;;*n phones already returned to respective owners towards interim custody tne same is made absolute afLer-expiry of apieaf pe.ioa. Whereas.unused condoms and HIV testing O" destroyed after expiry of kits being worthless, 'nutl appeal Period. " DIS CU ssroNAND co NCLU ION 5 c u e fln f to er h fo w n u ml i ' I I i I I l I j I I t I { t I I a ! E;TIG 6 SN. J \\,P 24787 202) (a) The impugned Charge Memo dare: 12.07.2023 had been issued by respondent No.1 herein without considering that the petitioner had been acquitted by the ilarned Assistant Sessions Judge, Medchal in respect of the :, me charges and without considering the Judgment obtained n favour of the petitioner. (b) The charge had been framed agai rst the petitioner that the petitioner was arrested by the Sha- rirpet police in a resort at Shamirpet For attending a rave pa - y on 2Z.l2.2OlB and kept under judicial remand for more thar lB hours and the same amounted to affecting the prestige of thc Government. (c) Vide Judgment dated 07.O7.20'.' passed in S.C. No.963 of 2019 on the file of the Court of I ssistant Sessions Judge at Medchal, Medchal Malkajgiri Distric , it was held that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyo d the reasonable doubt against the petitioner and others. (d) Since petitioner had already br: n acquitted, the disciplinary authority ought not to have iss_:d the impugned Memo dated 12.O7.2023 and hence the imptr tned Memo dated

12.07 .2023 issued by respondent No. t has to t 3 set aside, i ! I ! I ! ,j i i I I i I i i E I * & E 7 SN. J wp-21787 2021 (e) In response to the impugned Memo dated t2.07.2023 issued by respondent No.1, petitioner had submitted a detailed explanation on 18.07.2023 and further explanation on

26.07.2023 and 10.08.2023 contending that the very issuance of the charge Memo dated 12.07.2023 against the petitioner herein by respondent No.1 stood vitiated in view of the acquittal of the petitioner in respect of the same charges vlde Judgment dated 07.07.2022 in S.C.No.963 of 2019 on the file of Assistant Sessions ludge at Medchal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, the same had not been considered as on date. A DDC on the aforesaid submission s learned co u nsel Bas arino on behalf of the oetitioner contends that for b r n of rel s t r he etiti n rinth sent wr ti to The observations of the Aoex Court i 6 and a iudqmen t of Divi ion Bench of this Court few iudq e nts con siderino the susta ina bil i of ounish ent rmDosed on an e molovee con cerned in case of Deoartm enta I ino basedon edinqs a nd criminal oroce dinos b same set offa a re extracted h ereu nde r:- r% 8 s\. i \r'p 147E7 202.1 (A) The Aoex Court, in the J udoment of "G.M. Tank vs. State of Guiarat & Ors.," reoorted in (2006) s scc 446, dated 1O.O5 .20O6 held that if the < harqes in the disciplinarv proceedinqs are identical to those in the criminal case, and the emplovee has br: :n honourably acouitted in the criminal case. then conti ruinq with the disciplinarv Droceedinqs on the same chz r es would not ifi d n h r v n a ra Nc s .3O and 31 of the said order are extracted hereunder: 3O. The judgments relied on by the lei r red counsel appearing for the respondents are distinguis r rble on facts and on law. In this case, the deDartmental rroceedinqs and the criminal case are based on i q entical and simalar set oj lfacts and the charqe in a r, lpartmental case aoainst the appellant and the char(U before the criminal court are one and the same. It i; true that the nature of charge in the departmental proceed r ls and in the criminal case is grave. The nature of the : rse launched against the appellant on the basis of evidenc: and material collected against him during enquiry and in\ ( stigation and as reflected in the charge-sheet, factors ment )ned aTe one and the same. In other words, charges, evid€r:e, witnesses and circumstances are one and the same. the present case, criminal and departmental proceedingr, have already noticed or granted on the same set of fact!, namely, raid conducted at the appellant's residence, reco'/ ry of articles therefrom. The Investigating Officer Mr V.B. F., val and other departmental witnesses were the only witnes;es examined by the enquiry officer who by relying upon ll 3ir statement came to the conclusion that the charges rv,: e established against the appellant. The same witnesses r,r,c r r examined in the criminal case and the criminal court on t r ) examination came to the conclusjon that the prosecution - rs not proved the guilt alleged against the appellant beyond any reasonable doubt and acqurtted the appellanL by its .ludicial pronouncement with the finding that the c i arge has not i ; i i 9 SN. J rvp 24787 2023 m ntw been proved. It is also to be noticed that the ud icia I i rcumstan ces, it wou ld be hot contest. Under these untust and U le tr a n d rathe ro nrasqt ve toa o n tn sta nd, m n u r

31. In our opinion, such facts and evidence in the departmental as well as criminal proceedings were the same without there being any iota of difference, the appellant should succeed. The distinction which is usually proved between the dep artmental and criminal proceedings on the basis of the app roach and burden of proof would not be a p plica ble in the instant case. Though the finding recorded in the domestic enq uiry was found to be valid by the courts below. when there was an honourable acquittal of the the pendency of the Proceedings employee during challenging the d ismissal, the same requires to be taken decis n in P I Anth note of nd 10 679 L ill a f iled bv the aooe I lant ther fore. hold that the a ooea I des rves to be allowed." 19 (B) The ADex Cou rt, in the Judqm ntd ated reoo rtedin ( 1999 3SCc 679 in M.P aul

30.0 3.1999 v B a r DA rticular, at Daraoraoh No.3 4 obser VC as un er:

34. There is yet anot the case of the resPo her reason for discarding the whole of ndents. As pointed out earlier, the n a c namely, 'the raid conducted at the aPPellant' s residence and recoverY of incriminating articles therefrom The findings recorded bY the Inquiry Officer, a coPY of wh ich has been Placed before us, indicate that the charges fra med agalnst the aPPellant were sought to be Proved bY Police Officers and Panch witnesses, who had raided the house of the aPpellant and had effected recoverY. TheY were the onlY witnesses examined by the InquirY Officer and the Inquiry Officer, relying upon their statements, came to the conclusion that t0 sN. i \n l{787 20:-i the charges were established against the a1 lellant The same witnesses were examined in the crimina ( ase but the court, on a consideration of the entire eviderr, e, came to the conclusion that no search was conducted I or was any recovery made from the residence of the al l ellant. The whole case of the orosecution was thro q n out and the aD ellant was ac uitt ed . In this situati( r , therefore, where the appellant is acquitted bv a judicial pronouncement with the finding that th,: "raid and recovery" at the residence of the appella- . were not proved, it would be unjust, unfair and rather I )pressive to allow the findings recorded at the ex- parte c lpartmental proceedings, to stand. d (c) The ADex Court, in the iur qment dated o4-12.202 reoorted in (2024) 1 SCC 175 n "Ramlal Vs. State of Ra iasthan and others", in oarticuli I , at DaraqraDh Nos.28 and 29 observed a u nder: s incanta

28. Expressions like "benefit of ! oubt" and l; are not to "honourablv acouifted" used in iudomer _l:ourt of law e rse of such will not be carried awav bv the mere terminoloov. In the present case, the Appe I te Judge has recorded that Ex. P-3, the original mark sheet (r, rries the date of birth as 2f-4-1972 and the same has also I 'en proved by the witnesses examined on behalf of the prt;ecution. The conclusion that the acouittal in the crimir ! I oroceedino was after full consideration of the _ orosecution evidence and that the D rosecuti o n mlset i blv failed to t of the iudoment in its entiretv. The co J .tini ud icia I eth e sub:i ance of the review is oblioed to exa m n iudqment and not qo bv the form of exorer sion use d. haroe can only be arrivedata erar

29. We are satisfied that the findings of the Appellate Judge in the criminal case clearly indicate rl at the charge ' - in fact the against the appellant was not just, "not prov€c charge even stood "disproved" by the v,t y prosecution evidence. As held by this Court, a fact ; said to be "disproved" when, after considering the matt( I ; before it, the r considers its court either believes that it does not exist o I I E I - l I I I u SN-.' \tP 24781_202) non -existen cesoDroba ble that a n of th rudent man ou oht, o uDon the suo Dosition that it d es not to be "not Proved" when it is (see Vijayee Singh v. State o U.P., (1990) 3 SCC 190 : 199 xist. A fact is said neither "proved" nor "disProved" f rJ.P. lVijayee Singh v. State of 0 SCc (Cri) 3781 ). ion Bench -Iudq ent of this Cou (D) Th Divi A.P.s.R.T. C. Vs. T.Venkata oati reDorted in 1999( 1) A.P.L.J. 18 HC !n A.No L24 f 199 da d .o2. 9 extracted hereunder:-

1. The writ petitioner was prosecuted for alleged offence of murder of his wife. The death of the wife of petitioner took place on 25th of February, 1996 The pe-titioner was ;;.kd as Depot Controller at Srikalahasti Depot of the nndhrJ Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short the 'R.T.C'). A prosecution was initiated against the p"iition.r after registration of crime ln the mean while the i"pu.tr"nt initiaied departmental proceedings on the following charge "For having involved in a criminal case of alleged killing on 25-2-i.Slg; which has resulted in framing criminal case uguinJvo, as Crime No. 30 of 1996 under Sec' 302 of the i,iOi"n p"nut Code (I.P.C) by lvl uthya lareddyp-a lli police station wnicn amounts misconduct under Sec 29 (xxxl) of n.p.S.n.r.C. Employees Conduct Regulations, 1963"' 2. The criminal prosecution initiated against the p-eritioner ,fti.at"fy ended in acquittal in S'C No' 1 of 1997 before ihl t"arnea IV Additional Sessions ludge, Tirupathi by irJgr"nt dated 8-8-1997. The said acquittal has become irui. However, the disciplinary authority in the J.p".t."ntut-enquiry, upon completion of the enquiry lult"J o.Ou.t on'28-tr-t9g6 removing the petitioner from service. The petitioner preferred appeal against the said order. the same was dismissed' The review petition was aiso ais.lssea by the Regional Manager of the. R'T'C As a ."rrfi lf," p.titioner filed the writ petition to challenge the order of his removal. Fq t2 s\. -t \p 24787 l0l-i

3. The learned Single Judge held that 1 le, disciplrnary authority was in error in holding the petitior ( . guilty of the charge framed against him in disciplinarl, lroceedings in view of the judgment of the Court. --r e petitioner- delinquent was entitled to be cleared of he charge in disciplinary enquiry and accordingly alk r ed the writ petition.

4. Challenging the order of the learned sir, le ludge, the R.T.C. has filed this Writ Appeal. We find I, merit in the appeal inspite of the persuasion of the lear I :d counsel for the appellant-R.T.C. We have already poi I ed out as to what charge was tramed in the disciplinar)/ c rqu ry against the petitioner. It has to be noted that the : rarge was not tor the substantive act of having caused de: h oF the wife. The charqe was onlv that oetitioner wa: ; involved in a criminal cas e and the said in volvement . had resulted in framino of a criminal case for ! fence under ( Section 3O2 of the I.P.C. The argument rf the learned counsel for the appellant is that in course )f the enquiry the petitioner had himself stated that death f his wife was result ot his delinquency. It is argued that I view of this admission of the petitioner the disciplina.\ authority was justified in accepting the same and Co I t cannot re- appreciate the evidence. We fail to unders nd as to how the statement of petitioner was relevant n the instant case. The charqe was onlv for tnvol'ement in a criminal case resultino in institutin q rf a crim ina I case aqainst the titioner. As soon a 5 th cnmI nal case itself was fou d to be unte able ir Court of law, the very basis of the charqe was knoc <ed out. The cha ro rd when the been ouas hed as criminal case ended in acouittal. tnvr ) vement in a criminal case which was not tenable ir I Court of law U It cannot be mo n to n disputed that the disciplinary authority is err tled to hold O disciplinary enquiry on the same charge ; s is before a Criminal Court because the scope of disc 1 linary enquiry and a criminal trial is different. But where tlr charge in the disciplinary enquiry is necessarily depen j )nt 5 on the result of the criminal case if the criminal cas I rtself ends in favour of the delinquent, the charge in t re disciplinary enquiry will become unsustainable one. Irr the facts and circumstances of the case having regard o the charge framed against the petitioner and havin. -egard to the result of the criminal case, we have no r, nTtcr of doubt hould ha lin u h I a 't ./ -- t3 SN, J w 24181 2023 that the learned petitioner's claim. single Judge was right in allowing the (E) The Division Bench J dqment of this court, dated O2.09.2O25 oassed in W.A. No.611 of 2O25 and in particular at oara Nos. 16 to 2O in identical circumstances observed as under:-

16. A perusal of the findings recorded by the criminal Court and the order passed by the respondent department, in the light of the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court cited above command that punishment inflicted on the appellant pursuant to the departmental proceedings cannot be sustained in the light of the findings of the criminal Court rendered on identical set of facts and circumstance.

17. In the above situation, when the charges in the departmental enquiry and the charges framed against a ppellant/petitioner in the criminal trial are similar, this Court is of the considered opinion that the imposition of penalty of R.T.S. P for two stages for a period of two years with effect on future increment and pension, dated 23.08.2016 (final order) as confirmed in the appellate order dated 25.05.2018 was totally uncalled for, particularly in view of the fact that the criminal trial has negated the charges levelled against the a ppella nt/petition er.

18. In the considered opinion of this Court, the learned Single Judge fell in error in upholding the departmental proceedings overlooking and ignoring the findings of the crimlnal Court on the self-same allegations and the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in similar situation.

19. For all the aforesaid reasons, the order of the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained.

20. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is allowed setting aside the order dated 13.03.2025 in W.P.No.l1l7O of 2019. The respondents are directed to grant all the consequential F;-E l4 SN. J \r'P 2a787 2023 benefits including the monetary benefits of the There shall be no order as to costs. rppellant.

7. In view of the fact that the very Memo datrd 72.07.2023 issued by Respondent No.1 had been challenged rnd petitioner also obtained interim orders dated 0g.09.2023 fcr consideration of petitioner's case for promotion as Civil Surr; ron Specialist without reference to the impugned Memo dated 1..07.2023 it is but necessary for the respondents to consider th I observations of the Apex Court in the ludgments referred tc :nd extracted above in deciding and adjudicating the disciplin. I / proceedings imitated by the Disciplinary Authority in the preser case.

8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of ro pondent No.1 submits that in view of the fact that the petition rr has already submitted a detailed explanation on 18.07.202:. and a further explanation on 26.07.2023 and on 10.08.2023, r:;pondent No.1 may be directed to consider the same and p;r;s appropriate orders within a reasonable period.

9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the )etitioner does not dispute the said submission made by the le; rned Assistant Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of respo rdent No.2. t5 sN..) \p 24787_1021

10. Takinq into c nsideration: - (a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, (b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1, (c) The impugned order dated 12.O7.2023 issued by respondent No.1 against the petitioner herein, (referred to and extracted above), (d) Judgment dated O7.O7.2022in S.C. No.963 of 2O19 on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge at Medchal, Medchat-Malkajgiri District delivered in favour of the petationer herein (referred to and extracted above), (e) Explanation dated LA.O7.2023 and further explanation dated 26.07.2023 and 10.08'2023 furnished by the petitioner in response to the impugned charge Memo dated 1-2.07.2(J23 issued by respondent No'1 herei n. i EI I a l6 SN. i !\f I l;ll7 201l (f) The discussion and conclusion as i rrived at from paragraph Nos.5 to 7 of the present order, The Writ Petitionis disoose o1 d i rectinq the res onden t No.1 o cons ider th exDla natir rsf

14.07.2023. I urnished bv 26,O7.2023 petition er o.08.2 23 in n !T .l uo ed Memo Rc.No.79 2/VCt 2018.

2.O7.202: I SSU res ondent No.1 the Detitioner I erein n seeki n o withdrawal of the disciotinarv action initirl eda qaln st the Detitioner herein dulv takinq into co side ration the Judqment dated O7.O7.2O22 oassed in S.C,_ tlo.963 of 2o19 n h file of learn dAs istan SJ lqe,MEdchal at Medchal-M alkaiqiri Distri ct aco u itta nq -:he oetitioner herein/Accused No.8for the offences l)l 1 rishable under Sectaon 37Oof IPC andS ctions 3, 4. 5, Immoral Traffic Prevention A 1956 and also the observa tions in the Judo ments of the A T ex Court and other Courts referred to and extracted a! ao DTODriate rea5(,n ed orders, rn acco rdir r e conformi ;, and 7 of the do ss law tn with the prin les of nat u ral crD IUStice bv n t earin '/ - t7 Sr-- J rrp 2.1787 202-l Detitioner herein, within a Deriod of four (04) weeks from the date of receiDt of a coDv of this order and dulY communacate the decision to the oetitioner herein However, there shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. ,,TRUE COPYII i3!,8'"^'-TyJisR SECTION OFFICER To

1. The Telangana Vaidya Vidhana Parishad' DM and HS Campus' Sultan Bazar' j ::: ];:::':":: , ltiifi,ffi ili*li* $ [i"':"]'#l. ; ;;i:f#ii*im*t #rsn13I^'$ANA vA DYA v DHANA

6. Two CD CoPies C.C.'IODAY Y. o c) :-:" -. \) t --1, C / 1rr [?[ ?ffi $ I t (- FTA T * HIGH COURT DATED: 0111212025 ORDER WP.No.24787 of 2023 DISPOSING OF THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. q "oP(dY1r-, -t{*\- .,, t l1 ! 1 I t f I I