N.Namasivayam v. The Inquiring Authority, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Chennai 600 008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 24.01.2012CORAM:THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANIANDTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMYW.A.NOS.999 and 1578 of 2010N.Namasivayam ...Appellant in both W.As./PetitionerVs.1.The Inquiring Authority, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Chennai 600 008.2.The Secretary to Government, Home (SC) Department Fort St.George, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009. ...Respondent in WA.No.999/20101.The Principal Secretary to Government, Home(SC) Department, Government of Tamil Nadu Fort St.George, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.2. The Additional Director of Police and Director of Fire and Rescue Services, Office of the Tamil Nadu Fire and Rescue Services Department, Chennai 600 008. ...Respondents in WA.1578/2010Writ Appeals filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent Act againstthe order dated 15.03.2010 made in W.P.Nos.35217 of 2005 and 25550 of2008 respectively. W.P.No.35217 of 2005: Petition presented underArticle 226 of the constitution of India to issue a Writ ofCertiorarified Mandamus (1) to call for the records relating to theimpugned proceedings of the II respondent made in his letterNo.SC/679-106-95/dated 18.2.2000 and the consequential orders passedin his Letter No.SC/1476-25/2004 dated 31.8.2005 and quash the sameas illegal and unsustainable and direct the I Respondent not toproceed with the disciplinary proceedings pending with him asD.P.No.4 of 2003. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ W.P.No.25550 of 2008: to call for the records relating to theimpugned proceedings of the 1st respondent made in Letter No.SC/7383-10-05 dt 29.1.2008 and the consequential minutes of the 2ndrespondent dt 8.8.2008 and communicated to the petitioner through theproceedings of the 1st respondent in his letter No.SC/7383-24/2005 dt2.9.2008 and quash all the proceedings initiated thereon asmotivated malafide arbitrary and capracious and pass further ordersof this Court.For Appellant: Mr.P.Jayaraman Senior Counsel for Mr.S.KanniahFor Respondents: Mr.R.Vijayakumar Additional Government Pleader--COMMON JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by P.JYOTHIMANI, J)These writ appeals are filed against the common order passedby a learned Single Judge of this Court dated 15.03.2010 in a batchof writ petitions filed by the writ petitioner, who is the appellantherein, dismissing all the writ petitions.2. These two writ appeals are relating to a portion of theorder of the learned Single Judge passed in W.P.Nos.35217 of 2005 andW.P.No.25550 of 2008 respectively. It is not in dispute that inrespect of the orders relating to other writ petitions, which formpart of the common order, the appellant has not filed any appeal.3. The appellant, who has entered into the Governmentservice as Divisional Fire Officer in the year 1976, recruitedthrough the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, has worked for 29years in the department and on his date of superannuation on31.01.2008, he was not permitted to retire by an order passed by theGovernment by virtue of the powers under Rule 56(1)(c) of theFundamental Rules. 4.The appellant states that during his career, he wasawarded Presidential Medal for gallentry in the year 1979 andPresidential Medal for his distinguished service in the year 1994. Hewas deputed to some of the Foreign countries by the Government ofIndia on behalf of the Government. While he was working as DeputyDirector of Fire and Rescue Service in Western Region withHeadquarters at Coimbatore, there was a serious fire which has brokenout in a Cotton Mill belonging to M/s Best Cotton Spinning Mills,Dharapuram in 1993, for which, he has made arrangements through theDivisional Fire Officer, Coimbatore, since he was stationed to make https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ bandobust arrangements from fire service point of view to the ChiefMinister of Tamil Nadu. It appears that in respect of the fireaccident, the owner of the Mill was granted a compensation ofRs.32,29,557/- alleged to be due to the negligence on the part of theDivisional Fire Officer in not inspecting and giving proper report.After receiving the said compensation amount from the InsuranceCompany, the Managing Director of the Mill has given a complaint tothe Government on 28.06.1993 alleging that the appellant has demandedRs.30,000/- through the Fire Officer, Tiruppur for issuing necessarycertificate for claiming insurance amount and according to theappellant, no further proceedings have been initiated based on thesaid allegation. However, a notice was issued to the appellant bythe Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings on 15.10.1997 containingthe charges in the charge memo dated 24.09.1997 to the effect that inrespect of the fire accident, which took place in M/s Best CottonMills, Dharapuram on 10.06.1993, the appellant has enabled the ownerto obtain exaggerated amount of compensation from the insurancecompany and the appellant accepted illegal gratification ofRs.12,000/- from the Officer in charge of M/s Best Cotton Mills,Dharapuram. However, it is stated that thereafter, the Tribunal hasnot proceeded further on the said charge. In the meantime, a showcause notice was issued on 18.02.2000 along with a charge memoframing three charges against the petitioner, which are as follows:CHARGE No.IThat, the said Thiru N.Namasivayam,while functioning as Deputy Director of FireService, Chennai, during the year 1989, as amember of the Technical Committee, constituted bythe then Director of Fire Service, Chennai, forconducting the endurance test and selection ofportable fire pumps for which tender had beencalled for during August 1989, submitted a jointreport on 21.09.1989 along with ThiruV.Ananthasekar, Deputy Director of Fire Service,Northern Region, recommending the purchase of theGerman-made Bachert Portable pumps offered byTvl.Nisarzs & Co. Chennai stating that the pumpswere as per specifications. He had failed to pointout that (i) the supplier viz., Tvl.Nisarzs & Co.was not a reputed dealer for the supply of firefighting equipments (ii) they have noinfrastructural facilities for repairs andmaintenance of the pumps; (iii) the BACHERTportable fire pumps being import items, it wouldbe very difficult to procure and provide sparesand to attend to their repairs in future. By hisfailure to point out such vital aspects, he failedto maintain absolute integrity and devotion toduty and conducted himself in an unbecoming manner https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ and thereby contravened Rule 20(1) of the TamilNadu Government Servants' Conduct Rules, 1973.CHARGE No.II That, during the aforesaid period and whilefunctioning as Deputy Director of Fire Service,Chennai, the said Thiru N.Namasivayam, was aMember of the Technical Committee constituted inthe year 1991 by the then Director of FireService, Chennai, for inspection of the HighCapacity Portable Pumps for which tenders had beeninvited during August 1991. After inspecting thepumps produced by five of the tenderers, he alongwith the other members of the Committee, hadsubmitted a report recommending the Wadia-makepump driven by diesel engine offered by Tvl.Nisarzs & Co., Chennai. It was inter-aliarecommended that the weight of the pump may bereduced to the 'extent possible'. He as the memberof Technical Committee, failed to point out andbring on record the facts that a diesel-drivenpump is not in accordance with IS:12717/89, whichread along with IS 10004/81 stipulated portablefire pumps with petrol-driven engines only. Theweight of the diesel pump supplied was also foundto be over 300 kgs and hence they could not bedescribed as 'portable'. The entire amount ofRs.1,77,22,320/- paid to Tvl.Nisarzs & Co. istherefore to be construed as loss to Governmentand undue pecuniary advantage to the firm. He, bybeing a member of the Committee for recommendationfor the purchase of the above pump failed tomaintain absolute integrity and devotion to dutyand acted in an unbecoming manner, and therebycontravened Rule 20(1) of the Tamil NaduGovernment Servants' Conduct Rules, 1973.CHARGE No.IIIThat, during the aforesaid period andwhile functioning as Deputy Director of FireService, Chennai, the said Thiru N.Namasivayam,had, in course of the investigation of the case inCr.No.34/96 of CBCID Hars, Chennai were examinedand had also given a statement before the XVMetropolitan Magistrate, George Town, underSection 164 Cr.P.C. In the course of thestatement, he had also stated that he committedvarious delinquencies under pressure and coercionand threat of punishment from his superiors. By https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ his own admission, he had conducted himself in away inconsistent with the faithful discharge ofhis duty in the service and failed to act in thebest interests of the Government. He had, thereby,misconducted himself and contravened Rule 20(1) ofthe Tamil Nadu Government Servants' Conduct Rules,1973.5.The above said charges were denied by the petitioner inhis explanation dated 19.08.2005 and not being satisfied with theexplanation, the respondents have proceeded with the enquiry byappointing an Enquiry Officer. While the said enquiry was pending inrespect of another charge memo dated 24.09.1997, which was pendingbefore the Tribunal for disciplinary proceedings, which was concludedafter enquiry, the second respondent passed an order on 16.02.2005imposing punishment of compulsory retirement together with cut ofpension amount by granting only 2/3rd of eligible pension. It wasagainst that said order, the appellant has approached this Court byfiling a writ petition in W.P.No.13310 of 2005. This Court in theorder dated 29.08.2007 has set aside the said order of compulsoryretirement on the ground that the charges and explanation are belatedand the delay was prejudicial to the interest of the delinquent, byfollowing the judgment of the Supreme Court in P.V.Mahadevan Vs.Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board reported in 2005 SCC (L &S) 861 and other series of judgments. 6.After the order passed by this Court setting aside theorder of compulsory retirement, the Government, in obedience of thesaid order, has directed that the appellant be reinstated as DeputyDirector, Fire and Rescue Services, Northern Region, Chennai by anorder dated 08.01.2008. Thereafter, the appellant made arepresentation on 08.01.2008 requesting the Government that since hisdate of retirement was to fall on 31.01.2008, he may be permitted towork for a period of two years, for which he was not allowed to work,after the order of compulsory retirement was passed. It was onreceipt of the said representation, the Government in the order dated22.01.2008 has placed the petitioner under suspension, pendingcontemplation of charges.7.The appellant has challenged the order of suspension byfiling W.P.No.2252 of 2008 and an order of interim stay was grantedby this Court on 29.01.2008. However, when the matter was taken upon 31.01.2008, the learned Single Judge was informed by theGovernment that the petitioner was to reach the age of superannuationon 31.01.2008 and therefore the Government must be directed to invokeits powers under Section 56(1)(c) of the Fundamental Rules retaininghim in service so as to enable the Government to complete thedisciplinary proceedings. It was in those circumstances, by an orderdated 31.01.2008 in W.P.No.2252 of 2008, this Court has vacated the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ order of interim stay of suspension, however directed the respondentGovernment to complete all the disciplinary proceedings pendingagainst the appellant within a period of three months, specificallystating that if there is any difficulty in concluding the saidproceedings, it is open to the Government to approach the Court forthe purpose of extension of period. The operative portion of theorder of the learned Single Judge is as follows: "4.Today, the petitioner will retire,but for the order produced by the learned SpecialGovernment Pleader invoking Rule 56(1)(c) of theFundamental Rules and once he retires, it will notbe possible for the respondent to initiate actionagainst him or proceed against him. May be thepetitioner is innocent. If he is innocent and hesucceeds in the writ petition, he will get backall the monetary benefits without any loss. Since,he is retiring today, continuation of stay ofsuspension is also meaningless, since suspensionwould only affect a person, who is in service andnot a person, who ceases to be in service.Therefore, the suspension will have no effect onhim from today. On the other hand if thepetitioner is guilty of misconduct which has to beproved, and he is permitted to retire, publicinterest will suffer. In these circumstances,interim stay granted on 29.01.2008 is vacated.But, the petitioner claims in his affidavit thathe had rendered distinguished service and he hadbeen awarded by the U.K. Government and he is theonly officer in the country, who has achieved suchlaurels and that his entire service has beenunblemished. If that is so, it is unfortunate thathe should be faced with disciplinary proceedingsat the fag end of his career. In thesecircumstances, the respondent is directed toconclude all the disciplinary proceedings within 3months and if there is any difficulty inconcluding the said proceedings, they can movethis Court." Similarly on the same day, viz., 31.01.2008, the Government passedG.O.(D).No.91 Home (SC) Department dated 31.01.2008 by invoking itspower under Rule 56(1)(c) of the Fundamental Rules by not permittingthe petitioner to retire from service and retaining the petitioner inservice for the purpose of completion of the enquiry .8.WP.No.35217 of 2005 was filed by thepetitioner/appellant against the charges dated 18.02.2000, asenumerated above, which were laid on the ground that the said charges https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ relate to certain facts stated to have happened in the year 1989 andtherefore there has been long delay of nearly 16 years in framingcharges and such a long delay, especially, when the petitioner hasattained the age of superannuation, is prejudicial to the interest ofthe petitioner, since it is practically not possible to effectivelydefend himself in respect of the charges, which relates to variousfactual aspects regarding the specifications in respect of some ofthe materials including the BACHERT portable fire pumps and thetechnical committee's views etc., especially when it has been thedefence of the petitioner as it is stated in his explanation that hewas not involved and not competent to make such decisions regardingtechnical committee.9.In the meantime, the Government has issued anothercharge memo under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service(Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1955 dated 29.01.2008. The chargerelates to disproportionate income to the extent of Rs.3,02,557.30for the period between 01.04.1995 and 31.03.2001 and the said chargeis as follows:That, you while serving as Deputy Director,Fire and Rescue Service, Southern Range, Madurai from24.09.1999 to 29.12.2001 as a Public Servant werefound in possession of pecuniary resources andproperties in your name and in the name of yourfamily members disproportionate to your known sourcesof income to the extent of Rs.3,02,557.30 during theperiod between 01.04.1995 and 31.03.2001 and forwhich you could not satisfactorily account for andthereby you have committed misconduct and failed tomaintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty andacted in a manner unbecoming of a member of the TamilNadu Government Services and thus you have violatedRule 20 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants ConductRules, 1973."10.The petitioner has also submitted his explanation forthe said charge memo and in the meantime, he has reached the age ofsuperannuation. Challenging the said charge memo, he has filed awrit petition in W.P.No.25550 of 2008 mainly on the ground that therehas been a long delay, since the charges are framed in 2001 inrespect of the incident stated to have happened from 01.04.1995. Infact, it has been the case of the appellant in the writ petition thatthe statement annexed to the charges runs to many pages whereinminute details have been given in respect of the allegeddisproportionate assets, and at this later point of time, it isimpossible for the appellant to effectively defend himself.11.Learned single Judge by taking up the above said writpetitions along with other writ petitions filed by the petitioner for https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ various reliefs has dismissed all the writ petitions on the basis ofthe fact that mere delay in framing charges cannot be a ground forthe Court to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiato arrive at such a conclusion. Learned Judge has relied upon variousjudgments, most of which are in relation to the challenge against theshow cause notice, as it is seen in the Judgments relied upon by thelearned Judge in State of U.P. Vs. Brah Datt Sharma reported in(1987) 2 SCC 179 and Special Director Vs. Mohd. Ghulam Ghousereported in (2004) 3 SCC 440, which are all cases where show causenotice issued by the employer was challenged on the ground of delay.It was in those circumstances, it was held that the interference bythe High Court by exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 ofthe Constitution of India at the show cause notice stage is improperand the employer must be given an opportunity to proceed with furtherproceedings.12.Learned Judge has also relied upon a later judgment ofthe Supreme Court in Government of Andhra Pradesh Vs. V.Appala Swamyreported in (2007) 14 SCC 49 wherein the Apex Court has laid down theparameters for interference at the stage of charge memo. In fact,the Supreme Court has held that if the reason for delay is due to thelapse committed by the employee, there is no question of interferenceby the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Itis also made clear in the said judgment by the Supreme Court that ifan employee has challenged the charge memo on the ground of delay, hemust prove that such a delay has caused prejudice to him. On areference to the impugned judgment of the learned Judge, whilequoting the above said judgment in Appala Swamy's case (cited supra),the learned Judge has chosen to quote a paragraph relating to thedecision of the Supreme Court in Bijlani Vs. Union of India (2006 (5)SCC 88) wherein the Supreme Court has specifically stated thatdecision was taken in that cases in a peculiar circumstance in whichthere was a finding that even the basic material on which thedepartmental proceedings can be initiated was absent and it wasinitiated after six years and continued for a period of 7 years.Having referred to the said judgment of the Supreme Court, thelearned Judge, however, dismissed the writ petitions stating thatthere is no prejudice on the part of the appellant against thecharges. 13.It is the contention of Mr.P.Jayaraman, learned SeniorCounsel appearing for the appellants that it is not only in respectof the said two charges which are the subject matters of challenge inthe writ petitions, there has been undue delay of more than 16 yearsand hence the prejudice is apparent on record. He has also referredto the charges relating to the year 1989, especially in respect ofdisproportionate income which runs to various pages of the minutedetails and after the lapse of more than 10 years it is difficult forthe delinquent to effectively defend himself. As per the service https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ jurisprudence, the effective defence is a vital aspect and it has tobe read with principles of natural justice. It is also hiscontention that even on the specification of the charge, he being oneof the members of the technical committee, cannot be imposed withsuch obligation which has been stated in the charges at all.14.We are aware that in respect of the factual assertion,the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitutioncannot be stretched for the purpose of finding out the facts. But thefact remains that after a lapse of undue period of more than 10years, it is certainly not possible for any delinquent to makeeffective defence. By the narration of facts, which we have made outfor the purpose of finding out as to whether there can be anyprejudice on the part of the appellant, it is seen that therespondents have been taking various steps at various stages bymaking various allegations but not proceeded further and suddenlymaking some other allegations which were pending in the previousproceedings, which only shows that the respondent is not seriousabout the charges and delay in framing charges has not been properlyexplained. This aspect has not been considered by the learned Judge.15.It is true that when a charge memo is issued by theemployer, it is not open to the High Court by exercising its powerunder Article 226 of the Constitution of India to interfere at thatstage, for, it is the right of the employer to proceed with thecharge memo and the employee can only question about the propriety ofthe final order which may be ultimately passed. But, on the factsof the present case, it is not as if the delay has been caused due tothe conduct of the employee. That is not the stand of the Government.The appellant being the delinquent, is not responsible for the unduedelay, and this aspect has been lost sight of by the learned Judge.There is one other vital aspect, which of course could not beconsidered by the learned Singe Judge, since the judgment renderedwas subsequent.16.Under similar circumstances, when the competent courtfixes an outer period of limitation for completing disciplinaryproceedings, the employer has to necessarily approach the Court onthe expiry of the period of extension of enquiry and normally on suchapproach, the Courts/Tribunals are liberal for extending the period.But the failure on the part of the employer in approaching the Courtfor the purpose of extension would make entire charges invalid. Thatwas the view of the Division Bench of this Court presided over byElipe Dharma Rao,J in the case of State of Tamil Nadu rep. BySecretary to Government, Personnel and Administrative Reforms(Q)Department, Chennai and another Vs T.Ranganathan reported in (2010) 3MLJ 625. The Division Bench by referring to catena of judgments onthis issue has held as follows: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "21.It is well settled in law that once acompetent Court fixes an outer time limit to completethe enquiry and pass final orders, the parties to theproceedings are found to strictly adhere to the timegranted to comply with the said order. If on any reasonthe time fixed by the competent Court is unable to beadhered to and the proceedings are unable to befinalised, the party to the proceedings can approachthe very same Court seeking extension of time statingsufficient reasons and once valid reasons are given,normally the Court/Tribunal would extend thetime,depending upon the facts and circumstances of thecase. Admittedly, the said procedure has not beenfollowed in this case and the department has chosen toignore the direction given by the Tribunal which isbinding on them.17.On the basis of the above said finding, the Benchtaking note of the fact that the said observation is subject to theco-operation of the delinquent in the disciplinary proceedings, hasheld that the employer, herein, the Government is bound to follow thedirection given by this Court in the operative portion, which is asfollows:"23. We are conscious of the fact thatif there is non-cooperation of the delinquentofficer to comply with the time limit fixed by theCourt/Tribunal to complete the enquiry and passfinal orders in disciplinary proceedings, theDepartment cannot be blamed. In such contingency,it is for the Department to point out the non-cooperation on the part of the delinquent officerin finalising the proceeding and the hardshipsfaced by the Department in not strictly adheringto the time schedule due to the fault of thedelinquent officer or for any valid reason and getappropriate orders seeking extension of time. Atthis juncture, it is relevant to point out thateven if the time granted originally to completethe enquiry is over, nothing prevented theDepartment from filing appropriate applicationafter expiry of the time. It is now well settledin law that application seeking extension of timecan be filed and the Court are having inherentpowers to grant further time,even thought theoriginal time granted got expired, based on theprinciples of invoking inherent powers to meet theends of justice. In this case, there is no whisperabout the non-cooperation of the petitioner inconducting the enquiry and completing the enquiry https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ within the time. Hence, the Department is bound tocomply with the directions issued by the Tribunalin O.A.No.1535 of 2003".18.Ultimately, the Bench quashed the charge memo anddirected for promotion due to the delinquent therein. As against thesaid Judgment, the Government has filed an appeal before the SupremeCourt in a petition for Special Leave Appeal (Civil) Nos.11346-11347/2010 and the Hon'ble Apex Court in the order dated 23.04.2010has dismissed the SLP by the Government even though the question oflaw relating to delay was kept open. The operative portion is asfollows:"No ground is made out for our interference inexercise of jurisdiction under Article 136 of theConstitution. The special leave petitions aredismissed. However, the question of law raised bythe petitioners is kept open."19.It is true that the Division Bench judgment is dated5.3.2010 and the common order passed by the learned Judge is dated15.03.2010.20.The issue relating to the delay in disciplinaryproceedings, which has been covered in the Judgment of the SupremeCourt from P.V.Mahadevan's case as stated above and continues as ondate. There is no contrary judgment and the learned Governmentpleader is not able to show except the earlier judgment of theSupreme Court in P.D.Agarwal Vs. State Bank of India and othersreported in (2006) 8 SCC 776.21.First of all, the judgment was delivered before theconfirmation of the order of the Division Bench of this Court by theHon'ble Apex Court as stated above and even an analysis of the saidjudgment of the Supreme Court in P.D.Agarwal shows that the focus ison the prejudice to the delinquent officer as it was held in theearlier judgment in Additional Superintendent of Police Vs.T.Natarajan reported in 1999 SCC(L & S) 646. Apart from the saidJudgment, in State of Punjab Vs. Chaman Lal Goyal reported in (1995)2 SCC 570, the Supreme Court has held that the issue of delay is aquestion of fact and the same has to be considered by weighingfactors appearing for and against the said plea and take a decisionon the totality of the circumstances. There is no dispute about thesaid settled legal principle. Certainly it is the duty of the Courtto find out the prejudice to be caused to the delinquent. It is notthe length of time that is material for deciding about the validityof the charge memo on the basis of the delay, but it is the prejudicewhich would be caused to the delinquent. If the prejudice that wouldbe caused to the delinquent is made even if the number of delay is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ less, certainly the Court is entitled to interfere. But, on thefactual matrix which we have chosen to explain in detail as statedabove, we have no hesitation to hold that the delay of more than 10years on the facts of the present case taking note of the minuteincidents, which are put to proof of defence by the delinquent, wehave no hesitation to hold that certainly prejudice has been causedto the appellant.22.Inasmuch as the said vital aspect has not been takennote of by the learned Judge, we do not agree with the finding of thelearned Judge and accordingly the judgment of the learned SingleJudge stands set aside and the writ appeals filed by the appellantstand allowed. No costs.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarVJYTo1.The Inquiring Authority, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Chennai 600 008.2.The Secretary to Government, Home (SC) Department Fort St.George, Secretariat,Chennai 600 009.3.The Principal Secretary to Government, Home(SC) Department, Government of Tamil Nadu Fort St.George, Secretariat,Chennai 600 009.4. The Additional Director of Police and Director of Fire and Rescue Services, Office of the Tamil Nadu Fire and Rescue Services Department, Chennai 600 008. 2 CCs to Mr.S.Kanniah, Advocate, SR.4672 1 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.4425W.A.No.999 & 1578 of 2010TEJ(CO)SRA(08/02/2012)