E. Pitchaimari v. Mr. C.P. Singh

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED:24.02.2010CORAM:THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANIWRIT PETITION NO.17962 OF 2008and M.P.No.1 of 2008E.Pitchaimari.. Petitionervs.1.Mr.C.P.Singh,I.A.S. Special Commissioner and Transport Commissioner Chepauk, Chennai 600 009.2.The Transport CommissionerChepauk, Chennai 600 005... RespondentsWrit Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus tocall for the records relating to the order of the first respondentherein passed in his memo No. 52634/VA2/2006 dated 27.6.2008 andquash the same and consequently direct the respondents herein to dropall further proceedings on the 17(b) charge framed against thepetitioner in Memo R.No. 52634/VC3/06 dated 10.7.2007For petitioner : Mr.Ravi ShanmugamFor respondents: Mr.R.Murali Government AdvocateORDER The petitioner has challenged the impugned memo issued by thesecond respondent proposing to decide against the finding of theenquiry officer in respect of charges 1 and 2 and calling for furtherrepresentation from the petitioner, by enclosing a copy of the reportof the enquiry officer who has held the charges not proved againstthe petitioner. The memo also contains annexure explaining thereasons for holding the charges as proved, disagreeing with thefindings of the enquiry officer. 2. The petitioner who joined as Junior Assistant through theTamil Nadu Public Service Commission on 8.1.1987 and posted in the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Transport Department was promoted as Assistant on 29.8.1996. Thepetitioner was promoted as Superintendent for the year 2003-2004 byG.O.(D) No.1135, Home (Transport IV) Department dated 17.11.2004 andthe promotion was given effect from 27.2.2004. His pay was also fixedin that cadre on 26.5.2007 with effect from 27.2.2004.2(a). It is the case of the petitioner that he was eligible forpromotion to the next post of Motor Vehicle Inspector (Non-technical)for the year 2007-2008 for which the crucial date was 15.3.2007. Itis stated that on 31.5.2007 the first respondent promoted thepetitioner’s juniors as Motor Vehicle Inspectors (Non-technical) forthe year 2007-08 and orders were issued on 31.5.2007 stating that thepetitioner’s promotion was deferred due to pendency of 17(b) charges.2(b). The writ petition filed in W.P.No.20665 of 2007challenging the said proceedings of the first respondent dated31.5.2007 came to be allowed by this Court on 3.7.2007 directing thefirst respondent to include the name of the petitioner as MotorVehicle Inspector (Non-technical). The decision of this Court wascommunicated by the petitioner to the first respondent on 11.7.2007.It is the case of the petitioner that in the meantime, a charge memowas issued against the petitioner under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil NaduCivil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules on 10.7.2007, whichaccording to the petitioner is ante-dated to defeat theimplementation of the order of the Court.2(c). However, on 24.7.2007 the first respondent implemented theorder of the Court by promoting the petitioner as Motor VehicleInspector (Non-technical) for 2007-2008 and in spite of the same, noposting order was given and the petitioner issued a notice throughhis counsel in this regard, for which a reply was received from thefirst respondent stating that the petitioner’s name was included inthe panel but no order was communicated. In the meantime, on3.8.2007 another order was passed by the first respondent deletingthe name of the petitioner from the panel of Superintendent fit forpromotion as Motor Vehicle Inspector (Non-technical) for the year2007-2008. 2(d). According to the petitioner, all these conducts revealedthe intention of the respondents to deny the legitimate right of thepetitioner. The petitioner’s request to convert the charges framedunder rule 17(b) into one under rule 17(a) was rejected by the firstrespondent on 13.11.2007. The order by which the petitioner’s namewas deleted from the panel was challenged in W.P.No.27584 of 2007 andthere was an order of interim stay and in spite of it, it was notimplemented and ultimately, the writ petition came to be dismissed on10.12.2007 on the ground that the charges under rule 17(b) arepending. 2(e). It was, challenging the said order, the writ petitioner https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ filed W.A. No.115 of 2008. It is stated that in the meantime, toenquire into the charges framed against the petitioner under rule 17(b), the Regional Transport Authority, Dindigul was appointed asenquiry officer and the petitioner also participated in the enquiry.The enquiry officer found that all the three charges framed againstthe petitioner are not proved. In the meantime, the writ appeal filedby the petitioner in W.A.No.115 of 2008 came to be allowed on10.4.2008 and according to the petitioner, based on the judgment ofthe Division Bench, the charges become baseless and the DivisionBench also held that the petitioner is deemed to have been promotedas Motor Vehicle Inspector (Non-technical) with effect from 28.6.2007.2(f). The decision of the Division Bench was communicated to thefirst respondent on 13.5.2008, who received the same on 14.5.2008. Inthe meantime, the impugned memo was served on the petitioner which ischallenged on various grounds including that the proceedings are malafide. It is stated that out of three charges, the first respondentunder the impugned memo agreed with the finding of the enquiryofficer regarding third charge and in respect of charges 1 and 2, thefirst respondent intended to differ.2(g). It is the case of the petitioner that the reasons givenfor differing from the enquiry officer’s report are without anybasis. It is stated that the reason adduced for disagreeing with theenquiry officer’s report was that in the explanation dated 14.8.2007the petitioner had admitted the charges stating that he has made theendorsement. According to the petitioner, he made such an endorsementon the direction of the Regional Transport Officer, who was warned bythe first respondent on 15.3.2007 in the disciplinary proceedings.It is stated that as per the decision of the Division Bench inW.A.Nos.676 and 677 of 2001 dated 29.1.2004, it was held that theendorsement does not amount to route variation and it only provides aparking slot for the buses near Bhavaniamman Koil. 3. The memo is challenged on various grounds that the same isagainst the findings of the Division Bench in W.A.No.115 of 2008,apart from the judgment of the Division Bench in W.A.Nos.676 and 677of 2001 dated 29.1.2004 and that the same is arbitrary in the sensethat in respect of the Regional Transport Officer, the firstrespondent by order dated 15.3.2007 simply issued a warning whileagainst the petitioner, based on the endorsement stated to have beenmade by the petitioner, the proceedings started and therefore, theentire proceedings are mala fide. It is the case of the petitionerthat it is a case of no evidence and that the impugned order waspassed with predetermined intention to punish the petitioner somehowor other in order to avoid giving effect to the Division Benchjudgment.4. This Court, while admitting the writ petition, granted anorder of interim stay on 28.7.2008 in M.P.No.1 of 2008. The https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respondents have filed M.P.No.1 of 2009 to vacate the order ofinterim stay along with the counter affidavit signed by the PrincipalSecretary/Transport Commissioner on 8.12.2009. In the said counteraffidavit it is stated that to include in the panel ofSuperintendents eligible for promotion to the post of Motor VehicleInspector (Non-technical) as per G.O.Ms.No.885, Home (Trpt)Department dated 29.5.1989 the petitioner should have completed threeyears as Superintendent as on 15.3.2007, the crucial date forconsideration and the charge under 17(b) for major penalty was issuedon 7.9.2006 and therefore, the petitioner’s name was not consideredfor the panel of Superintendents fit for promotion.4(a). It is stated that the name of the petitioner was includedin the panel of Motor Vehicle Inspector (Non-technical) for the year2007-2008 as per the directions issued by this Court, but thepetitioner could not be promoted because this Court held that byincluding the name of petitioner in the panel for promotion, it doesnot amount to automatic selection to the promotional post and due tothe reason that the petitioner was facing charges warranting majorpunishment, his name was deleted from the panel.4(b). It is stated that against the said order, the petitionerfiled W.P.No.27584 of 2007 which was dismissed on 10.12.2007. In themeantime, the charge sheet against the petitioner was approved on5.7.2007 and signed on 10.7.2007 and received by the petitioner on28.7.2007 through the Regional Transport Officer, Tiruvallur. It isalso admitted that the Division Bench in W.A.No.115 of 2008 byjudgment dated 10.4.2008 held that there was no motive on the part ofthe respondents.4(c). It is stated that the judgment of the Division Bench couldnot be implemented because it was against the service rules andscheme. Based on the judgment of the Supreme Court in ThiruC.O.Arumugam and others v. State of Tamil Nadu and others [(1989) 2SCC 1041], it is also stated that the Division Bench had not heldthat the charges are baseless and there was no direction to drop theproceedings. It is stated that the petitioner made an endorsement suomotu without obtaining approval of the Regional Transport Officer inwriting. 4(d). It is stated that the endorsement made providing parkingslot in Baghavathi Amman koil is an extension of the existing routeand therefore, it is treated as variation of permit conditions. It isalso denied that there is no evidence against the petitioner. It isstated that the Regional Transport Officer who is the competentauthority has never authorized the petitioner to make endorsement andthere is no violation of the principles of natural justice. 5. Subsequently, on behalf of the respondents, an affidavit wasfiled for withdrawing the counter affidavit dated 8.12.2009 with https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ liberty to file a fresh counter affidavit. In view of the same, thisCourt dismissed the vacate-stay petition as withdrawn, however,stating that the main counter affidavit would form part of therecords. This Court also permitted the respondents to file a freshaffidavit assigning proper reasons for necessary orders. The orderreads as under:“The learned counsel for the respondents seekspermission to withdraw the vacate stay petition and thecounter affidavit filed in support thereof. He has alsomade an endorsement to that effect. In view of theendorsement made by the learned counsel for therespondents, the vacate stay petition shall stand dismissedas withdrawn. However, the affidavit will remain on recordand the respondents are permitted to file a fresh affidavitfor proper reasons. Post for orders on 21.12.2009.”6. Accordingly, the respondents have filed a fresh counteraffidavit dated 18.12.2009. The change made in the counter affidavitappears to be in respect of paragraphs 13 and 14 of the originalcounter affidavit as elicited above. In paragraph 14 of the originalcounter affidavit, the respondents have stated that the judgment ofthe Division Bench is contrary to the rules and scheme of theGovernment with regard to the individual’s promotion and therefore,the order of the High Court could not be implemented, by referring tothe judgment of the Supreme Court in Thiru C.O.Arumugam and others v.State of Tamil Nadu and others [(1989) 2 SCC 1041]. However, in theamended counter affidavit it is stated that the feasibility of makingappeal against the judgment in W.A.No.115 of 2008 is underconsideration.7. Mr.Ravishanmugam, learned counsel for the petitioner wouldsubmit that the series of orders made by this Court in the writpetitions as well as the writ appeals show that the conduct of therespondent is to fix responsibility on the petitioner somehow orother so as to avoid implementation of the orders and when in respectof the Regional Transport Officer who was the superior officer thesame respondents dropped the proceedings on 15.3.2007 only withsevere warning, the proceedings in respect of the petitioner werecontinued which, according to the petitioner, is mala fide. The threecharges framed against the petitioner in the charge memo dated10.7.2007 are as follows:“CHARGE I.The Regional Transport Authority, Dindigul has grantedMini Bus permit from 13.10.2000 to 12.10.2005 in respect ofVehicle No.TN43/5589 authorized to ply in the route from“Thiruvavinankulam Thenkari to Chengalsoolai” with servedsector of 3.6 Kms and Unserved sector of 2.9 Kms. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Thiru E.Pitchaimari, while working as Assistant atRegional Transport Office, Dindigul has made additionalendorsement in the Minibus permits as “The vehicle shouldstop and to be parked at Bhagavathi Ammankoil WestKulakkarai near Roundana Municipality building(Mettupaguthi)”.By this illegal endorsement, the vehicle was permittedto ply with an extension of route to a distance of 0.4 Kmswithout any authority.Thiru E.Pitchaimari, the concerned Assistant at thattime has made this additional endorsement in the permits andthe endorsement has not been authorised by the competentauthority.The said additional endorsement has been cancelled bythe R.T.A. On 01.07.04.Thus, Thiru E.Pitchaimari, formerly Assistant and nowSuperintendent, in connivance with the permit holder of themini bus TN43/5589 caused the illegal operation of the saidbus on a route not authorised by the permit.CHARGE II.The Regional Transport Authority, Dindigul has grantedMinibus permit from 03.11.2000 to 02.11.2005 in respect ofVehicle No.TN27/F.9029 authorised to ply in the route from“Palani Vaiyapurikanmal South to Kollukulam Ranganathan KoilPatham” with served sector of 3.6 Kms and Unserved sector of5.4 Kms.Thiru E.Pitchaimari, while working as Assistant atRegional Transport Office, Dindigul has made additionalendorsement in the Minibus permits as “The vehicle shouldstop and to be parked at Bhagavathi Amman koil WestKulakkarai near Roundana Municipality building(Mettupaguthi).”By this illegal endorsement, the vehicle was permittedto ply with an extension of route to a distance of 0.6 Kmswithout any authority.Thiru E.Pitchaimari, the concerned Assistant at thattime has made this additional endorsement in the permits andthe endorsement has not been authorised by the competentauthority. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Further, by way of making this endorsement, he allowedthe operation of the mini bus by extending the served sectorof the route as 4.2 Kms which exceeds 4 Kms violating theguidelines prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.1475 Home (Tr.I) Dept.dated 28.10.98. Because of this, the mini bus lost itscharacter and was allowed to be operated as a regular StageCarriage.The said additional endorsement has been cancelled bythe Regional Transport Authority on 01.07.04.Thus, Thiru E.Pitchaimari, formerly Assistant and nowSuperintendent, in connivance with the permit holder of theminibus-TN 27 F 9029 caused the illegal operation of thesaid bus not authorised by the permit.CHARGE IIIBy making unauthorized entries in the permit of theminibus TN 27F 9029 the vehicle was allowed to ply 4.2 Kms(3.6+0.6) in the served sector which exceeded the permittedlimit of 4 Kms. Thus the character of the permit has beenlost and to be taken as a regular Stage Carriage for whichhigher rate of tax was required to be collected.Seating capacity25+2Rate of tax of the regular stage carriage per seat perquarter Rs.500x25=12500Rate of tax minibus per seat per quarterRs.200x25= 5000--------------------Difference of tax due per quarter Rs. 7500--------------------Difference of tax liablefor the period(3.11.2000 to 31.12.2000)Rs. 5000Difference of tax for the period from1.1.2001 to 30.6.2004Rs. 105000at the rate of Rs.7500 per quarter i.e. For 14 quarters---------------Total Rs. 110000---------------Tax with due penalty (Tax + 100% penalty) Rs.2,20,000 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Therefore, there is a loss of revenue to the tune ofRs.2,20,000/- to the Government by way of makingunauthorised endorsement in the permit. Thus he has failed to maintain absolute integrity anddevotion to duty thereby contravening the provisions of rule20(1) and (2) of TNGS conduct Rule 1973 and thus conductedhimself in a manner unbecoming of a Government Servant.”8. The enquiry officer in his report dated 4.3.2008 gave hisopinion that all the charges are not proved which is as follows:“I am of the opinion that the parking facility allowedearlier is withdrawn by Regional Transport Authority,Dindigul vide R.No.:A1/1809/2002 Dt.06.05.2002 it presumethat the above additional endorsement made in the permit ofthe Mini buses TN43 5589 and TN27F 9029 by ThiruE.Pitchaimari is with the knowledge of the RegionalTransport Authority, Dindigul and Regional TransportOfficer, Dindigul.The High Court, Chennai in its order in W.A.Nos.676and 677 of 2001 dated 29.1.2004 has observed that the mereendorsement made on the permit cannot amount to routevariation. But provide a parking slot for the buses nearthe Bhagavathi Amman Kovil to and fro without passengersafter emptying the passengers at the last stop.Therefore I am of the opinion that the High Court,Chennai it is ordered that the above endorsement made inthe permit only for the purpose of parking and not for theoperational services.(W.A.No.676 and 677/2001) Hence thereis no loss of revenue to Government.Hence all charges framed against Thiru E.Pitchaimariis not proved.”Therefore, the enquiry officer has taken the view that the additionalendorsement made in the permit was only with the knowledge of theRegional Transport Authority, Dindigul and the Regional TransportOfficer, Dindigul, and it would not amount to route variation and itwas for the purpose of parking slot and therefore, there was no lossof revenue. 9. In the impugned memo, the second respondent agreed that thefinding of the enquiry officer pertaining to charge No.3, as statedabove, which relates to monetary loss stated to have been caused tothe Government by the unauthorized endorsement. However, in respectof charge Nos.1 and 2 which relate to the additional endorsementstated to have been made by the petitioner, the second respondent https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ proposed that they would vary from the enquiry officer’s report. Thereason assigned for differing from enquiry officer’s report is thaton perusal of records, it is seen that the Regional TransportAuthority, Dindigul in his proceedings in R.No.A1/1809/2002 dated6.5.2002 cancelled the endorsement made by the petitioner for parkingfacility. Further, in the explanation dated 14.8.2007, the petitionerspecifically admitted that as per the instructions of the RegionalTransport Officer, the Personal Assistant had already signed thepermit and as an Assistant, the petitioner only carried out hissuperior’s instructions and this should be taken as the admission bythe petitioner. These are the reasons for proceeding against thepetitioner under the impugned memo.10. When the matter came up before the Division Bench earlier,considering the question whether the endorsement providing parkingslot in Bhagavathi Amman Koil would amount to extension of theexisting route, the Division Bench consisting of V.S.Sirpurkar,J.(asHe then was) and F.M.Ibrahim Kalifulla,J. in W.A.Nos.676 and 677 of2001 by judgment dated 29.1.2004 held as follows:“2. Learned counsel for the appellants say that theextension of the route was ultra vires the powers of theauthority ordering the same and, therefore, there would beno question of application of principle of acquiescence.When we have seen the order, it is seen that the learnedsingle Judge in both the matters has treated that as avariation of the route permits, the sense that the busescould ply with passengers beyond the route, i.e. UptoBaghavathy Amman Koil.3. We only clarify that this cannot amount to a routevariation. All that has been done by the concernedauthority is to provide a parking slot for the buses nearthe Baghavathy Amman Koil in the sense that there would beno passenger traffic in between the last point of the routeand Baghavathy Amman Koil, to and fro. All that the thirdrespondent would be entitled to would be to take theirbuses (without passengers) after emptying them at the laststop, to Baghavathy Amman Koil for being parked so also tobring the empty buses from there upto that spot. If thisis the view taken then, there will no extension of routeand hence no necessity to entertain the appeals. Withthese observations, the appeals are disposed of.CMP.Nos.5914 to 5916 of 2001 are closed.”11. In fact, the petitioner filed W.P.No.27584 of 2007 againstthe proceedings of the second respondent dated 3.8.2007 deleting thepetitioner’s name from the panel of Superintendents fit for promotionas Motor Vehicle Inspector (Non-technical) for the year 2007-2008 andwhen the writ petition came to be dismissed, in the writ appeal filed https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ by the petitioner in W.A.No.115 of 2008, by judgment dated 10.4.2008,the Division Bench consisting of P.K.Misra,J.(as He then was) andK.K.Sasidharan,J. while allowing the appeal, declared that thepetitioner should be deemed to have been promoted as Motor VehicleInspector (Non-technical) with effect from 28.6.2007 with allbenefits but, with a clarification that in the light of the enquiryofficer’s report, it is for the departmental authorities to concludethe departmental proceedings in accordance with law and in fact, theDivision Bench has stated that the allowing of the writ appeal doesnot stand in the way of the departmental authorities to conclude theproceedings in accordance with law. It is true that the DivisionBench reiterated the operative portion of the earlier judgment inW.A.Nos.676 and 677 of 2007 which is as follows:“9. It may be incidentally pointed out that so far asthe earlier charge memo is concerned, the RegionalTransport Officer, in his explanation, has stated that witha view to avoid traffic congestion, in consultation withthe Police and Transport Department, the said endorsementhad been made. On the basis of the said explanation, theproceedings against the Regional Transport Officer havebeen concluded on 15.3.2007 by issuing a severe warning.In the face of such conclusion of the departmentalproceedings in respect of the concerned Regional TransportOfficer, the allegation against the present appellant tothe effect that he had made certain endorsements withoutauthority obviously appears to be without any basis. As amatter of fact, from the files produced before us, itappears that the Enquiry Officer has also recommended thatthe charges against the appellant may be dropped. It isalso indicated that the endorsement was done with theknowledge of the Regional Transport Authority, Dindigul andRegional Transport Officer, Dindigul. It is furtherindicated in the enquiry report that there has been no lossof revenue to the Government. As a matter of fact, theDivision Bench, in Writ Appeal Nos.676 and 677 of 2001,while dealing with offending endorsement, by judgementdated 29.1.2004, had observed as hereunder:3. We only clarify that this cannot amountto a route variation. All that has been done bythe concerned authority is to provide a parkingslot for the buses near the Baghavathy Amman Koilin the sense that there would be no passengertraffic in between the last point of the routeand Baghavathy Amman Koil, to and fro. All thatthe third respondent would be entitled to wouldbe to take their buses (without passengers) afteremptying them at the last stop, to BaghavathyAmman Koil for being parked so also to bring the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ empty buses from there upto that spot. 10. However, it is not necessary for us to finallydecide the above aspect as it is for the departmentalauthorities to consider all relevant aspects and decide asto whether they should proceed further in the matter.11. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is allowedand it is directed that the appellant shall be deemed tohave been promoted with effect from 28.6.2007 and shall beentitled to all consequential benefits including salary.It is clarified that this order will not stand in the wayof the departmental authorities to conclude thedepartmental proceedings in accordance with law.”12. Therefore, the Division Bench held that ultimately it is forthe departmental authorities to consider all relevant aspects anddecide as to whether they should proceed further in the matter.Admittedly, at the time when the Division Bench gave the judgment,the enquiry officer’s report dated 4.3.2008 was already available andthe same was considered by the Division Bench in paragraph 9 of thejudgment as elicited above and having considered the enquiryofficer’s report, the Division Bench left it open to the departmentto decide whether to proceed with the enquiry or not. 13. In the light of the above said judgment of the DivisionBench, I do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned memoissued by the second respondent. There is no violation of the orderof the Court even if it is true that the third charge in respect ofwhich the petitioner stands exonerated, also related to charge Nos.1and 2. It is for the petitioner to explain the same in his objectionsto the impugned show cause notice. In respect of permission to plythe bus up to Baghavathy Amman Temple, the Division Bench has nodoubt held that it is only for parking slot and not for the purposeof extension of permit. It is ultimately for the respondents todecide the same in the light of the above said clinchingcircumstances which are no doubt in favour of the petitioner. In theimpugned memo, the second respondent only intends to differ from thefindings of the enquiry officer for charge Nos.1 and 2 which cannotbe stated to be either perverse or illegal. In any event, under theimpugned memo, the petitioner has only been directed to give hisrepresentation for the proposal and it is always open to thepetitioner to explain his case to the respondent. In such case, thisCourt is of the view that the second respondent would consider thesaid explanation in its proper perspective and pass appropriateorders uninfluenced by any other facts including the earlier counteraffidavit and the contents therein.14. As far as the finality of the order of the Division Benchproviding promotion to the petitioner, there is no second opinion and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the said judgment of the Division Bench has to be implemented by therespondents, of course, subject to other legal impediments,especially in the light of the stand taken by the respondents in theamended counter affidavit that the Government is considering thefeasibility of filing appeal, etc. In such view of the matter, I donot see any reason to interfere with the impugned charge memo issuedby the second respondent. However, the petitioner is directed to giveexplanation to the impugned memo and such explanation shall be givenwithin a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy ofthis order and the second respondent shall take the said explanationin its proper perspective and in the light of various discussionsabove, pass appropriate orders on merit and in accordance with lawexpeditiously, in any event within a period of eight weeks afterreceipt of explanation form the petitioner as stated above. With the above direction, the writ petition stands dismissed.No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.Sd/-Asst. Registrar//true copy//Sub Asst.RegistrarKhTo1.Mr.C.P.Singh,I.A.S. Special Commissioner and Transport Commissioner Chepauk, Chennai 600 009.2.The Transport CommissionerChepauk, Chennai 600 005.2 cc to M/s.Ravi Shanmugam, Advocate, Sr.No.12044Order in W.P.No.17962 of 2008TP/3.3.2010.