Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4174 OF 2003

Union of India & Ors. …. Appellants

Versus

Gyan Chand Chattar …. Respondent

J U D G M E N T

Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.  

1. This  appeal  has  been  preferred  against  the  judgment  and  

order of the Division Bench of Gujarat High Court at Ahmedabad  

passed  in  Letters  Patent  Appeal  No.25  of  1983  by  which  while  

affirming the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated  

27.12.1982  passed  in  Special  Civil  Application  No.101  of  1982  

allowed the cross objections filed by the respondent-employee and  

set  aside  the  order  giving liberty  to  the  disciplinary  authority  to  

pass a fresh order of minor punishment on two charges.

2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that  

the respondent-employee Gyan Chand Chattar was appointed in the  

Western Railway as Shroff in the Department of Pay and Cash in  

the  scale  of  Rs.260-400  w.e.f.  8.2.1971  vide  official  letter  dated  

8.2.1971.  He was thereafter posted as Cashier in the year 1977 in  

the pay-scale of Rs.330-480.  He was served a charge sheet dated  

8.4.1980 containing 6 charges that he traveled in the train in First  

Class on 24.11.1979  though he was not entitled to travel in that  

class;  refused  to  arrange  payment  of  certain  amount  to  the  

employees  against  bills  dated  12.11.1979;  16.11.1979  and  

21.11.1979; while  on duty on 24.11.1979 travelling in 1st Class  

compartment of the Train, played cards with RPF Rakshaks; that on  

24.11.1979 the train in which he was traveling was detained by the  

agitators,  railway  staff  who  demanded  payment  of  their  pay  

allowance, he acted extremely irresponsibly and made no attempt to  

convince  them  about  his  difficulties;  refused  to  receive  “Control  

Message”/”Memo”  from  the  superior  officer  and   wanted  

commission of 1%  for payment of pay allowance to the employees.  

2

3. During the course of enquiry both parties led evidence, oral as  

well  as   documentary.   The   Enquiry  Officer  completed   the  

enquiry  and    submitted  its    report    dated  22.4.1981    to    the  

disciplinary     authority        holding  all     six  charges proved  

against the said respondent-employee.  The disciplinary authority  

agreeing  with  the  findings  recorded  by  the  Enquiry  Officer  and  

considering  the  reply  to  the  enquiry  report  submitted  by  the  

delinquent  employee,  passed  the  order  of  punishment  dated  

2.5.1981 removing the respondent from service.  His appeal against  

the  said  order  was  allowed  partly  by  the  statutory  appellate  

authority – Financial adviser and Chief Accounts Officer, Western  

Railway,  Churchgate,  Bombay  vide  order  dated  10.11.1981  

reducing the punishment of removal from service to reversion of the  

respondent  to  the  lower  post  of  clerk,  Grade-II  in  the  scale  of  

Rs.260-400(R) until he was found fit by the competent authority for  

being considered for the cashier post in the scale of Rs.330-560 (R).  

4. Being aggrieved the respondent-employee challenged the order  

of punishment by filing Special Civil Application No.101 of 1982 in  

the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad and the same was allowed  

3

vide  judgment  and  order  dated  27.12.1982  wherein  the  learned  

Single  Judge  after  appreciating  the  entire  evidence  came  to  the  

conclusion that only charge which could be found proved against  

the respondent-employee was not receiving the memo of superiors  

as alleged in charge numbers 4 & 5 against him.  All other charges  

were found unproved.  Learned Single Judge issued a direction to  

the  disciplinary  authority  to  pass  a  fresh  order  imposing  minor  

punishment on the said proved charge nos.4 & 5 for not accepting  

the “memo” sent by the superiors.   

5. Being  aggrieved  the  Union  of  India  filed  the  Letters  Patent  

Appeal No.25 of 1983 challenging the judgment and order of the  

learned Single Judge which has been dismissed vide judgment and  

order  dated 1.5.2002.   However,  the  Division Bench allowed the  

counter objections filed by the respondent to the extent that the  

direction given by the learned Single Judge to impose minor penalty  

on charge numbers 4 & 5 was also set aside.  However, considering  

the  facts  and  circumstances  of  the  case,  the  Division  Bench  

directed that respondent would be entitled to get 50% of the back-

4

wages  with  all  consequential  benefits  including  retrial  benefits.  

Hence, this appeal.  

6. Mr. SWA Qadri, learned counsel appearing for the appellants  

submitted that there was no scope of interference by the High Court  

in exercise of its limited powers of judicial review against the finding  

of facts recorded by the enquiry officer, approved by the disciplinary  

authority and confirmed by the Appellate Authority.  It was a case  

of gross indiscipline and of corruption. Six charges against the said  

employee including the demand of 1% commission for making the  

payment of pay allowances stood proved. Punishment order passed  

by the appellate authority did not warrant any interference.  More  

so there could be no justification for the Division Bench allowing  

the counter objections filed by the respondent employee, quashing  

the direction given by the learned Single Judge to the disciplinary  

authority to pass an order of minor punishment on charge nos. 4 &  

5.  Therefore, appeal deserves to be allowed.  

7. On  the  contrary,  Shri  Bhargava  V.  Desai,  learned  counsel  

appearing  for  the  respondent-employee  submitted  that  the  High  

5

Court after appreciating the entire evidence reached the conclusion  

that there was no occasion for the disciplinary authority to initiate  

the disciplinary proceedings and there was no evidence on the basis  

of which any of the charges leveled against him could be held to  

have been proved.   The High Court  rightly  quashed the order of  

punishment passed by the statutory authorities. Division Bench of  

the High Court set aside the direction to the disciplinary authority  

to pass a fresh order of minor punishment, as a period of twenty  

years had elapsed and delinquent had suffered from mental agony  

and harassment  Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.  

8. We have considered the  rival  submissions made by learned  

counsel for the parties and perused the record.  

9. The  disciplinary  authority  framed  the  following  charges  

against the respondent-employee.

“1. You  have  traveled  in  First  Class  on  24.11.1979  by  47  DN.   When you are not entitled to this case.  

2. You refused to arrange payment of the following amounts to the   following employees against  bill  bearing No.C06 No.EBS/186  dated  12.11.1979,  C06  No.EBS/40  dated  16.11.1979,  PMR  No.2145 dated 21.11.1979, when the staff approached you for  the said payment:

6

a) Vana Anop. P. Man  Rs.476.65

b) Mohan Jetha -do-  Rs.211.05

c) Kesha Bhika -do-  Rs.298.00

d) Raiji Mansukh T/S Rs.256.90

e) Bechav Mansing. -do- Rs.175.00

f) Manoo M. -do- Rs.265.75

g) Soma Salu P. Man Rs. 92.75

3. While  you  were  on  duty  on  24.11.1979,  in  1st Class  compartment  train  No.  47  DN.  you  played  cards  with  RPF  Rakshaks on duty.  This was contrary to rules 3(i) (ii) and 3(i)   (iii) of Railway Service Conduct Rules, 1966 – in that you have  shown  absolutely  lack  of  devotion  to duty and your conduct   was unbecoming of a Railway Servant.  

4. On 24.11.1979 at about 11.00 hrs. the train No. 47 DN.   was  detained  by  agitators,  Railway  staff  who  demanded  payment of  their  pay allowance  covered under PMR No.2145  dated 20.11.1979.  Even after knowing about this detention as   a Railway men you acted extremely irresponsibly and made no  attempt to convince them about your difficulties.  On the other   hand  you  refused  to  receive  “Control  Message”/Memo”  from  DOS leading to greater detention of the train.  

5. In the back ground of detention of train brought out under  charge No.4 Sr.  DAO/BRC was  contacted  by control  and  he  wanted you to speak to him in control.   When you were told  about this and were handed over control  message/ memo to   this  effect  –  you  refused  to  accept  the  said  memo  thereby  sowing  a great  sense  of  irresponsibility,  lack  of  duty and  a  willful disobedience of orders of your superiors.  

6. It is also alleged by the staff of Chandodia station that   you  refused  to  make  payment  to  the  concerned  staff  on  24.11.1979 because you wanted  a commission of  1% on the   arrears which the staff were unwilling to pay.  Your refusal to  make  the  payment  on  the  said  day  and  the  consequent   agitations  and  detention  of  train  arose  from  your  alleged  

7

malafide  intention  of  receiving  commission  on  the  arrears  payment.”

10. Enquiry Officer found all the six charges proved against the  

delinquent.  The disciplinary  authority  agreed with those findings  

and imposed the  punishment of removal from service which was  

modified  by  the  appellate  authority  imposing  the  punishment  of  

reversion to lower rank.. The learned Single Judge dealt with all the  

issues elaborately. The judgment runs to 140 pages.   

11. In order to appreciate the facts in correct perspective, it may  

be  necessary  to  make  reference  to  the  findings  recorded  by  the  

learned Single Judge and the grounds on which the opinion had  

been formed.  So far as Issue No.1 is concerned, after appreciating  

the evidence, the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that  

the respondent had been asked by the higher authorities to travel  

by 47 DN. known as Viramgam passenger for disbursing the cash  

as the regular  disbursing cashier  was ill.   Thus,  the  respondent  

employee had traveled in first  class compartment.   However,  the  

said charge could not have been held proved unless a finding of fact  

was recorded by the Enquiry Officer or the disciplinary authority  

8

that  he  was  not  entitled  to  travel  in  first  class  compartment.  

Certain  circulars  had  been  referred  to  and  relied  upon  by  the  

respondent-employee  that  for  a  person  performing  such  a  duty,  

there  has to be reservation in second class  compartment by the  

railway department itself; otherwise he would be entitled to travel in  

first class compartment.  As the second component of the issue, i.e.  

as to whether the respondent was entitled to travel  in first class  

compartment or not had not been dealt with at all,  the first charge  

could not be held to have been proved.  The learned Single Judge  

held that as per the submissions made by the respondent employee  

before the department in the enquiry and in the memo of appeal  

that he was entitled to travel by first class compartment to facilitate  

safety of the cash and its transaction and nothing contrary having  

been proved,  it was not a charge in which it could be held that the  

railway  employee  committed  a  misconduct  warranting  major  

punishment of removal from service or reduction in rank in such  

facts  and  circumstances.  The  learned  Single  Judge  reached  the  

following conclusion:

“it must be held that so far as charge No.1 is concerned, it is   not established on the record of this case in the light of the evidence   led before the inquiry officer and even on the basis  of the findings   

9

arrived at by him on that charge.  … ….. …. … the findings arrived at   by the inquiry officer on charge No.1 do not show that all the basic   requirements and ingredients of charge No.1 have been brought home  to the petitioner and on the contrary, the ultimate finding on charge   No.1 as arrived at by the inquiry officer is not supported by evidence   on record and is totally perverse.  Consequently, it must be held that   charge No.1 is not legally proved against the petitioner.”

12. So far as the Charge No. 2 is concerned, learned Single Judge  

referred  to  the  departmental  circulars  particularly  office  circular  

No.23 of 1969 which provided that the disbursement of amount of  

more  than  Rs.500/-  could  not  be  made  without  securing  the  

presence of a Gazetted Officer to witness the payment.  During the  

transaction, the respondent employee made his stand clear that as  

no Gazetted Officer was available at Chandlodia, the disbursement  

was  not  permissible  and  the  learned  Single  Judge  came  to  the  

conclusion that mere error of judgment or lack of tact on the part of  

the  employee  could  not  make  him  liable  to  face  disciplinary  

proceeding in such circumstances.  Therefore, the charge No.2 was  

not found to be proved.  

13. The charge No.3 has been dealt with elaborately by the learned  

Single Judge and came to the conclusion that the findings recorded  

by the Enquiry Officer that respondent was playing cards with RPF  

10

Raksaks  while  making  disbursement  of  the  amount  was  totally  

baseless as the evidence at the most could be that in the course of  

journey towards his destination the respondent to while-away time  

played cards with RPF Raksaks.  That could not be a conduct of  

unbecoming of a railway employee on duty as Rule 3(i) (ii) and (iii)  

of  Railway  Services  Conduct  Rules,  1966  provided  that  every  

railway employee shall (i) maintain absolute integrity ; (ii) maintain  

devotion to  duty;  and (iii)  do  nothing which is  unbecoming of  a  

railway  or  Government  servant.   Thus,  the  conclusion  was  that  

there was no evidence to support the charge against him as the  

respondent did nothing which may fell within the mischief of either  

of the above clauses of  Rule 3 of the Rules 1966.  

14. The charge no.4 had been that the respondent-employee had  

shown extreme irresponsibility and made no attempt to convince  

the  agitators,  Railway staff  who demanded payment  of  their  pay  

allowance and did not receive the control  message.  The learned  

Single Judge came to the conclusion that so far as the first part of  

the allegation is concerned he may be failing in being tactful but it  

cannot be a case of misconduct and on his count, no disciplinary  

11

proceeding could be initiated against him.  However, he was found  

guilty of not receiving the “control message”.  

15. Charge  No.5  was  also  found to  be  proved  as  the  employee  

refused to receive the “message”/ “memo” of his superiors.   

16. So  far  as  charge  no.6  i.e.  asking  for  1%  commission  for  

making the payment of pay allowances is concerned, the learned  

Single  Judge  has  appreciated  the  evidence  of  all  the  witnesses  

examined in  this  regard  and came to  the  conclusion that  not  a  

single  person  had  deposed  before  the  Enquiry  Officer  that  the  

respondent employee had asked any person to pay 1% commission  

for making payment of their allowances.  It was based on hearsay  

statements.   All  the  witnesses  stated   that  this  could  be  the  

motive/reason for not making the payment.  Such a serious charge  

of corruption requires to be proved to the hilt as it brings civil and  

criminal consequences upon the concerned employee.  He would be  

liable to be prosecuted and would also be liable to suffer severest  

penalty awardable in such cases.  Therefore, such a grave charge of  

quasi  criminal  nature  was  required  to  be  proved  beyond  any  

12

shadow of  doubt  and to  the  hilt.   It  cannot  be  proved on mere  

probabilities. Witnesses were examined before the Enquiry Officer  

that they have heard that the said respondent was asking but none  

of them was able to point out who was that person who had been  

asked to pay 1% commission. One of such witnesses deposed that  

some unknown person had told him.  Learned Single Judge came to  

the conclusion that the knowledge of the witnesses in this regard  

was based on “hearsay statement of some unknown persons whom  

they did not know”.  This was certainly not legal evidence to sustain  

such a serious charge of corruption against an employee.   

17. Thus,  the  writ  petition  was  disposed  of  directing  the  

disciplinary authority to impose a minor penalty on the charges  of  

not receiving the control message/memo.  

18. The Division Bench after considering the facts involved herein,  

came to the conclusion that the findings of fact  recorded by the  

learned Single Judge did not warrant any interference being based  

on  evidence  available  on  record.  As  a  long  time  of  about  two  

decades had elapsed and the respondent employee was not granted  

13

any benefit of the judgment and order of the learned single Judge  

and it was a case of no evidence except on charge nos.4 & 5 and the  

said employee had already suffered a lot, the matter should come to  

an end. The court issued the following directions.  

“it  would  be  just  and  reasonable  to  direct  the  appellants   authorities to pay 50% of the back wages and all the consequential   benefits  including  the  retiral  benefits  without  further imposing  any  minor penalty as directed by the learned Single Judge.”

19. We  have  considered  the  aforesaid  findings  recorded  by  the  

Courts below in the light of the evidence on record.  Admittedly, all  

the charges except Charge No. 2 are in respect of various incidents  

occurred on the same date i.e. on 24.11.1979.  Charge No. 2 related  

to  the  incidents  dated  12.11.1979,  16.11.1979  and  21.11.1979  

which had been in close proximity of subsequent incidents occurred  

on 24.11.1979.  The Enquiry Officer while dealing with Charge No.  

1  held  that  respondent  employee  did  not  travel  in  second  class  

compartment as admittedly there was no reservation for him in that  

class.  The Enquiry Officer failed to examine the issue further as to  

whether  in such a fact  situation,  the respondent was entitled to  

travel  in  first  class.   Thus,  on  Charge  No.  1,  enquiry  was  not  

14

complete.   Thus,  no  finding  could  be  recorded  holding  the  

respondent guilty of  misconduct on this count.  

20. On 2nd Charge, explanation  furnished by the respondent  that  

it was not possible for him to disburse the pay and allowances in  

the absence of  a Gazetted Officer as it was more than Rs.500/-,  

was worth acceptance in the light of circulars issued by the Railway  

itself.   Therefore,  refusal  to  disburse  the  pay  allowances  by  the  

delinquent could not be  termed as misconduct.

21. Charge  No.  3  was  in  respect  of  playing  cards  with  RPF  

Raksaks  during  disbursement  of  pay  and  allowances.   The  

delinquent was found playing cards during the course of journey  

but  there  had  been  no  actual  disbursement  of  any  pay  and  

allowances to anyone at the relevant time.  Therefore, the Enquiry  

Officer has not considered the issue in correct perspective.   

22. Charge  No.  4  &  5   have  partly  been  found  proved  by  the  

learned Single Judge to the extent that he refused to accept the  

15

‘control  message’/’memo’.   But  for  that  also,  major  punishment  

could not be  imposed.

23. Charge No. 6 was basically based on hearsay statement and it  

is difficult to assume as to whether enquiry could be held on such a  

vague charge.  The Charge No. 6 does not reveal as who was the  

person  who  had  been  asked  by  the  respondent  to  pay  1%  

commission  for   payment  of  pay  allowances.   It  is  an  admitted  

position that if  a charge of  corruption is  proved,  no punishment  

other that dismissal can be awarded.

24. In Municipal Committee, Bahadurgarh v. Krishnan Bihari &  

Ors., AIR 1996 SC 1249, this Court held as under:

“In a case of such nature – indeed, in cases involving corruption –   there cannot be any other punishment than dismissal.  Any sympathy   shown  in  such cases  is  totally  uncalled  for and opposed to public  interest.  The amount misappropriated may be small or large; it is the   act of misappropriation that is relevant.”

25. Similar view has been reiterated by this Court in  Ruston &  

Hornsby (I)  Ltd. v.  T.B. Kadam,  AIR 1975 SC 2025;  U.P. State  

Road  Transport  Corporation v.  Basudeo  Chaudhary  &  Anr.,  

(1997)  11  SCC  370;  Janatha  Bazar  South  Kanara  Central  

16

Cooperative Wholesale Stores Ltd. & Ors. v. Secreatry, Sahakari  

Noukarar  Sangha  &  Ors.  (2000)  7  SCC  517;  Karnataka  State  

Road Transport Corporation v. B.S. Hullikatty, AIR 2001 SC 930;  

Regional Manager, R.S.R.T.C.  v. Ghanshyam Sharma, (2002) 10  

SCC 330; Divisional Controller N.E.K.R.T.C. v.  H. Amaresh, AIR  

2006 SC 2730; and  U.P.S.R.T.C. v.  Vinod Kumar, (2008) 1 SCC  

115 wherein it has been held that the punishment should always be  

proportionate to gravity of the misconduct.  However, in a case of  

corruption,  the  only  punishment  is  dismissal  from  service  

Therefore,  the  charge  of  corruption  must  always  be  dealt  with  

keeping in mind that it has both civil and criminal consequences.

26. In  Surath   Chandra  Chakravarty v.  The  State  of  West  

Bengal, AIR 1971 SC 752, this Court held that it is not permissible  

to hold an enquiry on a vague charge as the same does not give a  

clear picture to the delinquent to make an effective defence because  

he may not be aware as what is the allegation against him and what  

kind of defence he can put in rebuttal thereof.  This Court observed  

as under :

17

“The  grounds  on  which  it  is  proposed  to  take  action  have  to  be  reduced to the form of a definite charge or charges which have to be  communicated to the person charged together with a statement of the   allegations  on  which  each  charge  is  based  and  any  other   circumstance which it is proposed to be taken into consideration in  passing orders has to be stated.  This rule embodies a principle which   is one of the specific contents of a reasonable or and definitely what   the allegations are on which the charges preferred against  him are  founded,  he  cannot  possibly,  by  projecting  his  own  imagination,   discover  all  the  facts  and  circumstances  that  may  be  in  the   contemplation  of  the  authorities  to  be  established  against  him.”   (Emphasis added)

27. In  a  case  where  the  charge-sheet  is  accompanied  with  the  

statement of facts and the allegation may not be specific in charge-

sheet but may be crystal clear from the statement of charges, in  

such a situation as both constitute the same document, it may not  

be held that as the charge was not specific, definite and clear, the  

enquiry stood vitiated. (Vide State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. vs. S.  

Sree Rama Rao, AIR 1963 SC 1723).  Thus, where a delinquent is  

served a charge-sheet  without giving specific  and definite  charge  

and  no statement  of  allegation  is  served  along  with  the  charge-

sheet,  the  enquiry  stands  vitiated  as  having  been  conducted  in  

violation of the principles of natural justice.

28. In Sawai Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1986 SC 995, this  

Court held that even in a domestic enquiry,  the charge must be  

18

clear, definite and specific as it would be difficult for any delinquent  

to  meet  the  vague  charges.   Evidence  adduced  should  not  be  

perfunctory  even if  the  delinquent  does  not  take  the  defence  or  

make a protest against that the charges are vague, that does not  

save the enquiry from being vitiated for the reason that there must  

be fair-play in action, particularly, in respect of an order involving  

adverse or penal consequences.

29. In view of the above, law can be summarized that an enquiry  

is to be conducted against any person giving strict adherence to the  

statutory provisions and principles of natural justice.  The charges  

should be specific, definite and giving details of the incident which  

formed the basis of charges.  No enquiry can be sustained on  vague  

charges.  Enquiry has to be conducted fairly, objectively and not  

subjectively. Finding should not be perverse or unreasonable, nor  

the same should be based on conjunctures and surmises.  There is  

a distinction in proof and suspicion.  Every act or omission  on the  

part  of  the delinquent cannot be a misconduct     The authority  

must record reasons for arriving at the finding of fact in the context  

of the statute defining the misconduct.

19

30. In  fact,  initiation  of  the  enquiry  against  the  respondent  

appears to be the outcome of anguish of  superior officers as there  

had been agitation by the Railway staff demanding the payment of  

pay and allowances and they detained the train illegally and there  

has been too much hue and cry for several  hours on the Railway  

Station.  The Enquiry Officer has taken into consideration the non-

existing material and failed to consider the relevant material and  

finding of all facts recorded by him cannot be sustained in the eyes  

of law.

31. There could be no case of  substantial misdemeanour  against  

the respondent on either of the aforesaid charges except Charge No.  

6  on which major  penalty  could  be  imposed.    Charge  No.  6 is  

totally  vague  and  no  enquiry  could  be  conducted  against  the  

respondent on such a charge.  It was basically a case of no evidence  

on any charge except Charge Nos. 4 & 5.   

32. In fact, it was a simple case where the respondent employee  

failed to prove to be a tactful person or possessing a high standard  

20

administrative capability or firmness or a man of possessing quality  

of leadership.  It might be a case of his indecisiveness or lack of  

presence  of  mind.  It  cannot  be  held  that  any  of  the  aforesaid  

charges  except  Charge  No.  6,  may  warrant  imposition  of  major  

punishment of removal.  Thus, no interference is required in the  

matter.

33. The Division Bench, after considering the fact that already 20  

years has lapsed and judgment of the learned Single Judge has not  

be complied with, considered it better to close the chapter awarding  

him 50% of the back wages and granted all consequential benefits  

including the retiral   benefits.

34. Today, the situation has become worst.  About three decades  

have elapsed; the respondent has not been paid his pay since the  

date  of  his  suspension  i.e.  29.11.1980,  facing  the  disciplinary  

proceedings and litigation, he reached the age of superannuation  

long back.   Thus,  it  is  in the interest  of  justice  that his mental  

agony and harassment should come to an end.

21

35. Therefore,  we  dispose  of  the  appeal  directing  the  present  

appellant to pay 50% of the pay and allowances without interest till  

the respondent reached the age of superannuation and arrears of  

retiral benefits with 9% interest to the respondent-employee within  

a period of three months from today.  

…………………………………….J. (Dr. Mukundakam Sharma)

…………………………………….J. (Dr. B.S. Chauhan)

New Delhi; 28th May, 2009.

22

23

Digital Proforma

1. Case No. : Civil Appeal No. 4174 of 2003

2. Date of decision : 28.5.2009

3. Cause Title : Union of India & Ors. vs.

Gyan Chand Chattar

4. Coram : Hon’ble Dr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma Hon’ble Dr. Justice B.S. Chauhan

5. Date of C.A.V. : 21.5.2009

6. Judgment delivered : Hon’ble Dr. Justice B.S. Chauhan by

7. Nature of Judgment : Reportable whether reportable

24