Telangana High Court
K. Kranthi Kumar Code No. 30618 vs Union Bank Of India on 23 January, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI
WRIT PETITION NO.1817 OF 2021
ORDER
In this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a Writ of Mandamus
declaring the impugned dismissal orders passed by the respondent No.3
vide his proceedings No.666120/V/T1854/ 377, dated 29.08.2019 based
on the charge memo vide Lr.No.666/20/V/T-1854/CS/2/25, dated
27.07.2018 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the service regulations
and also the order of the respondent No.4/Appellate Authority vide
proceedings No.666/20N/T-1854/742, dated 27.12.2019 confirming the
punishment order as illegal and to set aside the same and further to
direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of
service and all other attendant benefits including the arrears of salary
from the date of suspension i.e., dated 07.04.2018 till the date of
reinstatement by awarding interest @ 12% per annum on such arrears of
salary forthwith and to pass such other order or orders in the interest of
justice.
W.P.No.1817 of 2021
2
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are that
the petitioner participated in the selection process of probationary
officer in the year 2012 and was selected to Andhra Bank and was
initially posted as Probationary Officer at Puttaparthy branch in
Ananthapuram District, Andhra Pradesh and worked there from May,
2013 to June, 2014, where the petitioner was not dealing with any loan
transactions. Thereafter, the petitioner’s services were confirmed by
declaring his probation and he was transferred and posted as Assistant
Manager to Hagari Bommanahalli Branch, Hospet Taluk, Bellary
District, Karnataka State in June, 2014. It is submitted that the
petitioner’s duties as an Assistant Manager were to issue DDs, Cheques,
RTGS, etc., but it did not include dealing with or sanctioning of loans
nor releasing of loan amounts.
3. Thereafter, the petitioner was transferred from Hagari
Bommanahalli branch to Seethammapet, Palakonda Mandal, Srikakulam
District, Andhra Pradesh, where he worked for one month and was again
transferred to Bhyripuram branch, Cheepurupalli Mandal, Vizianagaram
District, Andhra Pradesh and he worked there till the date of receiving
of the impugned charge memo dated 07.04.2018.
W.P.No.1817 of 2021
3
4. It is submitted that the charges in the charge memo were that
while the petitioner was working at Hagari Bommanahalli branch,
Karnataka State, there were certain financial irregularities committed by
him, but the details of the alleged irregularities were not mentioned
therein. Thereafter, another letter dated 11.09.2018 was issued stating
that the respondent No.5 i.e., Sri L.V.Ramana Rao, the Senior Manager,
was appointed as Enquiry Officer. Vide letter dated 27.07.2018, the
disciplinary authority raised about 26 charges against the petitioner
alleging that he has committed financial irregularities while he was
working as the Assistant Manager at Hagari Bommanahalli branch,
Karnataka State. According to the petitioner, these 26 charges were not
directly connected to the petitioner’s duties. The petitioner claims to
have submitted a detailed reply dated 07.08.2018 to the said charges
denying his direct involvement in such transactions as he was working
as the Assistant Manager under the supervision and guidance of the
Branch Manager Sri K.Gopala Krishna Rao, who was responsible for all
the charges made against him. The Presenting Officer Sri K.Appala
Raju, Manager, Andhra Bank Head Office has submitted his
presentation copy before the Enquiry Officer by serving a copy to the
petitioner on 09.12.2018 and the petitioner was given permission to
W.P.No.1817 of 2021
4
engage any one of the officers of the bank as his defence officer. The
petitioner engaged the services of Sri D.V.Ranga Rao, the Chief
Manager, Training, Visakhapatnam, as his defence officer and submitted
his defence statement dated 10.12.2018. Thereafter, the petitioner
received another report from Credit Monitoring and Review
Department, Andhra Bank, Zonal Office, Hubli, vide Letter
No.2718/26/IAS/920/18-19, dated 05.01.2019, requiring the petitioner
to submit his views to the observations made in the said report. In the
said report, charges were only with regard to the seven loans said to
have been issued by the Hagari Bommanahalli branch, in which certain
irregularities were found. The petitioner submitted his reply dated
18.01.2019 stating that as far as his duty as Assistant Manager is
concerned, he was not responsible and for any of the irregularities and
that, it is the Branch Manager, who was wholly and solely responsible
for the same. He also placed reliance upon Clause 3(3) of the Bank
Officer Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations, 1976, now Union Bank of
India Regulations, wherein it is provided that no officer employee shall,
in the performance of his official duties or in the exercise of powers
conferred on him, act otherwise than in his best judgment except when
he is acting under the directions of his superior official. It is submitted
W.P.No.1817 of 2021
5
that since the petitioner was newly appointed in Hagari Bommanahalli
branch after declaration of his probation and was also new officer in the
said branch, he was very honest in discharging his duties and that the
then Manager of Andhra Bank, Hagari Bommanahalli branch, Sri
K.Gopala Krishna Rao who was also charged with the same allegations,
was simply transferred to Hubli Zonal Officer, whereas the petitioner
was put under suspension and the enquiry was prolonged with ulterior
an motive to save the said Branch Manager Sri K.Gopala Krishna Rao
and the petitioner was made a scapegoat and the major punishment of
dismissal from service was awarded, which is illegal, arbitrary and
unconstitutional. It is submitted that the authorities did not consider the
detailed explanation submitted by the petitioner to each and every
charge levelled against him. He also submitted that the charges levelled
by the Credit Monitoring and Review Department, Zonal Office, Hubli,
were limited to seven loan transactions only, whereas the impugned
charges levelled were about 26, which was only an afterthought to save
the then Branch Manager Sri K.Gopala Krishna Rao and that he was
allowed to retire unconditionally in February, 2020. It is submitted that
certain alleged loans, when sanctioned, were not on bank working days.
It is submitted that the Enquiry Officer has not looked into the
W.P.No.1817 of 2021
6
explanation submitted by the petitioner and to the enquiry report of the
respondent No.3 dt.11.03.2019 and that the petitioner again submitted a
detailed explanation to each and every charge levelled against him. It is
alleged that even the disciplinary authority has not taken the said
explanation into consideration under the influence of the then Branch
Manager Sri K.Gopala Krishna Rao, the impugned dismissal order was
passed. It is submitted that the petitioner preferred an appeal before the
respondent No.4 on 24.09.2019, but the same was dismissed by
reiterating the reasons given in the dismissal order without giving any
independent findings on the contentions raised by the petitioner and
therefore, it is alleged that the impugned order is partisan and is without
any application of mind. It is submitted that though the appeal was
dismissed vide order dated 27.12.2019, the petitioner could not approach
the Court immediately due to Covid-19 pandemic and also due to
financial problems and he therefore, prayed to set aside the dismissal
order and also the order of the appellate authority confirming the
dismissal order. He has raised the following grounds in support of his
contentions:
(i) the alleged 26 charges mentioned in the charge memo are in
respect of certain financial irregularities which are not directly
W.P.No.1817 of 2021
7connected to the petitioner’s duties and the charges are also contrary to
the Service Regulations;
(ii) as per the Bank Officers’ Service Regulations, the sanctioning
of loans, etc., are the duties of the Branch Manager and the petitioner
was working only as an Assistant Manager at Hagari Bommanahalli
branch at the relevant point of time and therefore, he was in no way
concerned with such transactions except for forwarding the same as per
the instructions of the Branch Manager;
(iii) the respondents, while dealing with the disciplinary
proceedings against the petitioner vis-à-vis against the Branch Manager
Sri K.Gopala Krishna Rao, have discharged the said Branch Manager
without any proceeding and without any further action against him and
made the petitioner a scapegoat which was nothing but clear violation of
Article 14 of the Constitution of India and therefore, the entire
disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner are vitiated and
the same are unconstitutional and are liable to be set aside as it is also
prejudicial to the interest of the petitioner.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the above
submissions made in the writ affidavit and has drawn the attention of
W.P.No.1817 of 2021
8
this Court to all the relevant documents in support of his contentions. He
also filed a comparative table of the charges and the petitioner’s
submissions thereon in the form of paper book on 08.04.2024.
6. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand,
relied upon the averments made in the counter affidavit and submitted
that the petitioner has not approached the Court with clean hands and
therefore, the writ petition has to be dismissed in limine as not
maintainable and that there is no violation of any rule or law by the
respondents and in the absence of any such violation, the writ petition is
not maintainable and is accordingly liable to be dismissed.
7. The respondents have also taken a preliminary objection that the
charges were alleged to have been committed by the petitioner while he
was working as the Assistant Manager at Hagari Bommanahalli branch
of the erstwhile Andhra Bank in Hospet Taluk, Bellary District,
Karnataka State i.e., within the territorial jurisdiction of the Hon’ble
Karnataka High Court and therefore, he could not have filed the writ
petition in this Court. It is also stated that though the disciplinary action
was initiated against the petitioner from the Head Office, Hyderabad, at
the time of placing the petitioner under suspension and serving the order
W.P.No.1817 of 2021
9
of dismissal, the petitioner was on the rolls of Bhyripuram Branch,
Cheepurupalli Mandal, Viziayanagaram District, Andhra Pradesh, i.e.,
within the territorial jurisdiction of the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra
Pradesh and therefore, this Court does not have the territorial
jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition only on the ground that the
disciplinary action against the petitioner was initiated from the Head
Office of the bank situated at Hyderabad.
8. As regards the merits of the case, it is submitted that the
petitioner, after completion of his probation, was transferred to Hagari
Bommanahalli branch in Hospet Taluk, Bellary District, Karnataka State
in June, 2014 and the petitioner, being the second line officer, was
designated as the Sub-Manager of the branch and amongst the other, the
duties of the petitioner at the said branch includes (i) processing/
appraisal of loan proposals as per the loan policy guidelines of the bank;
(ii) disbursing the loan amounts as per norms and monitoring the loan
amounts as per norms and monitoring the loan accounts. It is submitted
that on the request of the petitioner, he was transferred to Srikakulam
Zone of the bank in July, 2017. It is submitted that as the petitioner has
indulged in certain serious irregularities while working at Hagari
W.P.No.1817 of 2021
10
Bommanahalli branch, the petitioner was placed under suspension vide
orders dated 07.04.2018 and the charge sheet dated 27.07.2018 was
served on the petitioner along with a detailed statement of allegations
enumerating the irregularities alleged to have been committed by him.
The charge sheet was issued by the Assistant General Manager and
Disciplinary Authority, H.R.Department, Head Office, Hyderabad. It is
submitted that the allegations/charges No.1 to 22 relate to the failure of
the petitioner in following the laid down guidelines in apprising and
recommending sanction of loan proposals and disbursing the loan
amounts and monitoring the loan accounts. It is submitted that the
allegation/charge No.23 relates to the unauthorized transactions resorted
to by the petitioner i.e., debiting the accounts of the customers/staff and
crediting the amounts to various unrelated accounts without any
mandate/consent of the account holders. The allegation/charge No.24
relates to opening of an SB Account in the name of the father of the
petitioner, who was already having a Savings Bank Account with
Puritipenta Branch of the bank and he used the same customer ID for
opening the new account at Hagari Bommanahalli branch, but the
specimen signature of the account with Puritipenta Branch available in
the system did not appear to be the same as per the signature scanned for
W.P.No.1817 of 2021
11
the account opened at Hagari Bommanahalli branch and further the
account opening form was not available with the branch and the
petitioner utilized the said account for his personal gains and a number
of unauthorized/fraudulent transactions have taken place in the said
account. It is submitted that the allegation/charge No.25 is that on
02.03.2017 a sum of Rs.24,000/- was paid to the petitioner by way of a
cheque by M/s. Bharath Kisan Krishi Kendra in the account of which
proceeds of various loan accounts were routed unauthorizedly and the
allegation/charge No.26 relates to issuance of 10 Demand Drafts for a
total amount of Rs.1,99,400/- during demonetization period, which were
later cancelled and the proceeds of which were credited to the accounts
of the respective purchasers of DDs. It is submitted that the relative
vouchers were not available on branch record and cancelled DDs were
not signed by any official either at the time of issue or at the time of
cancellation. It is submitted that the disciplinary authority has taken the
explanation of the petitioner into consideration that he was not
responsible for sanctioning or disbursing of loan amount and has
ordered for departmental enquiry and has given sufficient opportunities
to the petitioner and that all the charges against the petitioner have been
held as proved by the enquiry officer. It is submitted that the petitioner
W.P.No.1817 of 2021
12
was supplied with the copy of the enquiry report and thus, made his
detailed representation and it is only after consideration of the said
contentions, that the disciplinary authority has awarded the punishment
of dismissal from service and there were no irregularities or illegalities
in the order passed by the disciplinary authority or confirmation of the
said order by the appellate authority. He therefore, justified the orders of
the authorities below.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a reply affidavit
denying the allegations made by the respondents.
10. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record,
this Court finds that out of 26 charges, charges 1 to 21 relate to the
irregularities committed by the petitioner in sanctioning and disbursing
loan amounts and utilisation of housing loans by various borrowers. The
common allegations are:
(a) The officer has failed to ensure end use of funds,
(b) The loan amount was released to the credit of the borrower’s SB
Account without ensuring the progress of the construction and
W.P.No.1817 of 2021
13without obtaining stage-wise construction certificates from the
Engineers,
(c) CPV report is not obtained,
(d) The account slipped into NPA and
(e) The house was valued at lesser amount than the loan amount
sanctioned.
It is noticed that the petitioner has submitted detailed explanations to all
these allegations and the enquiry officer has held as follows in respect of
respective charges:
Proved Partly proved Not proved
-- -- Charge No.1
-- Charge No.2(a) Charge No.2(b)
-- -- Charge No.3
Charge No.4(b) Charge No.4(a) --
Charge No.5 -- --
W.P.No.1817 of 2021
14
Charge No.6 -- --
Charge No.7 -- --
Charge No.8 -- --
Charge No.9(b) -- Charge No.9(a)
Charge No.10(b) Charge No.10(a) --
Charge No.11 -- --
Charge No.12(a) -- Charge No.12(b)
Charge No.13(b) -- Charge No.13(a)
Charge No.14(b) -- Charge No.14(a)
Charge No.15(b) -- Charge No.15(a)
Charge No.16(a) &(b) -- --
Charge No.17(a) & (b) -- --
Charge No.18(a) & (b) -- --
Charge No.19(b) -- Charge No.19(a)
W.P.No.1817 of 2021
15
Charge No.20(a) & (b) -- --
Charge No.21(b) -- Charge No.21(a)
Sub-charge (b) of all the Charges is about obtaining of CPV, i.e.,
Contract Point Verification. The petitioner had contended that the
provision of CPV services was not available or provided in Hagari
Bommanahalli branch. Therefore, the charge of not obtaining CPV
report is not tenable. The enquiry officer has observed that it is the
responsibility of the processing officer to ensure that CPV report is
obtained and kept along with the proposal and therefore, the argument of
the charged officer that no CPV service is available at Hagari
Bommanahalli branch is not tenable. It is noticed that the CPV service is
for compliance of KYC norms by the borrowers, i.e., identity, address,
contact details and income proofs etc. As seen from the charges in the
charge sheet, except for mentioning that CPV report is not available,
there is no allegation that the KYC norms are not complied with or that
any of the loans have been sanctioned in the name of fake persons or not
genuine persons. Therefore, this allegation that CPV report is not
available and therefore there is any prejudice caused to the respondent
bank due to the absence of CPV report is not established. Therefore, the
W.P.No.1817 of 2021
16
holding of the charges as ‘proved’ by the enquiry officer, though they do
not have any impact on the loan accounts, cannot be taken as a
misconduct by the petitioner particularly since it is the responsibility of
the bank to provide CPV service provider and not the petitioner herein.
It is also pertinent to note that the petitioner was only an Assistant
Manager and there was a Branch Manager of the respondent bank
branch at the relevant point of time and therefore, the petitioner cannot
be solely saddled with the responsibility of obtaining CPV service
provider and thus, the charge is not maintainable against the petitioner.
11. As regards the other charges, this Court finds that the petitioner
was only an Assistant Manager and is not the loan sanctioning authority.
The respondents have not filed the duties chart or any proof about the
responsibilities of the Assistant Branch Manager to demonstrate that it is
the duty of the petitioner to secure the relevant documents to process the
loans and also sanction the same and monitor the end utilisation of the
loan amount.
12. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
petitioner is not challenging the procedure adopted by the respondents
for conducting the enquiry, but since his duty is limited, i.e., issuance of
W.P.No.1817 of 2021
17
DDs, cheques and disbursement of amounts and is not the authority to
sanction the loans and none of the loans are found to be fake or illegal
and the only allegation is that there is no proper verification regarding
sanctioning of loans, the petitioner is not responsible for all these duties.
It is submitted that there is a valuation officer who is required to verify
the property documents and also effect physical verification of the
property and submit a valuation report on the basis of which, the loans
are sanctioned. It is the responsibility of the Branch Manager to sanction
the loans and not the petitioner.
13. This Court finds that there is merit in the contentions of the
petitioner. The petitioner, being only the Assistant manager and newly
appointed to the Branch after declaration of his probation, could not
have been given the responsibility of sanctioning loans and also
monitoring the end use of the loans. Further, as held by the enquiry
officer, most of the loans have not been sanctioned by the petitioner and
some of the loans have allegedly been disbursed on the days when the
petitioner was not working or was on leave. The fact that the loans have
exceeded the assessed value of the properties would only go to show
that the valuation has not been done properly and it is the responsibility
W.P.No.1817 of 2021
18
of the valuation officer and not only of the person who was processing
the loans. The bank authorities have not brought on record any
document to show that it is the duty of the petitioner only as the
Assistant Manager of the branch to be verifying the valuation of the
properties as well. However, with regard to the allegation that the
petitioner has not verified the end use of the funds and has not obtained
the necessary certificates from the Engineers, this Court finds that in
certain cases, it was observed that though loans have been sanctioned
and disbursed in stages, there were no houses constructed and therefore,
there seems to be some dereliction of the responsibility by the petitioner
and the petitioner has not discharged his duties. If the Branch Manager
was responsible for sanctioning of the loans, it is the responsibility of
the petitioner also to verify the end use of the loans before release of the
same after verifying the stages of construction and obtaining necessary
certificates from the Engineers. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion
that the charges of negligence in verifying the end use of the funds are
proved against the petitioner in all the charges No.1 to 21.
14. Charge No.22 is with regard to sanctioning of four dairy loans
and the irregularity alleged is that the petitioner has failed to ensure end
W.P.No.1817 of 2021
19
use of funds and that the units do not exist and bills evidencing purchase
of animals are not available. This charge has been held as not proved
against the petitioner by the enquiry officer.
15. As regards Charge No.23(a), it is a serious charge of resorting to
unauthorised transactions, i.e., debiting various amounts of
customers/staff and crediting to unrelated accounts and vice versa
without the mandate or consent of the account holders. The enquiry
officer has held the charges in respect of certain transactions as
maintainable and in respect of certain transactions as not maintainable.
The petitioner has not given any reasonable cause for the said transfers
and some of the transfers were done into the accounts standing in the
names of his father and his brother. Therefore, this Court is satisfied that
the charge has been held to be proved against the petitioner.
16. As regards Charge Nos.24, 25 and 26 also, the charges have been
held as proved and this Court does not find any reason to interfere with
the same.
17. The petitioner had put in a total of six years of service before his
dismissal from service. As regards the contention of the petitioner that
the petitioner was not solely responsible for sanction and disbursal of
W.P.No.1817 of 2021
20
loans referred to in the charge sheet, this Court finds from the enquiry
report that the petitioner and the Branch Manager K. Gopala Krishna
Rao have been found to be responsible for the same. The contention of
the petitioner that the petitioner was placed under suspension on
07.04.2018 but no allegations were detailed in the charge memo appears
to be correct. The appropriate action would have been to detail the
allegations in the charge memo, call for an explanation of the charged
officer, consider the same and in respect of allegations for which
satisfactory explanation is not offered, to issue the charge sheet and
appoint an enquiry officer to enquire into the charges. In this case, entire
procedure is given a go-bye and the charge sheet as well as the
appointment of the enquiry officer has been done simultaneously.
However, at this later stage, this Court is not inclined to set aside the
entire enquiry report on account of the above irregularity. Further, in
respect of the contention of the petitioner that the Credit Monitoring and
Review Department had required submission of views of the petitioner
only on seven loans, this Court finds that they are also part of the
charges levelled against the petitioner and some of these charges have
been held to have been proved and the learned counsel for the petitioner
has not been able to point out any irregularity or illegality in the enquiry
W.P.No.1817 of 2021
21
report or the order of the disciplinary proceedings except stating that the
punishment order of dismissal from service is disproportionate to the
alleged misconduct in the charge sheet. This Court finds that the
petitioner was only the Assistant Manager of the branch of the bank and
therefore, he alone cannot be held solely responsible for all the
irregularities alleged in Charges No.1 to 21 and the financial
irregularities. In respect of the above Charges No.1 to 21, they are in
respect of both the petitioner as well as the Branch Manager K. Gopala
Krishna Rao. Therefore, the respondents ought to have brought out the
role of each of the officers before awarding different punishments to
each of them.
18. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon
the judgment of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case
of Vikesh Kumar Singh; Arunchalam P Vs. Director General
Central Industrial Security Force and others1 for the proposition that
there has to be parity in awarding punishment where the offences are
same or similar. The relevant paras are as under:
1
2024 LawSuit(Del) 5180 : 2024 DHC 9487
W.P.No.1817 of 2021
22“[28] We may note that the Apex Court, in the case of Rajendra Yadav
(supra) held as under:-
“12. The doctrine of equality applies to all who are equally
placed; even among persons who are found guilty. The
persons who have been found guilty can also claim equality of
treatment, if they can establish discrimination while imposing
punishment when all of them are involved in the same incident.
Parity among co-delinquents has also to be maintained when
punishment is being imposed. Punishment should not be
disproportionate while comparing the involvement of
codelinquents who are parties to the same transaction or
incident. The disciplinary authority cannot impose punishment
which is disproportionate i.e. lesser punishment for serious
offences and stringent punishment for lesser offences.”
[29] From a reading of the aforesaid decision, what emerges is that
when several individuals are involved in the same incident, parity
regarding punishment is to be maintained, which should not be
disproportionate while comparing the role of each individual, who are
parties to the same transaction or incident. The Disciplinary
Authorities cannot impose a punishment, which is disproportionate in
as much as lesser punishment is imposed for serious offences and
stringent punishment for lesser offences. This Court in the case of
Narender Singh (supra), while making reference to the
aforementioned decision of the Apex Court in Rajendra Yadav (supra)
and decision of this Court in the case of Virender Singh Chankot vs.
Union of India & Ors.,2019 SCCOnLineDel 11498 held that
“discriminatory treatment could not be meted out at the time of
awarding penalty?.
W.P.No.1817 of 2021
23
[30] Having considered the above, we are of the view that the
punishment of “removal from service with immediate effect” awarded
to the petitioners is liable to be set aside. We, therefore, set aside the
Orders of the Disciplinary Authorities dated 15.10.2018, along with
the Appellate Orders dated 11.02.2019 as also the Revisional Orders
dated 23.07.2019 and 23/24.08.2019. The learned counsel for the
petitioners submitted that the petitioners were removed from service
in the year 2019 and have been without a job for the past five years
and they would be satisfied with their reinstatement in the Service.”
In view of the above judgment, this Court is of the view that the
respondents should reconsider the issue of awarding punishment similar
to the punishment awarded in the case of K. Gopala Krishna Rao for the
similar charges. As regards Charges No.22 to 26 also, this Court directs
the respondents to consider the proportionality of punishment for the
alleged acts of misconduct and pass appropriate orders awarding
punishment lesser than the punishment of dismissal from service. The
punishment order and the appellate order are accordingly set aside and
the respondent authorities are directed to pass orders afresh within a
period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of this order. The
treatment to be given to the period of out of employment shall be
decided thereafter by the respondents.
W.P.No.1817 of 2021
24
19. As regards the preliminary objection about the maintainability of
the Writ Petition in this Court, this Court is of the opinion that since the
disciplinary proceedings were initiated by the Head Office at Hyderabad
and the enquiry was also conducted at Hyderabad and the final orders of
dismissal are passed by the disciplinary authority at Hyderabad, this
Court has jurisdiction to entertain this Writ Petition and accordingly, the
preliminary objection raised by the respondents is rejected.
20. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No
order as to costs.
21. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Writ Petition shall
also stand dismissed.
___________________________
JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI
Date: 23.01.2025
Bak/Svv
[ad_1]
Source link