Patna High Court
Md. Tanwirul Quamar vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 4 August, 2025
Author: Anshuman
Bench: Anshuman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9650 of 2016 ====================================================== Md. Tanwirul Quamar S/o Late Md. Sulaiman R/o Vill- Haidarganj Karah, P.S.- Silao, District- Nalanda, presently posted as Senior Deputy Collector, Purnea. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Joint Secretary, General Administration Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Additional Secretary, General Administration Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 5. Sri Manoj Kumar Srivastava, Department Enquiry Commissioner, General Administration Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 6. The District Magistrate, Samastipur. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Munna Prasad Dixit, Advocate Mr. Sanjay Kumar Dixit, Advocate Mr. Sanjay Kumar Chaubey, Advocate Mr. Shailendra Kumar, Advocate Mr. Punit Ranjan Dixit, Advocate Mr. Milind Raj Dixit, Advocate Mr. Priyadarshi Matri Sharan, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Raghwanand, GA-11 Mr. Pratik Kumar, AC to GA-11 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN CAV JUDGMENT Date : 04-08-2025 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the State. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the Patna High Court CWJC No.9650 of 2016 dt.04-08-2025 2/21 petitioner with the following reliefs:- "1. To quash the order contained in Memo No.7036 dated 17.05.2016
issued by Additional Secretary to
Government, General Administration
Department, by which the representation
dated 27.01.2015 submitted by the petitioner
against Departmental Enquiry
Commissioner has been rejected. For further
direction to the respondent authorities to
conduct fresh enquiry after appointing
another conducting officer.
“1(a). To quash the
notification contained in Memo No.9119
dated 28.06.2016, issued by the Additional
Secretary, Department of General
Administration, Government of Bihar, Patna
(respondent No.4) whereby the petitioner,
who was posted as Senior Deputy Collector,
Purnea, has been dismissed from service.
1(b). To direct the
respondents to reinstate the petitioner on his
post with all consequential benefits
forthwith.
1(c). To issue an appropriate
writ/order/direction in the nature of
certiorari for quashing the Enquiry Report
dated 29.07.2015 as contained in Annexure-
4 to the writ petition being perverse, unfair
Patna High Court CWJC No.9650 of 2016 dt.04-08-2025
3/21
and in flagrant violation of the principle of
natural justice.”
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits
that petitioner was appointed as Deputy Collector in the year
1999 on the recommendation of the BPSC and sent to Dumka
(now Jharkhand) for training. He submits that after completion
of training, he was posted as Executive Magistrate in Latehar
(now in Jharkhand) in the year 2000 where he discharged his
duty to the satisfaction of the authorities concerned. In the year
2007, he was posted as Circle Officer-cum-Block Development
Officer in Shivajinagar, Samastipur. On 12.05.2008 while the
petitioner was posted as Circle Officer, the then Mukhiya of
Shankarpur Panchayat, Shivaji Nagar, Samastipur, made a
complaint in Vigilance against the petitioner. On the said
complaint, verification was conducted and a pre-trap
memorandum was prepared on 14.05.2008. On 15.05.2008, a
trap team conducted raid and petitioner was arrested taking
bribe of Rs.50,000/- from one Ram Dayal Singh and based on
the trap, a post-trap memorandum was prepared and Vigilance
P.S. Case No.28 of 2008 was registered against the petitioner.
Counsel submits that vide Memo No.6332 dated 11.06.2008,
petitioner was suspended while he was in custody. On being
released from the custody, the petitioner filed CWJC No.19825
Patna High Court CWJC No.9650 of 2016 dt.04-08-2025
4/21
of 2010 against the order of suspension before this Hon’ble
Court. Counsel submits that a show-cause notice was issued to
the petitioner asking as to why departmental proceeding be not
initiated against him. The petitioner gave his reply to the show-
cause on 05.03.2010. Thereafter, vide Memo No.2099 dated
21.02.2011, departmental proceeding was initiated and memo of
charge was also issued framing two charges against the
petitioner and Departmental Enquiry Commissioner was
appointed as the Conducting Officer. Counsel submits that vide
order dated 11.04.2011, CWJC No.19825 of 2010 was allowed
and the order by which petitioner was suspended was set aside.
However, against the order dated 11.04.2011, the State had
preferred Review application bearing Civil Review No.494 of
2011. Counsel submits that petitioner has also filed contempt in
MJC No.973 of 2012, against the non-compliance of the
aforesaid order. He submits that both review as well as contempt
were heard together and vide order dated 02.09.2013, the review
application was allowed and the writ petition was proposed to
be heard afresh and contempt application stood dismissed as
infructuous. Thereafter, CWJC was heard afresh and the
Hon’ble Court allowed the writ petition setting aside the order
of suspension of the petitioner. Counsel further submits that the
Patna High Court CWJC No.9650 of 2016 dt.04-08-2025
5/21
District Magistrate, Samastipur has given a clean chit to the
petitioner in its report vide Memo No.276 dated 09.07.2013
addressed to the Departmental Enquiry Commissioner. It is
therefore clear that the petitioner was made a scapegoat at the
behest of the then Mukhiya. He further submits that the
Departmental Enquiry Commissioner did not take note of the
District Magistrate’s comment on the petitioner’s show-cause.
He submits that on 14.08.2015 the petitioner was posted as
Senior Deputy Collector, Purnea, and is discharging his duties
there since then. He submits that the departmental enquiry
continued and the conducting officer submitted his enquiry
report on 29.07.2015 and the petitioner was directed to submit
his response on the enquiry report vide letter No.11565 dated
10.08.2015. Copies of the Enquiry Report dated 29.07.2015 and
letter dated 10.08.2015 are annexed as Annexures-4 and 5
respectively to this application. Counsel submits that vide letter
dated 12.08.2015 the petitioner was directed to submit an
affidavit regarding the allegation made in application dated
27.01.2015 (Annexure-3). Counsel submits that the petitioner
vide his letter dated 10.09.2015, asked for certain documents
that were relied upon in the proceeding but the same was not
supplied to the petitioner. The documents were supplied but no
Patna High Court CWJC No.9650 of 2016 dt.04-08-2025
6/21
decision as such was taken on the letter dated 27.01.2015. He
submits that on 14.09.2015 and 23.12.2015, reminders for filing
response on the enquiry report (Annexure-4) was served to the
petitioner. The petitioner submitted his response so required on
14.01.2016 denying all the charges and findings in the enquiry
report as also his grievance over not taking any action over his
complaint (Annexure-3).
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further
submits that when no action had been taken on the letter dated
27.01.2015 then the petitioner has filed CWJC No.1530 of
2016, which was disposed of by this Hon’ble Court on
11.04.2016 with a direction to the Principal Secretary to dispose
of petitioner’s representation within a period of one month.
Thereafter, on 17.05.2016, the Additional Secretary, General
Administration Department rejected the representation dated
27.01.2015 of the petitioner in quite whimsical manner without
going into the issues raised by the petitioner. He submits that the
impugned actions of the respondent authorities are in violation
of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India as also in the
principles of natural justice.
5. Counsel further submits that without waiting
for the outcome of representation of the petitioner, enquiry
Patna High Court CWJC No.9650 of 2016 dt.04-08-2025
7/21
report has been submitted, which shows the mala fide intention
of the respondents against the petitioner. Counsel submits that
from perusal of the complaint it is apparent that it was not
supported with an affidavit, which is the mandatory requirement
for vigilance enquiry against anyone. But in the present case, the
Vigilance Department contrary to its own guidelines/directives,
accepted the complain of the complainant. He submits that it is
relevant to state here that one Tapeshwar Singh, Mukhiya, has
made allegation against the petitioner that he is asking for
Rs.55,000/- (Rupees fifty five thousand only), but from perusal
of the verification report, it appears that along with Shashi
Bhushan Pandey, Inspector, Vigilance, Ram Dayal Singh S/o.
Tapeshwar Singh went to meet the petitioner. It also appears
from the verification report that when the petitioner and Ram
Dayal Singh were having conversation, the Inspector was not
present but even then he submitted the verification report
against the petitioner. He submits that from perusal of post-trap
memorandum, it is not clear that who had given or from whom
the petitioner had taken Rs.50,000/- and signature of either
complainant or his son was also not there on the post trap
memorandum, which also show that none of them were present
at the time of alleged trap. He submits that memo of charge
Patna High Court CWJC No.9650 of 2016 dt.04-08-2025
8/21
dated 12.09.2008 was served to the petitioner and the petitioner
submitted his reply denying all the charges mentioned in the
memo of charge. He submits that after a gap of almost a year
of submission of reply by the petitioner, the departmental
proceeding was initiated against the petitioner vide Memo
No.2099 dated 21.02.2011, which was served on the petitioner
on 23.04.2011. Counsel submits that the petitioner vide letter
No.21.09.2021, addressed to the Principal Secretary, General
Administration Department, submitted the list of documents
required in the departmental proceeding from the Circle and
Block Offices of Shivajinagar (Samastipur) and Vigilance
Department, but all the documents as per the list of documents
were not supplied to him which has prejudiced the case of the
petitioner.
6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further
submits that very claim of the complainant that a list of
beneficiaries has been recommended and sent to the petitioner,
which is the very foundation of the complaint, get falsified by
the above said report/comment dated 09.07.2013. He submits
that there was no mention of any reference of the said list in the
complaint petition or in the verification report nor any such list
was ever seized by the verifier or the Trap-team at the time of
Patna High Court CWJC No.9650 of 2016 dt.04-08-2025
9/21
raid. He submits that in course of the Departmental Proceeding
No.09/11, the petitioner was not allowed to cross-examine the
witnesses; rather in its place he was asked by the conducting
officer to frame a written questionnaire for the witnesses and
supply it to them, who will answer and submit the same before
the conducting officer, which is apparently against the
provisions so laid in the Indian Evidence Act. Counsel submits
that the complainant was examined on the point of his complaint
only and he was not at all examined on Pre-trap memorandum,
post trap memorandum and about the alleged incident. He
submits that one Shashi Bhushan Pandey, who is said to be the
verifier, has also not been examined. He submits that copies of
original deposition of witnesses have also not been provided to
the petitioner and after a long gap, only typed copies had been
made available to the petitioner. He submits that the
Departmental Enquiry Commissioner vide its order dated
13.05.2014, contained in Memo No.231/CDE dated 20.05.2014,
has also requested the S.P., Vigilance for making sure the
appearance of the said Shashi Bhushan Pandey in the
proceeding, but even then the said Shashibhushan Pandey, S.I.,
who had verified the allegation against the petitioner, did not
appear in course of the proceeding. The Presenting Officer also
Patna High Court CWJC No.9650 of 2016 dt.04-08-2025
10/21
requested the said Shashi Bhushan Pandey (wrongly typed as
Shashibhushan Jha) to appear in the proceeding, but even then
also he did not appear. He submits that the petitioner again filed
a protest against such act/conduct of the Conducting Officer
vide letter dated 12.01.2015, but no action in this regard had
been taken. He submits that the independent witnesses belong to
the Shankarpur Panchayat and as such influence of the
informant (Mukhiya) over them cannot be denied. He submits
that before issuance of impugned order dated 28.06.2016
(Annexure-8), no second show cause has been asked from the
petitioner. He submits that the entire proceeding against the
petitioner, which is apparent from the facts and circumstances
stated above, has been initiated with an intention to dismiss the
petitioner from service and nothing else. He submits that apart
from the present alleged incidence, the ACR of petitioner is
outstanding. Counsel submits that the petitioner brings certain
facts, pleadings and documents on record, which will prove that
entire action and impugned order are fit to be set aside being
based on perverse finding of the Conducting Officer and also
the report submitted by him on 29.07.2015 as contained in
Annexure-4 is based on conjecture, surmises and in violation of
the principle of natural justice and also contrary to the allegation
Patna High Court CWJC No.9650 of 2016 dt.04-08-2025
11/21
of the charge of memorandum. He submits that the petitioner is
having good prima facie case and balance of convenience is also
in his favour, therefore, this application is fit to be allowed.
7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner concluded
his argument relying on the following judgments. The first
judgment on which he relied is case of Indrani Bai Vs. Union
of India and Others reported in 1994 Supp (2) Supreme
Court Cases 256, the second is case of Registrar of
Cooperative Societies, Madras and Another Vs. F.X.
Fernando reported in (1994) 2 Supreme Court Cases 746 and
third is the case of Chakradhar Das Vs. The State of Bihar &
Others reported in 2007 (3) PLJR, in which he submits that the
delinquent Officer has entertained a doubt about the impartiality
of the inquiry to be conducted by the Inquiry Officer and when
he made representation at the earliest, requesting to change the
Inquiry Officer, the authority should have acceded to the request
and appoint another Inquiry Officer, other than the one whose
objectivity was doubted. Any order passed by the Inquiry
Officer in a mechanical manner is not sustainable, more
particularly when the order is cryptic without consideration of
show-cause. He submits that the fundamental duty under the
departmental proceeding lies on the Inquiry Officer to grant due
Patna High Court CWJC No.9650 of 2016 dt.04-08-2025
12/21
opportunity to the parties and then only pass order.
8. Learned Counsel for the State, on the other
hand, submits that when the petitioner was posted as Circle
Officer-cum-Block Development Officer, Shivaji Nagar,
Samastipur, the Mukhiya of Shankarpur Panchayat submitted a
complaint to the Vigilance Department alleging therein that the
petitioner was demanding Rs.55,000/- illegal gratification/bribe
for sanctioning the amount related to Indira Awas Yojna and
compensation for the scheme relating to damage of crops among
the beneficiaries of the aforesaid Block/Circle. He submits that
on receipt of the complaint, a team of Vigilance Investigation
Bureau on 15.05.2008 apprehended the petitioner with the
amount of Rs.50,000/- and registered Vigilance P.S. Case No.28
of 2008. He submits that the petitioner was found guilty of
gross misconduct as per the provisions contained in Rule 3(i)(i)
of the Bihar Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1976 and the
petitioner was suspended on 15.05.2008. He submits that for the
same set of allegation, the Disciplinary Authority initiated
departmental proceeding against the petitioner vide Memo
No.2099 dated 21.02.2011. He submits that Enquiry
Commissioner was appointed as conducting officer to look into
the allegation levelled against the petitioner. He submits that the
Patna High Court CWJC No.9650 of 2016 dt.04-08-2025
13/21
enquiry officer after going through the facts and circumstances
of the case found the charges levelled against the petitioner
proved and submitted enquiry report vide letter No.369 dated
29.07.2015. He submits that when petitioner was in
apprehension that charges levelled against him cannot be refuted
with cogent evidence, the petitioner filed pariwad/complaint
dated 27.01.2015. Counsel submits that the allegation made by
the petitioner against the conducting officer in his pariwad dated
27.01.2015 was merely an apprehension of the petitioner and his
motive was only to delay the departmental proceeding. He
submits that conducting officer in the instant departmental
proceeding was an I.A.S. Departmental Enquiry Commissioner,
Bihar, Patna, whose integrity can not be doubted. He submits
that the enquiry report along with points of disagreement, if any,
were supplied to the the petitioner as per the provisions of Rule
18(3) of Bihar C.C.A. Rules, 2005. Counsel submits that the
petitioner had been given ample opportunity under Section
18(3) of the Bihar C.C.A. Rules, 2005. Counsel submits that the
petitioner was supplied all the documents sought by him vide
letter dated 23.12.2015 and he was again directed to submit his
representation within 15 days. Thereafter, the petitioner
submitted his reply vide his letter No.95 dated 14.01.2016 in
Patna High Court CWJC No.9650 of 2016 dt.04-08-2025
14/21
which instead submitting his defence, he argued that he has filed
the instant writ petition and prayed that the departmental
proceeding against him may be stayed till the final order passed
by the Hon’ble High Court. He submits that the above stand
taken by the petitioner itself proved that he is not interested in
conclusion of departmental proceeding rather his intention was
to delay the departmental proceeding. Learned Counsel for the
State lastly submits that from the facts mentioned herein above,
this writ petition is fit to be dismissed.
9. After hearing the parties and going through the
materials available on record, it transpires to this Court that the
departmental proceeding had been initiated against the
petitioner after his arrest taking bribe of Rs.50,000/- based on
pre-trap and post-trap memorandum resulting into Vigilance P.S.
Case No.28 of 2008. He was arrested then suspended on
11.06.2008, enlarge on bail on 16.01.2009, moved before this
Court in CWJC No.19825 of 2010 by which his order of
suspension has been revoked followed by show-cause notice as
to why departmental proceeding be not initiated against him and
upon consideration of his reply to the show-cause departmental
proceeding was initiated vide Memo No.2099 dated 21.02.2011
and memo of charge had also been served, in which
Patna High Court CWJC No.9650 of 2016 dt.04-08-2025
15/21
Departmental Inquiry Commissioner was appointed as
Conducting Officer. Petitioner had also preferred Civil Review
No.494 of 2011 as well as Contempt Petition bearing M.J.C.
No.937 of 2012 arising from the order dated 11.04.2011 passed
in CWJC No.19825 of 2010, in which MJC was dropped and
CWJC No.19825 of 2010 with Civil Review No.494 of 2011
was disposed of on 20.03.2015 setting aside the order of
suspension. Suspension was revoked and his departmental
proceeding was continued during which he has filed an
application on 27.01.2015 before the Principal Secretary,
General Administration Department, about bias against him. The
claim of the petitioner is that during pendency of the
departmental inquiry no decision was taken on his application
for bias. He has repeatedly submitted his reminder to change
the Inquiry Officer, but nothing happened then he filed CWJC
No.1530 of 2016 which was disposed of on 11.04.2016 with a
direction to the Principal Secretary to dispose off the
representation of the petitioner within one month. In compliance
of the order passed by this Hon’ble Court the Additional
Secretary, General Administration Department, has considered
his application and rejected on 17.05.2016. Counsel has made
allegation that petitioner has filed his representation on
Patna High Court CWJC No.9650 of 2016 dt.04-08-2025
16/21
27.01.2015 on which decision had been taken on 17.05.2016,
but inquiry report was submitted on 29.07.2015 itself, and,
therefore, the petitioner has moved before this Hon’ble Court
initially with a prayer to quash the order contained in Memo
No.7036 dated 17.05.2016 by which his representation of bias
has been rejected but, subsequently, the final order has been
passed by the Disciplinary Authority contained in Memo
No.9119 dated 28.06.2016 as well as inquiry report dated
29.07.2015 has been challenge. It transpires to this Court that
prior to filing of the present writ petition i.e., 16.06.2016 inquiry
report has already been submitted.
10. From the argument made by Counsel for the
petitioner that during the departmental proceeding the petitioner
was not allowed to cross-examine witnesses; rather he was
asked by the Conducting Officer to frame a written
questionnaires for the witnesses and supply it to them,who will
answer the same and submit before the Conducting Officer
which, according to the petitioner, is apparent according to the
provisions so laid in the Indian Evidence Act. In this regard, this
Court is of the view that in the departmental proceeding the
cross-examination shall not used to take place, according to
strict compliance of the Evidence Act; rather no specific
Patna High Court CWJC No.9650 of 2016 dt.04-08-2025
17/21
guideline mentioned in Bihar C.C.A. Rules, 2005 save and
except to cross-examine. In departmental proceeding, provision
of cross-examination is there and in the opinion of the Court, it
may be taken place either oral or written, therefore, there is no
wrong done by the inquiry officer by asking to frame a written
questionnaire for the witnesses, supplied to them so that they
will answer, particularly, when the conduct of the petitioner is
very much clear that he has moved before this Hon’ble Court on
every point twice earlier with a view to delay the proceeding.
Hence,there is no substance in the point of the petitioner.
11. Another point on which the Counsel for the
petitioner put emphasis that the complainant was examined on
the point of his complaint only by the Inquiry Officer and he
was not at all cross-examined on pre-trap memorandum, post
trap memorandum and about the alleged incident. In this regard,
this Court is of the view that the examination and cross-
examination of the complainant/informant shall definitely take
place in the criminal proceeding in pending Vigilance case,
where the allegations have to be proved beyond all reasonable
doubts, but here in the departmental proceeding, the inquiry
officer has to ascertain only that whether the complaint made by
the complainant is really made by him or not and only
Patna High Court CWJC No.9650 of 2016 dt.04-08-2025
18/21
preponderance of probability has to be tested. Therefore, this
Court is of the view that this point shall also not support the
petitioner at all. In departmental proceeding, the complainant
came forward, has been examined on the point of his
complaint is sufficient, which has been done in the present case.
12. There is no need of examination of verifier in
the departmental proceeding. It is made clear that when the
departmental inquiry officer has directed the S.P. Vigilance
about appearance of S.I. and if he has not appeared then, by
virtue of same, the departmental proceeding shall not be failed
and allegation of complainant is sufficient to proceed.
13. The further point he has taken that the
petitioner has filed protest against the Conducting Officer and
also to call the independent witnesses of the relevant Panchaiyat
which has been denied by the Conducting Officer are
concerned, in this regard the conducting officer has to test only
that whether complaint has been made or not? Which has been
proved by the complainant himself. There is no need of calling
any independent witness. The question of bias against the
Conducting Officer has already been tested by this Hon’ble
Court, in which observation has come and officials have passed
order in compliance of the Hon’ble Court’s order. The
Patna High Court CWJC No.9650 of 2016 dt.04-08-2025
19/21
judgments on which petitioner relied, the first judgment
Indrani Bai‘s case (supra) is not applicable in the present case
due to the reason that in this case, the case has been decided on
the factual matrix that the departmental proceeding was
conducted ex parte and the delinquent could not appear before
the Inquiry Officer. Here is not the same case, hence, this Court
is of the firm view that case of Indrani Bai (supra) is not
applicable in the present case. The second case is Registrar of
Cooperative Societies Madras and another (supra) is also not
applicable in the present case, due to the reason that in this case
issuance of charge memo has been issued by an authority, who
is not competent at all, who directed to conduct the inquiry
proceeding has been the subject of test. But, here situation is
quite different. The third case on which the petitioner relied is
Chakradhar Das (supra), Chakardhar Das case is also not
applicable in the present case due to the reason that the factual
matrix of the present case is quite different as in the case the
departmental proceeding is relating to disobedience of the
transfer order, but here in the present case departmental
proceeding is going against the petitioner, who was posted as
Circle Officer-cum- Block Development Officer, Siwaji Nagar,
Samastipur, and on the complaint of Mukhiya of Sankarpur
Patna High Court CWJC No.9650 of 2016 dt.04-08-2025
20/21
Panchayat that petitioner was demanding Rs.55,000/- illegal
gratification/bribe for sanction of amount relating to Indira Awas
Yojana and compensation for scheme relating to damage of crop
amongst the beneficiaries of aforesaid Block/Circle. A Vigilance
Investigation Bureau following the procedure, conducted a raid
in which the petitioner was apprehended with Rs.50,000/- and
particularly the complainant came forward and adduced
evidence before the Conducting Officer that allegation is true,
which was subsequently resulted into dismissal from service
after following due process. Counsel submits that second show-
cause has not been served upon him but vide letter No.11565
dated 10.08.2015 he was directed to submit his representation in
the light of inquiry report in the form of second show-cause and
then final order has been passed.
14. It is made clear that upon specific query of
this Court that why petitioner had not preferred review, Counsel
submits that the petitioner is a Gazetted Officer and instead of
opting the review he submits that the inquiry report as well as
the final order has been tested by the Council of Ministers and
approved by the Bihar Public Service Commission. Therefore,
this case has been filed directly before this Hon’ble Court.
15. In the light of the above said discussions that
Patna High Court CWJC No.9650 of 2016 dt.04-08-2025
21/21
petitioner has attained the age of superannuation on 28.02.2025
neither demand of fresh inquiry nor to interfere in the impugned
orders shall be permitted. This Court finds that there is neither
any procedural irregularity nor violation of natural justice nor
excess punishment has been imposed. As such, there is no need
to interfere in the punishment order imposed and, hence, this
writ petition is hereby dismissed.
(Dr. Anshuman, J)
Mkr./-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE 22.07.2025 Uploading Date 05.08.2025 Transmission Date