Gujarat High Court
Arvind Chhotalal Rathod vs State Of Gujarat Through Principal ... on 10 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16333/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16333 of 2010
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
==========================================================
ARVIND CHHOTALAL RATHOD
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR.D H PANCHAL(6420) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
DR. POOJA ASHAR, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1-STATE
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
Date : 10/09/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocates for the respective respondents waive service of notice of rule on behalf of respective respondents. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard at length for final hearing.
2. The present petition is filed by the petitioner for seeking the following reliefs:
"(A) Be pleased certiorari to issue writ of other any writ of or nature or any appropriate order or directions declaring by the proceeding of departmental inquiry initiated vide Page 1 of 19 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Sep 15 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 15 22:26:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16333/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined first show-cause notice 20-11-2004 to be void ab intio on account of preconceived notion, malafides and unsustainable for the want of any legal evidence and consequently be pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 13-1-2010 passed by the respondent no-1 which is at Annexure P (B) Pending admission and final hearing of this petition, be pleased to stay execution operation, the and implementation of order dated 13-01-2010 [Ann. passed P] by the respondent-1, till the final hearing of this petition (C) Be pleased to grant any other prayers may be deemed fit in view of peculiar facts of the present case in the interest of justice"
FACTS OF THE CASE:-
3. Brief facts as stated in the memo of the petition are as under:
3.1 It is the case of the petitioner in this petition that petitioner seeks to challenge the order Disciplinary authority's dated 13.01.2008 holding petitioner guilty of charge No.1 and imposing of one punishment of stoppage of increment with permanent effect as the same a result of defective decision making process and is a result of error apparent on record as the initiation of the proceeding itself is manifestly attended with the ulterior motive to harass the petitioner.Page 2 of 19 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Sep 15 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 15 22:26:46 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16333/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined 3.2 It is the case of the petitioner in this petition that the petitioner while working as Taluka Mamlatdar of Bayad taluka District Sabarakanth, an F.I.R was registered against the petitioner under Sections 7, 12, and 13 of Prevention of Corruption act 1988 in Himatnagar A.C B Police station of Sabarkantha District. It is further the case of the petitioner in this petition that investigating officer recorded statement of complainant under CRPC in regard to FIR of Cr. No. 6 of 1998. On the same day the Investing officer recorded another statement of complainant wherein complainant made further allegation that during festival of last Divali union leader Shri Dipak Shah had demanded Rs 900/- as contribution to Divali Bonus to be given to the petitioner and the complainant, therefore, had given Rs 900/- and Dipak Shah had given Rs.30000/, collected from shopkeeper, to the petitioner during last Divali. The investigating officer submitted affidavit in this regards before Sp.Court Himatnagar. 3.3 It is further the case of the petitioner in this petition that charge-sheet in respect to FIR-6/1998 was filed by ACB Himatnagar in Sp court Himanagar. But ACB Himatnagar neither included the offence of bribe of Rs.30000/- alleged to have occurred during Divali festival nor the name of Dipak Shah was shown as witness in the charg-sheet. It is further Page 3 of 19 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Sep 15 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 15 22:26:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16333/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined the case of the petitioner in this petition that after six and half year, disciplinary authority issued first show-cause notice to the petitioner for accepting bribe of Rs 30000/- from Shri Dipak Shah during Divali festival. The petitioner replied to first show cause notice. The the disciplinary authority started inquiry against the petitioner. After completion of inquiry, the inquiry officer submitted his report to the disciplinary authorities on 30.12.2006. It is further the case of the petitioner in this petition that the trial of criminal case against petitioner was concluded and the petitioner was acquitted. After obtaining acquittal order, petitioner submitted application on 07-1-2008 for regularization of his suspension period. It is further the case of the petitioner in this petition that the petitioner submitted application on 9-1-2008 for promotion. When petitioner did not receive any reply with regard applications, he submitted application under Right to Information Act. It is further the case of the petitioner in this petition that second show-cause notice came to be issued by the disciplinary authority and reply was submitted by the petitioner. The the disciplinary authority issued Final Order of punishment of stoppage of one increment. Hence, the present petition has been preferred.
4. Heard Mr. D.H. Panchal, learned advocate for the petitioner and Dr. Pooja Ashar, learned Assistant Government Page 4 of 19 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Sep 15 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 15 22:26:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16333/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined Pleader for the respondent No.1-State. Though served, none appears for the respondent No. 2.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:- 5.1 Mr. D.H. Panchal, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner at the relevant point of time was serving at Mamlatdar at Bayad Taluka, Sabarkantha. He was trapped by ACB. Thereafter, in the sessions case, he has been acquitted after full-fledged trial and thereafter, against that order, acquittal appeal has been preferred by the State, which is pending. He has drawn the attention of this Court towards the relevant papers, more particularly, the inquiry report and has submitted that there are two charges framed against the petitioner in the inquiry, whereby inquiry officer has not believed charge No.2, however, the inquiry officer has belief charge No.1 on the basis that though there is no conclusive proof against the petitioner, the inquiry officer has wrongly relied on this aspect and, therefore, he has submitted that the inquiry officer has committed gross error that on the one hand, the inquiry officer, in the entire report has believed that there is no believable material against the petitioner and on the other hand, the inquiry officer has believed charge No.1 proved partly and on that basis, the punishment is imposed by withholding one increment with future effect and, therefore, Page 5 of 19 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Sep 15 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 15 22:26:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16333/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined he has submitted that this punishment is highly unwarranted as such no charge is proved against the petitioner and, therefore, the prayers prayed in the present petition is required to be granted by interfering with the findings of the departmental proceeding as well as action of the respondent- authority. Therefore, interference is required to be called for by this Court by granting prayers prayed in the present petition.
5.2 He has further submitted that when the petitioner is also acquitted in the criminal case, merely pendency of acquittal appeal is not good ground for not considering the case of the petitioner for the removal of such punishment imposed on the basis of charges levelled in the criminal case more particularly ACB case. He has further submitted that there is no application of mind on the part of the respondent No.1 as from the impugned order dated 13.01.2010, different findings at two different places has been recorded in a contradictory manner by stating in first reference that such event is stated to be recorded in the year 1998; while in second reference, it is stated that it is recorded in the 1997 and, therefore, he has submitted that such order is not tenable in the eyes of law and is required to be interfered with.
Page 6 of 19 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Sep 15 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 15 22:26:46 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16333/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined 5.3 He has further submitted that entire proceeding has been initiated in furtherance of so-called preliminary inquiry conducted by respondent No.2 without examination of veracity of version put forward in the shape of statements of shopkeepers. He has submitted that the petitioner being a strict officer working as Mamlatdar has taken the strictest possible action against the erring fair price shopkeepers, who are indulging in some wrongful activities and, therefore, the petitioner was falsely implicated in the same. He has further submitted that there is no independent eyewitness except the so-called shopkeepers, who are having grudge against the petitioner. Therefore, though in the impugned order, all these aspects are considered, thereafter also the inquiry officer has believed in holding that charge No.1 is proved partly and, therefore, imposition of penalty by way of one increment with future effect. Therefore, he has submitted that the present petition is required to be allowed on these grounds as punishment is also not at all warranted and also, disproportionate in absence of any specific finding regarding proof of the allegation made by way of charge. Hence, he has prayed to allow this petition.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT:- 6.1 Per contra, Dr. Pooja Ashar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent No.1-State has Page 7 of 19 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Sep 15 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 15 22:26:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16333/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined submitted that penalty, which is imposed is withholding one increment for one year with future effect. It cannot be considered as major punishment imposed by the authority. Therefore there is no question of considering any proportionality. She has drawn the attention of this Court towards the list of witnesses, which are given and who were examined before the authority. She has submitted that the contention that there is no independent witness is incorrect and by referring to the list which is annexed at page 196 to 198 of the present petition, she has drawn the attention of this Court that these many witnesses were examined during the departmental proceeding and the sufficient opportunity is given to the petitioner to defend his case. 6.2 She has further submitted that it is now well settled law that interference of the Court by interfering by way of judicial review in the departmental action more particularly the imposition of punishment by the authority which is imposed after following the procedure prescribed under the rules, such scope is very limited; either it is shockingly disproportionate or without following principles of natural justice. In the present case, the petitioner has been given sufficient opportunity to defend his case and all the prescribed procedure have been followed. After appreciating everything, the authority has not believed charge No.2 and Page 8 of 19 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Sep 15 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 15 22:26:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16333/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined charge No.1 is also partly believed and, therefore, penalty by way of punishment withholding one year increment with future effect is very minor penalty and, therefore, no interference is required to be called for. 6.3 She has referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. P. Gunasekaran reported in 2014 (0) AIJEL-SC 55944, more particularly, paragraphs 13 and 14 are relevant and has submitted that the scope of judicial review is very limited in such matters and merely because some different view is possible as per the say of the petitioner, the Court should not interfere with the same; unless any necessary requirement to interfere with such decision by way of judicial review is established and, therefore, she has prayed to dismiss this petition. ANALYSIS:-
7.1 I have considered the rival submissions made at the bar. I have also perused the impugned order dated 13.01.2008 passed by the disciplinary authority, which is under challenge in the present petition. I have also perused the prayer Clause. It transpires that the petitioner was serving as Mamlatdar at Bayad Taluka, Dist. Surendranagar. Considering the allegation that the petitioner has asked for some Diwali gift; Rs.30,000/- has been demanded. There are Page 9 of 19 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Sep 15 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 15 22:26:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16333/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined witnesses, who have given the specific version that the petitioner has demanded this amount and raid is carried out at the quarter of the petitioner and at that point of time, some amount is recovered at the quarter of the petitioner. Though the criminal court has acquitted the petitioner on the ground that the prosecution has failed to establish all three ingredients, which are required to be satisfied in ACB case, but the fact remains that this incident has occurred at the place whereby the trap was arranged and some necessary material is also found to indicate that there is some truth in the allegation against the petitioner.
7.2 Moreover considering the finding of the authority, the authority after appreciating everything has not believed charge No.2 and charge No.1 is also believed in part and not believed in totality. Accordingly, after considering the aspect, the authority has awarded punishment of withholding one increment with future effect which is in consonance with the provisions of law and in the facts of the present case and also justified in the facts of the present case. It cannot be considered as disproportionate as at the best, it can be considered as minor punishment.
7.3 It is fruitful to refer to the judgment relied by learned advocate for the respondent in the case of Union of India vs. Page 10 of 19 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Sep 15 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 15 22:26:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16333/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined P. Gunasekaran reported in 2014 (0) AIJEL-SC 55944, more particularly, paragraphs 13 and 16 are relevant, as under:
13. Despite the well-settled position, it is painfully disturbing to note that the High Court has acted as an appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings, re-
appreciating even the evidence before the enquiry officer. The finding on Charge no. I was accepted by the disciplinary authority and was also endorsed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. In disciplinary proceedings, the High Court is not and cannot act as a second court of first appeal. The High Court, in exercise of its powers under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, shall not venture into re- appreciation of the evidence. The High Court can only see whether:
a. the enquiry is held by a competent authority;
b. the enquiry is held according to the procedure
prescribed in that
behalf;
c. there is violation of the principles of natural justice
in conducting
the proceedings;
d. the authorities have disabled themselves from
reaching a fair
conclusion by some considerations extraneous to the
evidence and merits of the case;
e. the authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced by irrelevant or extraneous considerations;Page 11 of 19 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Sep 15 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 15 22:26:46 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16333/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined f. the conclusion, on the very face of it, is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at such conclusion;
g. the disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to admit the admissible and material evidence; h. the disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which influenced the finding;
i. the finding of fact is based on no evidence.
14. Under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not:
(i). re-appreciate the evidence;
(ii). interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case the same has been conducted in accordance with law;
(iii). go into the adequacy of the evidence;
(iv). go into the reliability of the evidence;
(v). interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be based.
(vi). correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be;
(vii). go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience.
15. In one of the earliest decisions in State of Andhra Pradesh and others v. S. Sree Rama Rao[1], many of the above principles have been discussed and it has been concluded thus:
"7. ... The High Court is not constituted in a Page 12 of 19 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Sep 15 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 15 22:26:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16333/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution a court of appeal over the decision of the authorities holding a departmental enquiry against a public servant: it is concerned to determine whether the enquiry is held by an authority competent in that behalf, and according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf, and whether the rules of natural justice are not violated. Where there is some evidence, which the authority entrusted with the duty to hold the enquiry has accepted and which evidence may reasonably support the conclusion that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge, it is not the function of the High Court in a petition for a writ under Article 226 to review the evidence and to arrive at an independent finding on the evidence. The High Court may undoubtedly interfere where the departmental authorities have held the proceedings against the delinquent in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of the statutory rules prescribing the mode of enquiry or where the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair decision by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and the merits of the case or by allowing themselves to be influenced by irrelevant considerations or where the conclusion on the very face of it is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at that conclusion, or on similar grounds. But the departmental authorities are, if the enquiry is otherwise properly held, the sole judges of facts and Page 13 of 19 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Sep 15 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 15 22:26:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16333/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined if there be some legal evidence on which their findings can be based, the adequacy or reliability of that evidence is not a matter which can be permitted to be canvassed before the High Court in a proceeding for a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution."
16. In State of Andhra Pradesh and others v. Chitra Venkata Rao[2], the principles have been further discussed at paragraph-21 to 24, which read as follows:
"21. The scope of Article 226 in dealing with departmental inquiries has come up before this Court. Two propositions were laid down by this Court in State of A.P. v. S. Sree Rama Rao. First, there is no warrant for the view that in considering whether a public officer is guilty of misconduct charged against him, the rule followed in criminal trials that[pic]an offence is not established unless proved by evidence beyond reasonable doubt to the satisfaction of the Court must be applied. If that rule be not applied by a domestic tribunal of inquiry the High Court in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not competent to declare the order of the authorities holding a departmental enquiry invalid. The High Court is not a court of appeal under Article 226 over the decision of the authorities holding a departmental enquiry against a public servant. The Court is concerned to determine whether the enquiry is held by an authority competent in that behalf and Page 14 of 19 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Sep 15 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 15 22:26:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16333/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf, and whether the rules of natural justice are not violated. Second, where there is some evidence which the authority entrusted with the duty to hold the enquiry has accepted and which evidence may reasonably support the conclusion that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge, it is not the function of the High Court to review the evidence and to arrive at an independent finding on the evidence.
The High Court may interfere where the departmental authorities have held the proceedings against the delinquent in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of the statutory rules prescribing the mode of enquiry or where the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair decision by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and the merits of the case or by allowing themselves to be influenced by irrelevant considerations or where the conclusion on the very face of it is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at that conclusion. The departmental authorities are, if the enquiry is otherwise properly held, the sole judges of facts and if there is some legal evidence on which their findings can be based, the adequacy or reliability of that evidence is not a matter which can be permitted to be canvassed before the High Court in a proceeding for a writ under Article 226.Page 15 of 19 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Sep 15 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 15 22:26:46 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16333/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined
22. Again, this Court in Railway Board, representing the Union of India, New Delhi v. Niranjan Singh said that the High Court does not interfere with the conclusion of the disciplinary authority unless the finding is not supported by any evidence or it can be said that no reasonable person could have reached such a finding. In Niranjan Singh case this Court held that the High Court exceeded its powers in interfering with the findings of the disciplinary authority on the charge that the respondent was instrumental in compelling the shut-down of an air compressor at about 8.15 a.m. on May 31, 1956. This Court said that the Enquiry Committee felt that the evidence of two persons that the respondent led a group of strikers and compelled them to close down their compressor could not be accepted at its face value. The General Manager did not agree with the Enquiry Committee on that point. The General Manager accepted the evidence. This Court said that it was open to the General Manager to do so and he was not bound by the conclusion reached by the committee. This Court held that the conclusion reached by the disciplinary authority should prevail and the High Court should not have interfered with the conclusion.
23. The jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari under Article 226 is a supervisory jurisdiction. The Court exercises it not as an appellate court. The findings of fact reached by an inferior court or Page 16 of 19 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Sep 15 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 15 22:26:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16333/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined tribunal as a result of the appreciation of evidence are not reopened or questioned in writ proceedings. An error of law which is apparent on the face of the record can be corrected by a writ, but not an error of fact, however grave it may appear to be. In regard to a finding of fact recorded by a tribunal, a writ can be issued if it is shown that in recording the said finding, the tribunal had erroneously refused to admit admissible and material evidence, or had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which has influenced the impugned finding. Again if a finding of fact is based on no evidence, that would be regarded as an error of law which can be corrected by a writ of certiorari. A finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal cannot be challenged on the ground that the relevant and material evidence adduced before the Tribunal is insufficient or inadequate to sustain a finding. The adequacy or sufficiency of evidence led on a point and the inference of fact to be drawn from the said finding are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal. See Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan.
24. The High Court in the present case assessed the entire evidence and came to its own conclusion. The High Court was not justified to do so. Apart from the aspect that the High Court does not correct a finding of fact on the ground that the evidence is not sufficient or adequate, the evidence in the present case which was considered by the Tribunal cannot be Page 17 of 19 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Sep 15 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 15 22:26:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16333/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined scanned by the High Court to justify the conclusion that there is no evidence which would justify the finding of the Tribunal that the respondent did not make the journey. The Tribunal gave reasons for its conclusions. It is not possible for the High Court to say that no reasonable person could have arrived at these conclusions. The High Court reviewed the evidence, reassessed the evidence and then rejected the evidence as no evidence. That is precisely what the High Court in exercising jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari should not do."
CONCLUSION:
7.4 Considering the above settled position of law, which is also reiterated in many judgments and considering the fact that the scope of judicial review is very limited, I find no reason to interfere with the findings of the authority and considering the prayers in the present petition, no relief can be granted in view of the above-mentioned facts and circumstances of the case. The order passed by the authority is after discussing everything at length, after giving cogent reasons and after giving proper opportunity to the petitioner as well as after perusing the materials available on the record in appropriate manner. Therefore, it cannot be said that the said order is arbitrary, unjust or capricious in any manner neither it can be said that it is violated of Article 14 or 16 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, no reasons, Page 18 of 19 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Sep 15 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 15 22:26:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16333/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined to interfere by exercising my power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out. In view of the above, the present petition is required to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed, accordingly with no order as to costs. Rule stands discharged.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J) DIWAKAR SHUKLA Page 19 of 19 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Sep 15 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 15 22:26:46 IST 2025