Allahabad High Court
Mohammad Shamim Ahmad And Another vs State Of Up And 3 Others on 11 April, 2025
Author: Ashwani Kumar Mishra
Bench: Ashwani Kumar Mishra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:53860-DB
Court No. - 29
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 274 of 2025
Appellant :- Mohammad Shamim Ahmad And Another
Respondent :- State Of Up And 3 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Naushad Alam,Shivendu Ojha,Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kailash Singh Kushwaha
With
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 275 of 2025
Appellant :- Ashiq Ali And 2 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 9 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Naushad Alam,Shivendu Ojha,Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kailash Singh Kushwaha
And
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 262 of 2025
Appellant :- Akhtar Ali And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Naushad Alam,Shivendu Ojha,Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kailash Singh Kushwaha
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J.
1. This bunch of special appeals arises out of judgment and order passed by learned Single Judge, dated 5.3.2025, in batch of writ petitions, whereby the writ petitions have been dismissed. The judgment of learned Single Judge runs into 8 paragraphs and is reproduced hereinafter:-
"1. The main grievance of petitioners (who were appointed as Assistant Teacher Tahtania) in present bunch of writ petitions was that they were terminated while working in Madarsa, prior to approval of Scheme of Administration.
2. Some of the writ petitioners were admittedly terminated before the Scheme of Administration which was approved on 02.08.2022, therefore, in earlier round of litigation their termination orders were interfered, which was upheld upto Supreme Court (See, Arshad Javed Khan vs. State of U.P. and others, Neutral Citation No. 2022:AHC:124987; Committee of Management, Madarsa Masdarul Uloom Asdaqiya and others vs. Arshad Javed Khan and others, 2023(3) ADJ 605; and order dated 12.05.2023 passed by Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 9393 of 2023). However, all the petitioners were later on again terminated, i.e., after approval of Scheme of Administration vide orders dated 03.12.2022 and 12.12.2022, therefore, legal impediment, if any, was removed.
3. In this regard an argument was raised that subsequently on 22.05.2023 approval to Scheme of Administration was suspended. However, according to view of this Court mere suspension will not declare the act conducted in interregnum period to be illegal when Scheme of Administration was in currency, therefore, said ground is liable to be rejected and accordingly rejected.
4. In the impugned orders, specific reasons are assigned that petitioners have played fraud by showing their different date of birth; testimonials were remained unverified; accepted forgery; not provided the testimonials despite various opportunities etc. and no material or argument was submitted on these issues except above referred technical ground, which is being rejected. For reference relevant part of impugned orders are extracted hereinafter:
Relevant part of impugned order with regard to Petitioner- Akhtar Ali
"जबकि पूर्व की कार्यवाही में जाँच के दौरान प्रधानाचार्य के माध्यम से जो स्पष्टीकरण आप द्वारा प्रेषित किया गया उसमें स्वतः ही हिफ्ज एवं मुंशी के प्रमाण पत्रों पर दो जन्मतिथियों क्रमशः 01.03.1982 और 01.07.1982 का स्वतः उल्लेख किया गया है, जिससे कूटरचना और जाल फरेब सिद्ध होता है।"
Relevant part of impugned order with regard to Petitioner-Saudagar Ali
"जबकि पूर्व की कार्यवाही में जाँच के दौरान आप द्वारा प्रेषित प्रधानाचार्य के माध्यम से स्पष्टीकरण एवं प्रमाण पत्रों के परीक्षण में आलिम का प्रमाण पत्र जो विजलीपुरा जिला शाहजहांपुर का है एवं संस्था के अभिलेखों से मिलान नहीं हो पा रहा है। जिसका सत्यापन हेतु उक्त संस्था के प्रधानाचार्य द्वारा मा० रजिस्ट्रार मदरसा शिक्षा परिषद को पत्र दिया जा चुका है और उक्त प्रमाण पत्र की सत्यता सिद्ध नहीं हो पा रही है। आप द्वारा प्रयुक्त आलिम का प्रमाण पत्र पूर्णत्या कूटरचित सिद्ध हो चुका है।"
Relevant part of impugned order with regard to Petitioner-Shamim Ahmad
"उक्त के तहत उ०प्र० अशासकीय अरबी फारसी मान्यता प्रशासन सेवा नियमावली 2016 के बिन्दु 16 में उल्लिखित शक्तियों का प्रयोग कर प्रबन्ध समिति की बैठक में दिनांक 02.12.2022 को सर्वसम्मत निर्णय के आधार पर अब तक बार बार विरोधाभाषी स्पष्टीकरण प्रस्तुत करने तथा तथ्यों को गोपित करने से आपके द्वारा की गयी जालसाजी के मद्देनजर अन्तिम रूप से आपको सेवा से "बरखास्त" किया जाता है।"
Relevant part of impugned order with regard to Petitioner-Ashiq Ali
"उक्त के तहत उ०प्र० अशासकीय अरबी फारसी मान्यता प्रशासन सेवा नियमावली 2016 के बिन्दु 16 में उल्लिखित शक्तियों का प्रयोग कर प्रबन्ध समिति की बैठक में दिनांक 02.12.2022 को सर्वसम्मत निर्णय के आधार पर अब तक बार बार विरोधाभाषी स्पष्टीकरण प्रस्तुत करने तथा तथ्यों को गोपित करने से आपके द्वारा की गयी जालसाजी के मद्देनजर अन्तिम रूप से आपको सेवा से "बरखास्त" किया जाता है।"
(B) Writ-A No. 4577 of 2023-Relevant part of Impugned order with regard to Petitioner-Maqsood Ahmad
"आपका अब तक का प्रेषित स्पष्टीकरण ग्रह्य नहीं है। साथ ही आप द्वारा बिन्दुवार स्पष्टीकरण न प्रस्तुत करने पर पत्रांक- 406/29.11.2022 को कारण बताओ नोटिस भी प्रेषित किया गया जिसका निर्धारित समय में आप द्वारा उत्तर भी नहीं दिया गया जो ससंथा के कार्यदायी अभिलेख लिपिक कार्यालय तथा आपके चेम्बर में 2020 में आप ही द्वारा सूचीबद्ध किया गया था और लिपिक की बर्खास्तगी के बाद से आपकी साजिशी संलिप्तता के कारण गायब है और अब तक चार्ज लेकर आप द्वारा संस्था में उपलब्ध नही कराया जा सका है जिससे संस्था का कार्य बुरी तरह प्रभावित हुआ है जिसके पूर्ण जिम्मेदार आप हैं।
अस्तु प्रबन्ध कार्यकारिणी की बैठक दिनांक 10.12.2022 को आपके विषयगत प्रश्नों पर विचार कर सर्वसम्मति से निर्णय के आधार पर आपके कर्तव्यहीनता, गैर जिम्मेदाराना कार्य, लापरवाही एवं संस्था की बिगड़ती व्यवस्था का आरोप पूर्णतया सिद्ध होने पर सेवा समाप्ति (बर्खास्त) किया जाता है तथा आदेशित किया जाता है कि आपके पास आपके संरक्षण में संस्था के जो भी अभिलेख, संसाधन, डिजिटल उपकरण, चेकबुक, पासबुक एवं लेखा जोखा मौजूद है, उन सभी अभिलेखों का सूचीबद्ध चार्ज प्रबन्ध कार्यकारिणी को प्रस्तुत कर दें, अन्यथा नहीं प्रस्तुत करने पर प्रबन्ध कार्यकारिणी को विधिक प्रशासनिक कार्यवाही करनी अनिवार्य हो जायेगी।"
Relevant part of impugned order with regard to Petitioner-Shamim Ahmad
"आपके निलम्बन आदेश पत्रांक 383/27.09.2022 के क्रम में निर्गत आरोप पत्र दिनांक 17.10.2022 तथा रिमाइण्डर आरोप पत्र दिनांक 08.11.2022 के आलोक में आप द्वारा प्रेषित स्पष्टीकरण में बार-बार जिन प्रमाण-पत्रों पर नियुक्ति होना कथित तौर पर बताया गया है, परन्तु अब तक उन प्रमाण-पत्रों की स्वप्रमाणित स्वहस्ताक्षरित प्रतियां उपलब्ध नहीं करायी गयी है, जिससे जाँच समिति गठित कर उसके समक्ष प्रस्तुत कर उसके सत्यता का परीक्षण कराया जा सके तथा दिनांक 22.11.2022 को प्रेषित कारण बतायों नोटिस का उत्तर भी निर्धारित समय के अन्तर्गत प्रेषित नहीं किया गया है। जिससे स्पष्ट अवधारणा सिद्ध होती है कि आप द्वारा जिन प्रमाण-पत्रों पर नियुक्ति होना स्वीकार किया गया है कि स्वप्रमाणित स्वहस्ताक्षरित प्रतियां प्रस्तुत नहीं करना तथा प्रस्तुत नहीं करने का स्पष्ट कारण नहीं प्रेषित करना अनियमितता एवं जालसाजी की पुष्टि होती है जबकि पूर्व की कार्यवाही में जाँच के दौरान आप द्वारा स्वतः ही प्रधानाचार्य के माध्यम से जिला अल्पसंख्यक कल्याण अधिकारी देवरिया द्वारा जाँच के क्रम में मुंशी 1998 में करना कबूल किया गया है तथा स्वहस्ताक्षरित प्रमाण-पत्र भी प्रस्तुत किया गया है तथा मा० रजिस्ट्रार को दिये गये। दिनांक 25.03.2021 इसी पत्रावली में दिये गये स्पष्टीकरण में मुंशी 1996 में करना प्रेषित दिगर संस्था से पास करना कबूल किया गया है, जो अपने आप में विरोधाभाषी जालसाजी कि प्रक्रिया सिद्ध होती है।"
Relevant part of impugned order with regard to Petitioner-Ashiq Ali
"आपके निलम्बन आदेश पत्रांक 384/27.09.2022 के क्रम में निर्गत आरोप पत्र दिनांक 17.10.2022 तथा रिमाइण्डर आरोप पत्र दिनांक 08.11.2022 के अलोक में आप द्वारा प्रेषित स्पष्टीकरण में बार-बार जिन प्रमाण-पत्रों पर नियुक्ति कथित तौर पर बताया गया है, परन्तु अब तक उन प्रमाण-पत्रों की स्वप्रमाणित स्वहस्ताक्षरित प्रतियां उपलब्ध नहीं करायी गयी है। जिससे जाँच समिति गठित कर उसके समक्ष प्रस्तुत कर उसके सत्यता का परीक्षण कराया जा सके तथा दिनांक 22.11.2022 को प्रेषित कारण बतायों नोटिस का उत्तर निर्धारित समय के अन्तर्गत प्रेषित नहीं किया गया है। जिससे स्पष्ट अवधारणा सिद्ध होती है आप द्वारा बार-बार उक्त प्रमाण-पत्रों जिन पर नियुक्ति होना स्वीकार किया गया है कि स्वप्रमाणित स्वहस्ताक्षरित प्रतिया प्रस्तुत नहीं करना तथा प्रस्तुत नहीं करने का स्पष्ट कारण नहीं प्रेषित करना। अनियमितता एवं जालसाजी की पुष्टि होती है।
जबकि पूर्व की कार्यवाही में जाँच के दौरान आप द्वारा स्वतः ही प्रधानाचार्य के माध्यम से पत्रांक 293 दिनांक 07.10.2020 के क्रम में आप द्वारा स्वतः के प्रस्तुत स्पष्टीकरण एवं स्वहस्ताक्षरित प्रमाण-पत्रों की प्रतियों में दिगर प्रमाण-पत्रों पर नियुक्ति होना स्वकार किया गया है। पूर्व की कार्यवाही में प्रबन्ध कमेटी की प्रशाासनिक योजना अनुमन्य नहीं होने के कारण अधिकारों में अन्तरनिहीत कमी के तहत पारित आदेश को मा० उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा प्रवेश चरण में अपास्त दिनांक 13.09.2022 को कर दिया गया था एवं उक्त आदेश में ही प्रशासन योजना स्वीकृत होने पर प्रबन्ध कमेटी को आपके खिलाफ नये सिरे से सख्त प्रशासनिक कार्यवाही करने हेतु प्रबन्धक को अधिकृत कर दिया गया। जिसके तहत वर्तमान प्रक्रिया जारी है।"
Relevant part of impugned order with regard to Petitioner-Akhtar Ali
"आपको निलम्बन आदेश पत्रांक 382/27.09.2022 के क्रम में निर्गत आरोप पत्र दिनांक 17.10.2022 तथा रिमाइण्डर आरोप पत्र दिनांक 08.11.2022 के आलोक में आप द्वारा प्रेषित स्पष्टीकरण में बार-बार फर्जी पत्र प्रस्तुत कर जन्मतिथि सुधार का दावा प्रस्तुत किया जाता रहा है जबकि प्रमाण पत्रों की स्वप्रमाणित स्वहस्ताक्षरित प्रतियां प्रस्तुत नहीं की गयी है और अलग अलग संस्थाओं में अलग अलग दो जन्मतिथियां नामांकन कराकर प्रमाण पत्र अर्जित किये गये है इस सम्बन्ध में पहले भी पत्र जारी कर आपसे स्पष्टीकरण मांगा जा चुका है। परन्तु आप द्वारा कोई भी उत्तर अब तक प्रस्तुत नहीं किया गया है।"
Relevant part of impugned order with regard to Petitioner-Saudagar Ali
"आपके निलम्बन आदेश पत्रांक 381/27.09.2022 के क्रम में निर्गत आरोप पत्र दिनांक 17.10.2022 तथा रिमाइण्डर आरोप पत्र दिनांक 08.11.2022 के आलोक में आप द्वारा प्रेषित स्पष्टीकरण में बार-बार अलग अलग शिक्षा परिषदो/संस्थाओं में अलग अलग तीन जन्मतिथियों में नामांकन कराकर परिषदीय परीक्षाएं दी गयी है, परन्तु आप द्वारा उसका स्पष्ट स्पष्टीकरण आज तक प्रस्तुत नहीं किया गया है जबकि आपके ग्राम सभा में सौदागर पुत्र घुरा नाम का कोई दूसरा व्यक्ति न था और न वर्तमान में है मात्र टाइटिल बदल देने से सत्य पर पर्दा नहीं डाला जा सकता है।"
5. The Court also takes note of well established principle of law that "fraud vitiates every solemn act" and since no material to contradict the findings returned in impugned order was placed on record and that there is also not much merit in the argument which could show that principle of natural justice were not substantially complied with since despite repeated opportunity to submit explanation was either not submitted or vaguely submitted, which could not deny the allegations.
6. Accordingly, Writ-A No. 4577 of 2023, 4579 of 2023 and 4569 of 2023 are hereby dismissed. So far as Writ-A No. 20016 of 2024, where payment of salary was sought, is concerned, the same is also dismissed in consequence of above order.
7. So far as Writ-A No. 16085 of 2023 is concerned, therein the subsequent appointments of Respondents-5 to 8, i.e., Mohd. Akhtar Hussain, Smt. Shahin Khanam, Ahmad Saad and Mohd. Hassan Khan, were under challenge.
8. However, as this Court has already held that there was no illegality in termination order of petitioners in Writ-A No. 4577 of 2023, 4579 of 2023 and 4569 of 2023, therefore, any challenge to appointees of fresh recruitment does not survive and accordingly Writ-A No. 16085 of 2023 is also dismissed."
2. The appeals are pressed by the writ petitioners contending that the order of termination is in utter violation of principles of natural justice, inasmuch as the Committee of Management has not adhered to any fair procedure to investigate the charges levelled against the petitioners and merely upon receipt of reply to the chargesheet the Committee of Management has proceeded to terminate the services without holding any enquiry in the matter. It is also submitted that enquiry report was never brought on record, nor was it ever served upon the petitioners. It is also contended that the Registrar/Inspector vide his orders dated 29.10.2021 and 24.11.2021 had otherwise examined the issues and it was found that charges levelled against the petitioners are not proved, which fact has been omitted from consideration. It is urged that learned Single Judge was swayed by the nature of allegations made against the petitioners and merely by noticing the allegations the writ petitions have been dismissed.
3. Argument is that learned Single Judge has fallen in error in refusing to examine the challenge laid to the order of termination and dismissed the writ petitions by merely observing that allegations are serious. It is also submitted that though law is well settled that fraud vitiates every solemn act, but the finding of fraud can be sustained only if such finding is returned by the competent forum, after following a fair procedure in law. It is urged that merely making of allegation cannot be treated to be a substantive to the proof of allegations, and therefore the judgment of learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petitions is liable to be interfered in the present appeals.
4. We have heard Sri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants and Sri S.F.A. Naqvi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Committee of Management. Sri D.K. Tiwari, Additional Chief Standing Counsel has been heard for the State of U.P.
5. Admitted facts of the case are that there exists a Madarsa in the name of Ahle Sunnat Dr. Haji Latif Khoribari, Rampur, Bhatani, District Deoria, which is duly recognized by the educational authorities and the teachers in the institution are receiving salary out of State funds. The appointment of all appellants on different post of teachers in the institution is not in dispute. It is equally undisputed that their appointment was approved and the all appellants are receiving salary out of State fund for the last several years. It transpires that Committee of Management had earlier terminated the services of petitioners vide resolution of the Committee of Management dated 4.12.2021. This order was challenged in Writ-A Nos.590 of 2022 as well as 672 of 2022. Both the writ petitions were allowed by learned Single Judge on 13.9.2022 after observing as under:-
"Learned counsel for the parties are not at variance as regards the facts leading upto passing of the impugned order and submit that controversy involved in the writ petition can be adjudicated without calling for counter affidavit at the admission stage itself. Accordingly, filing of counter affidavit is dispensed with and the Court proceeds to adjudicate the controversy on merits at the admission stage itself.
It is contended by learned Senior Counsel that the order impugned has been passed under inherent lack of jurisdiction in as much as under the provisions of the U.P. Madarsa Shiksha Parishad Act, 2004 and consequent Uttar Pradesh Non-Governmental Arabic and Persian Madarsa Recognition, Administration and Services Regulations, 2016 applicable to the case of the petitioners, particularly Regulation 2016 provides that disciplinary proceedings can be initiated against the teaching staff of a Madarsa only in accordance with the approved scheme of Administration. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the services of the petitioners could not be terminated resorting to the unapproved Regulations as admittedly at the time of passing the impugned order the Regulations were not approved.
Reliance has been placed upon the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Court passed in Writ (A) No.10967 of 2022 (Arshad Javed Khan Vs. State of U.P & 3 others) wherein it has been held that the disciplinary proceedings in regard to teaching staff is to be undertaken in compliance of Section 24 of the Act 2004 read with Section 16 of Regulations 2016. It has been contended by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that, admittedly, when the impugned order was passed the regulations were not approved and they were approved only on 02.08.2022. The aforesaid fact about the regulations being approved subsequent to the impugned order is not disputed by learned Counsel representing the Respondent Nos.3 & 4. Learned Counsel for the respondents concede that the impugned order cannot be sustained in the absence of approval. They submit that order may be set aside granting liberty to the Respondent Nos.3 & 4 to take appropriate action against the petitioners in terms of the approved regulations.
In such view of the matter, the order dated 04.12.2021 terminating the services of the petitioners is set aside, however, it is left open for the Respondent No.4 to proceed against the petitioners strictly in accordance with law. The writ petition stands allowed accordingly.
The petitioners shall be entitled for all consequential benefits that flow from setting aside the impugned order."
6. Special appeal filed by Committee of Management against the aforesaid judgment failed. It is thereafter that the Committee of Management has placed the petitioners under suspension vide resolution dated 27.9.2022. The Committee of Management thereafter proceeded to serve chargesheet upon the appellants on 17.10.2022. The substance of the charge was that educational certificates relied upon by the appellants were manipulated or not genuine. The appellants controverted the charges levelled in the chargesheet by submitting their reply by 29.10.2022. On 30.10.2022, the appellants submitted further reply in respect of the charges levelled against them. It is thereafter that the Committee of Management has proceeded to pass the order terminating the services of the appellants vide order dated 3.12.2022. The order dated 3.12.2022 has been perused by us. This order refers to issuance of chargesheet on 17.10.2022 as well as reminders issued on 8.11.2022. The fact that charges were denied or that any enquiry was held is not mentioned in the order. The order further records that self-attested copies of the educational certificates were not provided by the appellants within the time permitted which leads to the inference that the certificates relied upon by the appellants are not genuine. It is with this finding that the order of termination has been passed.
7. We find substance in the contention of the appellants that a fair procedure was not followed before returning the finding that the educational certificates were fraudulent, inasmuch as after submission of reply to the chargesheet neither any enquiry was conducted in the matter nor any enquiry report has been placed on record. None of the certificates were otherwise got verified from the competent authority. The previous order passed by the Registrar holding all such charges to be factually incorrect vide order dated 29.10.2021 and 24.11.2021 has also not been referred to. The manner in which the order of termination has been passed clearly depicts violation of principles of natural justice. We otherwise find that fair procedure for examining the charges levelled has not been followed by the Committee of Management before passing the order of termination. Merely because allegations are serious, it would not lead to an inference that the charges are proved. It is otherwise undisputed that appellants were appointed and were continuing for the last several years, and they were also receiving salary. The manner in which appellants have been terminated by the authorities, therefore, cannot be approved.
8. Ordinarily, we would have remitted the matter back to the learned Single Judge once we come to the conclusion that grievance of the appellants has not been evaluated on merits, but as we find that the order of termination otherwise is in violation of principles of natural justice and a fair procedure has not been followed before terminating the services, we are of the view that no useful purpose would be served in remitting the matter back to learned Single Judge. Sri Naqvi, appearing for the Committee of Management submits that in such circumstances the Committee of Management be permitted to conduct a fresh enquiry from the stage the proceedings have gone bad. We find substance in such submission of Sri Naqvi. This is otherwise the correct course to be followed in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Managing Director ECIL vs. B. Karunakar reported in 1993 (4) SCC 727.
9. Law is settled that this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not to act as an appellate authority and is primarily concerned with the fairness of the decision making process. In what manner conclusion has been arrived at, therefore, becomes important. When it is found that charges are specifically denied and no enquiry is conducted to determine the correctness or otherwise of the allegation contained in the chargesheet, the conclusion of the employer would be questionable. The enquiry officer has not even noticed the fact that the charges levelled against the appellants are denied by them. In such circumstances, the conclusion would inevitable that a fair procedure has not been adhered to before holding the appellants guilty.
10. In that view of the matter, Special Appeal Nos.274 of 2025 and 262 of 2025 succeed and are allowed. The order passed by learned Single Judge, dated 5.3.2025, is set aside. Writ-A Nos. 4579 of 2023 and 4569 of 2023 succeed and are allowed and the orders of termination passed against the appellants dated 3.12.2022 are set aside. The disciplinary proceedings stands restored to the stage of submission of reply to the chargesheet by the appellants. For the purposes of enquiry the appellants would be reinstated in service. It will, however, be open for the Management to place them under suspension. The appellants otherwise undertake to cooperate in the disciplinary enquiry. The disciplinary authority is at liberty to proceed further in the matter, in accordance with law. It goes without saying that the reply submitted by the appellants to the chargesheet would be duly evaluated and investigated before the enquiry report is submitted. The order passed by the Registrar in favour of the appellants will also be taken into consideration. Such proceedings shall be concluded within a period of four months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order. We also provide that teachers, who have been appointed subsequently and are working in the institution, shall continue subject to the orders, which are to be ultimately passed in the disciplinary enquiry. In the event it is found that charges are not proved, the appellants shall be reinstated in service and in such eventuality all those subsequently appointed teachers will not claim any equity in their favour or seek continuance. The persons, who have been subsequently appointed in place of appellants will have no right of audience in proceedings relating to the disciplinary enquiry of the appellants. The question of payment of arrears of salary will also be abide by the decision in the disciplinary proceedings.
11. In view of the orders passed in the aforesaid appeals, the Special Appeal No.275 of 2025 alongwith Writ-A No.16085 of 2023 are permitted to be withdrawn at this stage, and the same are dismissed, accordingly.
Order Date :- 11.4.2025
Anil
(Donadi Ramesh,J.) (Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.)
