Rajani Kanta Patra vs The Union Of India Through The ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 4327 Jhar

                                       1

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                         W. P. (S) No. 3274 of 2020

             Rajani Kanta Patra, aged about 69 years, son of Late Kashi Nath
             Patra, resident of Balia, P.O. Balia, P.S. Balasore, District
             Balasore, Orissa                         ...     ...      Petitioner
                                  Versus
          1. The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Home
             Affairs, Government of India at North Block, New Delhi
          2. The Directorate General, Central Industrial Security Force,
             Ministry of Home Affairs at Block No. 13, CGO Complex, Lodhi
             Road, New Delhi
          3. The Deputy Inspector General (Personnel), Central Industrial
             Security Force, Ministry of Home Affairs at Block No. 13, CGO
             Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi
          4. The Deputy Inspector General (Legal), Central Industrial Security
             Force, Ministry of Home Affairs at Block No. 13, CGO Complex,
             Lodhi Road, New Delhi              ...        ...      Respondents
                                  ---

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

          For the Petitioner      : Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate
                                  : Ms. Apoorva Singh, Advocate
                                  : Ms. Richa Lal, Advocate
          For the Respondents     : Mr. Anil Kumar, Sr. Advocate
                                   Addl. S.G. (State of Jharkhand)
                                  : Mrs. Alpana Verma, C.G.C.
                                  ---
08/21.10.2022

1. Heard learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties.

2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: -

"(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ/s, direction/s or order/s in the nature of certiorari to quash the decision contained in Memo No. 233 dated 25.03.2020 (Annexure-11) passed by the respondent Deputy Director General (Legal), CISF, whereby and where-under, the Appeal preferred by the Petitioner against the order of punishment has been dismissed;

(ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ/s, direction/s or order/s in the nature of certiorari to quash the decision contained in Memo No. 733 dated 03.09.2013 (Anneure-7) passed by the respondent Deputy Inspector General (Personnel), whereby and where-under the Petitioner has been inflicted with a major punishment of 20% (twenty percent) cut in his monthly pension on permanent basis and forfeiture of his entire gratuity, for a non-est cause;

(iii) The petitioner upon quashing of the impugned order of penalty and the order passed by appellate authority prays for payment of gratuity and the arrears of the deducted pension @ 20% from the pension of the petitioner.

And/Or

Pass such other order or orders as your Lordship may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice."

Arguments of the Petitioner

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the provision of Rule 8 and 9 of Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 are required to be considered in the present case. He submits that there has been no loss to the exchequer in view of the fact that allegation against the petitioner is in connection with his behavior which was alleged to be unbecoming of an officer. He also submits that the term 'grave misconduct' has to be considered in the light of explanation to Rule 8 of the aforesaid Rule of 1972, but the respondents have referred to the allegation as serious misconduct.

4. Learned counsel has also submitted that in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the acquittal of an incumbent in corresponding criminal case is also required to be taken into consideration. However, the case of the petitioner is on better footing as the petitioner was not put to trial rather the cognizance was not taken and the police had submitted final form exonerating the petitioner and the protest petition was also dismissed. Learned counsel submits that the alleged incident was not in public view which was taken into consideration while dismissing the protest petition.

5. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner had very long unblemished past service record and therefore the petitioner who had earned his pension by rendering unblemished past service has been punished with a harsh punishment which is disproportionate to the proved charge against the petitioner. He has referred to the judgment reported in (1990) 4 SCC 314 (D.V. Kapoor Vs. Union of India and Ors.) para 5, 6, 7, 8, 10 and 11. 2.

Arguments of the Respondents

6. Learned counsel for the respondents have opposed the prayer and has submitted that the scope of judicial review in the matter of department proceeding is very limited. He has referred to the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (1998) 7 SCC 691 (Union of India v. B. Dev) as well as the judgment reported in (2021) 11 SCC 321 (Union of India v. Dalbir Singh). The learned counsel has also relied upon the judgement passed by Hon'ble

Rajasthan High Court reported in 2005 (3) SLR 459 (Akla Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr.) para 25 onwards to submit that the term grave misconduct has been considered and explained. He also submits that the term grave misconduct or serious misconduct or gross misconduct are synonymous terms and they have not been defined. Findings of this Court

7. As per the case of the petitioner, while the petitioner was posted as Assistant Commandant CISF BSL, was served with memo of charge dated 07.12.2010 issued by CISF headquarters wherein following charges were levelled: -

"Article - I: That Shri R.K. Patra while posted and functioning as Assistant Commandant, CISF Unit BSL Bokaro during the period from 17.06.2008 to till date committed an act of gross misconduct in that, on 03.10.2008, he passed comments about the caste (SC) of No.812310030 Inspector/Min. Inderjit Singh in front of ASI/Slk. S.K. Lal. Again on 16.04.2009 Shri R.K. Patra used insulting and intimidating remarks in his office on Inspr/Min. Inderjit Singh, mentioning his caste in front of No.884659954 ASI/Clk. V.K. Singh, with intent to humiliate him.

Thus, Shri R.K. Patra acted unprofessionally and in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant of his status and service in an Armed Force of the Union."

(emphasis supplied)

8. Upon perusal of the complaint, it is clear that it was alleged that the petitioner had abused the complainant belonging to Schedule Caste, on caste lines, firstly on 03.10.2008 and thereafter again on 16.04.2009. It was alleged that the petitioner had committed gross misconduct, acted unprofessionally and in a manner unbecoming of a government servant of his status and service in an Armed Force of the Union.

9. A preliminary enquiry report was submitted and it was reported that the complainant and the petitioner were not in good terms and there was delay of 7 months in lodging the complaint. It was observed in the preliminary report that keeping in view the clean service record of the petitioner for more than 35 and half years, his case may be considered sympathetically as he was retiring from service with effect from 31.01.2011 after attaining age of superannuation.

10. The petitioner retired from force on 31.01.2011 and vide order dated 07.01.2011, the Ministry intimated the petitioner that the enquiry would continue against him even after his superannuation.

11. The petitioner challenged the charge memo and initiation of departmental proceedings in W.P.(S) No. 4100 of 2011.

12. The complainant not only preferred a departmental complaint, but also filed a criminal complaint being Complaint Case No.328/2009 dated 04.07.2009 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro for alleged offence punishable under Section 3 (i)

(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act read with section 506 of Indian Penal Code and thereafter Bokaro Police Station Case No.40 of 2009 was lodged against the petitioner. However, final form was submitted in the criminal case and the complainant preferred protest petition which was dismissed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 27.09.2012 (Annexure- 6).

13. The disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under Rule 14 of Central Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal ) Rules, 1965 by order dated 07.12.2010 and upon his superannuation on 31.01.2011, the proceedings was continued under Rule 9 of Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972; petitioner was held guilty by the enquiry officer, enquiry report was sent to the petitioner vide letter dated 09.04.2012 to enable him to submit representation, but instead of responding, the petitioner only mentioned about pendency of a writ petition before this Court and stated that he will file representation if the Court directs him to do so. Opinion of Union Public Service Commission was sought for by way of consultation and the UPSC advised that the ends of justice would be met if the penalty of 20% cut in monthly pension on permanent basis and forfeiture of his entire gratuity is imposed; a copy of the advice of UPSC was sent to the petitioner vide letter dated 24.05.2013 for rebuttal and again the petitioner responded by stating about pendency of the said writ petition before this Court and stated that he will file representation if the Court directs him to do so. However, the petitioner also contended as follows:-

(i) the charge memorandum dated 07.12.2010 was issued to him at the verge of his retirement with malafide intention; (ii) the contention of the complainant is totally vague, baseless

and lack of his professional knowledge; (iii) he has never abused the complainant; (iv) ASI/Clk. S.K. Lal and ASI/Clk. V.K. Singh became witnesses against him because they were punished by him; (v) The PE officer has recorded statements of 11 witnesses but in the charge sheet only the complainant and other two witnesses have been made as PWs; (vi) the Preliminary Enquiry Officer held that he has not abused Inspr. Inderjit Singh; (vii) the preliminary enquiry report was not made a prosecution document; and (viii) a suit filed by the complainant in the court of CJM Bokaro in July, 2009 was dismissed on 27.09.2012.

14. The said reply was duly considered by the competent authority and after considering the records and advice tendered by UPSC and also the submission of the petitioner and facts and circumstances of the case, it was found that the charges were proved against the petitioner, and the explanation of the petitioner was rejected and penalty of 20% cut in monthly pension on permanent basis and forfeiture of his entire gratuity was also imposed vide order dated 03.09.2013. Thus, the petitioner was held guilty of committing gross misconduct, acting unprofessionally and in a manner unbecoming of a government servant of his status and service in an Armed Force of the Union which was the charge against the petitioner.

15. The petitioner challenged the order of punishment in W.P.(S) No. 679 of 2014 which was dismissed vide order dated 08.01.2018 with liberty to the petitioner to file appeal but the petitioner did not file appeal. However, the earlier writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 4100 of 2011 was also dismissed subsequently vide order dated 27.08.2019, granting liberty to the petitioner to file appeal which was already observed in order dated 08.01.2018 while dismissing W.P.(S) No. 679 of 2014.

16. Consequently, the petitioner filed appeal with a request to exonerate him and also raised three point i.e. a. as per preliminary enquiry, the charge was not proved; b. as per order passed by the court in the criminal case, no case was made out;

c. even otherwise major penalty of withholding 20% pension and entire gratuity is very harsh and amounts to award of two separate punishment for one complaint.

17. The competent authority in Ministry of Home Affairs went through the records and the appeal of the petitioner and rejected all the points raised by the petitioner as under: -

i) The plea of the Petitioner is misleading as the preliminary enquiry was conducted based on complaint of Insp/M Inderjit Singh and not on the request of Petitioner. The Preliminary Enquiry Officer found that the petitioner is in the habit of pointing out the short comings of his juniors and some times looses his temper and that he had made derogatory comments about Inspector/Min Inderjit Singh that he belong to SC Quota therefore he has got faster promotion. Since prima facie there was some truth in the allegations, the competent authority ordered to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner.

ii) The contention of the CO is not acceptable. Merely because the criminal case was dismissed by the CJM Court Bokaro cannot be made the basis of dropping the charges in departmental enquiry proved on the basis of overwhelming evidence on record. Moreover, the departmental proceedings are entirely different from Criminal proceedings and the standard of proof required to prove a charge of misconduct in DE is not the same as that required to prove in Criminal charge. In the regular DE, it has been clearly established that the CO passed mocking comments about the caste (SC) of Insp/M Interjit Singh on 03.10.2008 in front of ASI/Clk S.K.Lal and again on 16.04.2009 used insulting and intimidating remarks against Insp/M Inderjit Singh in front of ASI/CIK V.K.Singh. This fact has been corroborated from the statement of PW-2 & PW-3. It is a serious misconduct and tantamount to use of abusive language against a weaker section official on caste lines.

iii) The petitioner was afforded reasonable opportunities to participate in the enquiry and defend himself but he deliberately avoided attending the enquiry. The petitioner has been awarded penalty which is quite commensurate with the gravity of proven serious misconduct."

18. The learned counsel for the petitioner has primarily made three points: -

a. The criminal case filed by the complainant ended in submission of final form against which protest petition was also dismissed and thus no case was made out against the petitioner in the criminal court. b. The term 'grave misconduct' has to be considered in the light of the explanation to Rule 8 of the CCS (Pension) Rules as the condition precedent for attracting penalty of withholding or withdrawing pension /gratuity is that the misconduct should come within the definition of 'grave misconduct' but the conduct has been referred to as 'Serious Misconduct.' c. The impugned order of punishment is harsh and disproportionate to the charges levelled and proved against the petitioner.

Point no.(a)

19. So far as dismissal of protest petition by the criminal court is concerned, this Court is of the considered view that the same has no

bearing in the disciplinary proceedings involved in the present case and the appellate authority has rightly rejected the plea of the petitioner. This Court has gone through the order passed by the criminal court dismissing the protest petition. This Court finds that the learned criminal court found that no case was made out against the petitioner under Section 3 (i) (x) of SC / ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, on the ground that at the time of occurrence, the complainant and accused were only present in the chamber and it was clear that occurrence had taken place in closed chamber of the accused and not in public view. The learned criminal court had also taken note of non- examination of certain witnesses and also recorded that in absence of corroborative evidence, the complainant failed to prove that the accused directed the complainant to withdraw the complaint. Thus, this Court finds that dismissal of the protest / complaint petition against the petitioner by the concerned court in the criminal case was on account of technical plea that the alleged incident had not taken in public view and on account of non-examination of certain witnesses, in absence of corroborative evidence, the complainant failed to prove that the accused directed the complainant to withdraw the complaint. This Court is of the considered view that the dismissal of the complaint/protest petition was on account of technical reasons and has no bearing in the departmental proceeding involved in the present case which was conducted after issue of charge memo and upon consideration of the material in the departmental proceedings. Point no.(b)

20. Before proceeding to consider the point no (b) further, it would be useful to quote Rule 8 and 9 of CCS(Pension) Rules, which are as follows:-

Rule 8 Pension subject to future good conduct. -

(1) (a) Future good conduct shall be an implied condition of every grant of pension and its continuance under these rules. 1(b) The appointing authority may, by order in writing, withhold or withdraw a pension or a part thereof, whether permanently or for a specified period, if the pensioner is convicted of a serious crime or is found guilty of grave misconduct.

Provided that where a part of pension is withheld or withdrawn, the amount of such pension shall not be reduced below the amount of 4[rupees three hundred and seventy-five] per mensem.

(2) Where a pensioner is convicted of a serious crime by a Court of Law, action under sub-rule (1) shall be taken in the light of the judgment of the court relating to such conviction.

(3) In a case not falling under sub-rule (2), if the authority referred to in sub-rule (1) considers that the pensioner is prima facie guilty of grave misconduct, it shall before passing an order under sub-rule (1),

(a) serve upon the pensioner a notice specifying the action proposed to be taken against him and the ground on which it is proposed to be taken and calling upon him to submit, within fifteen days of the receipt of the notice or such further time not exceeding fifteen days as may be allowed by the 1[appointing authority] such representation as he may wish to make against the proposal; and

(b) take into consideration the representation, if any, submitted by the pensioner under Clause (a).

..................

(4) Where the authority competent to pass an order under sub- rule (1) is the President, the Union Public Service Commission shall be consulted before the order is passed.

(5) An appeal against an order under sub-rule (1), passed by any authority other than the President, shall lie to the President and the President shall, in consultation with the Union Public Service Commission, pass such orders on the appeal as he deems fit.

EXPLANATION. - In this rule, -

(a) the expression `serious crime' includes a crime involving an offence under the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923);

(b) the expression `grave misconduct' includes the communication or disclosure of any secret official code or password or any sketch, plan, model, article, note, document or information, such as is mentioned in Section 5 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923) (which was obtained while holding office under the Government) so as to prejudicially affect the interests of the general public or the security of the State.

...................

Rule-9

Right of President to withhold or withdraw pension

(1) The President reserves to himself the right of withholding a pension or gratuity, or both, either in full or in part, or withdrawing a pension in full or in part, whether permanently or for a specified period, and of ordering recovery from a pension or gratuity of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government, if, in any departmental or judicial proceedings, the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence

during the period of service, including service rendered upon re- employment after retirement :

Provided that the Union Public Service Commission shall be consulted before any final orders are passed:

Provided further that where a part of pension is withheld or withdrawn the amount of such pensions shall not be reduced below the amount of rupees three hundred and seventy-five per mensem.

21. In the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of D.V. Kapoor (Supra), it has been clearly held that when a government employee is sought to be deprived of his pensionary right which he has earned while rendering services, such deprivation must be in accordance with law upon following Rule 9 of Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules. The condition precedent is that in any departmental enquiry or the judicial proceedings, the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his service of the original or on re-employment and there should be a finding that the delinquent is guilty of grave misconduct or negligence in the discharge of public duty in office, as defined in Rule 8(5), Explanation (b) which is an inclusive definition, i.e. the scope is wide of the mark dependent on the facts and circumstances in a given case. Myriad situations may arise depending on the ingenuity with which misconduct or irregularity is committed. It has also been held that the term 'grave misconduct' has been defined under Rule 8 (5) of the aforesaid rules, explanation (b) thereof which is inclusive definition includes the communication or disclosure of any secret official code or password or any sketch, plan, model, article, note, document or information, such as is mentioned in Section 5 of Official Secrets Act, 1923 so as to prejudicially affect the interests of the general public or the security of the State. It has been held that the exercise of the power by the President is hedged with a condition precedent that a finding should be recorded either in departmental enquiry or judicial proceedings that the pensioner committed grave misconduct or negligence in the discharge of his duty while in office, subject of the charge. In the absence of such a finding the President was said to be without authority of law to impose penalty of withholding pension as a measure of punishment either in whole or in part permanently or for a

specified period, or to order recovery of the pecuniary loss in whole or in part from the pension of the employee.

22. In the present case, no element of pecuniary loss is involved. The allegation against the petitioner is regarding using of abusive language on caste line against officer belonging to schedule caste category.

23. As already mentioned above that as per the charge against the petitioner, he had committed gross misconduct, acted unprofessionally and in a manner unbecoming of a government servant of his status and service in an Armed Force of the Union. The charge stood proved against the petitioner. The impugned order has considered the proved charge and has recorded that the petitioner has been awarded penalty which is quite commensurate with the gravity of proven serious misconduct. The order of punishment is required to be seen in the light of the proved charge and the charge in the present case specifically refer the act as act of "gross misconduct" and also mentioned that the act of the petitioner as an unprofessional act and in a manner unbecoming of a government servant of his status and service in an armed force of the union.

24. Although the term "grave misconduct" has not been used in the charge as well as the impugned orders but the term "gross misconduct" has been mentioned in the charge which stood proved against the petitioner coupled with the allegation that the act was unprofessional and in a manner unbecoming of a government servant of his status and service in an armed force of the Union, which also stood proved. This Court is of the considered view that term the term "gross misconduct" and "grave misconduct" connotes the same extent of gravity of charge with regard to its seriousness calling for an action under Rule 9 of aforesaid Rules empowering the competent authority to withhold pension/gratuity. The charge which stood proved was using casteist remark against the authority who belong to schedule caste on two occasions. As per Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary 8th edition the meaning of term 'grave' has been, inter alia, given as 'very serious and important; giving you a reason to feel worried'. The meaning of the term 'gross' has been, inter alia, given as 'extremely'. Further, the term 'grave' has been mentioned as synonym of 'serious'.

This Court is of the considered view that the term 'very serious', 'gross' and 'grave' are synonyms of each other when seen in the light of what they convey with regards to the gravity of allegation. This Court is also of the considered view that merely because the term 'grave misconduct' having not been used either in the charge or in the impugned order has no bearing on the required jurisdictional fact to attract Rule 9 of the aforesaid Rules as the term 'gross misconduct' has been used in the proved charge and the term 'serious misconduct' has been used in the impugned order based on proved charge and opinion of UPSC. It is important to note that the petitioner has not even placed on record the opinion of UPSC which was admittedly forwarded to the petitioner for his response.

25. In the judgement passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. B. Dev, (1998) 7 SCC 691, the President proposed to hold an enquiry against the respondent under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965 on account of long unauthorised absence from duty. It was alleged that the respondent lacked devotion to duty and the conduct was unbecoming of a government servant. The charge was proved, he was given opportunity to respond to the enquiry report, the Government came to the conclusion provisionally that the penalty of withholding of full pensionary benefit permanently may be imposed and the respondent was given an opportunity to make a representation, if he so desired, against the penalty proposed. The Union Public Service Commission was also consulted and conveyed to the President that the ends of justice would be met if the full pensionary benefits otherwise admissible are withheld permanently and thereupon the President having regard to the full facts and circumstances of the case, ordered that the full pensionary benefits otherwise admissible to the respondent be withheld permanently.

These orders were challenged by the respondent before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal had allowed the application of the respondent. It held that no finding was recorded in the departmental enquiry that grave and serious misconduct, as envisaged in Rule 9, had been committed by the respondent. Therefore, no action could be taken under Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules. It also held

that no allegation of the sort contained in Rule 8(5) Explanation (b) had been levelled against the respondent and the misconduct attributed to him was only contravention of Rules 3(1)(ii) and (iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1984. Therefore, action could not be taken under Rule 9. The Union of India was in appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court from the order of the Tribunal.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the provision of law and held in para 7 that it would not be correct to say that a government servant who is charged with not maintaining devotion to duty or with conduct unbecoming of a government servant cannot be held guilty of grave misconduct. The gravity of the misconduct would depend upon the nature of the conduct. Relevant portion of para 7 of the judgement for the purposes of this case is quoted as under: -

"7. The enquiry against the respondent was initiated while he was in service. He was charged under Rules 3(1)(ii) and (iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules. These Rules are as follows: "3. General. -- (1) Every government servant shall at all times--

(i) maintain absolute integrity;

(ii) maintain devotion to duty; and

(iii) do nothing which is unbecoming of a government servant.

(2) * * *"

It would not be correct to say that a government servant who is charged with not maintaining devotion to duty or with conduct unbecoming of a government servant cannot be held guilty of grave misconduct. The gravity of the misconduct would depend upon the nature of the conduct. The Tribunal has wrongly held that because the enquiry was initiated under Rules 3(1)(ii) and

(iii) of the CCS Conduct Rules, the respondent cannot be held guilty of grave misconduct."

The contention that Rule 9 could be invoked only if the government servant had caused any pecuniary loss to the Government, was also rejected by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court also recorded that Rule 3(1)(o) defines "pension" as including gratuity except when the term "pension" is used in contradiction to "gratuity".

26. In view of the aforesaid findings and keeping in view the aforesaid judgement passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. B. Dev, (1998) 7 SCC 691, the point no.(b) as argued by the petitioner has no merit which is accordingly rejected.

Point no.(c)

27. The punishment imposed is withholding of entire gratuity and 20% of all future pension. The petitioner has submitted that the punishment imposed is disproportionate to the charge proved and for this the petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in the case of D.V. Kapoor Vs. Union of India (supra).

In the said case, charge against the employee was that he absented himself from duty without any authorization and despite being asked to join, he remained absent. The enquiry officer held that his absence from duty could not be termed as entirely willful because he could not move due to his wife's illness and the enquiry officer recommended that the case should be considered sympathetically. In the present case, there was no finding of the enquiry officer in support of the petitioner.

28. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court finds that the judgment passed in the case of D.V. Kapoor (supra) has no applicability to the facts and circumstances of this case. There can be no justification whatsoever for abusing a colleague/senior/junior on caste lines particularly when the colleague/senior/junior belongs to schedule caste category. In the light of the proved allegation against the petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner does not deserve any sympathetic view and the punishment imposed against the petitioner cannot be said to be disproportionate much less shockingly disproportionate to the charges proved against the petitioner. The authority has rightly recorded in the impugned order that the penalty is quite commensurate with the gravity of proven serious misconduct. Thus, the point no (c) argued by the petitioner is also devoid of any merits.

29. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid findings, there is not merits in this writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed.

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Saurav/