Telangana High Court
B.Venkanna, vs The Commandant on 25 November, 2022
Bench: Surepalli Nanda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
W.P.No. 19316 of 2018
Between:
B.Venkanna
... Petitioner
And
The Commandant 217 and others
... Respondents
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 25.11.2022
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers : yes
may be allowed to see the Judgment?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be
marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : yes
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to
see the fair copy of the Judgment? : yes
______________
SUREPALLI NANDA, J
WP_19316_2018
2 SN,J
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
W.P.No. 19316 of 2018
% 25.11.2022
Between:
# B.Venkanna
..... Petitioner
And
$ The Commandant 217 and others
.....Respondents
< Gist:
> Head Note:
! Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr. K.R.Srinivas
^Counsel for the Respondents: Standing counsel for
respondents
? Cases Referred:
1. (1985) 3 SCC 545
2.
2014) 9 SCJ 1991
3. 1993(4) SCC page 727
4. 2011(3) ALD 641
5. 2014(9) SCJ page 91
WP_19316_2018
3 SN,J
HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
WRIT PETITION No.19316 OF 2018
ORDER:
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned standing counsel for the respondents.
2. The petitioner approached this Court seeking
relief as follows:
"to issue order or direction more particularly one
in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, to declare the
action of respondents in removing the petitioner from
service by office orders No.P-AT-22/2014-Est-two
dated 29.10.2014 of the 1st respondent, confirmed by
2nd respondent and 3rd respondents in their orders
No.R.XIII-2/2015-Est-III dated 25.05.2015 and R.XIII-
19/2016-Adm-7, dated 06.03.2016 as illegal,
arbitrary, without evidence, violative of Principles of
natural justice, and accordingly set aside the same and
consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the
petitioner into service."
3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows:
a) The petitioner was appointed in CRPF on 04.12.2005
and on transfer from 74 Bn, CRPF, the petitioner was posted
to 217 Bn, CRPF w.e.f 02.09.2012.
b) The petitioner was absent from his duties from
10.06.2013 without any information to the 1st respondent.
After framing charges and conducting of ex-parte enquiry the
WP_19316_2018
4 SN,J
petitioner was removed from service by order dated
29.10.2014. Against the said orders, the petitioner filed
Appeal to 2nd respondent on 05.01.2015, the appeal was
rejected on 25.05.2015. Again on 29.06.2015, the petitioner
filed revision petition to 3rd respondent which was also
rejected by orders dated 06.03.2016.
c) In the appeal and revision petition which was submitted
by the petitioner to the 2nd and 3rd respondents, informing
that the petitioner was unwell and requested for extension of
leave. As there was no CRPF Hospital in Warangal District, the
petitioner was admitted in MGM Government Hospital for
treatment.
d) The petitioner sent leave applications through fax and
registered posts to 1st respondent requesting for extension of
his leave, as the petitioner was met with an accident and
undergoing treatment. In addition to these reasons, the
petitioner's parents were also expired. After acknowledging all
these medical certificates and leave applications the leave
cannot be treated as unauthorized absence.
e) The Supreme Court of India has held that the absence
covered by medical reasons cannot be said as unauthorized
WP_19316_2018
5 SN,J
absence and set aside the major punishment. There is no
evidence discussed by the respondents to arrive at a
conclusion that the absence is unauthorized and willful.
Therefore, on the ground of lack of evidence, the punishment
is liable to be set aside and reinstate the petitioner into
service, the writ petition is filed.
4. The case of the respondents, in brief, is as
follows:
a) The petitioner was appointed in CRPF on 04.12.2005
and on transfer from 74 Bn, CRPF, the petitioner was posted
to 217 Bn, CRPF w.e.f 02.09.2012, and the petitioner while
posted in C/217Bn CRPF was sanctioned 19 days earned leave
w.e.f 22.05.2013 to 09.06.2013 as requested. But the
petitioner failed to report back to duty after the said leave and
remained absent from duty unauthorizedly.
b) The petitioner had submitted an application to the
respondent No.1 for extension of leave from 10.06.2013 to
09.07.2013 as the petitioner is undergoing treatment at
M.G.M.Hospital, Warangal. But the petitioner request had not
been considered by respondent No.1 as the petitioner failed to
submit any medical documents in support of his leave
WP_19316_2018
6 SN,J
extension request. The petitioner was informed to report back
for his duty immediately along with all medical documents
related to his treatment, accordingly, O.C. C/217 Bn CRPF
vide letter No.L.II-2/2013-C/217, dated 27.06.2013 and
06.07.2013 were issued to the petitioner to report for his
duty.
c) The petitioner instead of reporting for duty, again he
submitted an application through Fax, dated 09.07.2013
requesting extension of his leave without providing any
medical documents in support of his application. The same is
not considered by Commandant 217 Bn, CRPF.
d) In view of above, a complaint was lodged by Officer
Commanding C/217 Bn CRPF vide letter No.W.V-1/2013-
C/217, dated 11.07.2013, for issuing a Warrant of Arrest
against the petitioner. The petitioner, being a member of
CRPF a disciplined Para Military Force, and having completed
more than eight years of service, the offence of unauthorized
absence by the petitioner is not acceptable and hence, the
same is punishable under Rule-27 of CRPF Rules-1955 and
Section-11(1) of CRPF Act-1949. The Enquiry Officer, before
commencing the enquiry proceedings vide letter No.P.VIII-
WP_19316_2018
7 SN,J
22/2014-217-S.K, dated 13.03.2014 requested the petitioner
to attend the Departmental Enquiry proceedings initiated
against him. Despite giving more than 30 days time by the
Enquiry Officer, the petitioner neither joined the enquiry
proceedings, nor made any correspondence in this regard.
e) The Departmental Enquiry provided the report of
Enquiry Officer to the petitioner by sending the same by
registered post to his residential address available in official
record and gave him 15 days time to submit any
evidence/documents in his support. But the petitioner has not
bothered to respond in any manner on the matter.
f) Respondent No.1 being the disciplinary authority vide
217 Bn CRPF Office Order No.PVIII-22/2014-EC-II, dated
29.10.2014 awarded the penalty of "Removal from Service"
w.e.f 29.10.2014 against the petitioner. The petitioner's
appeal and revision petition dated 05.01.2015 and
29.06.2015 has been rejected as he failed to produce relevant
documents in support of his unauthorized absence.
G) The Departmental Enquiry has given ample opportunity
to defend himself at every stage besides ensuring principles of
natural justice. In spite of several opportunities, the petitioner
WP_19316_2018
8 SN,J
could not make out his case. Hence, after considering all the
relevant material and evidence available on record, the
punishment awarded to the petitioner is lawful and
commensurate. Therefore, the present writ petition is liable to
dismissed.
5. Perused the record.
6. Paras 4, 5, 7 and 8 of the proceeding No.P-AT-
22/2014-Est-Two, dated 29.10.2014 reads as under:
4. Keeping in view the regular rules of the law, the copy of
the departmental enquiry report is sent to the accused
worker C/GD B.Venkanna to his last know home address
after taking the statements of prosecution witnesses by the
enquiry officer vide his letter dt.27/09/14, giving him 15
days of time to give in writing about his defense and defense
witnesses and to present the documents by registered post.
But the postal department has returned it as
undelivered by saying that the accused is not at the
station. The registered parcel is returned to the sender
on dt.13/10/2014.
5. The departmental enquiry is completed based on the
witnesses and the prosecution party evidence and report of
the enquiry officer after studying it Intensively. During the
time of enquiry, the enquiry officer has reduced to writing
the statements of the prosecution witnesses and gave
enough time to the accused according to the rules for his
defense in all manners, and has given the each copy of the
statement of witnesses to the accused. At the same time, the
accused is given to test the witnesses at the time of enquiry,
but the accused did not cross test the witnesses and even did
not object. On the enquiry report by the enquiry officer, and
before passing the final orders by the Disciplinary Officer and
keeping in view the enquiry process, a copy of the enquiry
report by the enquiry officer is sent to this office by
registered post on dt.27/09/2014, with a hope that, either he
should present himself for defense or if he wants to present
any document/witnesses and after receiving the enquiry
WP_19316_2018
9 SN,J
report within 15 days shall submit to the Disciplinary officer,
further it is informed that, if in the given time if we do not
receive any report/representation, the final orders will be
passed on the Departmental Enquiry report according to the
rules. Even after the lapse of the given time we did not
receive any report/representation from C/GD B.
Venkanna, from this it is clear that the accused worker
No.055143692 soldier/GD B. Venkanna, C/217
Battalion the allegations on him vide Item-1 & 2 are
accepted by him, and worker No.055143692
soldier/GD B. Venkanna, C/217 Battalion the Item-1&
2 are proved against him.
7. The statements of all the prosecution witnesses,
documents, departmental enquiry report are intensively
studied and after that,I the following signed satisfied with the
enquiry process against soldier No. 055143692 soldier/GD
B.Venkanna, C/217 Battalion. The complete case is studied
in detail by the following signed. The allegations against the
accused are proved without doubt. And I being the
appointed authority/administrator officer, according to the
Central Reserve Police Force, Act, 1949 Section 11(1) read
with Rule 1955 Rule 27(k) and using my given authority
passing the following orders.
(i) Force No. 055143692 soldier/GD B. Venkanna, C/217
Battalion is removed from the service from the date of
issuing orders from this office. Thereafter, Soldier No.
055143692 soldier/GD B.Venkanna C/217 Battalion is
removed from this Corps from the said date.
(ii) Force No. 055143692 soldier/GD B. Venkanna, C/217
Battalion, if he is having any dues, it should be adjusted from
the due amount.
(iii) Force No. 055143692 soldier/GD B. Venkanna, C/217
Battalion, if he is given any medal or felicitation during his
service it shall taken back/seized according to Central
Reserve Police Force Act 1949 Section 12(1).
(iv) Force No. 055143692 soldier/GD B. Venkanna, C/217
Battalion, the identification No.3840912 issued is repealed.
v) Force No. 055143692 soldier/GD B. Venkanna,
C/217 Battalion, CRPF, has been given earned leave
from dt.22/05/13 till 09/06/13 for 19 days. And in
total from dt. 10/06/2013 till 29/10/2014, 507 days
WP_19316_2018
10 SN,J
fugitive/without permission, the absent period is
taken as regular extra ordinary leave. And during this
period the said worker is not eligible for any benefits
and salary/allowance.
8. Force No. 055143692 soldier/GD B. Venkanna, C/217
Battalion, CRPF, if he wants to make any appeal about this
Order, according to the Central Reserve Police Force Rules
1955 under rule-28 shall make his appeal against this Order
to Deputy Inspector General of Police, Chennai Range, CRPF,
within 30 days under the provisions. And in case the appeal
is rejected, he can make his appeal against this Order
according to Rules 1955, under Rule-29 for review to the
Inspector General of Police, South Region, CRPF, Hyderabad
under the provisions.
7. A bare perusal of the order impugned dated
29.10.2014 of the 1st Respondent indicates that an
exparte enquiry had been conducted and though the
petitioner did not submit any reply, the enquiry officer
had completed his departmental enquiry and submitted
to the Administrative Officer.
8. The Appeal dated 05.01.2015 was considered by the
Appellate Authority and rejected being devoid of merit vide
order dated 25.05.2015 and the Revision Petition dated
29.06.2015 preferred the Petitioner to the IGPSS, CRPF,
Hyderabad, was also rejected being devoid of merit
confirming the orders of the Disciplinary Authority as well as
the Appellate Authority.
WP_19316_2018
11 SN,J
9. The relevant extracts of the counter filed by the
2nd respondent are reproduced hereunder:
f) It is submitted that, the petitioner, being a member of
CRPF a disciplined Para Military Force, and completed more
than eight years of service, the offence of unauthorized
absence by the petitioner is not acceptable and such act is
against the good order, discipline and conduct of a
responsible member of the force and hence same is
punishable under Rule-27 of CRPF Rules-1955 and Section-
11(1) of CRPF Act-1949. Hence as per procedure a
Departmental Enquiry was initiated against the petitioner
vide 217 Bn CRPF office memorandum and Office Order No.-
P.VIII-22/2013-EC-II, dated 29/01/2014 and 26/02/2014
respectively (Annex-07 & 08). The Enquiry Officer so
appointed, before commencing the enquiry proceedings, vide
his letter No.-P.VIII-22/2014-217-S.K. dated 13/03/2014
(Annex,-09) requested the petitioner to attend the
Departmental Enquiry proceedings initiated against him.
Further, the petitioner was also intimated that, in the event
of not joining for the enquiry, then same will be conducted
ex-parte as per procedure. Despite giving more than 30 days
time by the Enquiry Officer, the petitioner neither joined the
enquiry proceedings, nor made any correspondence in this
regard. Hence, the Enquiry officer commenced the enquiry
proceedings (ex-parte) as per procedure by recording the
statement of all relevant PWs.
h) On receipt of the Departmental Enquiry
proceedings, the Disciplinary Authority (respondent No
1), so as to ensure principal of natural justice, vide
letter No.- P.VIII-22/2013-EC-II, dated 27/09/2014
(Annex.-10) also provided the report of Enquiry Officer
to the petitioner by sending same by registered post to
his residential address available in official records and
gave him 15 days time to submit any
evidence/documents in his support. But the petitioner
was not bothered to respond in any manner on the
matter.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
10. This Court opines that the question whether
"unauthorized absence from duty amounts to failure of
WP_19316_2018
12 SN,J
devotion to duty or behavior unbecoming of an
Government servant cannot be decided without
deciding the question whether the absence is willful or
because of compelling circumstances. If the absence is
the result of compelling circumstances under which it
was not possible to report or perform duty, such
absence cannot be held to be willful. Absence from duty
without any application or prior permission may
amount to unauthorized absence, but it does not
always mean willful. There may be different
eventualities due to which an employee may abstain
from duty, including compelling circumstances beyond
his/HER control like illness, accident, hospitalization
etc., but in such a case the employee cannot be held
guilty of failure of devoting to duty or behavior
unbecoming of a Government servant. But in the
present case admittedly as borne on record the
petitioner remained exparte and did not participate in
the enquiry therefore the question whether the
petitioner's absence is willful or because of compelling
circumstances had not been decided on merits. A bare
WP_19316_2018
13 SN,J
perusal of the relevant extracts of the order impugned
DATED 29.10.2014 (extracted above) also clearly
indicates that the petitioner did not participate in the
enquiry and the copy of the Departmental enquiry
report forwarded to the petitioner was returned to the
sender on 13.10.2014 by the Postal Department stating
as 'Undelivered' by saying that the accused is not at the
station. This Court opines that the petitioner has a
right to receive a copy of the enquiry officer's report
before the disciplinary authority arrives at its
conclusion with regard to the guilt or innocence of the
petitioner with regard to the charges levelled against
him. That right is a part of the petitioner's right to
defend himself against the charges leveled against him
and the denial of the same to the petitioner is denial of
a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to prove his
innocence and is a breach of principles of natural
justice. The plea in the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd
respondent at para (h) that the petitioner did not
respond in any manner, to the Enquiry Officer's report
forwarded by registered post cannot be said to be
WP_19316_2018
14 SN,J
factually correct since the impugned order dated
29.10.2014, clearly indicates that the same had been
returned to the sender on 13.10.2014 as undelivered by
the endorsement of the concerned postal authorities.
11. The Apex Court in its judgment reported in Olga
Tellis & Others v. Bombay Municipal Corporation1 at
para 32 observed as under :
"32.....The sweep of the right to life conferred by
Article 21 is wide and far reaching. It does not mean
merely that life cannot be extinguished or taken away
as, for example, by the imposition and execution of the
death sentence, except according to procedure
established by law. That is but one aspect of the right
to life. An equally important facet of that right is the
right to livelihood because, no person can live without
the means of living, that is, the means of livelihood. If
the right to livelihood is not treated as a part of the
constitutional right to life, the easiest way of depriving
a person his right to life would be to deprive him of his
means of livelihood to the point of abrogation. Such
deprivation would not only denude the life of its
effective content and meaningfulness but it would
make life impossible to live. And yet, such deprivation
would not have to be in accordance with the procedure
established by law, if the right to livelihood is not
regarded as a part of the right to life. That, which
(1985) 3 SCC 545
WP_19316_2018
15 SN,J
alone makes it possible to live, leave aside what makes
life liveable, must be deemed to be an integral
component of the right to life. Deprive a person of his
right to livelihood and you shall have deprived him of
his life....."
12. The Apex Court in a judgment reported in the case
of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad v B.Karunakar
reported in 1993(4) SCC page 727 at page 28, 29
observed as follows:
"28. The position in law can also be looked at from a
slightly different angle. Article 311(2) says that the
employee shall be given a "reasonable opportunity of
being heard in respect of the charges against him".
The findings on the charges given by a third person
like the enquiry officer, particularly when they are not
borne out by the evidence or are arrived at by
overlooking the evidence or misconstruing it, could
themselves constitute new unwarranted imputations.
What is further, when the proviso to the said Article
states that "where it is proposed after such inquiry,
toimpose upon him any such penalty, such penalty may
be imposed on the basis of the evidence adduced
during such inquiry and it shall not be necessary to
give such person any opportunity of making
representation on the penalty proposed", it in effect
accepts two successive stages of differing scope. Since
the penalty is to be proposed after the inquiry, which
inquiry in effect is to be carried out by the disciplinary
authority (the enquiry officer being only his delegate
appointed to hold the inquiry and to assist him), the
employee's reply to the enquiry officer's report and
consideration of such reply by the disciplinary
authority also constitute an integral part of such
inquiry. The second stage follows the inquiry so carried
out and it consists of the issuance of the notice to
show cause against the proposed penalty and of
considering the reply to the notice and deciding upon
the penalty. What is dispensed with is the opportunity
WP_19316_2018
16 SN,J
of making representation on the penalty proposed and
not of opportunity of making representation on the
report of the enquiry officer. The latter right was
always there. But before the Forty-second Amendment
of the Constitution, the point of time at which it was to
be exercised had stood deferred till the second stage
viz., the stage of considering the penalty. Till that time,
the conclusions that the disciplinary authority might
have arrived at both with regard to the guilt of the
employee and the penalty to be imposed were only
tentative. All that has happened after the Forty-second
Amendment of the Constitution is to advance the point
of time at which the representation of the employee
against the enquiry officer's report would be
considered. Now, the disciplinary authority has to
consider the representation of the employee against
the report before it arrives at its conclusion with
regard to his guilt or innocence of the charges.
29. Hence it has to be held that when the enquiry
officer is not the disciplinary authority, the delinquent
employee has a right to receive a copy of the enquiry
officer's report before the disciplinary authority arrives
at its conclusions with regard to the guilt or innocence
of the employee with regard to the charges levelled
against him. That right is a part of the employee's right
to defend himself against the charges levelled against
him. A denial of the enquiry officer's report before the
disciplinary authority takes its decision on the charges,
is a denial of reasonable opportunity to the employee
to prove his innocence and is a breach of the principles
of natural justice.
13. This Court in a judgment reported in Raghubir
Singh V. General Manager, Harayana Roadways, Hissar2
at paras 30 in Civil Appeal No.8434/2014, observed as
follows :
(2014) 9 SCJ 1991
WP_19316_2018
17 SN,J
30. The appellant workman is a conductor in the
respondent-statutory body which is an undertaking
under the State Government of Haryana thus it is a
potential employment. Therefore, his services could
not have been dispensed with by passing an order of
termination on the alleged ground of unauthorised
absence without considering the leave at his credit and
further examining whether he is entitled for either
leave without wages or extraordinary leave. Therefore,
the order of termination passed is against the
fundamental rights guaranteed to the workman under
Articles 14, 16, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India
and against the statutory rights conferred upon him
under the Act as well as against the law laid down by
this Court in the cases referred to supra. This
important aspect of the case has not been considered
by the courts below. Therefore, the impugned award of
the Labour Court and the judgment & order of the High
Court are liable to be set aside.
14. The erstwhile High Court in the judgment dated
27.09.2010 in Prameela and others v APSRTC,
Hyderabad and others reported in 2011(3) ALD 641 at
para 13 observed as under:
".. Hence, it is expected of every disciplinary authority
to carefully assess the quantum of guilt held
established against the delinquent employee and then
consider the appropriate punishment that is to be
imposed. The choice of punishment, hence, has to
meet the standards of fairness. It shall not be too
WP_19316_2018
18 SN,J
harsh or excessive or too lenient. It should be fair,
adequate and proportionate. This exercise, apparently
was not carried out by either the disciplinary or the
Appellate Authority. However, in my opinion, for that
part of the misconduct held established against Sri
Pandu, perhaps, imposition of a minor punishment of
reduction of pay by two stages would have met the
ends of justice"
15. The judgment of the Apex Court reported in (2012)
3 SCC 178 between Krushnakant B.Parmar v Union of
India and another. Paras 16, 19 and 25 reads as under:
"16. The question whether `unauthorised absence
from duty' amounts to failure of devotion to duty or
behaviour unbecoming of a Government servant
cannot be decided without deciding the question
whether absence is wilful or because of compelling
circumstances.
19. In a Departmental proceeding, if allegation of
unauthorised absence from duty is made, the
disciplinary authority is required to prove that the
absence is wilful, in absence of such finding, the
absence will not amount to misconduct.
25. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned
orders of dismissal passed by disciplinary authority,
affirmed by the Appellate Authority; Central
Administrative Tribunal and High Court are set aside.
The appellant stands reinstated. Taking into
consideration the fact that the Charged Officer has
WP_19316_2018
19 SN,J
suffered a lot since the proceeding was drawn in 1996
for absence from duty for a certain period, we are not
remitting the proceeding to the disciplinary authority
for any further action. Further, keeping in view the fact
that the appellant has not worked for a long time we
direct that the appellant be paid 50% of the back
wages but there shall be no order as to costs.
16. The judgment of the Apex Court reported in
2014(9) SCJ page 91 between Raghubir Singh v
General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Hissar. Para 35
reads as under:
"35. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of
this case, we are of the view that it is important to
discuss the Rule of the 'Doctrine of Proportionality' in
ensuring preservation of the rights of the workman.
The principle of 'Doctrine of Proportionality' is a well
recognized one to ensure that the action of the
employer against employees/workmen does not
impinge their fundamental and statutory rights. The
above said important doctrine has to be followed by
the employer/employers at the time of taking
disciplinary action against their employees/workmen
to satisfy the principles of natural justice and
safeguard the rights of employees/workmen.
17. Taking into consideration the above referred facts
and circumstances and the law laid down by the Apex
Court in the judgments referred to and discussed
WP_19316_2018
20 SN,J
above, this Court opines that the respondent authority
through an exparte enquiry should not have arrived at
a conclusion and declared the petitioner as a deserter
and awarded the impugned punishment vide
proceedings No.P-AT-22/2014-Est-Two, dated
29.10.2014 in velar violation of principles of natural
justice. This Court opines that no person should be
condemned unheard. The punishment imposed has to
meet the standards of fairness and should be in strict
compliance of principles of natural justice. This Court
opines that the consequential proceedings No. R.XIII-
2/2015-ESTT-III, dated 25.05.2015 and No.R.XIII-
19/2016-Adm-7, dated 06.03.2016 of the 2nd and 3rd
respondents respectively are also orders passed
mechanically in a routine manner without considering
the grounds raised by the petitioner in the appeal and
other material concerning disciplinary proceedings on
record and therefore, the writ petition is allowed as
prayed for and the impugned No.P-AT-22/2014-Est-
Two, dated 29.10.2014, No. R.XIII-2/2015-ESTT-III,
dated 25.05.2015 and No.R.XIII-19/2016-Adm-7,
WP_19316_2018
21 SN,J
dated 06.03.2016 are set aside and the respondents are
directed to reinstate the petitioner into service with all
consequential benefits. It is however, made clear that
it is open to the respondents, if the respondents so
desire, to initiate proceedings afresh and conduct the
disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner on the basis
of the enquiry report dated 13.03.2014, in conformity
with the principles of natural justice and fair play duly
taking into consideration the law laid down by the Apex
Court in the various judgments referred to and
discussed above. However, there shall be no order as to
costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall
stand closed.
_____________________________
MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
25.11.2022
Note: L.R. copy to be marked
b/o
kvrm
