Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 184 (ORI)

HARAMOHAN KHUNTIA v. UNION OF INDIA (UOI)

2010-03-18

B.K.PATEL, L.MOHAPATRA

body2010
JUDGMENT : B.K. Patel, J. - This writ application is directed against the Order Dated 8.1.2001 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, Cuttack (for short 'the Tribunal') in O.A. No. 671 of 1996. Petitioner was the applicant before the Learned Tribunal. 2. Petitioner retired on superannuation as Superintendent of Post Offices, Cuttack (South) Division in 1990. A departmental proceeding was initiated against him in the year 1992 under Rule 9 of the C.C.S.(Pension) Rules, 1972 (for short 'the Rules'). On conclusion of enquiry, the disciplinary authority passed order on 19.8.1996, copy of which is at Annexure-8, in consultation with UPSC, under Rule 9 of the Rules, withholding 20% of the monthly pension otherwise admissible to the Petitioner. Petitioner filed the Original Application impugning the charge sheet as Well as the order passed by the disciplinary authority. So far as Petitioner's challenge to the charge sheet issued to him under Memo dated 8.7.1992. Is concerned, the Learned Tribunal held that the prayer was hopelessly barred by limitation u/s 21 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, the Original Application having been filed on 13.9.1996. Moreover, the Petitioner participated in the enquiry & neither the enquiry report nor any other report reveals that the Petitioner challenged the initiation of the proceedings under Rule 9 of the Rules. With regard to Petitioner's prayer to quash the order of the disciplinary authority withholding 20% of the monthly pension, the Learned Tribunal found that no procedural irregularity was noticed to have been committed in proceeding with the departmental enquiry against the Petitioner & there was no violation of principles of natural justice. In response to Petitioner's contention that charges established against the Petitioner do not make but a case of grave misconduct to attract penalty under Rule 9 of the Rules, the Learned Tribunal embarked upon an analysis of the nature of each of the charges to conclude that misconduct established against the Petitioner not only tell upon non-maintenance of absolute integrity & devotion to duty by the Petitioner but also constitute grave misconduct on his part justifying imposition of penalty under Rule 9 of the Rules. 3. 3. Though the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner made a feeble attempt to assail the findings in the enquiry report, he did not pursue his contention against the appreciation of evidence on record in view of the nature of jurisdiction of judicial review which the Court or the Tribunal can exercise. In State of Tamil Nadu and another Vs. S. Subramaniam it has been pointed out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court: xx xx It is settled law that the Tribunal has only power of judicial review of the administrative action of the Appellant on complaints relating to service conditions of employees. It is the exclusive domain of the disciplinary authority to consider the evidence. On record & record findings whether the charge has been proved or not. It is equally settled law that technical rules of evidence has no application for the disciplinary proceedings & the authority is to consider the material on record. In judicial review, it is settled law that the Court or the Tribunal has no power to trench on the jurisdiction to appreciate the evidence & to arrive at its own conclusion. Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. It is meant to ensure that the delinquent receives fair treatment & not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the view of the Court or tribunal. When the conclusion reached by the authority is based on evidence, Tribunal is devoid of power to, re-appreciate the evidence & would come to its own conclusion on the proof of the charge. The only consideration the Court/Tribunal has in its judicial review is to consider whether the conclusion is based on evidence on record & supports the finding or whether the conclusion is based on no evidence. This is consistent view of this Court vide B.C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India and others State of T.N. Vs. T.V. Venugopalan Union of India (UOI) and Others Vs. Upendra Singh Government of Tamil Nadu and another Vs. A. Rajapandian, & B.C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India and others, at 759 60 xx xx 4. This is consistent view of this Court vide B.C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India and others State of T.N. Vs. T.V. Venugopalan Union of India (UOI) and Others Vs. Upendra Singh Government of Tamil Nadu and another Vs. A. Rajapandian, & B.C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India and others, at 759 60 xx xx 4. In assailing the impugned Judgment & the order of punishment imposed on the Petitioner, it was vehemently contended by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that neither in the statement of articles of charge it was alleged that the Petitioner was guilty of grave misconduct or negligence nor any finding to that effect was recorded in the enquiry report. Also, there is no finding by the UPSC in the report at Annexure-9 & the order of punishment of the Government at Annexure-8 to the effect that misconduct committed by the Petitioner was grave. The Petitioner was never intimated that any of the misconduct alleged under the articles of charge was considered to be grave. It was strenuously contended by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that in absence of any charge or finding that the Petitioner was guilty of grave misconduct, the impugned order passed by the Learned Tribunal as well as the order of withholding of penalty under Annexure-8 are liable to be quashed. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner relied upon decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in D.V. Kapoor Vs. Union of India and others, . 5. In reply, Learned Counsel appearing for the Opp. Party, drawing attention to each of the charges in respect of which the departmental proceeding was conducted against the Petitioner, contended that allegations against the Petitioner was failure to maintain absolute integrity & devotion to duty & showing undue favour to some of the candidates in the matter of employment which in terms of Explanation (8) of Rule 8 of the Rules amounts to grave misconduct within the meaning of Rule 9 of the Rules. In such circumstances, there is no scope to interfere with order of punishment imposed by the President in accordance with Rule 9 of the Rules. Learned Counsel for the Opp. Party relied upon decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India and Others Vs. Shri B. Dev, . 6. In such circumstances, there is no scope to interfere with order of punishment imposed by the President in accordance with Rule 9 of the Rules. Learned Counsel for the Opp. Party relied upon decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India and Others Vs. Shri B. Dev, . 6. The impugned order passed by the Tribunal & the order of punishment withholding 20% of the monthly pension were assailed upon reference to Rule 9(1) of the Rules which reads: 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 I full or in part, or withdrawing a pension in full or in part, whether permanently or for a specified period, & 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: xx xx xx xx Thus, in view of the above provision the President has the right to, inter alia, withhold pension or/and gratuity only when in any departmental proceeding or judicial proceedings, a pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence. 7. Under Rule 8 of the Rules also, it has been provided that the Appointing Authority may withhold pension if the pensioner is convicted of a serious crime or is found guilty of grave misconduct. Explanation (b) to Rule 8 of the Rules provides for an inclusive definition of the expression 'grave misconduct'. It reads: 8. xx xx xx xx xx (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. In view of such inclusive definition, grave misconduct is not limited to the misdemeanors specifically mentioned in the above said explanation. In view of such inclusive definition, grave misconduct is not limited to the misdemeanors specifically mentioned in the above said explanation. However, the condition precedent for exercise jurisdiction under Rule 9(1) of the Rules is that the pensioner must have been found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence. 8. This being the statutory requirements for imposing punishment under Rule 9(1) of the Rules, perusal of statement of charges under the Memorandum at Annexure-1 reveals that while framing the four charges for violating code of conduct prescribed under Rule 3(i), (ii) & (iii) to maintain absolute integrity; to maintain devotion to duty; & to do nothing which is unbecoming of a Government Servant, in none of the article of charges it was stated that any of the misconduct was considered to be grave. Article of charges served to the Petitioner under the memorandum at Annexure-1 reads: Article-I That Sri H.M. Khuntia, while working as Superintendent of Post Offices, Cuttack South Division during the period from 23.12.88 to 27.9.90, was due to relinquish' Office in the afternoon of 27.9.90 (28.9.90 to 30.9.90 being holidays/Sunday). On the eve of his retirement he invited applications vide notification dtd. 11.9.90 for the post of ED.B.P.M., Gopiakud B.O. by deliberately reducing the normal time gap from 20 days to 15 days for receipt of applications in order to finalise the selection by himself instead of leaving the same to his successor. He (i) exerted unwarranted pressure on the concerned dealing assistant of his Office for submission of the file on the date of his relinquishing Office & took uncalled for & supererogatory personal interest in making selection to the post of ED. 8 P.M., Gopiakud, (ii) did away with some official records from he said file, (iii) manipulated the records thereof to make Smt. Sashikala Sahoo, who was ineligible as per the conditions laid down in D.G.P. & T. Letter No. 43-84/80-Pen dtd. 30.1.81 & 29.3.81, eligible for the post, (iv) selected the said Smt. Sahoo for the said post & (v) made undue request to his subordinate to manipulate office records to eliminate all evidences with regard to ineligibility of Smt. Sahoo for the post, Thus, by his above action, the aforesaid Sri Kuntia violated the instructions contained in the D.G.P. & T. Letter cited above, failed to maintain absolute integrity & devotion to duty & acted in a manner unbecoming of a Govt. Servant & thereby contravened the provisions contained in Rule 3(1)(i), (ii) & (iii) of CCS. (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Article-II That the aforesaid Sri Khuntia, while working as such during the aforesaid period initiated & finalized the selection of ED.B.P.M., Karikal B.O. Though eligible candidates of preferential category were available & though such candidates had to be given preference as per the instructions contained in D.G.P. & T. Letter No. 43-84/80-Pen dtd. 30.1.81 & 29.3.81 & though complaint was there before him about his alleged inclination to select an undermatric candidate overlooking the claim of the candidates of preferential category, the said Sri Khuntia nevertheless, deliberately interpreted the instructions to his own advantage & selected Smt. Kalpalata Behuray, an undermatric Lady candidate by ignoring available preferential category of candidates & showing undue favour to the selected candidate. Thus, by his above acts the aforesaid Sri Khuntia violated the instructions of D.G.P. & T. contained in the aforesaid letter, failed to maintain absolute integrity & devotion to duty in violation of Rule 3(i) & (ii) of C.C.S. (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Article-III That the aforesaid Sri Khuntia, while working as such during the aforesaid period recruited one S.C. candidate of outsider quota in the cadre of Postman in January, 1990 in exchange of an S.T. vacancy though the declared vacancy in respect Of the said examination was nil for Cuttack South Dn. & though the interchange of vacancy between SC/ST was no longer permissible at that time as per the instructions contained in letter No. 26-5/89-SPB.I dtd.23.5.89 of D.G. of Posts, New Delhi. The said Sri Khuntia announced one S.C. vacancy in the Postman Cadre towards the Depti. Examination held on 19.8.90 but he declared the result of one extra S.C. candidate whose position was far below the other surplus qualified candidates as per merit in violation of Directorate Letter No.44-44/82-SPB.I dtd 7.4.89. He selected the extra S.C. candidate in exchange of an S.T. vacancy though the interchange was not permissible as per the instructions contained in the aforementioned letter. Thus, by his above action the said Sri H.M. Khuntia violated the provisions contained in Directorate Letter referred to above & displayed lack of integrity & devotion to duty in contravention of Rule 3(1)(i) & (ii) of CCS. (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Thus, by his above action the said Sri H.M. Khuntia violated the provisions contained in Directorate Letter referred to above & displayed lack of integrity & devotion to duty in contravention of Rule 3(1)(i) & (ii) of CCS. (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Article -IV That the said Sri Khuntia, while working as such during the aforesaid period arranged through the concerned Sub-Divisional Heads of his division statistical information, which were factually bogus, in connection with revision of allowances of certain ED.B.P. Ms., forced the concerned dealing Assistant of his Office on the last day of his holding Office i.e. on 27.9.90 to put up the cases before him, took into account the said inflated figures for fixation of allowances of ED.B.P. Ms., despite being apprised of by the dealing assistant about the inflation of the statistics, & issued orders unauthorisedly for revision of allowances after his relief on 27.9.90 by detaining some of his Office staff beyond normal working hours in furtherance of his interest causing avoidable extra monthly recurring expenditure to the department. Thus, by his above action, the aforesaid Sri H.M. Khuntia failed to maintain absolute integrity & acted in a manner, unbecoming of a Govt. Servant in violation of the provisions contained in Rule 3(1)(i) & (iii) of CCS. (Conduct) Rules, 1964. 9. The Enquiry Report at Annexure-5 to the Writ Petition, in which all the four articles of charges were held to have been proved, also does not contain any finding to the effect that misconduct established against the Petitioner was grave. Findings in the enquiry report read: (a) The SPS reduced the minimum time gap of 20 days for submission of applications for the post of EDBPM, Gopiakud BO to 15 days keeping in mind his forthcoming retirement & relinquishing office on 27.9.90 in order to finalize the selection by himself in furtherance of his own interest. (b) He exerted unwarranted pressure in a haste On the D.A., Sh. B.C. Sahoo on the last date of his laying down the office. (c) He made incorrect corrections in the check sheet dt. 27.9.90 prepared by the D.A. thereby thoroughly changing its text with regard to Smt. Sashikala Sahoo, whom he selected. (d) He passed on an undue request for the D.A. through the Steno to change the check sheet to suit to his own requirement. (c) He made incorrect corrections in the check sheet dt. 27.9.90 prepared by the D.A. thereby thoroughly changing its text with regard to Smt. Sashikala Sahoo, whom he selected. (d) He passed on an undue request for the D.A. through the Steno to change the check sheet to suit to his own requirement. (e) He kept the recruitment file in his exclusive custody on 27.9.90 night (even after handing over charge of the office) till he gave it to his Steno in the morning hours on 28.9.90. (f) He did away with the first typed office note dt. 27.9.90, the draft letter prepared by carbonic process by the D.A., Sh. Sahoo. (g) He got manipulations made in the income certificate submitted by Smt. Sashikala Sahoo when the file was in his custody in order to make her eligible for the post of EDBPM, Gopiakud BO. The SPS for his aforesaid acts has violated the provisions contained in D.G.P & T letter No. 43-84/80-Pen dt. 30.1.81 & further letter of even number dt. 29.381 & failed to maintain absolute integrity & devotion to duty & acted in a manner which was unbecoming of a Government servant & thereby violated the provisions contained in Rule 3(1), (i), (ii) & (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964. Article -II (a) The SPS had received a list of 18 candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange on 27.7.90 in response to his requisition dt. 18.6.90 for filling up of the post of BPM, Karikol, but ignored them altogether while considering the selection to the post from amongst the applicants who had applied in response to the open notification issued by him on 8.8.90. (b) He selected an undermatric candidate ignoring the claims of other candidates fulfilling requisite conditions & possessing matriculation qualification. (c) He made a false commitment to the CPMG, Orissa Circle in his letter dt. 10.9.90 & thereby kept his intention under clouds. The SPS violated the provisions contained in Dte.'s Orders No. 43-84/80-Pen. Dt.30.1.81 & 29.3.81 & 54-6/62-F dt.9.8.62 & by his above acts failed to maintain absolute integrity & devotion to duty in violation of Rule 3(1)(i) & (ii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964. Article-III (a) In spite of receipt of intimation from CO. vide communication No. RE/30-22/89 dt. The SPS violated the provisions contained in Dte.'s Orders No. 43-84/80-Pen. Dt.30.1.81 & 29.3.81 & 54-6/62-F dt.9.8.62 & by his above acts failed to maintain absolute integrity & devotion to duty in violation of Rule 3(1)(i) & (ii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964. Article-III (a) In spite of receipt of intimation from CO. vide communication No. RE/30-22/89 dt. 10.7.89 that there was no backlog vacancy in SC Or ST quota in postman cadre & that the current vacancies against SC/ST quota in postman cadre could be filled up from amongst qualified candidates with the approval of CO. the SPS had picked up one Sh. Madhabananda Behera, an SC candidate showing an ST vacancy & interchanging the community from ST to SC on his own. (b) He had selected one SC candidate belonging to postman category securing only 99 marks whereas there were other qualified candidates from outsiders' quota, who though not selected as postman, had secured marks higher than the aforesaid SC candidate. Here also, he has irregularly interchanged one ST vacancy to SC on his own. By the acts mentioned on pre-page, the SPS violated the instructions' contained in D.G.P. & T letter No. 26-5/89-SPB-I dt 23.5.89 & thereby failed to maintain absolute integrity & devotion to duty in violation of the provisions contained in Rule 3(1) & (ii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Article -IV (a) The SPS had obtained the statistics for revision of allowances in respect of certain EDBPMs as late as 25.9.90 on the eve of his relief on 27.9.90 & forced the concerned O.A. to put up the cases ready before him. (b) In spite of being pointed out by the O.A. about the inflated statistics received, he went ahead with the revision of allowances resulting in huge monetary loss to the Govt. (c) He got the work of issue of orders on revision of allowances of ED Agents done beyond office hours on 27.9.90 although he had already made over charge of the office at about 1930 hours. By his above action, the SPS failed to maintain absolute integrity & acted in a manner, unbecoming of a Government servant in violations of the provisions contained in Rule 3(1)(i) & (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. 10. By his above action, the SPS failed to maintain absolute integrity & acted in a manner, unbecoming of a Government servant in violations of the provisions contained in Rule 3(1)(i) & (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. 10. The report of the UPSC at Annexure-9 also reveals that though detailed observations were made with regard to each of the charges holding each of the charges to have been established & proved, there was no observation or finding to the effect that the Petitioner was found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence. The UPSC at paragraph-14 of the report concluded: The commission based on the material evidence available on record & analysis as given above, hold all four articles of charges as proved. In the light of their findings as discussed above; & after taking into account all other aspects relevant to the case, the Commission Consider that the ends of justice would be met in this case if 20% (twenty per cent) of the monthly pension otherwise admissible to Shri H.M. Khuntia, Retd. SPO is withheld on a permanent basis. They advise accordingly. 11. In the order of punishment at Annexure-8 also it was not held that the Petitioner was found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence. The concluding paragraphs of the report at Annexure-8 read: 4. After examining the case in detail, the UPSC also held all the charges as proved & advised withholding of 20% (twenty per cent) of the monthly pension otherwise admissible to Shri H.M. Khuntia, retired SPOs, on a permanent basis. A copy of the UPSC's letter No. F.3/112/95 Sl. dated 20.5.1996 containing this advice, wherein the points raised by the charged officer have also been discussed, is enclosed. 5. The President has carefully examined the case & having regard to the gravity of the charges & taking into account all other aspects of the case, has felt that withholding of 20% of the monthly pension on a permanent basis, as advised by UPSC, is justified. The' President has therefore accepted the advice of the UPSC. 6. In exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules 1972, the President hereby accordingly orders that 20% (twenty per cent) of the monthly pension otherwise admissible to Shri H.M. Khuntia, retired SPOs, Cuttack South Dn. be withheld on a permanent basis. By Order & In The Name Of The President. 6. In exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules 1972, the President hereby accordingly orders that 20% (twenty per cent) of the monthly pension otherwise admissible to Shri H.M. Khuntia, retired SPOs, Cuttack South Dn. be withheld on a permanent basis. By Order & In The Name Of The President. Sd/- (M.S. Mahipaul) Desk Officer (VIG) 12. In D.V. Kapoor v. Union of India and Ors. (supra), it has been held: 5. It is seen that the President has reserved to himself the right to withhold pension in whole or in part thereof whether permanently or for a specified period or he can recover from pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused by the Government employee to the Government subject to the minimum. 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. The condition precedent thereto is that 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 mark dependent on the facts or circumstances in a given case. Myriad situation may arise depending on the ingenuity with which misconduct or irregularity was committed. It is not necessary to further probe into the scope & meaning of the words 'grave misconduct or negligence' & under what circumstances the findings in this regard are held proved. It is suffice that charges in the case are that the Appellant was guilty of willful misconduct in not reporting to duty after his transfer from Indian High Commission at London to the Office of External Affairs Ministry, Government of India, New Delhi. The Inquiry Officer found that though the Appellant derelicted his duty to report to duty, it is not willful for the reasons that he could not move due to his wife's illness & he recommended to sympathetically consider the case of the Appellant & the President accepted this finding, but decided to withhold gratuity & payment of pension in consultation with the Union Public Service Commission. 6. 6. As seen 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 is 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 recover of the pecuniary loss in whole or in part from the pension of the employee, subject to minimum of Rs. 60. Thus, it is well settled that the Condition precedent for exercise of the right to withhold pension under rule 9 of the Rules is that there should be a finding that the delinquent has committed grave misconduct or negligence in the discharge of public duty in office, as defined in Rule 8(5), Explanation (b) to the Rules. 13. In Union of India and Ors. v. Shri B. Dev (supra), cited on behalf of Opp. Party, also it has been held: 11. Rule 9 gives to the President the right of (1) withholding or withdrawing a pension or part thereof (2) either permanently or for a specified period & (3) ordering recovery from a pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government. This power can be exercised if, in any departmental or judicial proceedings, the pensioner is found guilty or grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his service. The power, therefore, can be exercised in all cases where the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his service. One of the powers of the President is to recover from pension, in a case where any pecuniary loss is caused to the Government, that loss. This is an independent power in addition to the power of withdrawing or withholding pension. The contention of the Respondent, therefore, that Rule 9 cannot be invoked even in cases of grave misconduct unless pecuniary loss is caused to the Government, is unsustainable. 14. This is an independent power in addition to the power of withdrawing or withholding pension. The contention of the Respondent, therefore, that Rule 9 cannot be invoked even in cases of grave misconduct unless pecuniary loss is caused to the Government, is unsustainable. 14. In the present case, in the absence of any indication in the charges that misconduct on the part of the Petitioner was considered to be grave, there is no scope to assume that the Petitioner was aware of department's contemplation to withhold any part his pension. The enquiry officer also did not record any finding that the misconduct established against the Petitioner was grave. In the report of the UPSC at Annexure-9 also the Petitioner was not stated to have been found guilty of grave misconduct. However, order was passed under Annexure-8 withholding 20% of the monthly pension admissible to the Petitioner. At no point of time the Petitioner had any opportunity to have his say in the matter. Having considered the facts & circumstances of the case, upon reference to provision under Rule 9 of the Rules & the above referred settled position of law, it is obvious that the Petitioner could not have been visited with the punishment of withholding of pension in exercise of right conferred under Rule 9 of the Rules in the absence of any finding to the effect that, in view of the nature of charges established against him, the Petitioner is guilty of grave misconduct or negligence. The authorities were obliged to record the finding that the nature of misdemeanor established against the Petitioner amounted to grave misconduct. The condition precedent having not been satisfied, the impugned order of punishment & the order passed by the Tribunal are liable to be quashed. 15. Accordingly, the impugned orders of the Tribunal at Annexure-5 as well as the order of punishment at Annexure-8 are quashed The Writ Petition is allowed. L. Mohapatra, J. I agree. Final Result : Allowed