JUDGMENT : S. Kumar, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This LPA under Clause 10 of Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred for setting aside the judgment and order dated 08.07.2019 passed by learned Single Judge in CWJC No. 1012 of 2017, dismissing the writ petition. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case is that Appellant was posted as Block Development Officer, Sonhaula Block, in the district of Bhagalpur from 05.04.2010, when a joint complaint was made to Chief Minister, Bihar, alleging certain misappropriation and irregularities in the grant of diesel subsidy for the year 2009-10 and 2010-11 by Mukhiya and Panchayat Secretary by preparing a false distribution register. 4. Aforesaid complaint, was transferred to the Vigilance Department and enquiry was conducted and thereafter Vigilance PS. Case No. 71 of 2013 was instituted on 06.11.2013 under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420, 409 r/w 120B of IPC and section 13(2) and Section 13(1)(c)(d) of PC. Act, 1988, in which sanction for prosecution was granted against Appellant vide office order no. 453 dated 06.02.2012 and Appellant was put under suspension in terms of Rule-9 of Bihar Government Servant (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 on ground of institution of criminal case against him vide memo no. 454 dated 06.02.2014. 5. Departmental proceedings were also initiated against Appellant and charges were framed in Prapatra-Ka ¼d½ and served upon petitioner and Deputy Labour Commissioner, Bhagalpur, was appointed as Enquiry Officer and Labour Superintendent, Bhagalpur as Presenting Officer vide letter no.450 dated 11.02.2014 with a direction to conclude the proceeding within two months. 454 dated 06.02.2014. 5. Departmental proceedings were also initiated against Appellant and charges were framed in Prapatra-Ka ¼d½ and served upon petitioner and Deputy Labour Commissioner, Bhagalpur, was appointed as Enquiry Officer and Labour Superintendent, Bhagalpur as Presenting Officer vide letter no.450 dated 11.02.2014 with a direction to conclude the proceeding within two months. The articles of charges framed against the delinquent/Appellant along with list of oral and documentary evidence on the basis of which charges were to be proved by the Department were as following :- ^^mijksDr lanHkZ esa vkids fo:) fuEu vkjksi xfBr fd;s tkrs gS& 1- vkids }kjk foÙkh; o"kZ 2009&10 esa /kku iVou en esa vkoafVr jkf'k 933348-00 ¼:i;s ukS yk[k rsrhl gtkj rhu lkS vM+rkyhl½ dk QthZ forj.k iath rS;kj dj mDr jkf'k esa ls :i;s 922875-00 ¼:i;s ukS yk[k ckbZl gtkj vkB lkS ipgÙkj½ dh jkf'k dks QthZ forj.k fn[kkdj jkf'k dk xcu fd;k x;k gSA- 2- forj.k iath esa fdlh Hkh Ñ"kd ykHkqd@ykHkqdksa dk gLrk{kj ;k vaxqBs dk fu'kku ugha gksukA 3- vkids }kjk foÙkh; o"kZ 2010&11 esa fcpM+k iVou en esa vkoafVr jkf'k :i;s 80600-00 dk QthZ forj.k rS;kj dj vU; ds lg;ksx ls feyhHkxr dj mDr jkf'k esa ls :- 51162-00 dh jkf'k dks forfjr fn[kkdj jkf'k dk xcu fd;k tkukA mDr forj.k iath esa ek= vkids gLrk{kj ds vykok oÙkZeku eqf[k;k ,oa iapk;r lfpo dk gLrk{kj gksukA 4- jch iVou ,oa ¼vkyw + I;kt½ iVou ds vkoaVu en esa Øe'k% 150000-00 ,oa 40000-00 jkf'k dk QthZ forj.k iath rS;kj dj vkil esa "kM+;a= jpdj jkf'k dk xcu fd;k tkukA ykHkqdksa ds chp jkf'k dk forj.k ugha dj iढ+sa&fy[ksa vkneh dk vaqxwBs dk fu'kku ,oa vuiढ+ dk gLrk{kj fn[kkdkj jkf'k dk cUnj ckaV fd;k tkukA 5- foÙkh; o"kZ 2009&10 ,oa 2010&11 esa Mhty vuqnku ¼fofHkUu en½ esa "kM+;a= jpdj jkf'k dk xcu fd;k tkuk rFkk jkf'k dk nq:Ik;ksx fd;k tkukA lk{; %& 1- iqfyl v/kh{kd fuxjkuh vUos"k.k C;wjksa] Hkkxyiqj Á{ks= dk i=kad&200 fnukad& 19-09-13- 2- iqfyl fujh{kd vuqla/kkudÙkkZ fuxjkuh vUos”k.k C;wjks dk i=kad& 273 fnukad& 31-12-12- 3- fofHkUu enksa esa jkf'k forfjr fd;s tkus ls lacaf/kr forj.k iath dh Nk;kÁfrA 4- nk;j ÁkFkfedh dh ÁfrA** 6. Appellant appeared before the Enquiry Officer on 24.02.2014 and time was granted to file his defence reply and he submitted a detailed defence reply annexing all the relevant documents on 05.03.2014 with a copy to Presenting Officer who took time to file rejoinder. 7. Appellant appeared before the Enquiry Officer on 24.02.2014 and time was granted to file his defence reply and he submitted a detailed defence reply annexing all the relevant documents on 05.03.2014 with a copy to Presenting Officer who took time to file rejoinder. 7. Defence of the delinquent/appellant as recorded by the Enquiry Officer in his enquiry report is as follows:- Li"Vhdj.k Øekad 01 ls 05 rd lHkh 5 xfBr vkjksiksa ds ewy esa ,slk iwokZxzg Árhr gksrk gS fd Mhty vuqnku dk forj.k Ñ"kdksa dh chp Á[kaM fodkl inkf/kdkjh ds }kjk fd;k tkuk FkkA i= la[;k 8049@03-12-2009 ,oa 4442@26-07-2010 }kjk Øe'k% 2009&10 ,oa 2010&11 gsrq foLr`r fn'kk funsZ'k tkjh fd, x,A blds vuqlkj xzke iapk;rsa%& ¼d½ Ñ"kdksa ls vkosnu ÁkIr djsxhA ¼[k½ xzke lHkk dj ÁkIr vkosnuksa ls vuqeksnuksijkar Ñ"kdksa dh lwph cuk,xhA ¼x½ Xkzke lHkk }kjk ikfjr lwph ds vuqlkj Ñ"kdksa ds chp jkf'k dk forj.k djsxhA ¼?k½ lHkh dkxtkrksa@nLrkostksa@forj.k iath vkfn dk la/kkj.k djsxhA Á[kaM fodkl inkf/kdkjh %& ¼d½ xzke lHkk }kjk ikfjr lwph ij vkifÙk ÁkIr gksus ij xzke lHkk dks lq/kkj gsrq funsZ'k nsaxsA ¼[k½ ekax ds vuq:Ik ,0lh0 foi= dh fudklh dj xzke iapk;rksa dks vuqnku forj.k gsrq jkf'k miyC/k djk;saxsA ¼x½ forj.k ds Ik”pkr ykHkkfUor Ñ"kdksa dh lwph ÁkIr dj MhOElhOE foi= cukdj egkys[kkdkj dks HkstsaxsA ¼?k½ ftyk inkf/kdkjh ds ek/;e ls O;; Áfrosnu@mi;ksfxrk Áek.k i= Ñf"k foHkkx dks HkstsaxsA Li"V gS fd Á[kaM fodkl inkf/kdkjh }kjk ek= jkf'k mi&vkoafVr dj xzke iapk;r dekyiqj Jhpd dks miyC/k djk;k x;kA xzke iapk;r dks jkf'k js[kkafdr psd }kjk Ñ"kdksa ds chp forj.k gsrq miyC/k djk;h x;h] u fd Ñ"kdksa dks lh/ks nh x;hA xzke lHkk }kjk vuqeksfnr Ñ"kdksa dks jkf'k xzke iapk;r }kjk forfjr dh xbZA forj.k iath xzke iapk;r dks la/kkfjr j[kuh gS u fd Á[k.M dksA ykHkkfUor Ñ"kdksa dh blh lwph dks forj.k iath eku dj lkjs vkjksi xfBr fd;s x;s gSa] tks iwjh rjg cscqfu;kn gSA ykHkkfUor Ñ"kdksa dh lwph ij ykHkqdksa dk gLrk{kj gksus dk Á'u gh ugha mBrk gSA tgk¡ gLrk{kj@vaxwBs dk fu'kku gS njvly og blfy, gS fd lacaf/kr iapk;r lfpo }kjk vyx ls fofgr Ái= esa lwph u cukdj forj.k iath@vfHkJo dh QksVks Áfr gh miyC/k djk nh x;hA Mh0lh0 foi= Hkstus gsrq lanfHkZr Ñ"kdksa dh lwph ij fudklh ,oa O;; inkf/kdkjh dk gLrk{kj gksuk vfuok;Z gS] vr% esjs }kjk mDr lwph ij gLrk{kj fd;k x;kA blh vfuok;Zrk ds pyrs ftyk vkink ÁHkkjh vij lekgrkZ }kjk bls ÁfrgLrk{kfjr Hkh fd;k x;k ,oa ,0th0 fcgkj dks vko';d dkjokbZ gsrq Hkstk x;kA lwph ij gLrk{kj lwph dks Áekf.kd cukrk gS] u fd forj.k dh fo'oluh;rk lkfcr djrk gSA pw¡fd ;g forj.k iath gh ugha gS] ;g ykHkkfUor Ñ"kdksa dh lwph ek= gSA vr% bl ij ykHkqdksa dk gLrk+{kj@vaxwBs dk fu'kku gksus dk Á'u gha ugha mBrk gSA** 8. On the next date i.e. 13.03.2014 neither the Presenting Officer was present nor any rejoinder was filed on behalf of department and the matter was adjourned for 27.03.2014 to enable the Presenting Officer, to file the rejoinder but no rejoinder was filed. On the next adjourned date i.e. 27.03.2014 there was no representation on behalf of the department and matter was again adjourned for 10.04.2014 and meanwhile Labour Commissioner (Disciplinary Authority), Bihar, Patna, telephonically directed the Conducting Officer to submit the enquiry report before 31.03.2014, which is recorded by the Enquiry Officer in his enquiry report. The departmental proceeding was concluded prior to the adjourned date i.e. 10.04.2015 and the Enquiry officer vide letter no. 305 dated 29.03.2014 submitted his enquiry report to the Disciplinary Authority. 9. The Enquiry Officer has not recorded any of the five articles of charges to be proved against the Appellant and accepted the defence of delinquent in view of letter no. 4442 dated 26.07.2010 issued by department of agriculture which was brought on record by the delinquent /appellant in his defence statement, Clause-6(ga) of which stipulates that at the level of panchayat, preparation of list of beneficiaries and distribution of subsidy is the responsibility of Gram Sabha, Mukhiya and Panchayat Sachiv, which finds recorded by inquiry officer as conclusion in paragraph nos.1 and 2 of the inquiry report, however, in paragraph no.3 of his conclusion he has observed that the BDO/delinquent has released the subsidy amount to the Panchayat but it seems that he has not monitored distribution of said amount among the beneficiaries which shows his negligence as such Appellant can be indirectly held responsible for such irregularities. 10. 10. The conclusion drawn by enquiry officer in paragraph nos.1 to 3 of inquiry report reads as follows:- ^^1- Ñf"k foHkkx ds i=kad 4442 fnukad 26-07-2010 ds dafMdk 6 ¼x½ ds vuqlkj iapk;r Lrj ij vuqnku ckVus dk dke eqf[k;k ,oa iapk;r lfpo dk gSA rFkk uxj fodkl {ks= ds fdlkuksa dks vuqnku dk Hkqxrku Á[k.M fodkl inkf/kdkjh@Á[k.M Ñf"k inkf/kdkjh ds }kjk fd;k tkuk gSA 2- orZeku lanHkZ esa Á[k.M fodkl inkf/kdkjh ¼vkjksfir inkf/kdkjh½ dk dguk Fkk fd os vuqnku ds jkf'k dks lh/ks iapk;r ¼eqf[k;k@iapk;r lfpo dks nsrs gSA rFkk dksbZ f'kdk;r gksus ij tk¡p dh dk;Zok;h djrs gSa vius vki ughaA 3-lUnHkhZr vkjksaiks esa Jh foØekfnR; flag us Á[k.M fodkl inkf/kdkjh dh gSfl;r ls vuqnku dh jkf'k iapk;r dks fn;k ijUrq ,slk Árhr gksrk gS fd Jh flag us fn;s x;s iSls dk lgh&lgh vuqJo.k ugha fd;kA tks budk ykijokgh n'kkZrk gSA bl Ádkj Jh flag vijks{k :Ik ls vfu;ferrk ds fy, tokcnsg ekus tk ldrs gSA** 11. Once the enquiry officer has accepted the defence of delinquent and has not recorded any of the five charges framed against delinquent to be proved there was no occasion for him to observe that the BDO/delinquent has released the subsidy amount to the Panchayat but it appears that he has not monitored distribution of said amount among the beneficiaries which shows his negligence and as such Appellant can be indirectly held responsible for such irregularities. 12. No such charge of being negligent in performing his duty and not monitoring the payment of subsidy amount was framed against the delinquent and the inquiry officer exceeded his jurisdiction and travelled beyond the scope of inquiry by recording such finding of negligence in performing his duty. Moreover negligence is not construed as misconduct and only grave negligence is misconduct for which specific charge has to be framed. Charges were framed of committing grave misconduct alleging misappropriation of subsidy amount by preparing forged distribution register and not grave negligence in performance of his duty by not monitoring the released subsidy. 13. Enquiry Officer is not permitted to travel beyond the charges and any punishment imposed on the basis of a finding which was not the subject matter of charges is wholly illegal. 14. Even the finding of negligence recorded by the enquiry officer is based upon presumption, assumption, conjecture and surmises. 13. Enquiry Officer is not permitted to travel beyond the charges and any punishment imposed on the basis of a finding which was not the subject matter of charges is wholly illegal. 14. Even the finding of negligence recorded by the enquiry officer is based upon presumption, assumption, conjecture and surmises. Charges cannot be deemed to be proved on basis of inference drawn by the enquiry officer. Suspicion cannot be substitute of proof. Suspicion or presumption cannot take the place of proof in a departmental inquiry. 15. The Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. H.C. Goel since reported in AIR 1964 SC 364 , emphasized that suspicion, however, strong cannot be treated as proof against accused in a criminal trial or a delinquent officer in domestic enquiry. 16. Conclusions has to be recorded by the Disciplinary Authority on the basis of cogent evidence. The Apex Court in the case of Narinder Mohan Arya Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. since reported in (2006) 4 SCC 713 , in para 44 has held that the enquiry officer cannot base his findings on mere hypothesis. Mere ipse dixit on his part cannot be a substitute of evidence. 17. The Enquiry Officer has rightly not considered the report of S.P. Vigilance and of IO of vigilance as well as FIR which were enclosed in support of charges as the presenting officer did not appear before the enquiry officer in order to prove the documents and contents thereof. Except the letter dated 26.07.2010, as referred above, the Enquiry Officer has not dealt with any other documentary or oral evidence in his enquiry report. 18. Disciplinary Authority issued second show cause notice vide letter no. 1183 dated 11.04.2014 enclosing a copy of the enquiry report to the Appellant to submit his reply with respect to finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer, against charges. This Court fails to understand on what basis the disciplinary authority has stated in the second show cause notice that charges against delinquent have been proved although there is no such finding recorded by the inquiry officer in enquiry report. This Court fails to understand on what basis the disciplinary authority has stated in the second show cause notice that charges against delinquent have been proved although there is no such finding recorded by the inquiry officer in enquiry report. In the second show cause notice dated 11.04.2014, delinquent has been asked to show cause against the finding of inquiry officer recorded in paragraph no.3 of enquiry report regarding not monitoring distribution of subsidy amount presuming his negligence for which he can be held to be indirectly responsible for the irregularities. The relevant part of the second show cause notice dated 11.04.2014 reads as follows:- ^^vkids }kjk fn;s x;s iSls dk lgh&lgh vuqJo.k ugha fd;k tks vkidh ykijokgh n'kkZrk gSA bl Ádkj vki vijks{k :Ik ls vfu;ferk ds fy, tokcnsg ekus tk ldrs gSA^^ 19. The Appellant submitted a detailed reply to the second show cause. 20. The Disciplinary Authority after considering the enquiry report and finding of enquiry officer with respect to charges framed against appellant and reply of Appellant with respect to finding recorded by enquiry officer found the charges to be proved against the delinquent/Appellant and dismissed him from service. The relevant paragraph nos. 5 and 6 of the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority is reproduced herein below:- ^^5- vuq'kklfud Ákf/kdkj }kjk lapkyu inkf/kdkjh ds Áfrosnu ,oa mlds Øe esa vkjksih lsod }kjk lefÁr dkj.k&i`PNk dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA lapkyu inkf/kdkjh ds tkap Áfrosnu rFkk fuxjkuh vUos"k.k C;wjks ds i=kad& 3221 fnukad& 19-02- 2013 }kjk Ásf"kr iqfyl v/kh{kd] fuxjkuh foHkkx ds i= ds lkFk&lkFk layXu ÁkFkfedh ls gh ÁFke nz”V;k ;g Áekf.kr ik;k x;k fd yksd fuf/k ds mi;ksx esa vkjksfir lsod }kjk vfu;ferrk cjrh xbZ gS rFkk cM+h jkf'k dk xcu fd;k x;k gSA vkjksfir lsod }kjk ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;] iVuk esa nk;j fØfeuy felysfu;l okn la0&12808@14 esa ikfjr varfje vkns'k ds ek/;e ls tekur LohÑr fd;s tkus ds vk/kkj ij vius dks funksZ"k crk;k x;k] tcfd ;g Li"V gS fd ek= tekur ds fy, [kaMihB ds varfje vkns'k ds vkjksih ds Criminal Antecedent ugha gksus dk mYys[k fd;k x;k gSA Áklafxd vkijkf/kd okn ij dksbZ U;k; fu.kZ; ugha ikfjr gSA 6- vr% lE;d fopkjksijkUr v/kksgLrk{kjh }kjk vuq'kklfud Ákf/kdkj ds :Ik esa vkjksih lsod dks foÙkh; vfu;ferrk ,oa xcu ds vkjksi esa nks"kh Áekf.kr ikrs gq, rRdky ÁHkko ls c[kkZLr fd;k tkrk gSA** 21. The Disciplinary Authority in his order has relied upon letter no. The Disciplinary Authority in his order has relied upon letter no. 3221 dated 19.02.2013 of the Vigilance Investigation Bureau and the FIR and came to the conclusion that prima facie it is established that the delinquent has committed irregularities in respect of public fund and huge amount has been misappropriated. 22. The finding recorded by the Disciplinary Authority on the basis of letter no. 3221 dated 19.02.2013 of the Vigilance Investigation Bureau and the FIR is not sustainable. 23. In present case, no statement of facts/imputation of misconduct was part of memo of charge and charges were to be proved on the basis of report of S.P. and IO of the Vigilance Investigation Bureau and the FIR. 24. The Apex Court in case of Union of India Vs. Sardar Bahadur since reported in (1972) 4 SCC 618 , has held in paragraph no. 11 which is reproduced herein under:- "11. We do not think that the statements should have been received in evidence as the appellant had taken no step to produce the persons who made the statements for cross-examination of the respondent. It was the duty of the appellant to have produced these persons whose statements were sought to be proved for the cross-examination of the respondent. In State of My sore V. S.S. Makapur, this Court said that the purpose of an examination in the presence of a party against whom an enquiry is made, is sufficiently achieved, when a witness who has given a prior statement is recalled that statement is put to him, and made known to the opposite party, and the witness is tendered for cross examination by that party. As the persons whose statements were sought to be relied on were in Delhi and as they were not produced and tendered for cross-examination by the respondent, we think that the inquiring officer was right in refusing to act upon the statements relied on by the appellant. As there was no material before the inquiring officer to show that P. S. Sundaram mentioned in the cheque is P.S. Sundaram, the Deputy Secretary, we think the High Court was justified in holding that these charges had not been proved." 25. The Apex Court in case of Roop Singh Negi Vs.Punjab National Bank and Ors. As there was no material before the inquiring officer to show that P. S. Sundaram mentioned in the cheque is P.S. Sundaram, the Deputy Secretary, we think the High Court was justified in holding that these charges had not been proved." 25. The Apex Court in case of Roop Singh Negi Vs.Punjab National Bank and Ors. since reported in (2009) 2 SCC 570 has held that charges cannot be proved on the basis of documents produced but not proved by the department. The charges against the delinquent must be proved on the basis of oral and documentary evidence produced by the department before the inquiry officer. The purported evidence collected during investigation by the investigating officer cannot be treated to be evidence in a disciplinary proceeding. FIR cannot be treated as evidence. 26. The judgment of Roop Singh Negi (supra) has been followed in many subsequent judgments of Apex Court i.e. (2017) 2 SCC 308 , (2013) 4 SCC 301 and 2013 (2) SCALE 348 and in these judgments liberty to the department to initiate fresh proceeding for same set of charges has been denied by the Apex Court. 27. Against the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, Appellant preferred an appeal before the Principal Secretary/Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Labour Resources, Government of Bihar, who is the appellate authority, but, strangely, same was sent again to the disciplinary authority, i.e., Labour Commissioner to be treated as revision/ review which was also dismissed by order dated 01.12.2016 passed by Labour Commissioner, Bihar affirming his previous order. 28. After appellant was dismissed from service and during pendency of appeal/revision a letter dated 03.03.2015 was issued in the name of Assistant Labour Commissioner addressed to the District Magistrate, Bhagalpur, in which opinion was sought from the District Magistrate, Bhagalpur, with respect to appeal/review filed by appellant as D.M. Bhagalpur was his controlling authority and he worked on deputation under his supervision and control and allegations also pertains to his functioning as BDO. 29. The District Magistrate, Bhagalpur, in his reply dated 01.12.2016 has expressed surprise over initiating the departmental proceeding against the BDO, Sonhaula, Bhagalpur, without any information to the office of District Magistrate, Bhagalpur although he is the controlling authority of the BDO. No explanation was called by the office of District Magistrate, Bhagalpur, from the delinquent-Appellant with respect to said allegations. The District Magistrate, Bhagalpur, in his reply dated 01.12.2016 has expressed surprise over initiating the departmental proceeding against the BDO, Sonhaula, Bhagalpur, without any information to the office of District Magistrate, Bhagalpur although he is the controlling authority of the BDO. No explanation was called by the office of District Magistrate, Bhagalpur, from the delinquent-Appellant with respect to said allegations. Even no consultation was made at the time of framing of charge by the parent department. 30. District Magistrate, Bhagalpur, has enclosed letter of Deputy Collector, Disaster Management Branch, which has been endorsed by the District Magistrate in which the role of BDO/delinquent in distribution of subsidy has been outlined. 31. On the basis of circulars issued by the Agriculture Department, BDO has no role in distribution of subsidy and same is to be done on the basis of list prepared by the Gram Sabha, which will be verified by the Gram Sabha and list will be published and pasted in public place and on any complaint made against said list BDO will enquire and send his report to the Gram Sabha and thereafter Gram Sabha may amend or not amend the list and finally publish the list of beneficiaries. 32. The distribution of subsidy amount within Panchayat Area among farmers is made by Panchayat Secretary, on the basis of final list prepared by Gram Sabha and after payment, Panchayat Secretary submits the list of beneficiary farmers to BDO for purpose of accounting so that D.C. bill could be sent within time. 33. In view of opinion given by the District Magistrate, Bhagalpur who is the controlling authority of appellant as well as acceptance of defence of delinquent by the inquiry officer that BDO has no role in distribution of subsidy amount or preparation of list of beneficiaries and same is to be done by the Gram Sabha and the Panchayat Secretary and further for the reasons as stated above disciplinary authority could not have held the charges to be proved and passed order of dismissal on the basis of letter of S.P. Vigilance and FIR as such the order of disciplinary authority dated 11.06.2014 affirmed in review order dated 01.12.2016 is neither sustainable in law nor on fact and are accordingly, set aside. Appellant is entitled for all consequential benefits. 34. Appellant is entitled for all consequential benefits. 34. As appellant has already retired from service, this Court is not inclined to give any liberty to the department to initiate any fresh proceeding against the appellant on same set of charges. 35. For the reasons as stated above, the LPA as well as writ petition is allowed and order dated 08.07.2019 passed by learned Single Judge in CWJC No. 1012 of 2017 is set aside. 36. Accordingly, this LPA is disposed of.