Research › Search › Judgment

Manipur High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 121 (MAN)

Ng. Randhir v. Union of India

2022-07-07

M.V.MURALIDARAN

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to issue no objection certificate or acceptance of technical resignation and to release arrears of pay till the petitioner resigned. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he is a qualified body builder and obtained several medals. He was selected to Elite Force of CRPF and accordingly offered the post in Elite Force on sports basis (body building) attached with Central Body Building Team (CBBT), New Delhi. The petitioner, after careful consideration of Rules 3(m) and (n) of Service Rules, voluntarily accepted the offer and joined in 2006. While the petitioner serving in CBBT brought several medal for CRPF for about 8 years. While so, suddenly on 6.6.2014, without any show cause notice, the petitioner was moved to Mokamaghat, Bihar. Since the petitioner suffered from depression and fatigue, he was hospitalized at CRPF hospital and discharged with advise for home treatment and full rest. Hence, he left for Imphal and had started home treatment by visiting Government Hospital. On 26.6.2015, a show cause notice was issued initiating departmental enquiry against the petitioner for overstay of leave. Though the petitioner submitted leave application and he is entitled absence for five years on medical ground, the question of conducting enquiry does not arise. 3. Further case of the petitioner is that when the petitioner was fit for duty, the local Gym, offered him the post of Instructor (body building), thereby compelling him to obtain technical resignation before joining as per rule. On 10.6.2015 the petitioner submitted technical resignation for acceptance with effect from 1.7.2015 giving one month time as per rule. Since the respondent authorities failed to take action on the application, the petitioner sent a notice on 7.6.2015 for acceptance through his counsel. On 22.6.2015, the respondent replied that the petitioner's resignation cannot be accepted during enquiry. In the meanwhile, on 23.10.2015, the DIG communicated a letter to the petitioner that he was removed from service and his resignation cannot be accepted after removal from service. Hence, the writ petition. 4. The respondents filed affidavit-in-opposition stating that in pursuance of the direction of IGP (Trg), Dte. In the meanwhile, on 23.10.2015, the DIG communicated a letter to the petitioner that he was removed from service and his resignation cannot be accepted after removal from service. Hence, the writ petition. 4. The respondents filed affidavit-in-opposition stating that in pursuance of the direction of IGP (Trg), Dte. Genl., New Delhi, all the Central Body Team, including the petitioner was issued movement order on 6.6.2014 with a direction to report at GC, CRPF, Mokamaghat, Bihar and the petitioner was due to report for duty on 7.6.2014, but he failed to do so and remained absent from duty unauthorisedly with effect from 7.6.2014 FN without prior permission of leave from the competent authority despite direction to report for duty. It is stated that on the basis of the complaint lodged by Adm. Officer-GC, CRPF, Mokamaghat dated 22.8.2014, a warrant of arrest was issued against the petitioner to the Superintendent of Police, Imphal East District. Since the petitioner neither reported for duty at his own nor arrested by the concerned civil police, a Court of Inquiry was ordered by the competent authority under the provisions contained in Rule-31(a) of CRPF Rules, 1955 and as a result of the Court of Inquiry, the petitioner has been declared 'deserter' with effect from 7.6.2014. 5. The respondents further stated that a departmental enquiry has been initiated against the petitioner and Articles of charges were sent to the petitioner at his home address through registered letter with direction to submit a written statement of his defence within 10 days. Shri Sonatan Besra, Asst. Comdt. was appointed as an enquiry officer and S.K.Singh was appointed as presenting officer and the petitioner had been given an opportunity to engage a defence assistance, if he wish to do so during the course of enquiry. Since the petitioner neither appeared before the enquiry officer nor given any communication of his defence, the enquiry officer conducted the departmental enquiry as ex parte in accordance with the laid down procedures and rules. 6. It is stated that while the enquiry against the petitioner was under progress, the petitioner had submitted an application on 10.6.2015 addressed to the Commandant, Central Sports Officer, New Delhi with a request to accept his resignation from service with effect from 1.7.2015. 6. It is stated that while the enquiry against the petitioner was under progress, the petitioner had submitted an application on 10.6.2015 addressed to the Commandant, Central Sports Officer, New Delhi with a request to accept his resignation from service with effect from 1.7.2015. But the resignation tendered by the petitioner was not accepted by the Commandant since there is no provision to accept resignation of a Government servant facing a departmental enquiry. On 27.8.2015, the enquiry officer submitted the enquiry proceedings to the disciplinary authority and the disciplinary authority thereafter provided copy of the enquiry report to the delinquent on 4.9.2015 through registered post giving him 15 days time to submit his representation, if any. The petitioner has submitted representation against the report and denied the charge of misconduct as per Articles of charges. After due examination of the entire enquiry proceedings along with relevant instructions as well as the written statement of the petitioner, the disciplinary authority i.e. Commandant, GC CRPF, Mokamaghat, Bihar imposed the punishment of removal from service with effect from 23.10.2015 AN vide order dated 23.10.2015 under Section 11 of CRPF Act, 1949 read with Rule 27 of CRPF Rules, 1955. 7. In the affidavit-in-opposition, it is stated that aggrieved by the order of removal from service, the petitioner has preferred an appeal to the DIGP on 23.11.2015, which was considered by the appellate authority and after due consideration of all pros and cons, the report of the enquiry officer as well as after verifying the documents, rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioner. 8. Mr. Julius Riamei, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in pursuance of the order of the IGP, a movement order dated 6.6.2014 was issued with a direction to report on 7.6.2014 at GC, CRPF, Mokamaghat. Since the petitioner was sick to report duty as directed, he applied for medical leave and had also sought for extension of his medical leave from time to time with medical records. Since the salary was not given, the petitioner has submitted a representation on 26.2.2015 seeking payment of arrears of salary. On 10.6.2015, the petitioner submitted his technical resignation from service with effect from 1.7.2015. 9. The learned counsel further submitted that since the petitioner submitted technical resignation, on 26.12.2015, he replied that department enquiry initiated against him may be dropped and accept the technical resignation. On 10.6.2015, the petitioner submitted his technical resignation from service with effect from 1.7.2015. 9. The learned counsel further submitted that since the petitioner submitted technical resignation, on 26.12.2015, he replied that department enquiry initiated against him may be dropped and accept the technical resignation. However, the department enquiry was proceeded further and after conclusion of the enquiry, imposed penalty of removal from service on 23.10.2015. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal and ultimately the same was also dismissed. 10. The learned counsel urged that a resignation is a relinquishment of office and the relationship between an employee and employer terminates at the acceptance of resignation. Resignation can be tendered at any point of time and is effective on its acceptance by the employer/authority. 11. The learned counsel next submitted that a leave with sanction is an authorized absence and that the removal of the petitioner from service is purely on an unauthorized absence. The petitioner was never suspended during his service. Since the respondent authority did not pass any orders on the leave applications, the petitioner cannot be held to be absent unauthorizedly on duty, because the leave of the petitioner can be implied as sanction. Therefore, the case of the petitioner has to be considered for salary from the month of August 2014 to June 2015. 12. Per contra, Mr. Salam Samarjeet, the learned senior panel counsel for the respondents submitted that the departmental enquiry had been initiated against the petitioner on 20.12.2014 and since the petitioner failed to appear before the enquiry officer despite communication to submit his defence, an ex parte departmental enquiry was conducted. He would submit that while the enquiry is pending, the petitioner submitted a resignation on 10.6.2015 with a request to accept his resignation from 1.7.2015. But the respondent authorities have not accepted the resignation and the same was communicated to the petitioner. 13. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that after due examination of the enquiry proceedings, the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of 'removal from service'. Aggrieved by the removal order, the petitioner has filed an appeal and the same was rejected on 19.12.2015. 14. The learned counsel urged that besides no any admissible dues of petitioner is pending except CGCGIS and DCPs for which complete set of blank forms had been sent to the petitioner at his home address on 23.5.2016. 15. Aggrieved by the removal order, the petitioner has filed an appeal and the same was rejected on 19.12.2015. 14. The learned counsel urged that besides no any admissible dues of petitioner is pending except CGCGIS and DCPs for which complete set of blank forms had been sent to the petitioner at his home address on 23.5.2016. 15. The learned counsel then submitted that despite direction to participate in the enquiry, the petitioner has failed to participate in the departmental enquiry and did not submit defence documents. He would submit that since the petitioner had been declared 'deserter from service' with effect from 7.6.2014 as a result of Court of Inquiry vide order dated 28.11.2014, the petitioner cannot be treated as in service upto 1.7.2015. Thus, a prayer is made to dismiss the writ petition. 16. We have considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials available on record. 17. The grievance of the petitioner is that on 10.6.2015 he has submitted technical resignation from service with effect from 1.7.2015 and he has also replied on 26.12.2015 to the departmental enquiry stating that since he had given technical resignation, the departmental enquiry initiated against him may be dropped by accepting the technical resignation. However, the departmental enquiry proceeded against him. After concluding the departmental enquiry, the petitioner was removed from service with effect from 23.10.2015 by issuing an order dated 23.10.2015. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed appeal and the same has been dismissed without proper reason. 18. Further grievance of the petitioner is that the removal of the petitioner from service is purely on unauthorized absence. The petitioner was never suspended during his service. The medical leave applied by him and its extension from time to time in the absence of any rejection will not warrant the punishment of removal from service. 19. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed in CRPF as CT/GD on sports basis (body building) with effect from 14.5.2005 against the existing vacancy of GC, CRPF, Mokamaghat and posted in Adm. Coy. Since the petitioner was recruited in the elite force on sports basis, he was attached with CBBT, New Delhi at 122 Bn. CRPF. On 4.6.2015, IGP (Trg.), New Delhi issued an order directing to disband CBBT from 122 Bn. And disperse of all team members to their parent offices/units. Coy. Since the petitioner was recruited in the elite force on sports basis, he was attached with CBBT, New Delhi at 122 Bn. CRPF. On 4.6.2015, IGP (Trg.), New Delhi issued an order directing to disband CBBT from 122 Bn. And disperse of all team members to their parent offices/units. In pursuance of the above, the petitioner was issued with an movement order on 6.6.2014 with direction to report at GC, CRPF, Mokamaghat and he was due to report in GC, CRPF, Mokamaghat on the due date. However, the petitioner was continuously overstaying from duty unauthorisedly with effect from 7.6.2014 without prior permission of any competent authority. By the letters dated 11.8.2014 and 30.8.2014, the petitioner was directed to report for duty, but he did not report for duty and continuously overstaying from duty. On receipt of the complaint from OC (Adm) GC, CRPF, Mokamaghat, a warrant of arrest was issued on 22.8.2014 against the petitioner. Again on 20.12.2014, a letter was issued to him directing to report for duty forthwith with the intimation that if he failed to report for duty, suitable disciplinary action would be taken against him, Despite the letter, he did not report for duty at GC, CRPG, Mukamaghat and disobeyed the orders of the competent authority. In view of the above, disciplinary action was issued against the petitioner. 20. The following are the charges framed against the petitioner: (1) That the said No.055190057 CT/GD N.G.Randhir of Group Centre, CRPF, Mokamaghat while functioning as CT/GD committed misconduct in his capacity as a Member of the Force U/s 11(1) of the CRPF Act, 1949, in that he was continuously over stay/absent from duty wef 07/06/14 (FN) without prior permission of any competent authority which is prejudicial go good order and discipline of the Force and punishable under Rules 27 of CRPF Rules, 1955. (2) That the said No.055190057 CT/GD N.G.Randhir of Group Centre, CRPF, Mokamaghat while functioning as CT/GD committed as disobedience of orders/neglect of duty/remissness in the discharge of his duty in his capacity as a member of the Force U/s 11(1) of the CRPF Act, 1949, read with 27 of CRPF Rules, 1955 in that he was directed to report for duty by this office but continuously over stay/absent from duty. Thus, he failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and committed misconduct which is prejudicial to good order and discipline of the Force and punishable Under Rule 27 of CRPF Rules, 1955. 21. On 20.12.2014, the departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner and he was directed to participate in the enquiry. However, he did not appear before the Enquiry Officer. Since the petitioner failed to appear before the Enquiry Officer and also failed to sent any communication of his defence, the Enquiry Officer has conducted the departmental enquiry as ex-parte in accordance with law, after giving reasonable opportunity. 22. It appears that while the enquiry was under progress, on 10.6.2015, the petitioner has submitted a resignation letter to accept his resignation from service with effect from 1.7.2015. The said letter was addressed to the Commandant, Central Sports Officer, East Block-10, Level-7, R.K.Puram, New Delhi. Finding that there is no provision to accept the resignation of a Government servant who is facing a departmental enquiry, the Commandant addressed a letter to the petitioner on 23.6.2015 stating that his resignation cannot be accepted. 23. The communication dated 23.6.2015 addressed to the petitioner reads thus: 'Reference your letter dated 10.6.2015 addressed to the Commandant Central Sports Officer, East Block-10, Level-7, R.K. Puram, New Delhi on the subject received in this office on 15/06/2015. 02. In this connection, it is to inform you that the Departmental Enquiry has already been initiated against you. As per Rule Resignation cannot be accepted to a Government Servant when a enquiry is pending against him. Since a DE is pending against you, your resignation cannot be accepted at this stage. Action on departmental enquiry will be taken against you as per Rule/Instructions on the subject.' 24. On 27.8.2015, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding that the charges framed against the petitioner have been proved beyond any iota of doubt. Thus, according to the Enquiry Officer's report, both the charges stand proved. It is not the case of the petitioner that the report of the Enquiry Officer was not furnished to him. Since the petitioner failed to appear before the Enquiry Officer despite communication, the report of the Enquiry Officer was sent on 4.9.2015 through registered post with postal acknowledgement giving him 15 days time to submit his representation, if any. It is not the case of the petitioner that the report of the Enquiry Officer was not furnished to him. Since the petitioner failed to appear before the Enquiry Officer despite communication, the report of the Enquiry Officer was sent on 4.9.2015 through registered post with postal acknowledgement giving him 15 days time to submit his representation, if any. On receipt of the report, the petitioner has also submitted a representation stating that he was on sick. In the said representation, the petitioner has denied the charge of misconduct and disobedience of the order. However, after examination of the departmental proceedings and taking note of the fact that the petitioner was absent duty from 7.6.2014 unauthorisedly and upon considering the representation submitted, the disciplinary authority i.e. Commandant had issued an order imposing the following punishment on the petitioner on 23.10.2015: '(a) No.055190057 CT/GD N.G. Randhir is 'REMOVED' from service wef 23/10/2015 (AN). (b) His period of unauthorized absence wef 07/06/2014 to 23/10/2015 will be treated as 'DIES ON'. He will not be entitled for any arrears of pay and allowances or any service benefits for the above periods. (c) He is struck of the strength from this GC from date of issue of order i.e. (23/10/2015) (AN). (d) All medals and decorations, if any, earned by the said individual during the service in the Force stands forfeited under the provision of Section 12(1) of CRPF Act, 1949. (e) The Govt. dues if any outstanding against him shall be recovered/adjusted from the dues payable to him and credited into the Govt. treasury. (f) Warrant of arrest which was issued to S.P. District Imphal (East) against the delinquent vide this Office letter No.W-II-2/14-EC-II dated 30/08/2014 is hereby cancelled. 25. It appears that in the aforesaid order of punishment, the petitioner was given 30 days time to file an appeal, if he so desires to the DIGP, CRPF, Mokamaghat as per Rule 28 of the CRPF Rules, 1955. Accordingly, the petitioner preferred an appeal on 23.11.2015 to the DIGP and the appellate authority, after perusal of the records and upon applying his mind, rejected the appeal of the petitioner on 19.12.2015. The operative portion of the order of the appellate authority reads thus: '6. Accordingly, the petitioner preferred an appeal on 23.11.2015 to the DIGP and the appellate authority, after perusal of the records and upon applying his mind, rejected the appeal of the petitioner on 19.12.2015. The operative portion of the order of the appellate authority reads thus: '6. Finally, on considering all pros & cons of the D.E. Proceedings that the charges framed against the delinquent were proved conclusively beyond any shadow of doubt during the course of enquiry by E.O. and after taking all pros and cons and report of the E.O. as well as verifying all the documents and evidences, the revisionist was punished by the competent authority, as he had committed an act of gross misconduct and he was not fit to be retained in this elite force. Besides above, no any new documentary proof along with appeal has been submitted by delinquent on which basis punishment awarded him by the Commandant could be reduced/decreased. 7. Now, therefore, under the provision of Rule 28 of CRPF Rules, 1955, I, hereby reject the prayer made by No.055190057 EX CT/GD N.G.Randhir of this GC vide his appeal dated 23/11/15 being devoid of merit. 8. Further it is intimated that if No.055190057 EX CT/GD N.G.Randhir is not agreed with this order he may submit his revision appeal to the IGP, Bihar Sector, CRPF, Patna (Bihar) under the provision contained in Rule 29 of CRPF Rules, 1955 within 30 days issued of this order.' 26. It appears that admittedly the petitioner has not submitted a revision appeal to the IGP as observed in the order of the appellate authority dated 19.12.2015. Thus, the order of the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority attained finality. This Court is convinced with the enquiry proceedings held against the petitioner and order of removal passed by the disciplinary authority which was confirmed by the appellate authority and there is no flaw in it. Upon perusal of the materials produced by the parties, this Court finds that the petitioner was continuously overstaying from duty with effect from 7.6.2014 without prior permission from the competent authority, which is prejudicial to good order and discipline of the Force and also the petitioner disobeyed the order of the Force and had failed to maintain the absolute integrity and devotion to duty and, thus, committed the misconduct. 27. 27. At this juncture, it is pertinent to point out that the petitioner being a member of the disciplined Force, it was his duty to obey the orders of the competent authority, which he failed to do so and remained absent from duty without any intimation. Though the petitioner stated that he was sick, nothing has been produced to show the type of treatment he has taken. The medical records produced and are made reference are the treatment taken as Out Patient at IHBAS (Institute of Human Behaviour and Allied Science) Hospital, New Delhi from 9.6.2014, wherein it has been stated that the petitioner was advised to take bed rest for some days with regular medicines. But he failed to inform the said fact to DIGP and wilfully absented from duty with effect from 7.6.2014 without prior permission and/or sanction of leave from the competent authority. 28. In State of Punjab and others v. Mohinder Singh, reported in (2005) 12 SCC 182 , the Hon'ble Apex Court held: '8. We do not agree with the High Court that a single act of remaining absent without leave would not amount to gravest act of misconduct. This would depend upon the fact situation of each case. In the present case we find that the respondent remained absent without leave for quite a long period. The explanation rendered by him did not find favour either with the enquiry officer or the punishing authority. The finding of facts were not disturbed in the departmental appeal/revision. This finding was also not disturbed in the suit. The only ground for setting aside the orders impugned in the suit is that a single act of remaining absent from duty without sanctioned leave did not merit an order of dismissal from service. We find from the record that the respondent had remained absent from duty without sanctioned leave on 15 different occasions. Although no major punishment was awarded to him but he was ordered to be censured once. In our view, the respondent being member of a disciplined force could not be permitted to remain absence without taking leave and that too for such a long period. He cannot be retained in service. The order impugned before us is set aside and the suit is ordered to be dismissed.' 29. In our view, the respondent being member of a disciplined force could not be permitted to remain absence without taking leave and that too for such a long period. He cannot be retained in service. The order impugned before us is set aside and the suit is ordered to be dismissed.' 29. In Union of India and others v. Irfan Ali, reported in (2013) 2 North East Judgments 408, a Division Bench held as under: '21. In State of Punjab and others vs. Mohinder Singh, reported in (2005) 12 SCC 182 , the Supreme Court has pointed out that when a person belonging to paramilitary force remains absent from duty without leave, it is a gravest misconduct and an order of dismissal, if imposed by the disciplinary authority, ought not to be interfered with by the High Court. 22. In the present case too, we are of the view that when the reasons of absence of the petitioner from attending his duty had not been convincingly explained by the petitioner or, at any rate, was a disputed question of fact, the learned Single Judge ought not to have interfered with the penalty of dismissal of service imposed on the petitioner-respondent.' 30. In State of Meghalaya and others v. Mecken Singh N.Marak, reported in (2008) 7 SCC 580 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held: '14. In the matter of imposition of sentence, the scope for interference is very limited and restricted to exceptional cases. The jurisdiction of the High Court, to interfere with the quantum of punishment is limited and cannot be exercised without sufficient reasons. The High Court, although has jurisdiction in appropriate case, to consider the question in regard to the quantum of punishment, but it has a limited role to play. It is now well settled that the High Courts, in exercise of powers under Article 226, do not interfere with the quantum of punishment unless there exist sufficient reasons therefor. The punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority unless shocking to the conscience of the court, cannot be subjected to judicial review. In the impugned order of the High Court no reasons whatsoever have been indicated as to why the punishment was considered disproportionate. Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. The mere statement that it is disproportionate would not suffice.' 31. In the impugned order of the High Court no reasons whatsoever have been indicated as to why the punishment was considered disproportionate. Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. The mere statement that it is disproportionate would not suffice.' 31. Admittedly, the petitioner has not specifically challenged those two orders seeking to quash the same. When this Court perused the prayer of the writ petition, the same is very vague. For proper appreciation the prayer in the writ petition is extracted hereunder: '33. The petitioner therefore prays: a) That this Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or writ, order or direction under Art. 226 of the Constitution against the Respondents ordering and directing them: (i) to issue non objection certificate or acceptance of Technical Resignation. (ii) to release arrear of pay of petitioner till he resigned and others due (iii) for the cost of this petition (iv) for such further and other order as the nature of.' 32. As far as the technical resignation submitted by the petitioner dated 10.06.2015 is concerned, such technical resignation submitted by the petitioner cannot be accepted or treated as technical resignation in view of Annexure 14 and 15 to the Office Memorandum dated 26.12.2013, which is extracted hereunder: '14. In cases where a Government servant applied for post in the same or the other Departments through proper channel and on selection, is required to resign the previous posts for administrative reasons, the benefit of past service, if otherwise admissible under rules, is given treating the resignation as a 'Technical Formality'. Resignation submitted for other reasons or if competent authority has not allowed him to forward his application through proper channel is a resignation and benefit of past service will not be admissible. 15. This benefit is also admissible to Government servants who applied for posts in same or other Departments before joining Government service and on that account the application was not routed through proper channel. The benefit of past service is allowed in such cases subject to the fulfilment of the following conditions:- (i) the Government servant at the time of joining should intimate the details of such application immediately on their joining. The benefit of past service is allowed in such cases subject to the fulfilment of the following conditions:- (i) the Government servant at the time of joining should intimate the details of such application immediately on their joining. (ii) the Government servant at the time of resignation should specifically make a request, indicating that he is resigning to take up another appointment under Government/Government organization for which he applied before joining the Government service and that his resignation may be treated a 'technical resignation'. (iii) the authority accepting the resignation should satisfy itself that had the employee been in service on the date of application for the post mentioned by the employee, his application would have been forwarded through proper channel.' 33. Thus, as per the above instructions contained in paragraphs 14 and 15 of the Office Memorandum dated 26.12.2013, the resignation tendered by the petitioner dated 10.6.2015 cannot be treated as technical resignation.. As per the instructions contained in Chapter 3, paragraph 16 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, application of a Government servant for appointment whether by direct recruitment, transfer on deputation or transfer to any other post should not be considered if disciplinary proceedings are pending against him. In the case on hand, admittedly, at the time of submitting the resignation letter, disciplinary proceedings was initiated and pending and therefore, the respondent authorities have rightly not considered the same. As righty contended by the respondent authorities, there is no such provision to accept resignation of a Government servant after removal from service. 34. Thus, for all the reasons stated above, this Court is of the view that the departmental enquiry against the petitioner for wilful absence from duty with effect from 7.6.2014 was initiated, as a result of which, punishment for removal from service was imposed upon the petitioner by the disciplinary authority on 23.10.2015 which was in commensurate with the offence committed by the petitioner and has been rightly confirmed by the appellate authority also. This Court is also of the view that the petitioner has neither applied for sanction of leave from the competent authority nor any kind of leave was sanctioned to him, however, he remained absent from duty with effect from 7.6.2014 without any intimation and/or sanction of leave. Thus, there is no merit in the writ petition. 35. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. Thus, there is no merit in the writ petition. 35. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.