LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIAversusMUKESH POONAMCHAND SHAH

986                      [2020]REPORTS
               SUPREME COURT    3 S.C.R. 986              [2020] 3 S.C.R.


A              LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA
                                       v.
                    MUKESH POONAMCHAND SHAH
                        (Civil Appeal No. 1804 of 2020)
B                            FEBRUARY 25, 2020
                 [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD
                       AND HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
            Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960:
C           Regulation 39(4) – Disciplinary proceedings against
      respondent – Punishment of reduction of pay – Criminal Proceedings
      – Conviction – During pendency of appeal, sentence suspended –
      Appellant employer’s show cause notice under Regulation 39(4)
      seeking removal from service of respondent in view of his conviction
      by Court – Notice to show cause challenged – Single Judge of High
D     Court dismissed the application – On Letters Patent Appeal, Division
      Bench of High Court restrained the employer from passing final
      order pending disposed of criminal appeal – Appeal to Supreme
      Court – Held: Only sentence was suspended and not the conviction
      – Show cause notice was issued within jurisdiction – No double
E     jeopardy occurred as one order was by disciplinary Committee
      imposing penalty for misconduct while Notice was for conviction in
      criminal case.
            Allowing the appeal, the Court
            HELD: 1. The respondent has been convicted and
F     sentenced to two years of rigorous imprisonment by the Special
      Judge, CBI for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471
      read with Section 120B of the Penal Code, and Sections 13(1)(d)
      and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. By the order of
      the Single Judge of High Court the conviction of the respondent
      has not been stayed and it is only the sentence which has been
G     suspended. While the court hearing a criminal appeal does have
      the power to suspend the conviction in appropriate cases, this is
      an exceptional power which can be exercised only when the
      attention of the court is drawn to the consequences which may
      ensue if the conviction is not stayed. A criminal miscellaneous
H
                                      986
    L.I.C. OF INDIA v. MUKESH POONAMCHAND SHAH                          987


application was filed by the respondent for the grant of bail pending   A
disposal of the criminal appeal. Significantly, in the special civil
application which was instituted before the High Court, the
respondent himself understood the order of the Single Judge as
having only suspended his sentence and not as having stayed the
conviction. On a reading of the order of the Single Judge, it is
                                                                        B
evident that only the sentence of imprisonment was suspended.
It is not possible to accede to the plea that the conviction of the
respondent remains stayed pending the disposal of the appeal.
[Para 11][993-C-F, G; 994-A]
      2. The appellant exercised its disciplinary jurisdiction while
proceeding against the respondent and after a disciplinary enquiry      C
imposed a penalty of a reduction of his basic pay to the minimum
of the scale. The Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff)
Regulations, 1960 determine the terms and conditions of service
of the employees of the Life Insurance Corporation of India.
Regulation 39(1) of the 1960 Regulations deals with the penalties       D
which can be imposed upon an employee who is found guilty of
misconduct. Regulation 39(2) mandates compliance with the
principles of natural justice in terms of providing a reasonable
opportunity to the employee to defend the charges. Regulation
39(4) operates with a non-obstante clause. In terms of Regulation
39(4)(i), “where a penalty is imposed on an employee on the             E
grounds of conduct which had led to a conviction on a criminal
charge”, the appellant is independently entitled to take steps
against the employee. It is in pursuance of the above provision
that a notice to show cause was issued to the respondent. The
penalty which was imposed on the disciplinary enquiry was for an        F
act of misconduct. The notice which has been issued under
Regulation 39(4) is for the conviction on a criminal charge. The
former does not foreclose the latter. [Paras 12 and 13][994-B;
995-A-G]
     3. In the present case, following the conviction of the            G
respondent by the Special Judge CBI, the appellant was acting
within jurisdiction in issuing a notice to show cause under
Regulation 39(4) of the 1960 Regulations. The Single Judge was
correct in dismissing the special civil application filed by the
respondent challenging the notice to show cause issued by the
                                                                        H
988            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2020] 3 S.C.R.


A     appellant. The judgment of the Division Bench restraining the
      appellant from taking a final decision on the show cause notice
      pending the disposal of the criminal appeal has no valid basis in
      law. [Para 16][997-F-G]
            Dy Director of Collegiate Education (Admn) v.
B           S. Nagoor Meera (1995) 3 SCC 377 : [1995] 2 SCR
            308; K C Sareen v. CBI (2001) 6 SCC 584 : [2001] 1
            Suppl. SCR 224; State of Haryana v. Balwant Singh
            (2003) 3 SCC 362 : [2003] 2 SCR 557 – relied on.
            Lt. Governor, Delhi v HC Narinder Singh (2004) 13
C           SCC 342 – distinguished.
                                 Case Law Reference
      [1995] 2 SCR 308                relied on                    Para 8
      [2001] 1 Suppl. SCR 224         relied on                    Para 8
D     [2003] 2 SCR 557                relied on                    Para 8
      (2004) 13 SCC 342               distinguished                Para 16
            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1804
      of 2020.
E           From the Judgment and Order dated 10.04.2018 of the High Court
      of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in L.P.A. No. 1160 of 2017 in Special Civil
      Application No. 12855 of 2017.
            Gautam Narayan, Ms. Asmita Singh, Adithya Nair, Advs. for the
      Appellant.
F          Harin P. Raval, Sr. Adv., Anando Mukherjee, Nipun Saxena,
      Ms. Sukanya Singh, Sarena Sharma, Advs. for the Respondent.
            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
            DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.
G           1. Leave granted.
             2. The present appeal arises from a judgment of a Division Bench
      of the High Court of Gujarat dated 10 April 2018. The Division Bench, in
      a Letters Patent Appeal arising from an order of a learned Single Judge

H
     L.I.C. OF INDIA v. MUKESH POONAMCHAND SHAH                               989
          [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

dated 11 July 2017, allowed the respondent, who had instituted proceedings    A
under Article 226 of the Constitution, to respond to a notice to show
cause issued by the appellant under Regulation 39(4) of the Life Insurance
Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations 19601. However, the appellant
was directed not to issue final orders during the pendency of the appeal
filed by the respondent against his conviction for offences under the
                                                                              B
Prevention of Corruption Act 19882 and the Indian Penal Code 18603.
      3. The respondent was appointed as a Probationary Development
Officer by the appellant on 27 September 1990. His services were
confirmed on 4 December 1991. On 16 February 1996, a charge-sheet
was served on the respondent containing the following allegations:
                                                                              C
       “i. That, you introduced 2 proposal no.s 7377 and 7529 on the
       lives of Shri PS Vyas and Shri RP Mehta through the agency,
       which resulted in issuance of policy for sum assured of
       Rs 10,00,000/-;
       ii. That, you certified as true a Fake School Leaving Certificate      D
       dated 13.07.1974 issued by the City High School, Raipur,
       Ahmedabad submitted the same as evidence of age along with
       the proposals for Life Insurance on the lives of the aforesaid Shri
       PS Vyas and Shri RP Mehta;
       iii. That, you submitted a Moral Hazard Report dated 14.12.1990        E
       in form No 3251recommending acceptance of the said proposals
       without making independent and discreet inquiries and without
       satisfying about the genuineness of the proposals as required to
       be done before the submission of the proposals;
       iv. That, it has been revealed that the proposers Shri PS Vyas and     F
       Shri RP Mehta are non-existent persons.”
       4. A disciplinary enquiry was convened in which the respondent
participated. The inquiry officer, in his report dated 17 April 1997, noted
that the respondent had unconditionally accepted the charges. The charges
against the respondent were held to be proven. On 16 June 1997, a
                                                                              G
notice to show cause was issued to the respondent, asking him to explain
as to why a penalty of reducing his basic pay to the minimum of the time
scale under Regulation 39(1)(d) of the 1960 Regulations should not be
1
  “1960 Regulations”
2
  “Prevention of Corruption Act”
3
  “Penal Code”                                                                H
990             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                               [2020] 3 S.C.R.


A     imposed upon him. The respondent submitted his response. By an order
      dated 15 July 1997, the disciplinary committee held the respondent guilty
      of misconduct and imposed the penalty of reducing his basic pay to the
      minimum of the time scale.
             5. A Criminal prosecution4 was instituted by the Central Bureau
B     of Investigation5 against the respondent and two other employees of the
      appellant before the Court of the Special Judge, CBI, Ahmedabad. The
      respondent was prosecuted for offences under Sections 13(1)(d) and
      13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120B read with
      Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Penal Code. On 28 July 2014, the
      respondent was convicted of all the offences and sentenced to two years
C     of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of ` 5,000 per offence. The
      respondent preferred a criminal appeal6 before the High Court of Gujarat
      challenging his conviction. The appeal is pending before the High Court.
      On 21 August 2014, the respondent filed an application 7 before the High
      Court for suspension of his sentence. By an order dated 21 August 2014,
D     a learned Single Judge issued the following directions:
             “3. Considering the question of sentence within which the appeal
             is not likely to be heard, it is not in the interest of justice to ask the
             applicant to be in jail during the pendency of the appeal.
             4. Under the circumstances, the judgment dated 28.07.2014 passed
E            by Special Judge, Ahmedabad, in Special Case No 27 of 1993
             shall remain under suspension till final hearing and disposal of the
             appeal. The applicant is ordered to be enlarged on bail on his
             executing a fresh bail bond and surety in the sum of Rs.5,000/-
             each (Rupees Five Thousand only) to the satisfaction of the Trial
F            Court on the following terms and conditions that the applicant:
             (a) Shall not take undue advantage of liberty or misuse liberty;
             (b) Shall surrender passport, if any, before the concerned police
             authority;
             (c) Shall not leave territory of India without prior permission of
G
             the Trial Court;”

      4
        CBI Special Case No 27 of 1993
      5
        “CBI”
      6
        CA no 1024 of 2014
      7
H       Criminal Miscellaneous Application no 1301 of 2014
        L.I.C. OF INDIA v. MUKESH POONAMCHAND SHAH                                 991
             [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

       6. On 23 June 2017, the appellant issued a notice to show to the            A
respondent under Regulation 39(4)(i) of the 1960 Regulations proposing
to impose the penalty of removal from service in view of his conviction
by the Special Judge, CBI. The notice to show cause was challenged by
the respondent in a Special Civil Application8 before the High Court of
Gujarat. A learned Single Judge by a judgment dated 11 July 2017
                                                                                   B
dismissed the application holding that:
          (i) The notice of termination was based on the conviction of the
              respondent by the Special Judge for offences under the
              Prevention of Corruption Act and the Penal Code and no
              question of double jeopardy arose; and
                                                                                   C
          (ii) Though the sentence of the respondent was suspended during
               the pendency of the criminal appeal, the conviction still stood.
       7. In a Letters Patent Appeal filed by the respondent, the Division
Bench restrained the appellant from passing final orders on the notice to
show cause pending disposal of the criminal appeal. The appellant                  D
preferred a Special Leave Petition before this Court under Article 136
of the Constitution against the judgment of the Division Bench which
has given rise to the present appeal.
      8. Assailing the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court,
Mr Gautam Narayan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant            E
submitted that:
          (i) In terms of the provisions contained in Regulation 39(4) of
              the 1960 Regulations, the appellant is entitled to proceed against
              the respondent upon his conviction on a criminal charge;
          (ii) No question of double jeopardy that attracts the provisions of      F
               Article 20(2) of the Constitution can arise in a situation where
               the service regulations empower the employer to proceed
               against the employee upon his conviction on a criminal charge;
          (iii) The High Court by directing the appellant from refraining
                from taking any action against the respondent pending the          G
                disposal of the criminal appeal has erroneously interfered with
                the exercise of the disciplinary jurisdiction of the appellant;
                and

8
    Special Civil Application no 12855 of 2017                                     H
992             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2020] 3 S.C.R.


A            (iv) The order of the learned Single Judge dated 21 August 2014
                  did not stay or suspend the conviction of the respondent
                  pending the disposal of the criminal appeal but only suspended
                  the sentence as a result of which the conviction has not been
                  obliterated or effaced.
B            In this context, reliance was placed on the decisions of this Court
      in (i) Dy Director of Collegiate Education (Admn) v S Nagoor
      Meera9, (ii) K C Sareen v CBI10, and (iii) State of Haryana v Balwant
      Singh 11.
             9. On the other hand, Mr Harin P Raval, learned Senior Counsel
C     appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted before this Court on 10
      January 2020 that there was a delay of 257 days in filing the Special
      Leave Petition which had not been satisfactorily explained. This Court
      allowed the appellant to file an additional affidavit setting out the reasons
      for delay. An additional affidavit was filed by the appellant explaining
      that the appellant had initially, in terms of the view of its western zonal
D     office, sought to move the CBI authorities for expediting the disposal of
      the criminal appeal. However, the empaneled local advocate had opined
      that there was no provision of law under which the appellant could be
      allowed to join as a party in the criminal appeal. The affidavit refers to
      the steps taken by the appellant thereafter to pursue the available remedies
E     against the judgment of the High Court before this Court. We are of the
      view that sufficient cause for condoning the delay has been made out.
      The delay is accordingly condoned.
            10. Responding to the submissions of the appellant, Mr Harin P
      Raval, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent submitted that:
F            (i) Originally, in the course of the disciplinary proceedings, the
                 respondent was proceeded against under Regulation 39(1)
                 (a to g) of the 1960 Regulations;
             (ii) The underlying facts on the basis of which the disciplinary
                  enquiry was instituted and the criminal prosecution took place
G                 are identical;
             (iii) The appellant having imposed a penalty in the course of the
                   disciplinary proceedings by reducing the respondent’s basic
      9
       (1995) 3 SCC 377
      10
         (2001) 6 SCC 584
H     11
         (2003) 3 SCC 362
        L.I.C. OF INDIA v. MUKESH POONAMCHAND SHAH                                    993
             [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

              pay to the minimum of the time scale has exhausted its                  A
              disciplinary jurisdiction and is not entitled to issue a fresh notice
              to show cause for removal from service;
         (iv) Regulation 39(4) dispenses with the requirement of a notice
              to show cause and an opportunity to defend. Recourse to the
              above power can be taken only when the employer has not                 B
              exercised its disciplinary jurisdiction under clauses (1) and
              (2) of Regulation 39; and
         (v) There has been an unexplained delay on the part of the
             appellant in issuing a notice to show cause.
        11. The respondent has been convicted and sentenced to two                    C
years of rigorous imprisonment by the Special Judge, CBI for offences
under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 read with Section 120B of the
Penal Code, and Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act. By the order of the learned Single Judge dated 21 August
2014, the conviction of the respondent has not been stayed and it is only             D
the sentence which has been suspended. The law on this point is well
settled. While the court hearing a criminal appeal does have the power
to suspend the conviction in appropriate cases, this is an exceptional
power which can be exercised only when the attention of the court is
drawn to the consequences which may ensue if the conviction is not
stayed. A criminal miscellaneous application12 was filed by the respondent            E
for the grant of bail pending disposal of the criminal appeal. Significantly,
in the special civil application which was instituted before the High Court
of Gujarat, the respondent himself understood the order of the Single
Judge as having only suspended his sentence and not as having stayed
the conviction. The pleading of the respondent in that regard is as follows:          F
         “The petitioner submits that vide order dated 21.08.,2014 passed
         in Criminal Misc. Application No 13091 of 2014, the sentence of
         the petitioner was suspended and the petitioner was ordered to be
         enlarged on bail on executing a fresh bail bond of Rs.5000/-.”
       That apart, on a reading of the order of the Single Judge, it is               G
evident that only the sentence of imprisonment was suspended.
Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the order of the learned Single Judge, as mentioned
in the earlier part of this judgment, must be read together. Hence, it is

12
     Criminal Miscellaneous Application no 13019 of 2014                              H
994            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2020] 3 S.C.R.


A     not possible to accede to the plea that the conviction of the respondent
      remains stayed pending the disposal of the appeal.
             12. The appellant exercised its disciplinary jurisdiction while
      proceeding against the respondent and after a disciplinary enquiry imposed
      a penalty of a reduction of his basic pay to the minimum of the scale.
B     The 1960 Regulations determine the terms and conditions of service of
      the employees of the Life Insurance Corporation of India. Chapter III
      of the 1960 Regulations provides for conduct, discipline and appeals.
      Regulation 39 deals with penalties and the relevant portion for our
      purposes is extracted below:
C           “39. Penalties. - (1) Without prejudice to the provisions of other
            regulations, [any one or more of] the following penalties for good
            and sufficient reasons, and as hereinafter provided, be imposed [by
            the disciplinary authority specified in Schedule-I] on an employee
            who commits a breach of regulations of the Corporation, or who
            display negligence, inefficiency or indolence or who knowingly
D           does anything detrimental to the interest of the Corporation, or
            conflicting with the instructions or who commits a breach of
            discipline, or is guilty of any other act prejudicial to good
            conduct -
            (a) Censure;
E
            (b) Withholding of one or more increments either permanently or
            for a specified period;
            (c) recovery from pay or such other amount as may be due to him
            of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the
F           Corporation by negligence or breach of order;
            (d) reduction to a lower service, or post, or to a lower time scale,
            or to a lower stage in a time-scale;
            (e) compulsory retirement;
            (f) removal from service which shall not be a disqualification for
G           future employment;
            (g) dismissal.
            (2) No order imposing on an employee any of the penalties
            specified in clauses (b) to (g) of sub-regulation (1) supra, shall be
H
     L.I.C. OF INDIA v. MUKESH POONAMCHAND SHAH                                   995
          [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

      passed by the disciplinary authority specified in Schedule I without        A
      the charge or charges being communicated to him in writing and
      without his having been given a reasonable opportunity of
      defending himself against such charge or charges and of showing
      cause against the action proposed to be taken against him.
      (3) The disciplinary authority empowered to impose any of the               B
      penalties, (b), (c), (d), (e), (f) or (g) may itself enquire into such of
      the charges as are not admitted or if it considers it necessary so
      to do, appoint a board of enquiry or an enquiry officer for the
      purpose.
      (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-regulations (1) and           C
      (2) above -
      (i) where a penalty is imposed on an employee on the grounds of
      conduct which had led to a conviction on a criminal charge; or
      (ii) where the authority concerned is satisfied, for reasons to be
      recorded in writing, that it is not reasonably practicable to follow        D
      the procedure prescribed in this regulation; or
      (iii) where an employee has abandoned his post, the disciplinary
      authority may consider the circumstances of the case and pass
      such orders thereon as it deems fit.”
                                                                                  E
       13. Regulation 39(1) of the 1960 Regulations deals with the
penalties which can be imposed upon an employee who is found guilty
of misconduct. Regulation 39(2) mandates compliance with the principles
of natural justice in terms of providing a reasonable opportunity to the
employee to defend the charges. Regulation 39(4) operates with a
non-obstante clause. In terms of Regulation 39(4)(i), “where a penalty            F
is imposed on an employee on the grounds of conduct which had led to
a conviction on a criminal charge”, the appellant is independently entitled
to take steps against the employee. It is in pursuance of the above
provision that a notice to show cause was issued to the respondent. The
penalty which was imposed on the disciplinary enquiry was for an act of
                                                                                  G
misconduct. The notice which has been issued under Regulation 39(4) is
for the conviction on a criminal charge. The former does not foreclose
the latter.
       14. The position in this regard was elaborated upon in a judgment
of a two judge Bench decision of this Court in Dy Director of Collegiate
                                                                                  H
996                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2020] 3 S.C.R.


A     Education (Admn) v S Nagoor Meera13, where Justice B P Jeevan
      Reddy speaking for the Court held:
               “8. ... taking proceedings for and passing orders of dismissal,
               removal or reduction in rank of a government servant who has
               been convicted by a criminal court is not barred merely because
B              the sentence or order is suspended by the appellate court or on
               the ground that the said government servant-accused has been
               released on bail pending the appeal.”
             This Court specifically disapproved of the view of the Tribunal
      that until the appeal against the conviction was disposed of, action under
C     clause(a) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) was not permissible.
      The Court held:
               “10. What is really relevant thus is the conduct of the government
               servant which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge. Now,
               in this case, the respondent has been found guilty of corruption by
D              a criminal court. Until the said conviction is set aside by the
               appellate or other higher court, it may not be advisable to retain
               such person in service. As stated above, if he succeeds in appeal
               or other proceeding, the matter can always be reviewed in such a
               manner that he suffers no prejudice.”

E              This view has been reiterated in another two judge Bench decision
               of this Court in K C Sareen v CBI14. Justice K T Thomas,
               speaking for the Court, held:
               “12. ...When a public servant who is convicted of corruption is
               allowed to continue to hold public office, it would impair the morale
F              of the other persons manning such office, and consequently that
               would erode the already shrunk confidence of the people in such
               public institutions besides demoralising the other honest public
               servants who would either be the colleagues or subordinates of
               the convicted person. If honest public servants are compelled to
               take orders from proclaimed corrupt officers on account of the
G              suspension of the conviction, the fallout would be one of shaking
               the system itself...”


      13
           (1995) 3 SCC 377
      14
           (2001) 6 SCC 584
H
        L.I.C. OF INDIA v. MUKESH POONAMCHAND SHAH                              997
             [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

       15. In State of Haryana v Balwant Singh15, the respondent,               A
who was an employee of a public transport corporation, caused a death
as a result of his rash and negligent driving. The Corporation had to
suffer an award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Following the
disciplinary enquiry, the employee was subjected to a punishment of a
reduction of pay to the minimum of the time scale of a driver for four
                                                                                B
years. On the conviction of the employee for offences under Sections
279, 337, 338 and 304A of the Penal Code, his services were terminated.
On this set of facts, a two judge Bench of this Court, speaking through
Justice Shivaraj V Patil, rejected the argument based on the principle of
double jeopardy and held:
         “7… there was no question of the respondent suffering a double         C
         jeopardy. The aid of Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India was
         wrongly taken. Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India does not
         get attracted to the facts of the present case...”
       The Court held that when a major penalty was proposed to be
imposed on the ground of the conduct of the employee which had led to           D
conviction on a criminal charge, it was not necessary to take recourse of
the provisions of Rules 7(1) and (2) of the Haryana Civil Services
(Punishment and Appeal) Rules 1987 relating to the convening of an
inquiry in which a reasonable opportunity of showing cause would have
to be given.                                                                    E
       16. The decision in Lt Governor, Delhi v HC Narinder Singh16,
relied upon by the respondent, is clearly distinguishable. Unlike the present
case, where the respondent was convicted of various criminal offences
and subsequently, a notice to show cause was issued, in HC Narinder
Singh there was no conviction based on a criminal charge. In the present        F
case, following the conviction of the respondent by the Special Judge
CBI, the appellant was acting within jurisdiction in issuing a notice to
show cause under Regulation 39(4) of the 1960 Regulations. The learned
single judge was correct in dismissing the special civil application filed
by the respondent challenging the notice to show cause issued by the
appellant. The judgment of the Division Bench restraining the appellant         G
from taking a final decision on the show cause notice pending the disposal
of the criminal appeal has no valid basis in law.

15
     (2003) 3 SCC 362
16
     (2004) 13 SCC 342                                                          H
998             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2020] 3 S.C.R.


A           17. We accordingly allow the appeal and set aside the impugned
      judgment and order of the Division Bench dated 10 April 2018. As a
      consequence, we confirm the order and judgment of the learned single
      judge dismissing the Special Civil Application filed by the respondent.
      There shall be no order as to costs.
B
      Kalpana K. Tripathy                                       Appeal allowed.




C




D




E




F




G




H