A.M. KULSHRESTHAversusUNION BANK OF INDIA AND ORS.

                  [2025] 7 S.C.R. 42 : 2025 INSC 744

                          A.M. Kulshrestha
                                 v.
                     Union Bank of India and Ors.
                       (Civil Appeal No. 7039 of 2025)
                                 20 May 2025
           [Abhay S. Oka* and Augustine George Masih, JJ.]


                           Issue for Consideration
       Whether the disciplinary proceedings including the charge sheet
       against the appellant ought to be quashed and set aside; whether
       the action of the respondent-Bank was mala fide and arbitrary in
       serving the charge sheet without receiving the first stage advice
       by the Central Vigilance Commission.

                                  Headnotes†
       Union of India Officer Employees’ (Discipline & Appeal)
       Regulations, 1976 – Regulation 19 – Consultation with Central
       Vigilance Commission (CVC) – Respondent-Bank served
       charge sheet upon the appellant without waiting for the CVC’s
       advice – Appellant sought quashing of charge-sheet, writ
       petition dismissed by High Court – Interference with:
       Held: Regulation 19 stipulates that the Bank shall consult the
       CVC, wherever necessary, in respect of disciplinary cases having
       a vigilance angle – The CVC is consulted at two stages for its
       advice – The first stage advice is sought before the issuance of the
       charge sheet, and the second stage advice is either on receipt of
       the reply to the charge sheet or on receipt of the enquiry report –
       Respondent itself acknowledged that the case had a vigilance angle
       and consultation with the CVC was necessary, and therefore, it
       sought the opinion of the CVC – Therefore, it was not open for the
       Bank to serve the charge sheet without receiving and considering
       the first stage advice by the CVC – This was despite the statement
       made by the Executive Director in the earlier petition, filed by the
       appellant challenging the suspension order, stating that the charge
       sheet would only be served upon receipt of advice from the CVC –
       Actions of the respondent are mala fide and arbitrary – High Court


* Author
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                            43

            A.M. Kulshrestha v. Union Bank of India and Ors.


     erred in holding that Regulation 19 was not mandatory – This issue
     was irrelevant as the Bank itself acknowledged that in the facts
     of the case, it was necessary to seek first-stage advice from the
     CVC – Disciplinary proceedings including the charge sheet are
     quashed and set aside – Union Bank of India Employees’ Pension
     Regulation, 1995. [Paras 16, 17, 19-21, 22, 25]

                                List of Acts
     Union of India Officer Employees’ (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations,
     1976; Union Bank of India Employees’ Pension Regulation, 1995;
     Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003; CVC’s Vigilance Manual,
     2017.

                             List of Keywords
     Regulation 19 of Union of India Officer Employees’ (Discipline &
     Appeal) Regulations, 1976; Central Vigilance Commission (CVC);
     Consultation with Central Vigilance Commission; Disciplinary
     proceedings; Charge-sheet served without receiving the first
     stage advice by the Central Vigilance Commission; Suspension
     order; Disciplinary cases having a vigilance angle; CVC’s advice;
     CVC’s first-stage advice; Delay in issuing the charge sheet;
     Superannuation; Disciplinary action; Sanctioning credit proposals;
     Vigilance proceedings; Consultation with the CVC mandatory or
     discretionary; Disciplinary proceedings and charge sheet quashed;
     Retiral benefits.

                            Case Arising From
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7039 of 2025
     From the Judgment and Order dated 20.09.2019 of the High Court
     of Judicature at Allahabad in SPLA No. 963 of 2019

                         Appearances for Parties
     Advs. for the Appellant:
     Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Sr. Adv., Purushottam Sharma Tripathi,
     Akshat Kulshrestha, Tushar Srivastava, Ms. Shrya Nair, Ravi
     Chandra Prakash, Prakhar Singh.
     Advs. for the Respondents:
     O.P. Gaggar, Sachindra Karn.
44                                                         [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


                Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                Judgment

      Abhay S. Oka, J.

      Leave granted.
1.    This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 20th
      September, 2019 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court
      of Allahabad affirming the order of the Learned Single Judge dated
      26th July, 2019, whereby the Writ Petition preferred by the appellant
      seeking quashing of the charge sheet served on him pursuant to
      disciplinary proceedings was dismissed.

      FACTUAL ASPECTS
2.    The appellant was an employee of the Union Bank of India (hereinafter
      referred to as “The Respondent Bank”), where he served for
      approximately 34 years from 1984 to 2018. He was promoted to
      the post of Deputy General Manager in 2016 and was due to retire
      on 30th June, 2019.
3.    The Respondent Bank vide order dated 21st August, 2018, suspended
      the appellant pending further disciplinary action, alleging that the
      appellant, in his prior role as the Regional Head, Meerut, had
      adopted a very casual approach while sanctioning credit proposals
      in 16 accounts submitted by Mid-corporate Ghaziabad Branch. It was
      alleged that he sanctioned huge limits to newly incorporated firms
      without ensuring proper due diligence by the branch or processing
      officers. On 18th January, 2019, after approximately 6 months of the
      suspension order, a show cause notice was issued to the appellant,
      asking him to show cause as to why disciplinary action should not
      be initiated against him. On 27th March, 2019, another show cause
      notice was issued to the appellant incorporating the same omissions
      and commissions as alleged in the previous show cause notice, but in
      relation to other parties. The appellant made multiple representations
      to the Respondent Bank, requesting it to revoke his suspension.
      However, the same was of no avail.
4.    The appellant preferred Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6976 of 2019
      before the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad against Order dated
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                             45

            A.M. Kulshrestha v. Union Bank of India and Ors.


     21st August, 2018. The General Manager of the Respondent Bank
     (hereinafter referred to as, “General Manager”) submitted personal
     affidavit dated 23rd May, 2019 before the Hon’ble High Court justifying
     the delay in issuing the charge sheet as attributable to the matter
     being referred to the Central Vigilance Commission (hereinafter
     referred to as, “the CVC”) in terms of Regulation 19 of the Union of
     India Officer Employees’ (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976
     (hereinafter referred to as, “1976 Regulations”). The relevant extract
     of the General Manager’s affidavit is as follows:
           “32. That, the IAC has viewed/regarded the case of 16
           officials, including that of appellant, as a Vigilance case.
           33. That since the appellant being an Executive in TEGS-VI
           and as also the matter Involving other executive/officials,
           making it a composite case, in terms of Regulation 19 of
           Union Bank of India Officers Employee’s (Discipline and
           Appeal) Regulations, 1976 and guidelines of the Central
           Vigilance Commission as circulated vide Circular NO.
           07/04/15 dated 27.04.2015 (ANNEXURE CA - 4) the
           matter has been sent to the central Vigilance Commission
           for first stage advice.
           34. That accordingly a request has been sent to Central
           Vigilance Officer (CVO) of the Bank to forward the matter
           on 23.04.2019 to Central Vigilance Commission (CVC)
           seeking their first stage. The advice of CVC is still awaited.”
     The Disciplinary Authority/Executive Director of the Respondent Bank
     (hereinafter referred to as, “Executive Director”) submitted personal
     affidavit dated 13th June, 2019 before the High Court, inter alia,
     stating that the matter was referred to the CVC, and the charge sheet
     would be issued to the appellant on receipt of the CVC’s advice. The
     relevant extract of the Executive Director’s affidavit is as follows:
           “27. That on receipt of the advice of CVC, the
           respondent bank shall be soon issuing Articles of
           Charge/Chargesheet to the appellant along with other
           concerned officials who are found to be involved in the
           matter”
                                                     (emphasis added)
46                                                            [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


      On 18th June, 2019, the respondent-Bank served an ante-dated
      charge sheet of 10th June, 2019, to the appellant, in relation to the
      allegations levied in the show-cause notices. However, this charge
      sheet was served without receiving the CVC’s advice.
5.    Learned Single Judge of the High Court by Order dated 20th June,
      2019 quashed Order dated 21st August, 2018 on the ground that
      continuing the suspension of the appellant since 21st August 2018
      without even initiating or serving charge sheet for almost a year
      and that too at the fag end of the career of the appellant is wholly
      arbitrary and illegal. At the same time, the High Court granted liberty
      to the Respondent Bank to initiate any further proceedings that it
      may deem fit. Accordingly, the Executive Director issued a letter
      dated 28th June, 2019 to the appellant, stating that the disciplinary
      proceedings against him will continue and that he would not receive
      any pay, allowance or retiral benefits for the period till the completion
      of the disciplinary proceedings.
6.    The appellant preferred Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 10800 of 2019
      before the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad seeking quashing of the
      charge sheet dated 10th June, 2019 on the ground that the charge
      sheet was served without seeking the advice of the CVC, which
      violated the mandatory requirement under Regulation 19 of the 1976
      Regulations. The appellant also sought a direction to the Respondent
      Bank to consider his case for payment of pension under the Union
      Bank of India Employees’ Pension Regulation, 1995 and to pay the
      pension to the Appellant along with consequential relief.
7.    The learned Single Judge by his judgement and order dated 26th
      July, 2019 dismissed the Writ Petition holding that no ground was
      made out to quash the charge sheet and directed the appellant to
      cooperate in the enquiry. The appellant challenged the said Order by
      filing Special Appeal No. 963 of 2019. The Division Bench by impugned
      Judgement and Order dated 20th September, 2019 dismissed the
      appeal, holding that it was not necessary to seek the CVC’s advice
      before issuing the charge sheet.

      RELEVANT PROVISIONS
8.    The issues involved in this appeal require consideration of Regulation
      19 of the 1976 Regulations, which reads as follows:
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                           47

            A.M. Kulshrestha v. Union Bank of India and Ors.


           “Regulation 19. Consultation with Central Vigilance
           Commission: The Bank shall consult the Central Vigilance
           Commission wherever necessary, in respect of all
           disciplinary cases having a vigilance angle”
     The regulation requires the Respondent Bank to consult the CVC
     in respect of all disciplinary cases with a vigilance angle, wherever
     deemed necessary. The language of the rule stipulates a mandatory
     consultation obligation by the usage of the word ‘shall’, and at the
     same time grants the Respondent Bank a degree of discretion by
     limiting the consultation to ‘wherever necessary’. A question may
     arise whether the said provision is mandatory or directory.

     SUBMISSIONS

     Submissions on behalf of the Appellant
9.   The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant submitted
     that Regulation 19 of the 1976 Regulations, by using the words ‘shall
     consult’, imposes a mandatory requirement on the Respondent Bank
     to seek the CVC’s advice in all complaints involving allegations of
     corruption, before issuance of a charge sheet to an employee. In
     support of this contention, learned senior counsel referred to CVC’s
     Circular No. 99/VGL/66 dated 28th September, 2000, Circular No.
     24/4/04 dated 15th April, 2004 and Circular No. 07/04/15 dated 27th
     April, 2015. The relevant extracts of the circulars are reproduced
     herein:
           Circular No. 99/VGL/66 dated 28th September, 2000
           “3. The Commission, at present, is being consulted at two
           stages in disciplinary proceedings, i.e. first stage advice
           is obtained on the investigation report before issue of the
           charge sheet, and second stage advice is obtained either
           on receipt of reply to the charge sheet or on receipt of
           inquiry report.”
           Circular No. 24/4/04 dated 15th April, 2004
           “3. It is clarified that investigation/inquiry reports on the
           complaints/cases arising out of audit and inspection, etc,
           involving a vigilance angle will have to be referred to the
           Commission for advice even if the competent authority in
48                                                      [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                     Supreme Court Reports


      the bank decides to close the case, if any of the officer
      involved is of the level for whom the Commission’s advice
      is required.”
      Circular No. 07/04/15 dated 27th April, 2015
      “As per the existing scheme for consultation with the
      Commission, the CVOs of the Ministries / Departments
      and all other organisations are required to seek the
      Commission’s first stage advice after obtaining the
      tentative views of Disciplinary Authorities (DAs) on the
      reports of the preliminary inquiry / investigation of all
      complaints involving allegation(s) of corruption or improper
      motive; or if the alleged facts prima-facie indicate an
      element of vigilance angle which are registered in the
      Vigilance Complaint Register involving Category-A officers
      (i.e., All India Service Officers serving in connection with
      the affairs of the Union, Group-A officers of the Central
      Govt. and the levels and categories of officers of CPSUs,
      Public Sector Banks, Insurance companies, Financial
      Institutions, Societies and other local authorities as
      notified by the Government u/s 8(2) of CVC Act, 2003)
      before the competent authority takes a final decision in
      the matter. Such references also include cases wherein
      the allegations on inquiry do not prima facie indicate any
      vigilance overtone / angle / corruption.
      On a review of the scheme of consultation with the
      Commission and to expedite the processes of vigilance
      administration in the Ministries/Departments/Organisations,
      it has been decided that, henceforth after inquiry /
      investigation by the CVO in complaints / matters relating
      to Category-A officers as well as composite cases wherein,
      Category-B officers are also involved, if the allegations,
      on inquiry do not indicate prima facie vigilance angle /
      corruption and relate to purely non-vigilance / administrative
      lapses, the case would be decided by the CVO and
      the DA concerned of the public servant at the level of
      Ministry / Department / Organisation concerned. The CVO’s
      reports recommending administrative / disciplinary action
      in non-vigilance /administrative lapses would, therefore,
      be submitted to the DA and if the DA agrees to the
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                          49

            A.M. Kulshrestha v. Union Bank of India and Ors.


           recommendations of the CVO, the case would be finalised
           at the level of the Ministry/ Department/ Organisation
           concerned. In all such matters, no reference would be
           required to be made to the Commission seeking its first
           stage advice. However, in case there is a difference of
           opinion between the CVO and the DA as to the presence
           of vigilance angle, the matter as also enquiry reports on
           complaints having vigilance angle though unsubstantiated
           would continue to be referred to the Commission for first
           stage advice. The provisions of the Vigilance Manual and
           the Special Chapter on Vigilance Management in Public
           Sector Enterprises, Public Sector Banks and Insurance
           Companies would stand amended to this extant.”
                                                  (underline supplied)

     Relying on the circulars mentioned above, the learned senior counsel
     submitted that consultation with the CVC is a necessary pre-requisite
     for initiating disciplinary proceedings against an employee.
10. The learned senior counsel also drew attention to Section 8(1)(h) of
    the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003, wherein the CVC has
    been bestowed the function and power to exercise superintendence
    over the vigilance administration of the various Ministries of the
    Central Government or Corporations established by or under any
    Central Act, Government companies, societies and local authorities
    owned or controlled by that Government. Attention was also drawn
    to Clause 7.9.1 of the CVC’s Vigilance Manual, 2017, whereby
    Central Vigilance Officers of the Ministries/Departments and all other
    organisations are required to seek the Commission’s first stage
    advice after obtaining the tentative views of Disciplinary Authorities
    on the reports of the preliminary inquiry/investigation of all complaints
    involving allegation(s) of corruption or improper motive; or if the
    alleged facts prima-facie indicate an element of vigilance angle.
11. Lastly, the learned senior counsel referred to affidavits dated 23rd
    May, 2019 and 13th June, 2019, filed by the General Manager and
    the Executive Director, respectively, before the Hon’ble High Court
    in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6976 of 2019. Learned senior counsel
    stated that Respondents vide these two affidavits have admitted
    that the proceedings initiated against the appellant have a vigilance
50                                                        [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


      angle and therefore the case has been referred to the CVC for their
      advice in terms of Regulation 19 of the 1976 Regulations. Thus, the
      Respondents are now estopped from seeking to initiate unilateral
      disciplinary proceedings against the appellant without obtaining the
      CVC’s first-stage advice.

      Submissions on behalf of the Respondents
12. The learned counsel appearing for the Respondents submitted that as
    per Clause 7.9.1 of the CVC’s Manual, the Commission’s first stage
    advice is required to be sought ‘before the competent authority takes
    a final decision in the matter’. Learned counsel contends that the
    presentation of a charge sheet would not amount to taking the final
    decision in the matter, but would rather only amount to initiation of
    the disciplinary proceedings, and therefore, the charge sheet cannot
    be vitiated for not taking the CVC’s advice.
13. The learned counsel further submitted that the Respondent Bank
    had sought the CVC’s first-stage advice via their letter dated 17th
    May 2019; however, they received the CVC’s response on 21st
    June 2019. The advice was taken as a matter of abundant caution.
    The learned counsel contended that the Rules or Regulations must
    not be interpreted in a manner that stalls or delays the disciplinary
    process until receipt of the advice from the CVC. The disciplinary
    proceedings against the delinquents cannot be frustrated solely
    on account of the CVC’s inaction. Learned counsel also submitted
    that the pendency of vigilance proceedings does not bar the
    internal disciplinary proceedings by the Respondent Bank against
    an employee, and accordingly, the Respondent Bank could issue
    the charge sheet.
14. Lastly, the learned counsel submitted that it was incorrect to suggest
    that the Respondents have taken two contradictory and inconsistent
    stands in the two rounds of litigation before the Hon’ble High Court.
    Learned counsel denied that the charge sheet was prepared hastily
    and that the same was ante-dated and served only by email on
    account of any mala fide reasons, extraneous consideration, or
    personal bias. Moreover, learned counsel submitted that no prejudice
    was caused to the appellant on account of the serving of the charge
    sheet and the continuation of disciplinary proceedings against him.
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                            51

            A.M. Kulshrestha v. Union Bank of India and Ors.


     CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS
15. In the present case, factual aspects are very relevant. Material factual
    aspects set out in a chronology are as under:-
     a.    The appellant was employed with the respondent Union Bank
           of India from the year 1984;
     b.    In the year 2016, he was promoted to the post of Deputy
           General Manager;
     c.    On 30th June 2019, the appellant was to be superannuated;
     d.    The appellant had a blemishless record till 21st August 2018,
           when the Bank suspended him. The allegation against the
           appellant was that, as the Regional Head at Meerut, he adopted
           a very casual approach while sanctioning credit proposals in
           16 accounts sent by the Mid-corporate Ghaziabad branch. It
           is alleged that the appellant sanctioned huge limits to newly
           incorporated firms without ensuring proper diligence by the
           branch/processing officers;
     e.    On 18th January 2019 and 27th March 2019, two show cause
           notices were served upon the appellant, calling upon him to show
           cause why a disciplinary action should not be initiated against him;
     f.    As the representations made by the appellant for revoking
           suspension were not considered, the appellant filed a writ
           petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad to challenge
           the order of suspension. In the said writ petition, the General
           Manager filed his affidavit justifying the delay in issuing the
           charge sheet, stating that the matter was referred to the CVC
           for first-stage advice, but the advice was not received. He relied
           upon Regulation 19 of the 1976 Regulations. In the same writ
           petition, another affidavit dated 13th June 2019 was filed by the
           Executive Director stating that on receipt of advice from the CVC,
           Articles of charge/charge sheet will be issued to the appellant;
     g.    By the order dated 20th June 2019, the High Court quashed
           the order of suspension dated 21st August 2018 on the ground
           that continuing the suspension of the appellant from 21st August
           2018 without even initiating or serving a charge sheet for almost
           a year was arbitrary and illegal. However, liberty was reserved
           to the Bank to initiate further proceedings; and
52                                                         [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


      h.   On 18th June 2019, without waiting for the CVC advice, a charge
           sheet dated 10th June 2019 was served upon the appellant.
           Thereafter, by a letter dated 28th June 2019, the Executive
           Director informed the appellant that the disciplinary proceedings
           against him would continue, and he would not receive any
           pay, allowances, or retiral benefits until the completion of the
           proceedings.
16. Regulation 19 of the 1976 Regulations stipulates that the Bank shall
    consult the CVC, wherever necessary, in respect of disciplinary
    cases having a vigilance angle. A reading of the regulation makes
    it clear that in cases where the Respondent Bank deems that the
    consultation is necessary due to the case having a vigilance angle,
    the Respondent Bank is required to seek the advice of the CVC.
    Therefore, while the learned counsel has argued the question of
    whether consultation with the CVC is mandatory or discretionary,
    in the facts of this case, it is not necessary for us to delve into the
    said question. The reason is that the Respondent Bank has itself
    acknowledged that the case had a vigilance angle and consultation
    with the CVC is necessary, and therefore, the Respondent Bank had
    sought the opinion of the CVC.
17. We have already quoted the relevant parts of the Circulars dated
    28th September 2000, 15th April 2004 and 27th April 2015 issued
    by the CVC. As can be seen from the Circulars, the CVC is being
    consulted at two stages for its advice. The first stage advice is
    sought before the issuance of the charge sheet, and the second
    stage advice is either on receipt of the reply to the charge sheet or
    on receipt of the enquiry report. As can be seen from the affidavit
    dated 23rd May 2019, filed by the General Manager of the Bank, the
    first stage advice of the CVC has been sought. The affidavit dated
    13th June 2019 filed by the Executive Director also clearly states
    that on the receipt of the advice of the CVC, the Bank shall issue a
    charge sheet to the appellant. As stated earlier, within five days of
    filing the said affidavit, the charge sheet dated 10th June 2019 was
    served upon the appellant. This was done without receiving the first
    stage advice from the CVC.
18. In its counter-affidavit, the Respondent Bank has admitted that the
    CVC’s first-stage advice was sought on 17th May 2019. Notably, the
    advice was sought from the CVC nine months after the suspension
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                       53

            A.M. Kulshrestha v. Union Bank of India and Ors.


     order. In fact, on 18th January 2019 and 27th March 2019, show-cause
     notices were issued to the appellant, calling upon him to show cause
     why disciplinary action should not be initiated against him.
19. Thus, the respondent-Bank accepted that Regulation 19 of the 1976
    Regulations was applicable and therefore, first-stage advice of the
    CVC was sought. Even before getting the first stage advice, on 10th
    June 2019, the charge sheet was kept ready which was served upon
    the appellant on 18th June 2019. In this case, the Respondent Bank
    itself accepted the necessity of seeking first-stage advice from the
    CVC. Therefore, it was not open for the Bank to serve the charge
    sheet without receiving and considering the first stage advice by
    the CVC.
20. As stated earlier, only ten months before the date of superannuation,
    an order of suspension was served upon the appellant. This was done
    after 34 years of unblemished service. Although it was necessary to
    take the first stage advice of the CVC, the advice was sought only
    as late as on 17th May 2019. Twelve days before reaching the age
    of superannuation, a charge sheet was served upon the appellant,
    without receiving and considering the CVC’s advice. This was despite
    the specific statement made by the Executive Director in the earlier
    petition on oath, which stated that the charge sheet would only be
    served upon receipt of advice from the CVC.
21. Once, the first stage advice of the CVC was called, it was the duty of
    the respondent-Bank to consider the advice and then take a decision
    to serve the chargesheet. Thus, the actions of the respondent-Bank
    are mala fide and arbitrary. The appellant was sought to be victimised
    at the fag end of his unblemished career of 34 years.
22. The High Court committed a gross error by holding that Regulation
    19 of the 1976 Regulations was not mandatory. This issue was
    irrelevant, as the Bank had itself acknowledged that in the facts of
    the case, it was necessary to seek first-stage advice from the CVC.
    It is also pertinent to note that no record was placed in the High
    Court to indicate that the CVC report had been received.
23. Now, at this stage, it will be unjust to allow the respondent-Bank
    to resume disciplinary proceedings. Almost six years have passed
    since the superannuation of the Appellant.
54                                                        [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                             Supreme Court Reports


24. Though the appellant will be entitled to all retiral benefits, he shall
    not be entitled to any back wages.

      CONCLUSION
25. Accordingly, the disciplinary proceedings, including the charge sheet
    dated 10th June 2019, are hereby quashed and set aside. Although
    the appellant shall not be entitled to back wages and allowances, the
    Respondent Bank shall release all retirement benefits admissible on
    the basis that the appellant has superannuated as of 30th June 2019.
    The amount of retirement benefits due to the appellant in accordance
    with the law, shall be paid to the appellant within three months from
    today. The appeal is allowed on the above terms.

      Result of the case: Appeal allowed.



      †
          Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey