F.C.I. AND ORS.versusSONELAL

A                                  F.C.I. AND ORS.
                                           v.
                                      SONELAL

                                NOVEMBER 14, 2005

B     [RUMA PAL; DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND DALVEER BHANDARI; JJ.]


           Service Law:

           Food Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations 1971 ,' )?.egulations 54,
C 56, 57, 58 and 59:
         Disciplinary proceedings against an employee-Imposing of major
   penalty of compulsory retirement by Senior/Regional Manager-Challenged
   on the ground of incompetency of the authority-Allowed by Single Judge
D and affirmed by Division Bench ofthe High Court-On appeal, Held: Issuance
   of promotion order· by the Zonal Manager could not lead to the inference
   that he was the appointing authority-The final authority making the.
   promotion of the employee is not the· Zonal Manager but Senior Regional
   Manager/Regional Manager, and thus they are competent authority to impose
   any penalty, major or minor-High Court erred in setting aside the order of
E compulsory retirement of the employee on the ground of incompetency of the
  authority-Neither show cause notice was issued nor enquiry report           was
  furnished to the employee before imposing on him major penalty ofcompulsory
  retirement, the issue was not examined by the High Court-Hence matter
   remitted to High Court for consideration as to whether such act of omission
F on the part of the employer amounting to violation of principle of natural
  justice-Directions issued-Administrative Law.

           Appellant-employer initiated disciplinary proceedings against the
     respondent-employee and penalty of compulsory retirement was imposed on
     him in terms of Regulation 56 of the Food Corporation of India (Staff)
     Regulations, 1971. The respondent challenged the order of compulsory
G    retirement on the ground that it was issued by an authority lower in rank
     than the appointing authority. Single Judge of the High Court allowed the
     writ petition by setting aside the order on the ground of incompetency of the
     issuing authority. Appeal filed by the employer was dismissed by the Division
     Bench of the High Court. Hence the present appeals.
II                                       238
                               F.C.I. v. SONELAL                           239
      Appellant contended that the respondent had been promoted as Technical A
Assistant Grade-I by an authority equal in rank of Deputy Zonal Manager
and that mere mention of the designation of Zonal Manager (North) in the
order of promotion could not and cannot lead to an inference that the
respondent had been promoted by that officer; that promotion order had been
issued on the recommendations of the Committee headed by Deputy Zonal ·
Manager without obtaining of any approval from appellant No.2 (Zonal B
Manager); and that since appellant No.3 is competent to make appointment/
promotion to the post of Technical Assistant Grade-I, he had jurisdiction to
impose the penalty of compulsory retirement on the respondent

       Respondent submitted that the Division Bench of the High Court reached
its conclusion to the effect that the appointment of the respondent was made       C
by the Zonal Manager after going through_ the relevant files and, therefore,
the conclusion is in accordance with the letters/notings contained in the file
and, therefore, no interference with the judgment of the Division Bench is
called for; that the explanation to Regulation 56 clearly provide that in a case
where the authority which appointed the employee is an authority higher than       D
the authority empowered to make appointments to the grade/post under the
Regulation, the power under Regulation 54 to impose penalty as specified in
Clauses (v) to (ix) of the Regulations will be exercised by such higher
authority; that the action taken by appellant No.3 was vitiated due to violation
of rules of natural justice inasmuch as the respondent had not been supplied
copy of the enquiry report and no notice was given to him to show cause against    E
the proposed punishment; and that the Senior Regional Manager, though an
authority empowered to make an appointment, could not have passed the order
imposing penalty of compulsory retirement in the present case inasmuch as
the order of appointment/promotion was made by the Zonal Manager.
                                                                                   F
      Disposing of the appeals, the Court
      HELD: 1.1. The Division Bench of the High court totally overlooked and
failed to consider the case of the appellant that the file of the respondent-
employee had been put up before the Zonal Manager only for the purpose of
retention of Technical Assistant Grade-I selectees within the State of Punjab, . G
in promoted capacity due to non-existing vacancies in the region and not for
approval of promotion of any other officials. This ground has been specifically
and pointedly taken in the special leave petition. The inference drawn by the
Division Bench of the High Court is, therefore, not correct and untenable.
                                                                     1245-D-EJ     H
    240                       SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2005) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A         1.2. The mere mention of the designation of the Zonal Manager (North)
    in the office order of promotion could not lead to the inference that the
    respondent had been promoted by that officer. Both the Single Judge and the
    Division Bench of the High Court erred in not appreciating that the promotion
    order had been issued on the. recommendations of the Zonal Promotion
    Committee headed by Deputy Zonal Manager with~ut obtaining and without
B   any necessity of obtaining approval from appellant No.2. The Zonal Promotion
    Committee is the final authority for making promotions within category Ill
    and Zonal Manager has nothing to do with regard to the promotions made by
    the Committee. [246-D, E, FJ

C          1.3. The Senior Regional Manager/Regional Manager/Zonal Manager
    are each competent to impose any of the penalties i.e. minor as well as major
    penalties. The Senior Regional Manager is not only the appointing authority
    for the post held by the respondent but also he is competent to act as
    disciplinary authority for the purpose of Regulations 56, 57, 58 and 59 of the
    Regulations and impose major penalties. As per Regulation 56 and Appendix
D   2 of the Regulations the appointing authority of category (III) post is Senior
    Regional Manager/Regional Manager and that Zonal Manager is not the
    appointing authority. This apart the Respondent was not promoted by the Zonal
    Manager (North) but by Zonal Promotion Committee though promotion orders
    were issued from the Zonal office only because seniority of Group/category
E   III is maintained on Zonal basis in respect of all the regions under North
                                                                                          (
    Zone and Deputy Zonal Manager posts the promotees with the zone and that
    Senior Regional Manager who is equal in rank to the Deputy Zonat Manager
    had jurisdiction to initiate the.proceedings and impose penalty.
                                                             [245-G, H; 246-A, BJ

F          2. No contention in regard to the violation of principles of natural justice
    was raised or argued before the Single Judge of the High Court. However,
     before the Division Bench, two contentions were raised - one with regard to
    the jurisdiction of appellant No.3 to initiate disciplinary proceedings and to
    impose punishment ofcompulsory retirement and another that the action taken
    by appellant No.3 was vitiated due to violation of principles of natural justice.
G   Though two contentions were raised, the Division Bench of the High Court
    has allowed the writ petition on another ground without going into the question
    of principles of natural justice and the finding in regard to the competence of
    the Senior Regional Manager in initiating departmental proceedings and
    imposing punishment is confirmed. The matter is, therefore, remitted to the
H   Division Bench of the High Court for consideration of the second issue of
                       F.C.I. v. SONE LAL [LAKSHMANAN, J.]                    241
    violation of principles of natural justice. (247-D, E, F; 248-q                   A
          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6808 of2005.

         From the Judgment and Order dated 19.12.2003 of the Punjab and
    Haryana High Court in L.P.A. No. 938 of 2002.
                                                                                      B
                                        WITH

          C.A. No. 6809 of2005.

         A. Sharan and Additional Solicitor General Ms. Indra Sawhney for the
    Appellants.                                                                       C
         Raju Ramachandran, S. Goel, C.M. Chopra, R.K. Joshi, P.N. Puri, S.P.
    Shanna, A. Bhardwaj, K.P. Shanna, A. Atrey, S. Singh, D.K. Thakur, S. Prem
    Chander, N. Thakur, R.K. Singh and Debasis Misra for the Respondents.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

          DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, J. Leave granted.

          Civil Appeal No. 6808 /2005 @S.L.P. (Civil) No. 10452/2004 is directed
    against the judgment in L.P.A. No. 938/2002 dated 19.12.2003 passed by the
    Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana Court confinning the judgment              E
    passed by learned single Judge of the said Court in writ petition No. 2603 of
    1988 and Civil Appeal No. 6809/2005 @S.L.P. (Civil) No. 18505/2004 is directed
    against the final judgment dated 06.05.2004 passed by the High Court of
    Punjab & Haryana in Civil writ p~tition No. 18432 of 2002 whereby the
    Division Bench disposed of the writ petition in tenns of writ petition No. 2603
    of 1998 as confinned by the Division Bench judgment dated 19 .12.2003 in          lf
    L.P.A. No. 938 of2002.

          Certain disciplinary proceedings were initiated against Sone Lal, the
    respondent in S.L.P. (Civil) No. 10452/2004 and punishment of compulsory
    retirement was imposed by the Sr. Regional Manager. The respondent - Sone G
    Lal had challenged the order of compulsory retirement passed by the Sr.
    Regional Manager of the Food Corporation of India whereby the penalty of
    compulsory retirement from service had been imposed under Regulation 56 of
    the Food Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1971 (hereinafter referred
    to as "the Regulations"), while the respondent was working as Technical
    Assistant Grade-I. The respondent challenged the said order on the ground H



\
:
    242                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A that the order of compulsory retirement had been passed by an authority
    lower in rank than the appointing authority i.e. by the Senior Regional Manager
    whereas the order could only be passed by the Zonal Manager as he claimed
    that he had been promoted as Technical Assistant Grade-I by the Zonal                 )
    Manager.

B         The learned single Judge, by judgment dated 12.04.2002, allowed the
    writ petition and set aside the order of compulsory retirement by holding that
    appellant No.3 was not competent to impose the penalty of compulsory
    retirement on the respondent.

           Appeal by the Corporation before a Division Bench of the. High Court
C   was also dismissed by holding that the respondent had been promoted as
    Technical Assistant Grade-I by appellant No.2 (Zonal Manager) and appellant
    No.3 (Senior Regional Manager) was lower in rank than appellant No.2 and
    was not competent to impose major penalty of compulsory retirement on the
    respondent. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment passed by the Division
D   Bench, the appellant filed the above appeal by way of Special Leave Petition
    in this Court.

          As already stated Civil Appeal No.6809/2005@ S.L.P. (c) No. 18505 I
    2004 was filed by the Food Corporation of India against writ petition No. ·
     18432/2002 which was also disposed of by the Division Bench following the
E   judgment passed by another Division Bench in L.P.A. No. 938/2002. Similar
    contentions as in the other case were also taken in this civil appeal.

          We heard Mr. A. Sharan, learned Addi. Solicitor General and Ms. Indra
    Sawhney learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Raju Ramachandran,
    learned senior counsel, Mr.S.P. Sharma and Mr. D.K. Thakur and other counsel
F   for the respective respondents.

          Learned Addi. Solicitor General - Mr. Sharan submitted that the
    respondent Sone Lal had been promoted as Technical Assistant Grade-I by
    an authority equal in rank i.e. Deputy Zonal Manager and tha! mere mention
G   of the designation of Zonal Manager (North) in the order of promotion could
    not and cannot lead to an inference that the respondent had been promoted
    by that officer. The order dated 28/29.l l.1979 had been issued on the
    recommendations of the Committee headed by Deputy Zonal Manager without
    obtaining of any approval from appellant No.2. As per Regulation 56 Appendix
    2 of the Regulations, the appellant No.3 is competent to make appointment/
H   promotion to the post of Technical Assistant Grade-I (which is a class-lll



                                                                                      /
                     F.C.I. v. SONE LAL [LAKSHMANAN. J.]                      243
post) and, therefore, appellant No.3 had jurisdiction to impose the penalty of A
compulsory retirement on the respondent. He would further submit that the
Division Bench while accepting that the Senior Regional Manager, appellant
No.3 was appointing authority for the post of Technical Assistant Grade-I
which was a group/category III post and could impose any penalty including
major penalty erred in holding that in the present case the appointing authority B
which as per explanation appearing below proviso to Regulation 56 is the
authority competent to appoint or a higher authority which actually appointed
the official concerned was the Zonal Manager (Higher authority) and hence
the major penalty of compulfory retirement could not have been imposed by
the Senior Regional Manager. It is further submitted that as per Regulation
56 and Appendix 2 of the Regulations, the appointing authority of category C
- III post is Senior Regional Manager/Regional Manager and the Zonal Manager
is not the appointing authority. Therefore, the proceedings of the promotion
committee were not required to be approved nor were approved by the Zonal
Manager. There is no regulation which provides that the proceedings/
promotions made by the Zonal Promotion Committee ought to be approved
by any higher authority.                                                         D
       Per contra, Mr. Raju Ramachandran, learned senior counsel appearing
 for the respondent submitted that the learned Division Bench reached its
conclusion to the effect that the appointment of the respondent was made by
the Zonal Manager (North) appellant No.2 after going through the relevant            E
files which were produced by the appellant before the High Court and,
therefore, the conclusion as reached by the learned Division Bench after
going through the files is in accordance with the letters/notings contained in
the file and, therefore, no interference with the judgment of the Division
Bench is called for. It was pointed out that the explanation to Regulation 56
clearly brings out the authority who may exercise power of imposing penalty          F
under the provisions of Regulation 56 and it clearly provide that in a case
where the authority which appointed the employee is an authority higher than
the authority empowered to make appointments to the grade/post under the
Regulation than the power under Regulation 54 to impose penalty as specified
in Clauses (v) to (ix) the Regulations will be exercised by such higher authority.   G
      Mr. Raju Ramachandran also invited our attention to the judgments of
both the Courts, annexures and other relevant documents.

      Lerned counsel appearing for the respondent - Mr. Bhopal Singh in
special leave petition No. 18505/2004 after reiterating the contentions raised       H
    244                      SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A   earlier adopted the arguments advanced by learned senior counsel - Mr. Raju
    Ramachandran. Mr. Ramachandran at the time of hearing has also raised the
    contention that the action taken by appellant No.3 was vitiated due to violation
    of rules of natural justice inasmuch as the respondent had not been supplied
    copy of the enquiry report and no notice was given to him to show cause
B   against the proposed punishment.

          In the above factual background, the following questions of law need
    to be decided by this Court:-

           (a)    Whether the Senior Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India,
                  Regional Office, Punjab, was/is competent to impose the penalty
c                 of compulsory retirement on the respondent under Regulation 56
                  of the Food Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1971?
           (b)    Whether the action taken by appellant No.3 was vitiated due to
                  violation of the principles of natural justice?

D         Question No. I

           We shall now advert to the first submission in regard to the competence
    of the Senior Regional Manager to impose the penalty of compulsory retirement
    on the respondent under Regulation 56 of the FCI (Staff) Regulations, 1971.
    Regulation 56 of the Regulations reads as under:
E
                "The Board or the authority specified in Appen.dix-2 in this behalf
            or any other authority (higher than the authority specified in Appendix-
            2) empowered in this behalf by a general or special order of the Board,
            may impose any of the penalties specified in Regulation 54 on any
            employee.
F
                 Provided that the penalties of reduction in rank, compulsory
            retirement, removal from service or dismissal from service specified in
            clauses (v) to (ix) of Regulation 54 shall not be imposed on any
            employee by an authority lower than the appointing authority.

G           Explanation: Appointing Authority in relation to an employee for the
            purpose of ·this Regulation shall be read as under:

           (i)    The authority empowered to make appointments to the post/ .
                  grade which the employee for the time being holds; or

           (ii)   The authority which appointed the employee to such post/grade
H
                   F.C.I. v. SONE LAL [LAKSHMANAN, J.]                    245
            as the case may be whichever authority is the higher authority;       A
       (iii) The existing provisions in Apppendix-2 of the Regulations shall
            be substituted by the statement as per Annexure hereto."

      It was argued by learned counsel for the respondent that the order of
compulsory retirement was passed on 27.11.1987 and, therefore, the appointing     B
authority for the purpose of Regulation 56 is to be determined in accordance
with the explanation and in view of the aforesaid explanation the Senior
Regional Manager though an authority empowered to make an appointment
could not have passed the order imposing penalty of compulsory retirement
in the present case inasmuch as the order of appointment/promotion was
made by the Zonal Manager. It was further argued that the findings of the         C
learned single Judge and of the Division Bench are based on perusal of the
records and that there is little scope for interference with the concurrent
findings rendered by the learned single Judge and of the Division Bench.
  '
      We have carefully perused the records and the FCI Regulations. In our
opinion, the Division Bench totally overlooked and failed to consider the case    D
of the appellant herein that the file had been put up before the Zonal Manager
only for the purpose of retention of Technical Assistant Grade-I selectees
within Punjab, in promoted capacity due to non-existing vacancies in the
Region and not for approval of promotion of any other officials. This ground
has been specifically and pointedly taken in the special leave petition. We are   E
of the opinion that the inference drawn by the Division Bench is, therefore,
not correct and untenable.

       The Division Bench of the High Court while accepting that Senior •
Regional Manager (appellant No.3) was the appointing authority for the post
of 'Technical Assistant Grade-I' (a group/category III post) and could impose F
any penalty (including major penalty), erred in holding that in the present
case the "appointing authority" which as per explanation appearing below
proviso to Regulation 56 was the authority competent to appoint or a higher
authority which (actually) appointed the official concerned was the Zonal
Manager (higher authority) and hence the major penalty of compulsory
retirement could not have been imposed by the Senior Regional Manager. The G
Senior Regional Manager/Regional Manager/Zonal Manager are each
competent to impose any of the penalties i.e. minor as well as major penalties.
It is evident that the Senior Regional Manager is not only the appointing
authority for the post held by the respondent but also he is competent to act
as disciplinary authority for the purpose of Regulations 56,57 ,58 and 59 of the H
    246                       SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2005) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A   Regulations and impose major penalties. As per Regulation 56 and Appendix
    2 of the Regulations the appointing authority of category (III) post is Senior
    Regional Manager/Regional Manager and that Zonal Manager is not the
    appointing authority. This apart the Respondent was not promoted by the
    Zonal Manager (North) but by Zonal Promotion Committee though promotion
    orders are issued from the Zonal office only because seniority of Group/
B   category III is maintained on Zonal basis in respect of all the regions under
    North Zone and Deputy Zonal Manager posts the promotees with the zone
    and that Senior Regional Manager who is equal in rank to the Deputy Zonal
    Manager had jurisdiction to initiate the proceedings and impose penalty. It
    is submitted that the proceedings of the Zonal Promotion Committee were not
C   required to be approved nor were approved by the Zonal Manager. Moreover
    there is no regulation that provides that the proceedings/promotions made by
    Zonal promotion Committee are to be approved by any higher authority. In
    fact the file was never put up to the Zonal Manager for approval of the
    promotion made by Zonal Promotion Committee.

D         In our view, the mere mention of the design'ation of the Zonal Manager
    (North) in the office order of promotion could not lead to the inference that
    the respondent had been promoted by that officer. Both the learned single
    Judge and the Division Bench have also erred in not appreciating that the
    order dated 28/29. l l. l 979 had been issued on the recommendations of the
E   Zonal Promotion Committee headed by Deputy Zonal Manager without
    obtaining and without any necessity of obtaining approval from appellant
    No.2. In our view, the Zonal Promotion Committee is the final authority for
    making promotions within category III and Zonal Manager has nothing to do
    with regard to the promotions made by the Committee.

F          In fact, the respondents in both the appeals and 34 other officials were
    promoted by the Zonal Promotion Committee and such vacancies for sanctioned
    posts were not available in Punjab Region. It is stated in the rejoinder affidavit
    that their services were required to be retained in Punjab Region due to heavy
    rush of work and it is this matter alone of retention of excess number that was
    put up before the Zonal Manager and not the matter of approval of promotion
G   of any of the selectees. In our opinion, the appellants have made out strong
    grounds for interference with the judgments passed by the learned single
    Judge and of the Division Bench.

         We, therefore, hold that the Senior Regional Manager, FCI is competent·
H   to impose the penalty of compulsory retirement on the respondent under
                    F.C.I. v. SONE LAL [LAKSHMANAN, J.)                      247

Regulation 56 of the Regulations.                                                    A
      Question No. 2

       According to Mr. Raju Ramachandran, the action taken by the appellant
No.3 was vitiated due to violation of the rules of natural justice inasmuch as
the respondent had not been supplied copy of the enquiry report and no               B
notice was given to him to show cause against the proposed punishment. In
this context, we perused the judgment passed by the learned single Judge and
also of the Division Bench. A perusal of the learned single judge's judgment
would show that the case set up by the respondent herein/writ petitioner was
mainly that the impugned order of compulsory retirement had been passed              C
by the authority which was not competent to do so and, therefore, the order
dated 27.11.1987 annexure-P3 is illegal and without jurisdiction. After extracting
the submissions, the learned single Judge considered ·the sole point for
determination for disposal of the writ petition as to whether the impugned
order dated 27 .11.1987 has been passed by the authority which had the
jurisdiction or not. No contention in regard to the violation of principles of       D
natural justice was raised or argued before the learned single Judge.

       We have also perused the judgment of the Division Bench. Before the
Division Bench, two contentions were raised - one with regard to the
jurisdiction of appellant No.3 to initiate disciplinary proceedings and impose
punishment of compulsory retirement and - two that the action taken by the           E
appellant No.3 was vitiated due to violation of principles of natural justice.
Though two contentions were raised, the learned judges of the Division
bench have considered only the jurisdiction of appellant No.3 to impose the
penalty of compulsory retirement. Both the learned counsel appearing for the
respective parties have also advanced arguments mainly on that contention.           F
      At the time of hearing, copy of the writ petition filed before the High
Court and the copy of the written statement filed on behalf of the FCI was
placed before us. We have perused the same. It has been specifically mentioned
in para 8 of the writ petition that the Senior Regional Manager has not even
issued any show cause notice before inflicting such major penalty and moreover       G
no enquiry report was supplied to the petitioner before awarding punishment
thus violates principles of natural justice. In the written statement filed by FCI
in para 8 it has been stated as follows:-

        "No prejudice has been caused to the petitioner by non-issuance of ·
        show cause notice before inflicting the penalties. The order of H
    248                      SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. S S.C.R.

A           punishment has been passed in accordance with the provisions of FCI
            Staff Service Regulations, 1971"

           As rightly pointed out by Mr. Ramachandran, this question has not
    been examined by the Division Bench and the High Court has allowed the writ
    petition on another ground without going into the question of principles of
B   natural justice. We have today confirmed the finding in regard to the
    competence of the Senior Regional Manger in initiating departmental
    proceedings and imposing punishment. We, therefore, remit the matter to the
    Division Bench for consideration of the secon~ issue, namely, violation of
    principles of natural justice.

c         While disposing of the writ petition, the learned single judge directed
    the Corporation to comply with the directions within one week failing which
    the:appellants herein were directed to be present in Court. Since the respondent
    filed contempt petition' and no stay of the operation of the judgment passed
    by the learned single Judge was ·.granted by the Division bench of the High
D Court in LPA, the respondent was reinstated in service as Technical Assistant
    on 23.08.2003. It was mentioned in the office order that this joining will be
    subject to the final outcome in LPA. On 26.08.2003, the High Court, after
    perusing the order of reinstatement, directed that all consequential benefits
    including the payment of arrears accruing to the respondent be paid on or
    before 28.08.2003 failing which the Regional Manger was ordered to be present
E · on the next date of hearing. In pursuance to the directions issued by the
    learned single Judge on 29.08.2003, the appellant Corporation handed over
    two cheques Nos. 207692 and 207693 dated 27.08.2003 drawn on State l3ank
    oflndia amounting to Rs.5,30,847/- along with calculations to the respondent.
    Thus, it is seen the compliance of th.e direction and payment of Rs.5,30,847
p have been complied with in obedience to the directions of the Court order in
    contempt petition. However, it has been clearly stated that the joining and
    payment of salary etc. however will be subject to the final outcome in LPA
    No.938/2002.                                                     .

          Since we remit this matter to the Division Bench for consideration of the
G second contention, the reinstatement ordered and the payments .made and
    promotions, if any, given etc. will be subject to the final outcome of the orders   )

    that may be passed in LPA No. 938/2002 and Civil Writ petition No. 18432/
    2002. Both the LPA and the civil writ petitions are restored to its file and the
    Division Bench is requested to dispose of the only issue in regard to the
H   violation of principles of natural justice as alleged by the respondents herein
                         F.C.I. v. SONE LAL [LAKSHMANAN . .I.]                  249
      in both the matters.                                                             A
            We, therefore, set aside the orders in LPA NO. 938/2002 dated 19.12.2003
      and the order dated 06.05.2004 in Civil writ petition No. 18432/2002 and remit
      the matter to the Division Bench to consider the only question in regard to
      the violation of principles of natural justice as alleged by the respective
      respondents after affording opportunity to both parties.                         B
            We request the High Court to dispose of the matter on or before
      28.02.2006. Both the appeals are disposed of accordingly. No costs.

      S.K.S.                                                Appeals disposed of.




...