AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Shri Kh. Tarunkumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri R.K. Umakanta, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.
In the present writ petition, there are three main prayers:-
(i) To issue a writ of Mandamus by directing the respondents to promote the petitioner to the MFS Grade- II w.e.f. 26-07-2008 i.e., the day when his junior incumbents have been promoted to the said post within stipulated period;
(ii) To direct the respondents to release his due 25% subsistence allowance for his suspension period i.e., from 16-07-2003 to 08-11-2004 within a stipulated period; and
(iii) To direct the respondents to release his due retirement benefits, monthly service pension including gratuity within a stipulated period.
1. According to the petitioner, he was a Manipur Finance Service Grade-III (MFS) Officer and at the relevant time, he was given the charge of a Treasury Officer, Ukhrul District. In contemplation of a disciplinary proceeding, he was placed under suspension vide order dated 17-07-2003 issued by the Under Secretary (DP), Government of Manipur. On 29-08-2003 the Director of State Vigilance Commission addressed a letter to the Commissioner (DP), Government of Manipur recommending for initiating a Departmental Enquiry against the petitioner, and nine others, on the allegation that the petitioner passed certain bills of the Zonal Education Officer/ D.I. of Ukhrul for an amount of Rs. 26,90,661/- (Rupees twenty six lakh ninety thousand six hundred and sixty one) only without a Letter of Credit from the Finance Department. Thereafter, the Under Secretary (DP), Government of Manipur issued a Memorandum dated 13-10-2004 for holding an enquiry against the petitioner under the provisions of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 and accordingly, he was directed to submit his written statement of defence within 10 days therefrom. In exercise of the power conferred under Sub-rule 2 of the said Rule, Shri I.S. Laishram, IAS, Commissioner (DE), Manipur was appointed as the Enquiring Authority to enquire into the charges framed against him. 3.2. On 08-11-2004 the Under Secretary (DP), Government of Manipur issued an order by which the suspension order of the petitioner was revoked with immediate effect without prejudice to the departmental enquiry pending against him.
3.3. On 04-04-2007 a Final Seniority List of MFS Grade-III Officers came to be published wherein the name of the petitioner appeared at Sl. No. 5 and on the basis thereof, a DPC was held for promotion to the post of MFS Grade-II. The case of the petitioner was also considered by the said DPC but his case was kept in a sealed cover as a result thereof, ten incumbents including some of his juniors, were recommended for promotion to the post of MFS Grade-II and in consequence thereof, an order dated 26-07-2008 was issued by the Under Secretary (DP), Government of Manipur promoting them with immediate effect.
3.4. After the enquiry having been completed and on the basis of the findings of the Departmental Enquiry, the Commissioner (DP), Government of Manipur issued an order dated 24-08-2009 by which the State Government decided to recover the said amount of Rs. 26,90,661/- (Rupees twenty six lakh ninety thousand six hundred and sixty one) only from the petitioner and in addition thereto, a major penalty for reduction to lower time scale of pay, post or service, was imposed upon him. Being aggrieved by it, the petitioner filed a writ petition being WP(C) No. 519 of 2009 which was allowed vide order dated 17-08-2012 passed by the Hon''ble Gauhati High Court thereby setting aside both the findings dated 12-04-2007 of the enquiry officer and the said Government order dated 24-08-2009 with the direction to the disciplinary authority to take a fresh decision as regards the charges levelled against him on the basis of the materials already available in the course of the enquiry and to pass an appropriate order.
3.5. In the meantime, on 29-03-2011 the Under Secretary (DP), Government of Manipur issued an order closing the Departmental Enquiry against Shri Athem Muivah who was similarly situated with the petitioner, in the sense that similar charge for passing bills without LOC was made against him. On 09-05-2012 the Under Secretary, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (DOPT), Government of India issued a notification by which Shri Athem Muivah was appointed on promotion to the Indian Administrative Service. But by completely overlooking the directions issued by the Hon''ble Gauhati High Court and the clarification made by the Department of Education (S), Government of Manipur, the Additional Secretary (DP), Government of Manipur issued an order dated 24-12-2013 imposing a major penalty of reduction to lower time scale of pay, grade, post or service and further ordered that the said amount of Rs. 26,90,661/- (Rupees twenty six lakh ninety thousand six hundred and sixty one) only be recovered from him. Being aggrieved by it, the petitioner filed another writ petition being WP(C) No. 37 of 2014 challenging the legality and correctness of the Government order dated 24-12-2013 which was disposed of on 12-05-2016 by this Court setting aside the said Government order dated 24-12-2013 granting a liberty to the authorities to pass a fresh final order in accordance with law, within a period of three months, keeping in mind the order dated 29-03-2011 issued by the State Government in respect of Shri Athem Muivah. Immediately thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation to the respondent No. 1 requesting him to promote the petitioner to the post of MFS Grade-II with retrospective effect and also to release his due arrears for the suspension period. However, on 25-07-2016 the Deputy Secretary (DP), Government of Manipur, in a purported compliance with the directions of this court dated 12-05-2016, issued an order imposing a penalty of censure which has led the petitioner to file the present writ petition wherein notice was issued on 09-09-2016. Despite a number of opportunities being given to the respondents for filing counter affidavit, they have failed to file it and since they have chosen not to file any counter affidavit, the averments made in the writ petition shall be deemed to have been admitted by the respondents in terms of the various decisions rendered by the Hon''ble Supreme Court.
It has been contended by Shri Kh. Tarunkumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled to be promoted notionally to the post of MFS Grade-II from the date when his juniors have been promoted, since the departmental enquiry initiated against him has been closed by awarding a penalty of censure. It has been further contended that there is no any provision in the MFS Rules that a person against whom a penalty of censure has been imposed, can not be considered for promotion. The suspension order dated 16-07-2003 having been revoked on 08-11-1014, he is entitled to receive the amount towards the remaining 25% of the subsistence allowances and moreover, since the petitioner has retired from service with effect from 28-02-2013, he is entitled to retiral benefits as well. In order to substantiate his contention, he has placed reliance on various decisions of the Hon''ble Supreme Court. Firstly, in Baij Nath Sharma Vs. Hon''ble Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur & anr., reported in (1998) 7 SCC 44 wherein the appellant who retired from service as Civil Judge, filed a writ petition which was withdrawn and submitted a representation that he be given notional promotion in view of the observations made on 29-01-1997. This representation did not find favour and was rejected by a resolution of the full court which led the appellant to file a second writ petition which was rejected on the ground that it was barred by res-judicata and that till the appellant retired from service, none of his juniors was considered or even promoted to the RHJS. The Hon''ble Supreme Court held:
"6. The appellant could certainly have a grievance if any of his juniors had been given promotion from a date prior to his superannuation. It is not the case here. From the promotional quota, four promotions were made only on 30-12-1996, i.e., after the appellant had retired. Those promoted were given promotions from the dates the orders of their promotions were issued and not from the dates the posts had fallen vacant. It is also the contention of the High Court that these four officers, who were promoted to the RHJS, were senior to the appellant as per the seniority list. The question which falls for consideration is very narrow and that is, if under the rules applicable to the appellant promotion was to be given to him from the date the post fell vacant or from the date when order for promotion is made. We have not been shown any rule which could help the appellant. No officer in the RJS has been promoted to the RHJS prior to 31-5-1996 who is junior to the appellant. Further decision by the Rajasthan High Court has been taken to restore the imbalance between the direct recruits and the promotees which, of course, as noted above, is beyond challenge."
Secondly, in Life Insurance Corporation of India & ors. Vs. Jagmohan Sharma & ors., reported in (1998) 9 SCC 219 wherein the Hon''ble Supreme Court held:
"6. In the facts, as noticed by the learned Single Judge, in our opinion, the appropriate direction would have been to the appellants to consider the case of Respondent 1 for his promotion to the post of Assistant Divisional Manager/Senior Branch Manager from the date his juniors from amongst Respondents 5 to 67 in the writ petition were promoted on the same criteria on which those respondents were promoted. We, therefore, modify the direction of the learned Single Judge, as noticed above, and direct that the appellants shall consider the case of Respondent 1 for his promotion with effect from the date his juniors from amongst Respondents 5 to 67 in the writ petition were promoted and if found fit for promotion, to grant to him all the consequential benefits. The consideration of Respondent 1 for promotion shall be on the same basis and on such material as was considered for promoting Respondents 5 to 67. The needful shall be done by the appellant within three months. The order of the Division Bench dismissing the LPA shall also, thus, stand modified accordingly. The appeal is allowed and disposed of to the extent indicated above. No costs."
Thirdly, in Bangalore Development Authority Vs. Vijaya Leasing Limited & ors., reported in (2013) 14 SCC 737 wherein a preliminary Notification dated 21-09-1967 under the provisions of the Bangalore Improvement Act, 1945 was issued and a final Notification thereof, was issued on 15-07-1971. Even the award was passed by the acquisition authority on 21-11-1983 with the compensation being paid on 09-12-1983. The acquisition was stated to have been denotified under Section 48(1) of the Act vide Notification dated 05-10-1999 which was recalled vide order dated 27-06-2000. In a writ petition challenging it, the learned Single Judge while holding that there is no provision in the Act recalling the order passed under Section 48(1) of the Act, held that the Notification dated 05-10-1999 had to be declared as non-est. The Division Bench affirming the judgment of the learned Single Judge, held that the Single Judge was not legally justified in setting aside the denotification itself dated 05-10-1999. When the matter came up before the Hon''ble Supreme Court, the issue was as to whether, in the absence of a challenge to the denotification dated 05-10-1999, the learned Single Judge was justified in setting aside the same even after holding that the subsequent recalling of the said notification by order dated 27-06-2000 was without jurisdiction. The Hon''ble Supreme Court held:
"17. Therefore, while exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the learned Single Judge came across the above incongruities in the proceedings of the Hon''ble Minister which resulted in the issuance of denotification dated 5-10-1999. We fail to note as to how the ultimate order of the learned Single Judge in setting aside such a patent illegality can be held to be beyond the powers vested in the constitutional court. The conclusion of this Court in Gujarat Steel Tubes case4 that judicial daring is not daunted when glaring injustice demands even affirmative action and that authorities exercising their powers should not exceed the statutory jurisdiction and correctly administer the law laid down by the statute under which they act are all principles which are to be scrupulously followed and when a transgression of their limits is brought to the notice of the Court in the course of exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, it cannot be held that interference in such an extraordinary situation to set right an illegality was unwarranted."
Fourthly, in Allahabad Bank & ors. Vs. Krishna Narayan Tewari, reported in (2017) 2 SCC 308 wherein the respondent who was employed with the appellant bank, was placed under suspension in contemplation of a disciplinary enquiry. The respondent pleaded not guilty but the enquiry officer concluded the enquiry proceedings and submitted a report on the basis of which the respondent was removed from service. An appeal preferred against the order of removal, was dismissed and being aggrieved by the order of removal as well as the order of rejecting the appeal, the respondent questioned the same in the High Court by way of writ petition which was allowed. The appeal before the Hon''ble Supreme Court by way of special leave, came up for consideration, when the Hon''ble Supreme Court held:
"7. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions at the Bar. It is true that a writ court is very slow in interfering with the findings of facts recorded by a departmental authority on the basis of evidence available on record. But it is equally true that in a case where the disciplinary authority records a finding that is unsupported by any evidence whatsoever or a finding which no reasonable person could have arrived at, the writ court would be justified if not duty-bound to examine the matter and grant relief in appropriate cases. The writ court will certainly interfere with disciplinary enquiry or the resultant orders passed by the competent authority on that basis if the enquiry itself was vitiated on account of violation of principles of natural justice, as is alleged to be the position in the present case. Non-application of mind by the enquiry officer or the disciplinary authority, non-recording of reasons in support of the conclusion arrived at by them are also grounds on which the writ courts are justified in interfering with the orders of punishment. The High Court has, in the case at hand, found all these infirmities in the order passed by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority. The respondent''s case that the enquiry was conducted without giving a fair and reasonable opportunity for leading evidence in defence has not been effectively rebutted by the appellant. More importantly the disciplinary authority does not appear to have properly appreciated the evidence nor recorded reasons in support of his conclusion. To add insult to injury the appellate authority instead of recording its own reasons and independently appreciating the material on record, simply reproduced the findings of the disciplinary authority. All told, the enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority have faltered in the discharge of their duties resulting in miscarriage of justice. The High Court was in that view right in interfering with the orders passed by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority.
There is no quarrel with the proposition that in cases where the High Court finds the enquiry to be deficient, either procedurally or otherwise, the proper course always is to remand the matter back to the authority concerned to redo the same afresh. That course could have been followed even in the present case. The matter could be remanded back to the disciplinary authority or to the enquiry officer for a proper enquiry and a fresh report and order. But that course may not have been the only course open in a given situation. There may be situations where because of a long time-lag or such other supervening circumstances the writ court considers it unfair, harsh or otherwise unnecessary to direct a fresh enquiry or fresh order by the competent authority. That is precisely what the High Court has done in the case at hand.
The High Court has taken note of the fact that the respondent had been placed under suspension in the year 2004 and dismissed in the year 2005. The dismissal order was challenged in the High Court in the year 2006 but the writ petition remained pending in the High Court for nearly seven years till 2013. During the intervening period the respondent superannuated on 30-11-2011. Not only that he had suffered a heart attack and a stroke that has rendered him physically disabled and confined to bed. The respondent may by now have turned 65 years of age. Any remand either to the enquiry officer for a fresh enquiry or to the disciplinary authority for a fresh order or even to the appellate authority would thus be very harsh and would practically deny to the respondent any relief whatsoever. Superadded to all this is the fact that the High Court has found, that there was no allegation nor any evidence to show the extent of loss, if any, suffered by the Bank on account of the alleged misconduct of the respondent. The discretion vested in the High Court in not remanding the matter back was, therefore, properly exercised.
The next question is whether the respondent would be entitled to claim arrears of salary as part of service/ retiral benefits in full or part. The High Court has been rather ambivalent in that regard. We say so because while the High Court has directed release of service/retiral benefits, it is not clear whether the same would include salary for the period between the date of removal and the date of superannuation. Taking a liberal view of the matter, we assume that the High Court''s direction for release of service benefits would include the release of his salaries also for the period mentioned above. We are, however, of the opinion that while proceedings need not be remanded for a fresh start from the beginning, grant of full salary for the period between the date of dismissal and the date of superannuation would not also be justified.
We, therefore, allow this appeal but only in part and to the extent that while orders passed by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority shall stand quashed, and the respondent entitled to continuity of service till the date of his superannuation with all service benefits on that basis, he shall be entitled to only 50% of the salary for the period between the date of his removal from service till the date of superannuation. Retiral benefits shall also be released in his favour. The order passed by the High Court shall, to the extent indicated above, stand modified. The parties shall bear their own costs."
On the other hand, Shri R.K. Umakanta, the learned Government Advocate submitted that the case of the petitioner was also considered by the DPC but since a disciplinary enquiry was pending at that point of time, his case was kept in sealed cover and therefore, the officers including some of them who were junior to him, were recommended and appointed on promotion to the post of MFS Grade-II and thereafter, no one had been promoted till when the petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation. Moreover, the case of the petitioner is different from that of Shri Athem Muivah and therefore, no relief as claimed by the petitioner can be granted to him. In order to substantiate his contention, he has relied upon the decision rendered by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Union of India & ors. Vs. A.N. Mohanan, reported in (2007) 5 SCC 425 wherein a departmental enquiry was started against the respondent on 03-08-1999. The DPC made the selection on 01-11-1999 and since the enquiry was pending against him, sealed cover procedure was adopted. On 13-09-2001 the penalty of censure was awarded. The respondent approached the CAT which held that penalty of censure was not a bar to promotion and therefore, the recommendation of DPC ought to have been given effect to by giving the respondent promotional benefit with effect from 01-11-1999. This order of CAT came to be challenged before the Hon''ble High Court by way of writ petition which was dismissed. In the appeal before the Hon''ble Supreme Court, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that para 3.1 of the OM dated 14-09-1992 clearly postulates that where penalty has been imposed, findings of the sealed cover/ covers are not to be acted upon and the case of the respondent can be considered by the next DPC in the normal course. Referring to the said para 3.1 of the said OM dated 14-09-1992, the Hon''ble Supreme Court allowed the appeal by holding:
"11. Awarding of censure, therefore, is a blameworthy factor. A bare reading of Para 3.1 as noted above makes the position clear that where any penalty has been imposed the findings of the sealed cover are not to be acted upon and the case for promotion may be considered by the next DPC in the normal course.
Having regard to the penalty imposed on him, undisputedly the respondent has been given promotion with effect from 26-11-2001. His claim for promotion with effect from 1-11-1999 was clearly unacceptable and, therefore, the CAT and the High Court were not justified in holding that he was entitled to be promoted with effect from 1-11-1999. The order of the High Court affirming the view taken by the CAT cannot be sustained and is, therefore, set aside."
The facts which are not in dispute, are that the petitioner was a MFS Grade-III Officer and was, at the relevant time, given the charge of the Treasury Officer, Ukhrul. In contemplation of a disciplinary enquiry, the petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 17-07-2003 which was subsequently revoked vide order dated 08-11-2004 issued by the Under Secretary (DP), Government of Manipur. In the meantime, the State Vigilance Commission vide its letter dated 29-08-2003 also did recommend for initiation of departmental proceedings against ten persons including the petitioner. Accordingly, a disciplinary enquiry was initiated against the petitioner vide Memorandum dated 13-10-2004 issued by the Under Secretary (DP), Government of Manipur under the provisions of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 and while the said enquiry was pending against the petitioner, a DPC meeting was held whereby the cases of all eligible officers including that of the petitioner, were considered by the said DPC but so far as the petitioner is concerned, the sealed cover procedure was adopted as a result thereof, ten incumbents including some of his junior officers, were recommended for promotion to the post of MFS Grade-II and an order dated 26-07-2008 was issued by the Under Secretary (DP), Government of Manipur promoting them with immediate effect. After the enquiry was completed and on the basis of the findings of the Departmental Enquiry, the Commissioner (DP), Government of Manipur issued an order dated 24-08-2009 by which the State Government decided to recover the said amount of Rs. 26,90,661/- (Rupees twenty six lakh ninety thousand six hundred and sixty one) only from the petitioner and in addition thereto, a major penalty for reduction to lower time scale of pay, post or service, was imposed upon him. The said order dated 24-08-2009 was challenged in a writ petition being WP(C) No. 519 of 2009, filed by the petitioner, which was allowed vide order dated 17-08-2012 passed by the Hon''ble Gauhati High Court setting aside both the findings dated 12-04-2007 of the enquiry officer and the said Government order dated 24-08-2009 with the direction to the disciplinary authority to take a fresh decision. In compliance with the said court''s order dated 17-08-2012, the Additional Secretary (DP), Government of Manipur issued an order dated 24-12-2013 imposing a major penalty of reduction to lower time scale of pay, grade, post or service and further ordered that the said amount of Rs. 26,90,661/- (Rupees twenty six lakh ninety thousand six hundred and sixty one) only be recovered from him. Being aggrieved by it, the petitioner filed another writ petition being WP(C) No. 37 of 2014 challenging the legality and correctness of the order dated 24-12-2013 which was disposed of on 12-05-2016 by this Court setting aside the Government order dated 24-12-2013 with a liberty being granted to the authorities to pass a fresh final order in accordance with law, within a period of three months, keeping in mind the order dated 29-03-2011 issued by the State Government in respect of Shri Athem Muivah. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation to the respondent No.1 requesting him to promote the petitioner to the post of MFS Grade-II with retrospective effect and also to release his due arrears for the suspension period. However, on 25-07-2016 the Deputy Secretary (DP), Government of Manipur, in a purported compliance with the directions of this court dated 12-05-2016, issued an order imposing a penalty of censure which is not being questioned in the present writ petition but the petitioner''s main prayer is that he be given the same treatment that has been given to Shri Athem Muivah. On 09-09-2016 this court was pleased to issue notice and despite a number of opportunities being given to the respondents for filing their counter affidavit, they have chosen not to file any counter affidavit in the matter.
Admittedly, there is no provision in the Manipur Finance Service Rules by which an officer against whom a penalty of censure has been imposed, can be or cannot be promoted to the next higher post and in other words, rule is silent in respect thereof. It may be noted that although a disciplinary enquiry was initiated against Shri Athem Muivah also for similar charges, on 29-03-2011 the Under Secretary (DP), Government of Manipur issued an order closing the departmental enquiry against him and on 09-05-2012 the Under Secretary, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (DOPT), Government of India issued a notification by which Shri Athem Muivah was appointed on promotion to the Indian Administrative Service. The petitioner''s case is that since his case is similar to that of Shri Athem Muivah, he is entitled to be promoted to the post of MFS Grade-II and that too, with effect from 26-07-2008 when his juniors had been promoted to the said post. It is well settled that promotion is neither a legal right nor is it a fundamental right but it being an incident of service, every employee has a right to be considered for promotion in accordance with law. The short question that arse for consideration, is as to whether the petitioner is similarly situated with Shri Athem Muivah or not and in other words, whether the case of the petitioner is similar to that of Shri Athem Muivah. It is not in dispute that while the petitioner was a MFS Grade-III Officer, Shri Athem Muivah was a MCS officer and both of them, at the relevant time, were given the charge of the Treasury Officers of the Ukhrul and Senapati Districts respectively. Departmental enquiries were initiated against them for similar charges and penalties of censure were imposed against them. After the penalty of censure having been imposed, Shri Athem Muivah was considered and was promoted to Indian Administrative Service. But so far as the petitioner is concerned, his case was considered by a DPC while the enquiry was going on but his name was not recommended on account of the sealed cover procedure being adopted by the DPC. After the enquiry was completed, a major penalty of reduction to lower time scale was imposed on 24-08-2009 which led to some litigations till 25-07-2016 when a penalty of censure was imposed against him and by then, the petitioner had already retied on 28-02-2013. It is thus seen that the petitioner is not similarly situated with Shri Athem Muivah for the reasons that as has been stated hereinabove, when the case of the petitioner was considered for promotion, an enquiry was pending because of which sealed cover procedure was adopted and after the enquiry was over but prior to his retirement, the penalty imposed against him was a major penalty namely reduction in rank and that there is no material on record to show that another DPC meeting had been held prior to his retirement and even assuming that a DPC meeting was held during the period from the completion of enquiry till the date of his retirement, he could not have been considered and recommended because of the major penalty being imposed against him. Therefore, so far as the facts and circumstances of the present case are concerned, the decisions of the Hon''ble Supreme Court relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner will not help him, rather they go against him. On the contrary, the facts of the present case are similar to that of the Union of India & ors. Vs. A.N. Mohanan case (supra) wherein the Hon''ble Supreme Court, in terms of Para 3.1 of the Office Memorandum dated 14-09-1992, has held that where any penalty has been imposed, the findings of the sealed cover are not to be acted upon and the case for promotion may be considered by the next DPC in the normal course and that the claim of the respondent therein for promotion with effect from 01-11-1999 was clearly unacceptable. The Hon''ble Supreme Court has further held that the CAT and the High Court were not justified in holding that the respondent therein was entitled to be promoted with effect from 01-11-1999. It may be noted that the said Office Memorandum dated 14-09-1992 had been adopted by the Government of Manipur vide Office Memorandum dated 24-11-1992 as is evident from the judgment and order dated 26-07-2006 passed by the Hon''ble Gauhati High Court (Imphal Bench) in W. Kumar Singh Vs. Commissioner/ Secretary (CADA), Government of Manipur, reported in 2007 (1) GLT 66. In the present case, at the time when the DPC meeting was held, the sealed cover procedure was adopted in respect of the petitioner and therefore, the question of promotion from the date when his juniors were promoted, will not arise at all. There is no material on record to show that any other DPC meeting has been held thereafter prior to his retirement and moreover, penalty of censure was imposed upon him last year only after three years of his retirement. Therefore, this court is of the view that so far as the main prayer (i) is concerned, the instant writ petition is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed in respect thereof. As regards the remaining prayers (ii) & (iii), since no counter has been filed on behalf of the respondents, the averments made in the petition, shall be deemed to have been admitted by the respondents in terms of a catena of decisions of the Hon''ble Supreme Court and therefore, the instant writ petition can be allowed in respect thereof only.
For the reasons stated herein above, the present writ petition is allowed in part to the extent indicated hereinabove with no order as to costs.