//
you're reading...
legal issues

The facts very briefly are that the respondent is a member of the Provincial Civil Services of the State of U.P.

"Dr. Ambedkar at his desk" at Ambedk...

Image via Wikipedia

                                                                 Reportable

                IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                  CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                 CIVIL APPEAL No.7105 OF 2011 

         (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 33672 OF 2010)

State of U.P. & Ors.                                         ...... Appellants

                                   Versus

Luxmi Kant Shukla                                         ...... Respondent

                                 J U D G M E N T

A. K. PATNAIK, J.

      Leave granted.

2.    This is  an appeal against the judgment  and order  dated 

16.09.2010 of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, 

Lucknow   Bench,   in   Civil   Miscellaneous   Writ   Petition   No.   05 

(S/B)   of   2010   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   `the   impugned 

judgment').

3.    The   facts   very   briefly   are   that   the   respondent   is   a 

member   of   the   Provincial   Civil Services   of   the   State   of   U.P. 

                                      2

When   he   was   posted   as   Special   Secretary,   Samaj   Kalyan 

Department, Government of U.P. in 2006, he authored a book 

titled  `Jati  Raj'.   As the book contained some remarks against 

national   leaders   like   late   Dr.   B.R. Ambedkar,   the   State 

Government   issued   a   letter   dated   11.09.2007   to   the 

respondent   when   he   was   posted   as   Special   Secretary, 

Dharmarth Karya Department, Government of U.P., requesting 

him   to   furnish   to   the   Government   a   copy   of   the   book.     The 

respondent instead of furnishing a copy of the book proceeded 

on leave and on 12.02.2008 he was placed under suspension 

in   contemplation   of   the   disciplinary   proceedings.                 On 

19.02.2008, a charge-sheet containing 16 charges was served 

on him.  The charges against the respondent were that certain 

passages in the book `Jati Raj' written by him were defamatory 

and   derogatory   to   national   leaders   and   he   had   hurt   the 

religious sentiments of the people and created hatred amongst 

various   sections   of   the   society.     By   order   dated   19.02.2008, 

the   State   Government   appointed   Shri   Vijay   Shanker   Pandey, 

the   Commissioner,   Lucknow   Division,   as   the   Enquiry   Officer 

to enquire into the charges.  

                                        3

4.    Aggrieved, the respondent filed Writ Petition No. 256 (SB) 

of 2008 before the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, and 

by   an   interim   order   dated   14.03.2008   the   High   Court   stayed 

the   operation   of  the   order  of  suspension   as  well  as  the   order 

appointing   the   Enquiry   Officer.     The   State   Government 

challenged   the   order   dated   14.03.2008   of   the   High   Court 

before this Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 12749 of 

2008   and   this   Court,   while   issuing   notice   in   Special   Leave 

Petition,   stayed   the   operation   of   the   order   dated   14.03.2008 

passed   by   the   High   Court.     Thereafter,   this   Court   by   order 

dated 14.11.2008 disposed of the Special Leave Petition with a 

request   to   the   High   Court   to   dispose   of   the   Writ   Petition   No. 

256   (S/B)   of   2008   expeditiously   and   with   the   direction   that 

pending   such   disposal   of   the   writ   petition,   the   State 

Government   was   not   to   take   any   final   decision   imposing   any 

penalty   on   the   respondent.     In   the   meanwhile,   as   the 

respondent   did   not   submit   his   reply   to   the   charge-sheet,   the 

Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry ex parte and submitted 

an   enquiry   report   dated   15.07.2008   holding   the   respondent 

guilty of the charges.   The disciplinary authority issued notice 

                                      4

dated   05.08.2008   to   the   respondent   to   show   cause   why   the 

enquiry   report   should   not   be   accepted.     On   01.05.2009, 

having   found   that   the   ex-parte   enquiry   was   violative   of 

principles of natural justice, the disciplinary authority passed 

an   order   directing   the   Enquiry   Officer,   Shri   Vijay   Shanker 

Pandey,   to   hold   the   enquiry   afresh   after   giving   sufficient 

opportunity   of   hearing   to   the   respondent   in   accordance   with 

the rules.   Writ Petition No. 256 (SB) of 2008 was disposed of 

by the High Court on 15.05.2009 directing the Enquiry Officer 

to commence the proceedings afresh from the stage of charge-

sheet.  The respondent filed a Review Petition No. 115 of 2009, 

but   the   High   Court   dismissed   the   Review   Petition   on 

26.05.2009.  

5.       The respondent then filed his reply to the charge-sheet 

on   28.05.2009   to   the   Enquiry   Officer,   Shri   Vijay   Shanker 

Pandey   and   endorsed   a   copy   of   the   reply   to   the   Principal 

Secretary   (Appointment   Section-II),   Government   of   U.P. 

requesting him to exonerate him from the charges against him 

and   instead   grant   voluntary   retirement   from   service   under 

Rule   56   of   the   U.P.   Fundamental   Rules,   1942   (for   short   `FR 

                                      5

56').     As   Shri   Vijay   Shanker   Pandey   declined   to   conduct   the 

enquiry   afresh,   the   State   Government   by   its   order   dated 

01.06.2009   appointed   Shri   Alok   Ranjan,   Principal   Secretary, 

Urban Development, as the Enquiry Officer to enquire into the 

charges   against   the   respondent.     The   respondent   submitted 

his reply to the charge sheet to the new Enquiry Officer, Shri 

Alok Ranjan on 11.06.2009 and after considering the reply of 

the   respondent   and   the   material   available   on   record,   the 

Enquiry Officer submitted his enquiry report on 30.11.2009 to 

the   State   Government   holding   that   the   charges   against   the 

respondent   were   proved.     While   the   enquiry   report   was 

pending consideration before the State Government, the State 

Government  first considered the  request  of the  respondent in 

his   representation   dated   05.10.2009   for   voluntary   retirement 

and by order dated 16.12.2009 intimated the respondent that 

his request for voluntary retirement has not been accepted by 

the State Government.  

6.       Aggrieved, the respondent filed Civil Miscellaneous Writ 

Petition   No.   5   (SB)   of   2010   in   the   Allahabad   High   Court, 

Lucknow   Bench   for   quashing   the   order   dated   16.12.2009   of 

                                     6

the State Government and for directing the State Government 

to   pay   all   his   retirement   benefits   admissible   under   FR   56. 

During   the   pendency   of   the   Civil   Miscellaneous   Writ   Petition 

No.   5   (SB)   of   2010,   the   State   Government   issued   a   notice 

dated   05.02.2010   to   the   respondent   to   show   cause   why   the 

enquiry report dated 30.11.2009 should not be accepted.  The 

respondent submitted his reply dated 02.03.2010 to the show 

cause   notice   and   also   made   a   request   for   being   given   an 

opportunity   of   personal   hearing.     Personal   hearing   was 

granted to the respondent on 04.06.2010 and the respondent 

was   dismissed   from   service   by   the   disciplinary   authority   by 

order dated 07.09.2010.   Aggrieved, the respondent filed Civil 

Miscellaneous   Writ   Petition   No.   1386   (SB)   of   2010   on 

14.09.2010 before the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, 

against the order of dismissal and this Writ Petition is pending 

consideration before the High Court. 

7.    On 16.09.2010, the Division Bench of the High Court, by 

the impugned judgment, quashed the order dated 16.12.2009 

of   the   State   Government   and   rejected   his   request   to   accept 

voluntary   retirement   under   FR   56   and   directed   the   State 

                                      7

Government   to   reconsider   the   respondent's   request   afresh 

keeping   in   view   the   observations   made   in   the   impugned 

judgment.     By   the   impugned   judgment,   however,   the   High 

Court did not in any way interfere with the subsequent order 

dated 07.09.2010  of the  disciplinary  authority dismissing  the 

respondent from service as the order of dismissal was subject 

matter   of   challenge   in   a   separate   writ   petition,   Civil 

Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 1386 (SB) of 2010, before the 

Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench. 

8.    Mr.   P.P.   Rao,   learned   counsel   appearing   for   the 

appellants,   submitted   that   under   Clause   (c)   of   FR   56,   a 

government servant may by notice to the appointing authority 

voluntarily   retire   at   any   time   after   attaining   the   age   of   45 

years.   He submitted that the respondent had not served any 

such notice to the State Government and had only sent to the 

State Government a copy of his reply dated 28.05.2009 to the 

Enquiry   Officer,   Shri   Vijay   Shanker   Pandey,   and   made   an 

endorsement at the foot of the reply to the Principal Secretary 

(Appointment   Section-II),  Government   of  U.P.   that  he   may   be 

retired   from   service   under   FR   56   and   he   may   be   granted   all 

                                        8

service and consequential benefits.   He vehemently submitted 

that such endorsement on a copy of the reply with a request to 

the   appointing   authority   to   grant   him   voluntary   retirement 

from service was not a notice of voluntary retirement in terms 

of   FR   56.     He   next   submitted   that   the   proviso   to   Clauses   (c) 

and (d) of FR 56 clearly provides  that the notice given by the 

Government servant against whom a disciplinary proceeding is 

pending   shall   be   effective   only   if   it   is   accepted   by   the 

appointing   authority   and   that   the   proviso   does   not   require 

that   where   a   disciplinary   proceeding   is   pending   against   a 

Government servant, he should be informed of the decision on 

his request for voluntary retirement before expiry of the notice 

period.     He   argued   that   a   close   reading   of   the   proviso   would 

show   that   only   where   a   disciplinary   proceeding   is 

contemplated against a Government servant, the Government 

servant   has   to   be   informed   before   the   expiry   of   the   notice 

period   about   the   decision   that   his   request   for   voluntary 

retirement has not been accepted.  He submitted that the High 

Court   has,   on   the   contrary,   held   in   the   impugned   judgment 

that   the   respondent   was   required   to   be   informed   before   the 

                                      9

expiry   of   the   period   of   notice   about   the   decision   that   his 

request for voluntary retirement has not been accepted.  

9.    Mr.   Rao   next   submitted   that   in   any   case   the   State 

Government   as   the   appointing   authority   has   considered   the 

request   of   the   respondent   for   voluntary   retirement   and 

rejected   the   same   as   would   be   evident   from   the   relevant   file 

and   in   particular   the   note   dated   26.11.2009   put   up   by   the 

Under   Secretary,   Appointment   Department   and   dealt   with   by 

the Special Secretary of the Government on 27.11.2009 and by 

the   Principal   Secretary   of   the   Department   and   the   Chief 

Secretary,   Government   of   U.P.,   on   02.12.2009   and   orally 

approved by the Chief Minister on 08.12.2009 as recorded by 

the   Special   Secretary   on   08.12.2009.     He   submitted   that   the 

High   Court   has,   however,   taken   a   view   in   the   impugned 

judgment that as the Chief Minister has not put her signature 

in   the   order   dated   08.12.2009   rejecting   the   request   of   the 

respondent   for   voluntary   retirement,   the   order   was   not   dully 

authenticated in terms of the Rules of Business.  He cited the 

decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in  Bishan Lal  

v. State  of Haryana  (AIR 1977 P&H 7) that an order cannot be 

                                        1

called   in   question   merely  because   the   Chief   Minister   has   not 

put his signature on the official file.  He finally submitted that 

since   the   State   Government   has  not  accepted  the   request   for 

voluntary retirement made by the respondent, the respondent 

continued in service  till  he  was dismissed  by the order dated 

07.09.2010. 

10.    The   respondent,   who   appeared   in-person,   on   the   other 

hand,   submitted   that   in   the   copy   of   his   reply   dated 

28.05.2009   to   the   Enquiry   Officer,   which   was   sent   to   the 

Principal   Secretary,   Appointment   Section-II,   Government   of 

U.P.,   he   had   served  a   notice   to   the   appointing   authority   that 

he   may   be   retired   under   Clause   (c)   of   FR   56,   and   all   service 

and   consequential   benefits   may   be   granted   to   him   under 

Clause   (e)   of   FR   56.     He   submitted   that   this   was   therefore   a 

notice in terms of Clause (c) of FR 56.   He submitted that the 

High   Court   has   rightly   held   in   the   impugned   judgment   that 

once the State Government as the appointing authority took a 

decision   and   treated   the   reminder   of   the   respondent   as   a 

request   for   accepting   his   voluntary   retirement,   the   State 

Government cannot now be permitted to take a stand that the 

                                      1

request   made   by   the   respondent   in   the   endorsement   dated 

28.05.2009   was   not   a   notice   of   voluntary   retirement.     He 

further   submitted   that   Clause   (d)   of   FR   56   clearly   provides 

that   the   period   of   notice   would   be   three  months.     He   argued 

that   on   the   expiry   of   the   three   months   period   from 

28.05.2009,   the   respondent   stood   compulsory   retired   from 

service.  He submitted that the State Government should have 

informed   him   about   its   decision   not   to   accept   his   voluntary 

retirement   before   the   expiry   of   the   period   of   three   months 

notice   served   by   the   respondent.   But   the   State   Government 

did not communicate the decision to the respondent within the 

notice   period   of   three   months   and   therefore   the   respondent 

stood   compulsory   retired   from   service   on   expiry   of   the   notice 

period and he was entitled to the pension and other retirement 

benefits in accordance with Clause (e) of FR 56.  In support of 

his submissions, he cited the decision of this Court in Union of  

India   and   Others   v.   Sayed   Muzaffar   Mir  [1995   Supp   (1)   SCC 

76].

11.      The respondent next submitted that admittedly the Chief 

Minister   has   not   put   her   signature   on   the   proposal   not   to 

                                      1

accept his notice of voluntary retirement and therefore there is 

no decision of the State Government not to accept his notice of 

voluntary   retirement.     He   vehemently   argued   that   Article 

166(3) of the Constitution of India provides that the Governor 

shall   make   rules   for   the   more   convenient   transaction   of   the 

business of the Government of the State and for the allocation 

among   Ministers   of   such   business,   and   it   does   not 

contemplate delegation of the powers of the Ministers in favour 

of any officer of the State.   He cited the decision of this Court 

in Samsher Singh v. State of Punjab and Another [(1974) 2 SCC 

831]   in   support   of   this   proposition.     He   also   relied   on 

Municipal   Corporation,   Ludhiana   v.   Inderjit   Singh  and   Another 

[(2008) 13 SCC 506] in which it has been held that a statutory 

authority   cannot   pass   a   statutory   order   on   an   oral   prayer 

made by  the owner of a property regarding compounding fee. 

He   submitted   that   the   contention   of   the   appellants   that   the 

Chief   Minister   had  orally   approved  the   rejection   of   the   notice 

of   the   voluntary   retirement   of   the   respondent   should   not 

therefore be accepted by the Court. 

                                        1

12.    In   our   considered   opinion,   the   answer   to   the   question 

whether   the   respondent   stood   voluntary   retired   from   service 

before   the   order   of   dismissal   was   passed   by   the   State 

Government   will   depend   mainly   on   the   precise   language   of 

Clauses   (c)   and   (d)   of   FR   56   and   the   provisos   thereto,   which 

are quoted hereinbelow:  

             "(c)   Notwithstanding   anything   contained   in 

             Clause   (a)   or   Clause   (b),   the   appointing 

             authority  may,  at any  time,   by  notice  to  any 

             Government   servant   (whether   permanent   or 

             temporary),   without   assigning   any   reason, 

             require  him  to  retire  after  he  attains  the   age 

             of   fifty   years   or   such   Government   servant 

             may   by   notice   to   the   appointing   authority 

             voluntarily   retire   at   any   time   after   attaining 

             the age of forty-five years.

             (d)     The   period   of   such   notice   shall   be   three 

                 months: 

                 Provided that-

             (i) any   such   Government   servant   may   by 

                 order   of   the   appointing   authority,   without 

                 such   notice   or   by   a   shorter   notice,   be 

                 retired forthwith at any time after attaining 

                 the   age   of   fifty   years,   and   on   such 

                 retirement   the   Government   servant   shall 

                 be   entitled   to   claim   a   sum   equivalent   to 

                 the   amount   of   his   pay   plus   allowances,   if 

                 any, for the period of the notice, or as the 

                 case may be, for the period by which such 

                 notice   falls   short   of   three   months,   at   the 

                                           1

                     same   rates   at   which   he   was   drawing 

                     immediately before his retirement;

             (ii)    it shall be open to the appointing authority 

                     to   allow   a   Government   servant   to   retire 

                     without   any   notice   or   by   a   shorter   notice 

                     without   requiring   the   Government   servant 

                     to pay any penalty in lieu of notice:

                     Provided further that such notice given by 

                     the   Government   servant   against   whom   a 

                     disciplinary   proceeding   is   pending   or 

                     contemplated, shall be effective only if it is 

                     accepted   by   the   appointing   authority, 

                     provided that in the case of a contemplated 

                     disciplinary   proceeding   the   Government 

                     servant shall be informed before the expiry 

                     of his notice that it has not been accepted:

                     Provided also that the notice once given by 

                     a   Government   servant   under   Clause   (c) 

                     seeking   voluntary   retirement   shall   not   be 

                     withdrawn   by   him   except   with   the 

                     permission of the appointing authority".

                                                   (emphasis supplied) 

13.        A   reading   of   clause   (c)   of   FR   56   quoted   above   would 

show   that   when   a   government   servant   attains   the   age   of   45 

years,   the   appointing   authority   as   well   as   the   government 

servant   have   the   option   to   initiate   voluntary   retirement   and 

when the government servant chooses to initiate his voluntary 

retirement,   he   has   to   serve   a   notice   to   the   appointing 

authority.  Clause (d) of FR 56 further provides that the period 

                                         1

of such notice shall be three months.  There are, however, two 

provisos   to   Clause   (d):   proviso   (i)   and   proviso   (ii).     These   are 

not   relevant   for   deciding   this   case.     What   is   relevant   is   the 

proviso after proviso (i) and (ii) to Clause (d), which states that 

notice   given   by   the   government   servant   against   whom   a 

disciplinary   proceeding   is   pending   or   contemplated,   shall   be 

"effective only if it is accepted by the appointing authority."  In 

this   proviso,   however,   it   is   clarified   that   in   the   case   of   a 

"contemplated   disciplinary   proceeding"   the   government 

servant shall be informed before the expiry of his notice period 

that it has not been accepted.  

14.          In   the   facts   of   the   present   case,   the   disciplinary 

proceeding   was   initiated   against   the   respondent   on 

19.02.2008, when the charge sheet containing 16 charges was 

issued   against   the   respondent   and   when   Shri   Vijay   Shanker 

Pandey,   the   Commissioner,   Lucknow   Division   was   appointed 

as  the Enquiry Officer to enquire  into the  charges.   It is only 

after   the   initiation   of   a   disciplinary   proceeding   that   the 

respondent   made   a   request   in   the   copy   of   his   reply   dated 

28.05.2009   to   the   appointing   authority   to   accept   his 

                                        1

retirement  under   Clause  (c)  of  FR  56.     Thus,  even if  we  treat 

the   request   of   the   respondent   made   on   28.05.2009   as   the 

notice   of   voluntary   retirement,   we   find   that   on   28.05.2009   a 

disciplinary   proceeding   was   pending   against   the   respondent 

and   as   per   the   language   of   the   proviso,   such   notice   of 

voluntary   retirement   would   be   "effective   only   if   it   is   accepted 

by   the   appointing   authority".     Therefore,   until   the   appointing 

authority accepted the request of the respondent for voluntary 

retirement,   the   very   notice   dated   28.05.2009   for   voluntary 

retirement would not be effective.  

15.            The   High   Court,   however,   has   taken   the   view   in   the 

impugned   judgment   that   it   was   incumbent   upon   the 

appointing   authority   to   inform   the   respondent   before   the 

expiry of the notice period of three months that his request for 

voluntary   retirement   has   not   been   accepted   and   the   High 

Court has therefore directed that a fresh decision be taken by 

the   State   Government   on   the   request   of   the   respondent   for 

voluntary retirement after it found that the Chief Minister had 

not put her signature in the order rejecting the request of the 

respondent   for   voluntary   retirement.     This   view   taken   by   the 

                                        1

High Court, in our considered opinion, is contrary to the plain 

language   of   the   proviso   which   states   that   in   the   case   of   "a 

contemplated disciplinary proceeding" the government servant 

shall be informed before the expiry of his notice that it has not 

been accepted.  As we have already found, this is not a case of 

"a   contemplated   disciplinary   proceeding",   but   a   case   of 

disciplinary   proceeding   which   was   already   pending   when   the 

respondent   made   the   request   for   voluntary   retirement   on 

28.05.2009   and   the   finding   of   the   High   Court   that   the 

respondent   was   required   to   be   informed   before   the   expiry   of 

his   notice   of   voluntary   retirement   that   it   had   not   been 

accepted   is   erroneous.     In   view   of   our   finding   that   in   a   case 

where   a   disciplinary   proceeding   was   pending,   the   relevant 

proviso to FR 56(c) and (d) does not require the decision of the 

appointing   authority   to   be   communicated   to   the   Government 

servant   before   the   expiry   of   the   period   of   notice   of   voluntary 

retirement,   it   is   not   necessary   for   us   to   examine   further 

whether   the   order   dated   16.12.2009   rejecting   the   request   of 

the respondent for voluntary retirement without the signature 

of the Chief Minister was valid or not.  

                                          1

16.           The   decision   of   this   Court   in  Union   of   India   v.   Sayed  

Muzaffar Mir (supra) cited by the respondent does not apply to 

the facts of the present case.  In that case, Rule 1802 (b) of the 

Indian Railway Establishment Code  provided that the railway 

servant   could   retire   voluntarily   from   service   by   serving   three 

months   notice   and   a   railway   servant   by   his   letter   dated 

22.07.1985   gave   a   three   months   notice   to   the   Railways   to 

retire from service.   After the three months period expired on 

21.10.1985,   the   order   of   removal   of   the   railway   servant   was 

passed   on   04.11.1985.                 On   these   facts   the   Central 

Administrative Tribunal, New Mumbai Bench, held  that since 

the   period   of   notice   of   voluntary   retirement   had   expired   on 

21.10.1985, the order of removal was nonest in the eye of law 

and   this   Court   did   not   find   any   infirmity   in   the   order   of   the 

Tribunal.  In the present case, the relevant proviso to Clauses 

(c) and (d) of FR 56 was explicit that in case of a disciplinary 

proceeding   which   is   pending,   the   notice   of   voluntary 

retirement cannot be "effective" until the appointing authority 

accepted the notice for voluntary retirement.  We have already 

found   that   when   the   request   for   voluntary   retirement   was 

                                       1

made   by   the   respondent   on   28.05.2009,   the   disciplinary 

proceeding was pending against him.   Therefore, the notice of 

voluntary retirement was not effective until a positive order of 

acceptance of the notice of voluntary retirement was passed by 

the State Government.  

17.       As has been held by this Court in  State  of  Haryana  v.  

S.K.Singhal  [(1999)   4   SCC   293]   cited   by   Mr.   Rao,   that   if   the 

right   to   voluntary   retirement  is   conferred   on  the   employee   in 

absolute terms by the relevant rules and there is no provision 

in   the   rules   to   withhold   permission   in   certain   contingencies, 

then   voluntary   retirement   will   come   into   effect   automatically 

on the expiry of the period specified in the notice, but if such 

right   to   voluntary   retirement   of   an   employee,   who   is   under 

suspension   or   who   is   facing   disciplinary   proceedings,   is   not 

conferred   in   absolute   terms   but   is   contingent   upon   the 

permission   by   the   appointing   authority,     the   notice   of 

voluntary retirement does not take effect until a positive order 

is   passed  by  the   appointing   authority.    In  this  case,   we  have 

found that under the relevant proviso to Clauses (c) and (d) of 

FR   56,   the   right   of   a   Government   servant   against   whom   a 

                                              2

disciplinary   proceeding   is   pending   to   voluntary   retire   from 

service   is   contingent   upon   the   order   of   acceptance   being 

passed   by   the   appointing   authority.     Since,   no  such   order   of 

acceptance   was   passed   by   the   appointing   authority   in   the 

present   case,   the   respondent   continued   in   service   even   after 

the   period   of   notice   of   three   months   expired   in   August   2009 

and   his   services   were   terminated   only   with   the   order   of 

dismissal passed on 07.09.2009. 

18.         In  the  result,  the   appeal   is   allowed   and   the   impugned 

judgment   is   set   aside   and   the   writ   petition   (C.M.W.P.   No.05 

(S/B)   of   2010)   challenging   the   rejection   of   respondent's 

request for voluntary retirement is dismissed.   There shall be 

no order as to costs.  

                                                                      ..........................J.

                                                                                              (R.   V. 

Raveendran)

                                                                      ..........................J.

                                                                                              (A.   K. 

Patnaik)

New Delhi,

August 19, 2011.   2

About advocatemmmohan

ADVOCATE

Discussion

Comments are closed.

Blog Stats

  • 2,891,651 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,906 other followers
Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com
%d bloggers like this: