IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14966 of 2004 DR.ASHOK KUMAR PASWAN, son of Late Jaideo Paswan, Resident of village Kachha Bui, P.S. Lakhanpur, District Madhubani … Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna 2. The Commissioner cum Secretary, Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3. Shri Ashok Kumar Choudhary, the Commissioner cum Secretary, Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 4. The Deputy Secretary to the Government, Health Medical Education and Family Welfare Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna … Respondents. For the Petitioner : Mr. Dinu Kumar, Advocate with Mr. Ranjeet Kumar, Advocate with Mr. Arvind Kr. Sharma, Advocate For the Respondent no. 1, 2 & 4 : Mr. S.K. Ghosh, A.A.G.-2 For the Respondent No. 3 : Mr. P.K. Shahi, Advocate General P R E S E N T HON'BLE JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA ----------- Mihir Kr. Jha, J In this writ application the prayer of the petitioner reads as follows: “(a) For quashing the office order vide memo no. 1800(9) dated 9.10.2004, as contained in Annexure 10 issued under the signature of the Deputy Secretary to the Government, respondent no.4, by which in the departmental proceeding the petitioner has been reverted from Supertime Scale grade to Senior Selection Grade by way of punishment with a further direction that petitioner will not be paid 2 anything save and except subsistence allowance for the period of suspension and he shall not be given any post which carries responsibility of appointment or purchase. (b) Also for directing the respondents to make payment of full salary for the period of suspension after deducting the subsistence allowance already paid to the petitioner. (c) Also for directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to remain on Supertime Scale Grade i.e. in the 2 ½% posts in the Health Services.” Mr. Dinu Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, with reference to the aforementioned relief has submitted that the impugned order of punishment cannot be sustained because (a) It is in violation of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Punjab National Bank & ors. vs. Kunj Behari Misra, reported in (1998) 7 SCC 84, inasmuch as the petitioner had stood exonerated in the report of the Departmental Enquiry Commissioner, Enquiry Officer 3 appointed by the State Government for holding the departmental enquiry and even then he was punished without giving him a show cause notice in terms of the aforementioned judgment of the Apex Court. (b) The charges on which the petitioner was held guilty were beyond the misconduct alleged against him in the original memo of charge and in fact the order of punishment was passed on some roving enquiry made by one Mr. C.K.Anil, the Additional Secretary of the Department, who under the dictate of respondent no.3 had gone to alter the charges for holding the petitioner guilty in respect of one of the two such altered charges. (c) In any event the decision of respondent no.3 to ignore the report of the Departmental Enquiry Commissioner, an Officer parallel in rank to the Health Secretary, respondent no.3, and directing for holding a fresh enquiry through a subordinate officer Sri C.K.Anil, the Additional Secretary of his Department, was actuated on account of personal bias and malice of respondent no.3 against the 4 petitioner and that is how respondent no.3, who was earlier instrumental in getting the petitioner placed under suspension and also initiation of the departmental proceeding against him in the year 1999 in capacity of the Health Secretary, on his return to the Department after three years in the year 2002 again as a Health Commissioner had ignored and sat over the report of the Enquiry Officer, the Departmental Enquiry Commissioner, exonerating the petitioner from all the charges by directing for a fresh enquiry by his deputy Mr. C.K.Anil, the Additional Secretary, Health, and having thus obtained a report against the petitioner from the said Additinoal Secretary, had in his note held the petitioner guilty and obtained the decision of the State Government as also of the Commission without even informing them that the petitioner had stood exonerated in the report of the Enquiry Officer. Mr. Dinu Kumar in fact with reference to the pleadings on record had also submitted that as there was no counter affidavit on behalf of respondents no. 1, 2 5 and 4, the facts as asserted in the writ petition will be deemed to have been admitted by the official respondents and the personal affidavit of respondent no.3 filed in this case even if accepted on its face value, in absence of specific denial of the allegation of malafide in paragraphs 20, 21 and 26 of writ petition by itself would bring home even the allegations of malafide of the petitioner against Respondent no. 3, that the impugned order of punishment was a product of the personal bias and malice of respondent no.3 against the petitioner. Mr. P.K.Shahi, learned Advocate General, appearing on behalf of respondent no.3 and Mr. S.K. Ghosh, learned AAG II appearing on behalf of respondents no. 1, 2 and 4, on the other hand, have submitted that respondent no.3 was the Departmental Secretary, holding the post of Health Commissioner, and as such, if he had found the enquiry report of the Departmental Enquiry Commissioner to be inadequate, he had both responsibility and power to get the charges enquired into through the Officers of the Department and therefore, further 6 enquiry conducted by Mr. C.K.Anil, Additional Secretary of the Department, cannot be said to be vitiated either on fact or in law. In this context learned Advocate General had tried to dispel the allegations of malafide by taking a plea that the ultimate decision taken for punishing the petitioner was based on the orders of the Chief Minister and the Council of Ministers in the light of the recommendation of Bihar Public Service Commission and as such, there was no merit in the plea of malafide as raised by the petitioner as against respondent no.3. In this regard it would be necessary to record here that this writ application was filed on 1.12.2004 and despite an adjournment given on 1.5.2006 for filing of the counter affidavit by the official respondents the same had not been filed and thus when this case was taken up for hearing on 13.3.2008 this Court had passed the following order: “ In this case the petitioner has made a very serious personal allegation against Sri Ashok Kumar Choudhary, I.A.S., the former 7 Health Secretary, at present the Chairman of the Bihar Public Service Commission. Counsel for the petitioner, while explaining the allegation of personal malafide against Sri Ashok Kumar Choudhary, has stated that initially the petitioner was put under suspension and subjected to a departmental proceeding and when the Enquiry Officer did not find either of the two charges proved against him, even then the Health Secretary instead of giving him the benefit of reinstatement in service by revoking the order of suspension chose to continue him under suspension and further went to initiate another enquiry through Mr. C.K.Anil, I.A.S. It has also been stated by the writ petitioner that it was at the behest of Mr. Ashok Kumar Chaudhary that he was not only kept our of service till his superannuation but was also visited with the order of the punishment which is the subject matter of this writ application. It is strange that in such a serious case, which was filed way back on 1.12.2004 with service of two copies on the office of the Advocate General, a counter affidavit has not been filed till date even when a direction to this 8 effect was given by this Court on 1.5.2006 when a prayer was made for adjourning this case for a period of three weeks. It appears that the authorities of the State Government do not want this Court to decide this case and are interested merely in delaying disposal of this case. In that view of the matter, this Court calls upon the official respondents to file their counter affidavit at once and in the meantime notice of this writ application be also sent to Mr. Ashok Kumar Chaudhary. Counsel for the petitioner is giving liberty to serve a copy of this writ petition on Sri Ashok Kumar Choudhary, now the Chairman of the Bihar Public Service Commission who upon service of a copy of the writ application must file his personal counter affidavit. At the same time, the counter affidavit on behalf of respondents no. 1, 2 and 4 will be sworn and filed by the present departmental Secretary of Health who will support his statement on the basis of cogent and relevant materials including the files of the Health Department. Such counter affidavit of respondents no. 1, 3 and 4 must disclose all the relevant consideration and decision of the State Government both with 9 regard to suspension and punishment of the petitioner. Learned Additional Advocate General No.II should also obtain the entire records including the files in question and keep them ready for perusal of this Court on the next date of hearing.” It is to be noted here that even after the aforementioned order of this Court, respondents no. 1, 2 and 4 have not filed any counter affidavit but Mr. Ghosh, learned AAG II, while producig the original files no. 3/AA1-24/2004 and 9/8A-1-43/03 (earlier file no. 18/A5-48/99) had made his submissions with reference to the materials therein. A counter affidavit, however, had been filed only on behalf of respondent no.3, wherein the averments made in the writ application have not been answered by giving parawise reply and infact respondent no.3 has only defended passing of the impugned order of punishment against the petitioner by taking some plea which would be dealt hereinafter at an appropriate place. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner being a Member of Bihar Health 10 Service and was a Gazetted Class-I Officer, his appointing authority was the State Government and as such the decision to place him under suspension as well as initiating the departmental proceeding and also taking a final decision thereon was, vested in the State Government and not in the Health Commissioner. The Health Commissioner at best was the departmental head who had to place all the matters before the State Government for an appropriate decision, and in terms of Rule 32 of the Rules of Executive Business any such decision against the petitioner for inflicting any punishment in terms of Rule 55 or 55A of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules could be taken by the Council of Ministers alone. It has to be noted that the petitioner was infact placed under suspension under the orders of the State Government as would be manifest from the notification dated 14.8.1999 (Annexure 1) issued in the name of Governor of Bihar indicating therein that the resolution for drawing departmental proceeding was going to 11 be issued separately. As a matter of fact the said resolution was also passed under the orders of the Governor of Bihar as is apparent from the reading of the resolution dated 30.8.1999 (Annexure 2), relevant portion whereof reads as follows: Þvr% fcgkj jkT;iky dks fo”okl djus dk dkj.k gS fd Mk0 v”kksd dqekj ikloku] rr~ v/kh{kd] iVuk fpfdRlk egkfo|ky; vLirky] iVuk lEefr fuyafcr eq[;ky;& LokLF; foHkkx] fcgkj] iVuk vuqca/k esa vUrfuZ’V vkjksi esa of.kZr ?kksj dnk/kkj vkSj voKk ds nks’kh gS vr% vxj ;g fl) gks tk;] rks mlls ;g minf'kZr gksxk fd Mk0 ikloku vlSfud lgk;d “kY; fpfdRld dk in/kkj.k djus ds ;ksX; ugha gS] vr% fcgkj ds jkT;iky us fu.kZ; fy;k gS fd mDr Mk0 ikloku ds fo:) vuqca/k esa of.kZr vkjksiksa ds vk/kkj ij vlSfud lsok ¼oxhZdj.k] fu;a=.k vkSj vihy½ fu;ekoyh ds fu;e 55 }kjk fofgr jhfr ls foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh pyk;h tk;A 2- Mk0 ikloku vlSfud lgk;d “kY; fpfdRld dks bl ladYi dh izkfIr ds rhu lIrkg ds vUnj viuh izfrj{kk ds laca/k esa ,d fyf[kr oDrO; foHkkxh; tkWp vk;qDr] fcgkj] iVuk ds le{k izLrqr djuk gS ftUgsa foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh ds lapkyu ds fy, lapkyu inkf/kdkjh fu;qDr fd;k x;k gS lHkh miLFkkiu inkf/kdkjh funs”kd] LokLF; lsok,W] fcgkj] iVukA Mk0 ikloku dks lapkyu inkf/kdkjh ls fuosnu djuk gksxk fd ;g Mk0 ikloku Lo;a lquokbZ ds fy, mifLFkr gksus dks bPNqd gSa vkSj viuh vksj ls lkf{k;ksa dh ijh{kk djkus ds fy, bPnqd gSAA vkns”k %& vkns”k fn;k tkrk gS fd vuqca/k dh ,d izfr ds lkFk bl ladYi dh ,d izfr Mk0 ikloku ,oa vU; lacaf/kr inkf/kdkfj;ksa dks vko”;d dkjokbZ ds fy, Hkst nh tk;A fcgkj jkT;iky ds vkns”k ls] g0@& ljdkj ds voj lfpoÞ The aforementioned resolution in fact had contained the memo of charge against the petitioner wherein the following two charges were framed against the petitioner: ^^ iVuk esfmdy dkWyst vlirky esa nokvksa ,oa [kk| lkexzh ds dze esa cjrh tk jgh vfu;ferrk ds lEcU/k esa iVuk mPp U;k;ky; ds ojh; vf/koDrk ls izkIr ifjokn i= fnukad 15-5-95 dh tk¡p funs”kd] LokLF; lsok;sa] fcgkj] iVuk ls djk;h xbZ ftlesa izFke n`’V;k fuEukafdr vkjksi izekf.kr ik;s x;s vkSj blds fy, Mk0 v”kksad dqekj ikloku] v/kh{kd dks 12 mudh dRrZO;ghurk] LosPNk pkfjrk ,oa LokFkZ fyIlk dk nks’kh ekurs gq, foHkkxh; dkjZokbZ izkjaHk dh xbZ & 1& Mk0 ikloku us vDVwcj ^^98 esa v/kh{kd ih0,e0lh0,p0 dk inHkkj xzg.k djus ds ckn fnukad& 1-11-98 ls 22-5-99 rd vLirky ds ejhtksa ds chp eD[ku dk forj.k fd;k tks 61 :Ik;s 70 iSls dh nj ls LFkkuh; lCthckx ds ,d vkiwfrZdrkZ ls izkIr fd;k x;k tcfd eD[ku dk cktkj nj 150 :Ik;k ls dgha vf/kd gSA tk¡p inkf/kdkjh dks v/kh{kd }kjk ;g lsEiqy ugha fn;k x;kA ftl eD[ku dk forj.k fuokZ/k :i ls lkr eghus rd gksrk jgk mldk vpkud tk¡p dh Hkud feyrs gh xk;c gks tkuk lUnsg ls ijs ugha gSA tk¡p inkf/kdkjh us bls Ik”kqo/k ls izkIr gksus okyk ,uhey QSV ekuk gS tks ykMZ ds uke ls tkuk tkrk gSA tks ejhtksa ds HkkST; lkexzh ds :Ik esa bLrseky ugha fd;k tk ldrkA 2& Mk0 ikloku us vkS’kf/k;ksa ds dze esa Hkh ?kksj vfu;ferrk cjrhA bUgksaus fcuk fdlh izdkj dh fufonk izdkf”kr djk;s LFkkuh; nqdkuksa ls nokvksa dk dz; fd;k tcfd nokvksa ds dz; ds lEcU/k esa fn”kk funsZ”kdk fl)kUr fu:fir gS ftlls fofnr gksrk gS fd nokvksqa dk dz; ;FkklEHko ljdkjh izfr’Bkuksa ls gh djuk gSA Mk0 ikloku us vius futh mn~ns”;ksa dh iwfrZ gsrq nok dz; uhfr ds fu/kkZfjr ekin.Mksa dks /oLr fd;k ftlls jkT; dks’k ij vuko”;d O;; Hkkj iM+kA ljdkjh izfr’Bkuksa ls dz; djus esa ,d rks lkexzh dk ewY; de nsuk iM+rk gS nwljs fcdzh dj dh izR;{k [kir gksrh gSA ** From the aforementioned resolution of the State Government it would be clear that a decision for initiating a departmental proceeding against the petitioner was taken by the State Government and even the Enquiry Officer in the rank of Departmental Enquiry Commissioner, an independent authority beyond the control of the Health Department, was appointed under the orders of the State Government with the prior approval of the Chief Minister. The said Departmental Enquiry Commissioner in respect of charge no. 1 after analyzing the 13 materials brought on record in course of departmental proceeding had recorded the following findings while exonerating the petitioner: Þ18- fo”ys’k.k % vkjksi ;g gS fd eD[ku cgqr gh vLokHkkfod lLrs njksa ij [kjhnk tk jgk Fkk] ftlls bldk ,fuoy QSV gksus dk lansg gksrk gSA tkap inkf/kdkjh dks mUgksaus uewuk ugha fn;kA lkr eghuksa rd bldh vkiwfrZ gksrh jgh] ysfdu tkap gksrs gh lkeku xk;c gks x;k] tks lansgkLin ifjfLFkfr dk ?kksrd gSA vkjksfir }kjk fn;s x;s dkxtkr ls ;g Li’V gksrk gS fd blh QeZ }kjk dbZ o’kksZ ls oSls gh vLokHkkfod lLrs njksa ij eD[ku dh vkiwfrZ ih ,e lh ,p rFkk ,u ,e lh ,p dks dh tk jgh FkhA vr,o ;fn ifjfLFkfr;k¡ lansgkLin Fkh] rks ekuuk gksxk fd dbZ o’kksZ ls lansgkLin Fkh vkSj dbZ ofj’B inkf/kdkjh] v/kh{kdksa] funs”kdksa] funs”kd izeq[kksa dh tkudkjh esa le;&le; ij vk;h gksxh] ysfdu fdUgh us bldk izfrokn ugha fd;kA 19- tkap ds le; funs”kd us ,slk dksbZ mYys[k ugha fd;k gS fd lSiy ek¡xus ij Hkh mUgsa ugha fn;k x;kA vkjksfir dk Li’Vhdj.k gS fd lSaiy ysus ds fy, lgh le; ij funs”kd vk, gh ugha FksA blds vykok ;g fd vyx lSaiy j[kus ;k Lo;a vius Lrj ls tkap djk ysus dk dksbZ funs”k Hkh mUgsa ugha fn;k x;k FkkA bldk dksbZ [kaMu dls miyC/k ugha gSA foHkkxh; earO; esa Hkh vLokHkkfod de nj dks gh vkjksi dk vk/kkj ekuk x;k gSA ;g rF; Hkh Lohdkj fd;k x;k gS fd Ø; lfefr dk fu.kZ; 17-9-98 dks gqvk Fkk] tcfd vkjksfir 20-10-98 dks ;ksxnkui fn;s gSaA ysfdu foHkkx dk ekuuk gS fd v/kh{kd gksus ds ukrs Ø;&lfefr dh vuq”kalk ls os ck/; ugha Fks vkSj ek=k ,oa xq.koRrk ds izfr lansg gksuk mudk nkf;Ro Fkk ghA mik/kh{kd dk Hkh nkf;Ro gksuk vyx ckr gSA 20- tkap izfrosnu esa ;g of.kZr gS fd eD[ku vkSj ikojksVh dh O;oLFkk fdlh fpfdRld ds ijke”kZ ij ugha cfYd LoPnkpkfjrk ls pyk;h tk jgh FkhA vkjksfir ds dFku ls izrhr gksrk gS fd o’kksZ ls ;gh pyk vk jgk FkkA fu;eksa ds vk/kkj ij funs”kd dk dFku lgh gks ldrk gS] ysfdu ;g Hkh fopkj.kh; gS fd o’kksZ ls LFkkfir ijaijk dks tkjh j[kus esa lglk fdl ij fufgrLokFkZ ;k Hkz’V bjknksa dk vkjksi ugha yxk;k tk ldrkA 21- tgka rd vkiwfjr lkexzh eD[ku ds ctk, ,fuey QSV gksus dk loky gS] ;g ;fn lgh gS] rks vR;ar xaHkhj ekeyk curk gSA bl rjg ds xaHkhj fo’k; dks ;ksa gh mNky dj NksM+ nsuk mfpr ugha FkkA bl fo’k;oLrq ls cgqr yksxksa dh “kkdkgkjh vFkok /kkfeZd Hkkoukvksa ij xgjk vk?kkr yx ldrk gSA ;g ek= iz”kklfud drZO;ghurk ls dgha vf/kd naMuh; vijk/k Hkh gks ldrk gSA vr,o tc ;g lansg gks x;k Fkk] rks funs”kd dks bls mfpr tkapksijkar fdlh fu"d’kZ ij igaqpuk pkfg;s FkkA fcuk iz;ksx”kkyk ijh{k.k ds ;g laHko ugha FkkA dsoy de ewY; ds vk/kkj ij bl rjg dk xaHkhj fu’d’kZ ugha fudkyk tk ldrkA 22- earO; % vkjksi la[;k & 1 esa yxk, x;s vkjksi izekf.kr ugha gksrs gSAÞ Similarly the said Departmental 14 Enquiry Commissioner in respect of charge no2 after discussing the evidence led by the Department as also defence of the petitioner had recorded the following finding while exonerating the petitioner: Þ36- fo”ys’k.k % bl dafMdk esa vkjksi gS fd nokvksa dk Ø; fcuk fdlh izdkj nokvksa ds Ø; ds laca/k esa fn”kk&funsZ”kd fl)kar dk mYya?ku fd;k x;k gS ;Fkk laHko ljdkjh izfr’Bkuksa ls nokvksa dk Ø; ugha fd;k x;k] blds ihNs muds futh mn~ns”;ksa dh iwfrZ dh ea”kk FkhA ljdkjh jkf”k dh {kfr gq;hA 37- vkjksfir }kjk fn;s x;s dkxtkr ls ;g izrhr gksrk gS fd fufonk vkeaf=r dh x;h FkhA Ø; lfefr esa fufonk ij fopkj gqvk gS vkSj dfri; fu.kZ; fy;s x;s gSA Ø;&lfefr ds fof/k&lEer ugha gksus dk foanq tks tkap izfrosnu esa mBk;k x;k gS] mlds leFkZu esa Hkh dksbZ izek.k ugha feyk gSA vkjksfir us fnukad 18-2-99 dk tks ifji= nkf[ky fd;k gS] mlls ,slk dksbZ ladsr ugha feyrk gS fd fpfdRlk egkfo|ky;ksa ds fy, Hkh Ø;&lfefr ds xBu esa dksbZ ifjorZu fd;k x;k gSA 38- futh nqdkuksa ls nok Ø; fd;s tkus esa tks vfu;ferrk gq;h] og Li’V :i esa vkjksi esa ;k tkap izfrosnu esa mfYyf[kr ugha dh x;h gSA o’kZ 1999 ds ifji= esa Hkh ;gh dgk x;k gS fd ek= oSls nokvksa dk Ø; futh daifu;ksa ls xfBr Ø;&lfefr dh vuq”kalk ds vuq:i fd;k tk,xk] ftldk mRiknu ljdkjh QeZ }kjk ugha fd;k tkrk gSA bl frfFk ds iwoZ Ø; lfefr dh cSBd laiUu gks pqdh Fkh vkSj fu.kZ; fy, tk pqds FksA ,slk dksbZ lk{; foHkkx dh vksj ls ugha izLrqr gqvk] ftlesa fd Ø; lfefr ds fu.kZ;ksa esa rRle; izHkkoh fdlh ljdkjh funsZ'k dk mYya?ku n”kkZ;k x;k gSA 39- vkjksi i= ds lkFk layXu tkap izfrosnu ds i`’B 6 ls ;g Hkh izrhr gksrk gS fd tkap inkf/kdkjh dks Hkh dksbZ fu.kkZ;d izek.k ugha fey ldk gS fd nokvksa dk nq:i;ksx gqvk gS] vFok ek= dkxth Ø; fd;k x;k gSA mUgksaus vafdr fd;k Fkk fd fdruh nok okLro esa Ø; dh x;h vkSj fdrus dk dkxth Ø; gqvk] bldk foospu djuk lahko ugha gks jgk gSA mUgksaus lq>ko Hkh fn;k Fkk fd egkys[kkdkj@foRr foHkkx ls fo”ks’k vads{k.k djk;k tk,] rkfd bu ckrksa dk irk py ldsA vkjksi lansg ij gh vk/kkfjr izrhr gksrk gS] tcrd fd vkSj xgjk;h esa bldh tkap ugha dh tkrh gSA 40- tkap izfrosnu esa nokvksa dk Ø; nqdkuksa ls ugha fd;k tk,] pwafd bl Fkksd [kjhn vkSj gkWLihVy jsV dk ykHk laLFkku dks ugha fey ikrk gS] ;g ckr rdZ laxr izrhr gksrh gSA dj esa Hkh cpr dh laHkkouk gS] ;k ugha] bl ij lacaf/kr foHkkx ls gh fof”k’V ijke”kZ fey ldrk gSA ysfdu bl vkjksi dks vkjksfir ds fo:) izekf.kr ekuus esa dfBukbZ gSA ,slk dksbZ lk{; izLrqr ugha gks ldrk] ftlesa fufonk ds Øe esa xSj ljdkjh laLFkkuksa esa ls fdUgsa v;ksX; ekuk tk,xk ij dksbZ Li’V O;oLFkk nh x;h gSA 41- earO; % vkjksi la[;k & 2 izekf.kr ugha gqvkAÞ Thus, from the report of the 15 Departmental Enquiry Commissioner dated 22.8.2001 it would be found that none of the two chargers framed against him were found to have been proved. The aforesaid enquiry report, however, was processed and examined at the level of the authorities of the Health Department and Mr. C.K.Anil, I.A.S., Additional Secretary, after discussing the report of the Enquiry Officer had not only recommended for acceptance of the finding but had also recommended for revocation of suspension order of the petitioner. However, when the file was placed before the then Health Commissioner (respondent no.3) he had chosen to question the finding of the Departmental enquiry Commissioner and in his note dated 14.12.2001 he had initially asked the Director-in-Chief to hold a parallel enquiry by recording his view in the following manner: Mk0 v”kksd dqekj ikloku ds fo:) foHkkxh; tkap vk;qDr fcgkj] iVuk dk vf/kxe i`0&192&157@i0 ij n`’VO; gSA izFke vkjksi ;g Fkk & Mk0 ikloku us vDVwcj ^^98 esa v/kh{kd ih0,e0lh0,p0 dk inHkkj xzg.k djus ds ckn fnukad& 1-11-98 ls 22-5-99 rd vLirky ds ejhtksa ds chp eD[ku dk forj.k fd;k tks 61 :Ik;s 70 iSls dh nj ls LFkkuh; lCthckx ds ,d vkiwfrZdrkZ ls izkIr fd;k x;k tcfd eD[ku dk cktkj nj 150 :Ik;k ls dgha vf/kd gSA tk¡p inkf/kdkjh dks v/kh{kd }kjk ;g lsEiqy ugha fn;k x;kA ftl eD[ku dk forj.k fuokZ/k :i ls lkr eghus rd gksrk jgk mldk vpkud tk¡p dh Hkud feyrs gh xk;c gks tkuk lUnsg ls ijs ugha gSA tk¡p inkf/kdkjh us bls Ik”kqo/k ls izkIr gksus okyk ,uhey QSV ekuk gS tks ykMZ ds uke ls tkuk tkrk gSA tks ejhtksa ds HkkST; lkexzh ds :Ik esa bLrseky ugha 16 fd;k tk ldrkA mi;qZDr vkjksi ds nks igyw gSa%& 1- cktkj nj ls vR;f/kd de nj ij eD[ku izkIr fd;k x;k tks lansgkLin gSA vpkud tkap dh Hkud feyrs gh eD[ku xk;c gks x;kA eD[ku esa ,uhey QSV gksus dh vk”kadk gSA ;g Hkh gS fd eD[ku ,oa ikWojksVh dh O;oLFkk fdlh fpfeRld ds ijke”kZ ij ugha cfYd LosPNkpkfjrk ij gSA Mk0 ikloku us vius cpko esa dgk gS fd eD[ku ,oa ikWojksVh dh O;oLFkk rks iwoZ ls pyh vk jgh Fkh vr% mUgksus Hkh pyk;s j[khA mUgksus ;g Hkh dgk gS fd pwWfd eD[ku Fkksd Hkko ls fy;k tk jgk Fkk blfy, tgk¡ [kqnjk nj 150@& :0 gS Fkksd nj 61-70 iSls esa feyk vLokHkkfod ugha gSA mUgksaus ;g Hkh dgk fd ukyUnk fpfdRlk egkfon~;ky; vLirky esa ogh vkiwfRrZdRrkZ 42-70 iSls izfr fdyks dh nj ls vkiwfRrZ djrs gSaA ;g rks vkSj Hkh xEHkhj gS fd lse ¼,d gh½ vkiwfrZdRrkZ ,d laLFkk dks 42-70 iSls esa vkiwfrZ djrk gS vkSj nwljs laLFkk dks 61-70 iSls esa vkiwfrZ djrk gSA ;g Hkh tkap dk fo’k; gS fd [kqnjk ,oa Fkksd esa D;k brus Hkko dk vUrj gS] blfy, ;g vko’;d gS fd