IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4849 of 2006 Narendra Nath Mishra, S/o Late Nilamber Mishra, Resident of Village and P.O. Gandhwar, P.S. Sakari, District Madhubani, at present residing in Bimla Tower, Flat No. 14, Hanuman Nagar, New Punaichak, P.S. Shastrinagar, Patna-23, Phone No. 2287928 and office in the Prince Chamber, Table No.1 in front of Advocate Association Library High Court, Patna. --------- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Commandant General Bihar Home Guards H.Q. Chhajubagh, Patna. 3. Deputy Commandant General Bihar Home Guard, H.Q. Chhajubagh, Patna. 4. Commandant, Bihar Home guard, Head Quarter Chhajubagh, Patna. 5. District Commandant, Bihar Home Guards, Dhanbad. 6. Commandant, C.T.I., Bihta. 7. Secretary Home (Special) Bihar, Patna. 8. Accountant General, Bihar, Patna. --------- Respondents ----------- For the Petitioner :- Mr. Narendra Nath Mishra (in person) For the State :- Mr. H.P.Singh,Advocate.(SC-5) For the Accountant General :- Mr. J.P. Karn, Sr. Advocate P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA Mihir Kr. Jha, J. Heard counsel for the parties. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows:- “1. That this is an application for issuance of appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the notice dated 28.11.2005 vide memo no. 2700 conveyed by commandant Bihar Home Guards Patna and final order dated 30- 01-2006 vide FO No. 29/2006 and memo 2 no. 173 passed by Deputy Commandant General Bihar Home Guards Patna. Through which order for deducting Rs.100/-(one hundred) P. M. in 14 (fourteen) installment total Rs.1400/- (One thousand four hundred) from already sanctioned full pension to the petitioner after finding service record thoroughly satisfactory by competent authority and P.P. O. issued by A. G. Bihar, Patna vide his memo no. 21040 dated 09-01-2001 which is wrong, illegal and against Bihar Pension Rules 43(b)(a)(i)(ii) and Bihar Pension Rule 139(b) and (c) and Petitioner further prays for issuance of appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 30-01-2006 of the Deputy Commandant General for not to make payment any amount to the Petitioner in respect of T. A. Claims of session 1980-81 to 1983-84 which are already passed, Sanctioned by competent authority and order by this Hon’ble Court in CWJC No. 8941/95 by Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. N. Jha on 17-1-97 as well as prayer of the petitioner for payment of admitted T. A. Claims along with interest has already been again allowed by this Hon’ble Court in CWJC No. 5227/2002 by order dated 7-9-2005 passed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Narayan Roy which are annexed as Annexure 1 to 5 of this petition.” It appears that the petitioner, a police personnel, was subjected to a departmental 3 proceeding for certain misconduct vide Memo of Charge dated 20th January, 1997 relevant portion whereof reads as follows:- ^^vkjksi&i= xqYe lekns’kd ujsUnz ukFk feJk] fcgkj x`g j{kkokfguh] /kuckn lEizfr pkbZcklk ds fo:) ?kksj vuq'kklughurk drZO;ghurk] /kks[kk/kM+h rFkk tkylkth dk vkjksi yxk;k tkrk gS fd %& 1½ /kuckn ftyk esa inLFkkiu ds nkSjku buds }kjk lefiZr ;k=k HkRrk foi= bUgksaus ftyk lekns’Vk /kuckn ¼fudklh ,oa O;;u inkf/kdkjh½ ls ikfjr ugha djkdj izeaMyh; lefn’Vk gtkjhckx }kjk ikfjr djk;k tks fu;ekuqdqy ugha gSA 2½ bUgksaus ;k=k HkRrk foi= ds lkFk fuft nsfuUnuh rFkk ;k=k djus gsrq l{ke inkf/kdkjh dk vkns'k izLrqr ugha fd;kA 3½ bUgksus ;k=k HkRrk foi= dk dkye 22 QkM+dj gVk fn;k gSA 4½ ;k=k HkRrk foi= ds dkye 11 voyksdu ls Li"V gksrk gS fd ;k=k ;k=k Vsdj ls fd;k x;k gSA vkSj ckn esa fyIr ys[ku dj eksVj lkbZfdy rFkk nksLr ds eksVj lkbfdy ls ;k=k fn[kk;k x;k gSA ijUrq nksLr dk uke rFkk eksVj lkbfdy u vafdr ugha gSA 5½ ;k=k HkRrk foi= ds voyksdu ls Li"V gS fd bUgksaus ,d ekg es de ls de 2302 fd0eh0 rFkk vf/kdre 8196 fd0eh0 ;k=k fd;k gSA tks fo”oluh; ugha gSA 6½ buds }kjk fd;s x;s ;k=k dk C;ksjk fuEuor gSA Ekg r; dh x;h nwjh fd0eh0 fojke dh vof/k flrEcj 81 2504 fd0eh0 14 fnu vDVwcj 81 5125 fd0eh0 27 fnu uoEcj 81 3591 fd0eh0 19 fnu fnlEcj 81 5373 fd0eh0 29 fnu tuojh 82 5642 fd0eh0 27 fnu Qjojh 82 6727 fd0eh0 28 fnu ekpZ 82 5253 fd0eh0 26 fnu vizhy 82 6225 fd0eh0 30 fnu ebZ 82 7935 fd0eh0 29 fnu twu 82 6381 fd0eh0 29 fnu twykbZ 82 5394 fd0eh0 29 fnu vxLr 82 8196 fd0eh0 27 1@2 fnu 4 flrEcj 82 6188 fd0eh0 23 1@2 fnu vDVqcj 82 3739 fd0eh0 19 fnu uoEcj 82 3145 fd0eh0 22 fnu fnlEcj 82 2302 fd0eh0 15 fnu 83710 fd0eh0 393 fnu 7½ bUgksaus fnukad 18&4&82 dks 240 fd0eh0] 19&4&82 dks 269 fd0eh0 20&4&82 ,oa 22&4&82 dks 453 fd0eh0 23&4&82 dks 302 fd0eh0 25@26&4&82 dks 410 dh0eh0 fnukad 27@28&4&82 dks 378 fd0eh0 ;k=k fd;k gSA tks fo'oluh; ugha gSA 8½ bUgksaus tkylkth dj o"kZ 1981 ls 1983 rd dk dqy 35823-32 iSls dk ;k=k HkRrk izLrqr fd;kA bl izdkj bUgksaus xyr ;k=k HkRrk izLrqr fd;k gSA tks fcgkj ;k=k HkRrk fu;ekoyh ds fu;e ¼dkesUV :y½ ¼Mh½ ds vUrxZr lsok ls cj[kkLrxh dk vkjksi curk gSA** For such charges, the petitioner was subjected to a departmental proceeding wherein the enquiry officer by his enquiry report dated 26.5.1999 had held all the eight charges to have been proved against him. Thereafter, the petitioner was subjected to an order of punishment dated 13.7.1999 passed by the Deputy Commandant General, Home Guards which was also affirmed in appeal by the appellate authority whereafter the petitioner had moved this Court in CWJC No. 5227 of 2002 and this Court having noticed that the said order of punishment was passed without supply of copy of the enquiry report had set aside both of them and had remitted the matter back to the said authority to proceed in the matter afresh as would be 5 apparent from the operative portion of the order of this Court dated 7.9.2005 which reads as follows:- “In case at hand it appears that the copy of the enquiry report was not made available to the petitioner and thus, it amounted to denial of reasonable opportunity. The orders impugned in the background of the ratio, as referred to above, is thus held to be violative of the principles of natural justice and wholly without jurisdiction. This writ application on these score alone, in my opinion, should succeed. In the result, this writ application is allowed. Orders impugned are set aside. However, the matter is remitted back to the disciplinary authority to proceed in the matter afresh, if so advised.” From reading of the petitioner’s show- cause reply dated 5.12.2005 (Annexure-11), it would appear that the petitioner was supplied with a copy of the enquiry report with a show- cause notice contained in memo no. 2700 dated 28.11.2005 but the petitioner instead of giving comments/reaction to the findings recorded against him in respect of charges in the enquiry report had in his reply dated 5.12.2005(Annexure-11) tried to educate the disciplinary authority as with regard to the scope of Rule 43b of Bihar Pension Rules and the interpretation of the High Court order dated 7.9.2005. In fact, the petitioner in his 6 such reply dated 5.12.2005 had dwelt only on the scope of judicial review, pension rules and the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mohd. Idris Ansari by summing up the whole issue in the following words:- ^^bl izdkj fu;e 43 (a) and (b) ds (a)ii ds voyksdu rFkk ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk fuf.kZr dsl esa ikfjr vkns'k ds ifj'khyu ls Li"V gksrk gS fd orZeku ijhfLFkfr esa isUlu dVkSrh@tfIr ls lEcfU/kr vkns'k esjs fo:) fu;ekuqlkj ugha ikfjr fd;k tk ldrk gSA vr% fuosnu d:Wxk fd esjs }kjk lefiZr vkosnu fn0 1- 10-2005 ds vkyksd esa ;k=k Hkrk rFkk dVkSrh fd;s jde lwn lesr Hkqxrku djkus dh dkjZokbZ dh tk;A** This show-cause reply was considered by the disciplinary authority and the authority having found that the petitioner had not even offered his comment/reaction to the findings recorded in the enquiry report much less denying them, had rejected such explanation of the petitioner and thereafter had passed an order of punishment dated 30.1.2006 in the following terms:- lSU;kns'k la[;k&29@2006 Jh ujsUnz ukFk feJk] daiuh dekaMj ¼lsok fuoqr½ fcgkj x`g j{kk okfguh] /kuckn lEizfr pkbZoklk ds fo:n~/k xyr ;k=k HkRrk foi= leZfir djus ds vkjksi esa foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh la0 1@97 pykbZ xbZ FkhA blesa jh feJk ij yxk, x,s lHkh vkjksi izekf.kr gq, FksA Qyr% lSU;kns'k la[;k 519@99@Kkikad 2696 fnukad 13-07-99 }kjk vafre vkns'k ikfjr fd;k x;k FkkA bl vkns'k }kjk N% ekg ds osruo`fn~/k ds lEizgj.k djus rFkk ;k=k HkRrk ds lHkh nkoksa dh tkap dh ek= lgh nkoksa dk gh ekU; djus dk vkns'k fn;k x;k 7 FkkA Jh ujsUnz ukFk feJk }kjk mDr lSU;kns'k la0&519@99 ds fo:n~/k ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;] iVuk esa lh0MCyw0ts0lh0 la0 5227@02 nk;j fd;k x;kA ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; us fnukad 07- 9-05 dks ikfjr vius vkns'k esa foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh la0 1@97 esa vafre vkns'k fuxZr djus ds iwoZ lapkyu inkf/kdkjh ds earO; dh izfr Jh feJk dks miyC/k djkdj Li"CVhdj.k izkIr ugha djus ds fy, ljdkj dks nks"kh ekuk rFkk lSU;kns'k la0 519@99 dks jn~n dj fn;k ¼lsV ,lkbM½ ,oa ekeys dks iqu% izkjaHk djus dk vkns'k fn;kA ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds vkns'k ds voyksdu ls Li"V gksrk gS fd foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh ds lapkyu dh izfdz;k rFkk fn, x, naM ds laca/k esa ekuuh; U;k;ky; }kjk dksbZ vkifRr ugha dh xbZ gSA vkns'k es dsoy ;gh dgk x;k gS fd foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh esa vafre vkns'k ikfjr djus ds iwoZ lapkyu inkf/kdkjh dk earO; jh feJ dks miyC/k ugha djk;k x;k vkSj mUgsa vius cpko dk volj ugha fn;k x;k ftlls izkd`frd U;k; ds fln~/kkUr dk mYya?ku gqvk gSA ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds vkns'k ds vuqikyu esa fcgkj x`g j{kk okfguh] eq[;ky;] iVuk ds Kkikad 2700 fnukad 28-11-05 }kjk lapkyu inkf/kdkjh ds earO; dh izfr Hkstrs gq, muds ekeys dks fcgkj isa'ku fu;ekoyh ds fu;e 43 ds rgr~ is'ku dVkSrh ds ekeys esa ifj.kr djus ds laca/k esa Jh feJk ls Li"Vhdj.k dh ekax dh xbZA Jh feJk dk Li"Vhdj.k fn0 8-12-05 dks dk;kZy; esa izkIr gqvk budk Li"Vhdj.k vlarks"ktud ik;k x;kA vr% leh{kksijkUr bl ekeys dks fcgkj isa'ku fu;ekoyh ds fu;e 43 esa ifj.kr djrs gq, buds isa'ku la :0 100@& ¼,d lkS½ izfrekg dh nj ls dqy 14¼pkSng½ fdLrksa esa dqy :0 1400@& ¼,d gtkj pkj lkS½ dVkSrh djus lSU;kns'k la0 519@99 esa dVkSrh dh xbZ N% ekg ds osru o`fn~/k dk Hkqxrku djus rFkk ;k=k HkRrk ds :i esa dksbZ jkf'k dk Hkqxrku ugha djus dk vkns'k fn;k tkrk gSA g0@& ¼ vthr nRrk ½ milekgRrkZ fcgkj x`g j{kkokfguh] iVukA eq[;ky;] fcgkj x`g j{kokfguh] iVukA Kkikad 173@iVuk] fnukad 30 tuojh 2006 bS0] Mh0ih0 1&97 izfrfyfi%& lSU;kns'k izHkkjh] isa'ku 'kk[kk@daiuh dekaMj iBu@foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh The petitioner appearing in person while assailing the aforesaid impugned order of punishment dated 30.1.2006 had submitted that 8 as he had superannuated from service on 31.1.2000, he could not have been subjected to any further departmental proceeding and therefore, the impugned order inflicted against the retired person like the petitioner was unsustainable on this ground alone. In this context, he had placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Kauleshwar Pd. Sharma @ K.P. Sharma Vs. The Bihar State Elec. Board & Ors. reported in 2009(1) PLJR 657 to claim immunity on account of cessation of master- servant relationship. He had also referred to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Bihar & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Idris Ansari reported in 1995(2) PLJR 51 SC. In the opinion of this Court, the submission of the petitioner lacks merit because it stands settled by the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Shambhu Saran Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 2000(1) PLJR 665 that a proceeding initiated prior to the retirement can still be continued for the purposes of Rule 43 of Bihar Pension Rules. The Full bench in that context had laid down the law in the following words:- “.........Accordingly in our view, it is open to an authority concerned to continue with a 9 disciplinary enquiry which was initiated before his retirement. In our opinion, once such proceeding is statrted, even if the person concerned retires from service, such proceeding can be continued and it is not required that there must be any Government order to that effact before it can be allowed to continue. No such condition has been laid down in rule 43 in respect of a case where such a proceeding has already been initiated as required by the three conditions in respect of initiation of a fresh proceeding after such retirement. We cannot import the requirement of such a condition which is not in the rules. This would be against the principle of cassus omissus. If we accept the contention that such an order of the Government is required before such proceeding can be continued, then we shall be introducing a condition in the rule, which the rule does not provide for..........." In this case also, the authorities after the order of this Court dated 7.9.2005 in CWJC No. 5227 of 2002 filed against the order of punishment of the petitioner dated 13.7.1999 and appellate order dated 24.11.2001 by giving following reasons had continued with that very departmental proceeding no. 1/97 in which the final order dated 13.7.1999 had been earlier passed as is apparent from the following extract of Annexure:-1 the show-cause notice dated 28.11.2005:- ^^Kkikad 2700@ Mh0ih0&1&97 eq[;ky;] fcgkjx`g j{kk okfguh] iVukA fnukad 28 uoEcj] 2005 lsok esa] Jh ujsUnz ukFk feJk] lsok fuo`r dEiuh dekaMj QySV u0&14] guqekuuxj] U;w iwukbZpd] iVuk&23 10 izlax%& foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh la[;k&1@97 esa lapkyu inkf/kdkjh ds earO; dk izs’k.kA fo’k;%& lh0MCyq0 ts0 lh0 5227@02 esa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; dk vkns”kA vkns’kkuqlkj mi;qZDr fo"k; ,oa izlax ds laca/k esa dguk gS fd ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; us ;g ik;k gS fd foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh la0&1@97 esa vkns’k ikfjr djus ds iwoZ vkidks lapkyu inkf/kdkjh ds eaRO; dh izfr ugha nh x;h Fkh ,oa vkidks viuk vafre cpko lefiZr djus dk ekSdk ugha fey ik;k FkkA blfy, ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; us vkids fo:) ikfjr vkns'k pkgs rks bl =qfV dks lq/kkjrs gq, u;s lhjs ls bl foHkkxh; tkWp esa dkjZokbZ dj ldrh gSA 2- mYys[kuh; gS fd ;g foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh rc rd pykbZ x;h Fkh] tc vki lsok esa FksA bl chp vki lsok fuo`r gks pqds gSA 3- D;ksafd vc vki lsok fuo`r gks pqds gSa blfy, bl ckr dh vko';drk gS fd mijksDr foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh dh isa'ku fu;ekoyh ds fu;e 43 ds rgr isa'ku dVkSrh@tfIr ds ekeys esa ifjofrZr fd;k tk,A 4- vr% lapkyu inkf/kdkjh ds earO; dh izfr Hkstrs gq, dguk gS fd i= izkfIr ds iUnzg fnuksa ds vanj vki viuk Li’Vhdj.k lefiZr djsa fd vkids fo:) izekf.kr vkjksiksa ds fy, D;ksa ugha vkids isa'ku dh dVkSrh@tfIr dk vkns'k ikfjr fd;k tk,A vuqyXud%& lapkyu inkf/kdkjh dk earO;A g0@& lekns’Vk fcgkj x`g j{kk okfguh] iVukA** In the opinion of this Court, such a notice is in full conformity with the aforementioned judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Shambhu Saran (supra). The reliance placed by the petitioner either on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mohd. Idris Ansari or the judgment of 11 the learned Single Judge in the case of Kauleshwar Pd. Sharma (supra) is wholly misplaced, inasmuch as, neither in the case of Mohd. Idris Ansari (supra) the Apex Court nor this Court in the case of Kauleshwar Prasad Sharma (supra) has held that once the employee would retire, he could not be subjected to the departmental proceeding which was already continuing before his retirement. In fact, the case of Mohd. Idris Ansari is an authority only for cases covered under proviso to Rule 43B which becomes applicable to an employee of the State Government against whom no departmental proceeding was ever drawn in his service tenure and was for the first time sought to be proceeded on a charge which had become not only stale but were barred by the period of four years in terms of the proviso to Rule 43B. Such submission of the petitioner, is even otherwise fit to be rejected in the light of facts of his onw case because admittedly the petitioner had stood superannuated on 31.1.2000 whereas the writ application was filed in the year 2002 and if in view of the averment made in the writ application, a liberty was given to the respondents, as was definitely given in the 12 order of this Court dated 7.9.2005, while remitting the matter back to the disciplinary authority to proceed against the petitioner afresh, he ought to have filed an appeal against that part of the order of this Court. In absence of any order overruling or setting aside the operative portion of the order dated 7.9.2005 in C.W.J.C. No. 5227 of 2002, the earlier direction/liberty given by this Court while remitting the proceeding to the disciplinary authority in the aforesaid order of this Court dated 7.9.2005 being an inter- parte order cannot be overcome muchless indirectly assailed by the petitioner in the next round of litigation where an order of punishment again has been passed after considering the show-cause reply filed by him. In fact, the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad & Ors. Vs. B. Karunakar & Ors. reported in 1993(4)SC 727 itself lays down that in the event of non- supply of the enquiry report, the proceedee cannot be exonerated from the charge rather the proceeding has to start again from the stage of supply of the enquiry report. In that view of the matter as well, it 13 would be difficult for this Court to accept the aforesaid submission of the petitioner, which actually was his main line of attack to the impugned order of punishment. In this context, learned counsel for the State has also rightly pointed out that the petitioner’s prayer infact for deleting the last paragraph of the order dated 7.9.2005 in C.W.J.C. No. 5227 of 2002 of the Court remitting the enquiry back to the disciplinary authority despite being assailed and sought to be reviewed at the instance of the petitioner in Civil Review No. 209 of 2005 was dismissed by this Court on 11.9.2008 holding such review application itself to be wholly frivolous in nature. In fact, once the civil review application of the petitioner against the order of this Court dated 7.9.2005 was dismissed, it must be held that the direction given by this Court in the last paragraph to the extent “However, the matter is remitted back to the disciplinary authority to proceed in the matter afresh, if so advised” got reaffirmed and the same would now definitely stare in the face of the petitioner and stand as a bar against him to raise a plea 14 as to raise the question of jurisdiction of the authority as with regard to the alleged infirmity and error in proceeding against the petitioner by issuing a show-cause notice dated 28th November, 2005 in the light of the aforesaid order of remand and liberty given in the order of this Court dated 7.9.2005. The petitioner next submitted that the order of punishment was harsh, inasmuch as, the authority had not only directed for recovery of amount from his pension but had also held the petitioner to be not at all entitled for payment of any amount of T.A. Bill in question. In this context, this Court will have to record that the charges against the petitioner were quite serious in nature and were also proved in course of departmental proceeding by production of both oral and documentary evidence. Thereafter, the following findings were recorded by the enquiry officer in respect of each of the charges:- ^^fo'ys’k.k ,oa fu’d"kZ %& xokvksa ds c;ku rFkk vkjksfir daiuh dekaMj }kjk lefiZr izkjafHkd Li’Vhdj.k ds vkjksi esa fuEufyf[kr fu’d’kZ fudyrk gS %& 1- vkjksi la[;k 1 ds laca/k esa vius izkjafHkd Li’Vhdj.k esa vkjksfir da0d0 us ;g rks Li’V fd;k gS fd muds ;k=k HkRrk foi= dks /kuckn gksexkMZ dk;kZy; esa vkoaVu ds lkFk fudklh gsrq eq[;ky; ds Kkikad 3773 fnukad 16-9-93 dks Hksth x;hA ijUrq mUgksaus vius Li"Vhdj.k esa ;g Li"V ugha dj lds gSa fd ftyk lekns"Vk] /kuckn ¼fudklh ,oa O;;u inkf/kdkjh½ ds }kjk ;k=k HkRrk ikfjr ugha djkdj izeaMyh; lekns"Vk@lekns"Vk] fo"ks’kx.k ls D;ksa ikfjr djk;k x;kA ftyk lekns’Vk] 15 /kuckn us vius Kkikad 247 fn0 19-9-93 esa ;g fy[kk gS fd bUgksaus ;k=k HkRrk foi= dks ftyk lekns"Vk] /kuckn ls vkdyu ugha djkdj izeaMyh; lekns"Vk gtkjhckx }kjk djk;h x;hA blesa ;gh fu’d"kZ fudyrk gS fd ftyk lekns"Vk] /kuckn ds tkudkjh ds oxSj ;k=k HkRrk foi= dks ize.Myh; lekns"Vk] gtkjhckx ls ikfjr djk;k x;kA bl ;k=k HkRrk foi= esa vafdr rF;ksa ds lgh ;k xyr gksus dh ftruh tkudkjh ftyk lekns"Vk] /kuckn dks gks ldrh Fkh og ize.Myh; lekns"Vk] gtkjhckx dks drbZ ugha gksrhA 2- vkjksi la0 2 ds lEcU/k esa vkjksfir daiuh dekaMj dk rdZ ekU; ugha gks ldrkA D;ksafd vkj{kh gLrd fu;e ds vuqlkj futh nSufUnuh dh ,d izfr buds ikl gksuk pkfg;sA ¼vkj{kh gLrd fu;e 64]87]448]626 rFkk 1297½ budk ;g dguk fd lHkh rjg ls larq’V gksus ds ckn gh ize.Myh; lekns"Vk] gtkjhckx us muds ;k=k HkRrk foi= dks ikfjr fd;k FkkA ijUrq ;g ;k=k /kuckn esa dh x;h Fkh vkSj /kuckn esa ,d txg ls nwljs txg dh nwjh ds laca/k esa tks tkudkjh ftyk lekns"Vk] /kuckn dks gks ldrh Fkh og izeaMyh; lekns"Vk] gtkjhckx dks ugha gks ldrhA 3- rhljs vkjksi ds laca/k esa vkjksi da0d0 us fy[kk gS fd ;k=k HkRrk foi= dk dkye 22 dgk¡ QVk mudks ugha ekywe gSA os ;k=k HkRrk dk;kZy; esa lqiqnZ djus ds okn mlds laj{kd ugha FksA dkye ua0 22 dks QkM+us ds ihns fdlh dk Hkh D;k ealk jgk gksxk ;g Li’V ugha gSA ijarq ftu i`’Bksa esa dkWye 22 ekStwn gS mlds vurxZr dqN Hkh ugha fy[kk gqvk gSA ;k=k HkRrk foi= ds ftu i`"Bksa dkye 22 QkM+k x;k gS mu ;k=k HkRrk foi= ds dkye 11 esa dqN fy[kdj feVk;k x;k yxrk gS rFkk ml ij dkyk rFkk yky l;kgh ls Motor cycle fy[kk x;k gSA dkye ua0 22 ds QVs gq;s va'k dk dqN feyhehVj va'k cpk gqvk gS ftlij dqN fy[kk gqvk gSA “kk;n blh fy[ks gq;s va'k dks gVkus dh fu;r ls dkye 22 dks QkM+k x;k izrhr gksrk gSA vkxs ds i`"Bksa esa dgha&dgha vLi"V :i ls Vªsdj 'kCn fy[kk gqvk fn[kkbZ iM+rk gS ftlds mij eksVj lkbfdy fy[kk gqvk gSA pw¡fd Vªsdj fy[kdj dkye 22 esa mlds fdjk;k dk Hkqxrku vafdr fd;k x;k gksxkA pw¡fd Vªsdj dks feVkdj eksVj lkbfdy fy[kus ds okn dkye 22 esa Vªsdj dk fdjk;k Hkjuk mfpr ugha gksrk blfy;s ml dkye dks Qkm+dj gVk fn;k x;k gSA xkSjryc ckr ;g gS fd ;k=k HkRrk foi= ds dkye 22 dks dsoy mUgha i"Bksa ls QkM+k x;k gS ftu i`"Bksa ij dqN fy[kk gqvk FkkA “ks’k i`"Bksa ds dkye 22 esa tgk¡ dqN Hkh ugha fy[kk gS mls ugha QkM+k x;k gSA vkjksi la[;k 4 ds laca/k esa vkjksih da0d0 us fy[kk gS fd mUgksaus ;k=k nksLr ds eksVj lk;fdy ls fd;k FkkA mUgksaus ;g Hkh fy[kk gsS fd /kuckn ftyk ds lafpdk la[;k ,0&1&2&82&83 ds voyksdu ls Li"V gksxk fd mUgksaus nksLrksa dk uke rFkk eksVj lk;fdy dk uEcj fy[kdj ns fn;k FkkA ;k=k HkRrk foi= ds laca/k esa ftyk lekns"Vk us fy[kk gS fd ;k=k HkRrk foi= esa nksLr ds eksVj lk;fdy ds iz;ksx djus dk mYys[k ugha fd;k x;k gSA ¼i`"B 1@i0½ vkjksih da0d0 us Vªsdj 'kCn dks feVkdj mlds mij eksVj lk;fdy fy[kus ds laca/k esa dqN ugha fy[kk gSA vkjksi la0 5 ds laca/k esa vkjksih da0d0 us fy[kk gS fd dk;Z dh egrk rFkk mlls larq’V gksdj gh fofHkUu l{ke inkf/kdkfj;ksa us fudklh ,oa Hkqxrku dk 16 vkns'k fn;k FkkA ijUrq mugksaus vius izkjafHkd Li"Vhdj.k esa ,d ekg esa de ls de 2302 fd0eh0 rFkk vf/kdre 8196 fd0eh0 ;k=k djus ds