# Farman & Ors v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** Application U/S 482 No. 38681 of 2019
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-11-07
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 38681 of 2019
- **Bench:** Ajit Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/farman-ors-v-state-of-u-p-anr-45183
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Criminal Law-Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Section 193 - Cognizance of
offence - cognizance for the second time
u/s 193 CrPC by the Session Court not
permissible by law - cognizance of an
offence can only be taken once - if once
the cognizance of the offence has been
taken
by
the
Sessions
Court
after
committal of the case to it & trial has
commenced - then again the Sessions
Court cannot go back & take further
cognizance of the case again u/s 193 CrPC
and summon other accused - if the trial
court
considers
after
evaluating
the
evidence which has come during trial then
the trial court may proceed against the
persons, who appears to be guilty with the
aid of Section 319 Cr.P.C. (Para 16, 17, 18)

FIR against 13 named persons - ten persons
were chargesheeted - cognizance taken by trial
court on 31.08.2018 against all ten persons -
prosecution moved application u/s 193 CrPC that
police had not submitted any report against three
accused-persons - it was prayed that those three
accused be arrayed as an accused - trial court
took further cognizance and summoned those
three accused for trial on 18.09.2019 - Held -
Trial court order illegal (Para 18)

Application allowed (E-5)

List of cases cited :

## Text

1724 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
disputed
questions
of
fact
will
be
considered
by
the
court
below
in
accordance with law and it is expected that
as the proceeding is pending since long the
court below shall proceed with the case on
its own merit expeditiously in accordance
with law after giving opportunity of
hearing to both the parties.

20. Since the non bailable warrant had
already been issued against the applicant,
he is directed to appear before the court
concerned within three weeks and apply for
bail, which shall be considered by the court
below in accordance with law.

21. The office is directed to
communicate this order to the court below
through FAX forthwith for information and
necessary compliance.
----------
(2020)03-05ILR A1724
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.11.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AJIT SINGH, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 38681 of 2019

Farman & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Arvind Kumar, Sri Abhishek Narayan
Pandey, Sri Rajiv Lochan Shukla

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A.

Criminal Law-Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Section 193 - Cognizance of
offence - cognizance for the second time
u/s 193 CrPC by the Session Court not
permissible by law - cognizance of an
offence can only be taken once - if once
the cognizance of the offence has been
taken
by
the
Sessions
Court
after
committal of the case to it & trial has
commenced - then again the Sessions
Court cannot go back & take further
cognizance of the case again u/s 193 CrPC
and summon other accused - if the trial
court
considers
after
evaluating
the
evidence which has come during trial then
the trial court may proceed against the
persons, who appears to be guilty with the
aid of Section 319 Cr.P.C. (Para 16, 17, 18)

FIR against 13 named persons - ten persons
were chargesheeted - cognizance taken by trial
court on 31.08.2018 against all ten persons -
prosecution moved application u/s 193 CrPC that
police had not submitted any report against three
accused-persons - it was prayed that those three
accused be arrayed as an accused - trial court
took further cognizance and summoned those
three accused for trial on 18.09.2019 - Held -
Trial court order illegal (Para 18)

Application allowed (E-5)

List of cases cited :

1. Dharm Pal & ors. Vs St. of Haryana & ors.
2014 3 SCC 306

2.Hardeep Singh Vs St. of Punjab & ors. 2014 3
SCC 92

3.Y. Saraba Reddy Vs Puthur Rami Reddy & anr.
2007 4 SCC 773

4.Minu Kumari Vs St. of Bihar (2006) 4 SCC 359

5. Balveer Singh Vs St. of Rajasthan (2016) 6
SCC 680

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajit Singh, J.)

1. Heard Sri Rajiv Lochan Shukla,
learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Ravi
Prakash Pandey, learned AGA for the State and
perused the material available on record.

2. The present application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the
3-5 All. Farman & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1725
applicants for quashing the impugned order
dated 18.09.2019 passed by Additional
Sessions Judge, Court No.10, Meerut in
S.T. No.447 of 2018 and 912 of 2018 (State
of U.P. vs. Ikram and Ors.), under Sections
147, 148, 149, 323, 342, 352, 307, 302 and
308 IPC, Police Station Parichitgarh,
District Meerut.

3. The first information report of this
incident was lodged by the complainant
against 13 named accused-persons. It was
alleged in the FIR that brother of the
complainant was done to death by the
accused-persons and later on 'Behnoi'-
Kamrul of the complainant Muzassim was
also done to death by the accused-persons
and Kamrul and Muzassim had died on the
spot and the complainant and his brother
Sadrul, Fahim, Kadim, Javed and Salim
had also received injuries. The matter was
investigated and the police had submitted
charge sheet on 29.03.2018 against eight
persons and against five accused-persons,
the investigation was in progress. Later on
second charge sheet was submitted on
23.06.2018 against two persons, namely
Iftedar and Jisaan. The cognizance of the
offence on the basis of papers submitted by
the police was taken by the Sessions Court
on 31.08.2018 and later on charges were
framed. After framing of charge, an
application
was
moved
from
the
prosecution side under Section 193 Cr.P.C.
and in the application it was mentioned that
the complainant filed FIR against 13 named
persons
and
eight
persons
were
chargesheeted, later on, two persons were
also chargesheeted and cognizance was
taken by the trial court against all ten
persons and it was mentioned in that
application the police had not submitted
any report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.
against three accused-persons, namely
Farman, Hussain and Rameej and three
years have passed and the police has not
submitted any charge sheet against the
accused-persons, namely Farman, Hussain
and Rameej and it was prayed in that
application that three accused, namely
Farman, Hussain and Rameej be arrayed as
an accused under Section 193 Cr.P.C. and
this application was disposed of by the trial
court
vide
impugned
order
dated
18.09.2019 and by the said impugned
order, the application given by the
prosecution under Section 193 Cr.P.C. was
accepted and the accused Farman, Hussain
and Rameej were summoned for trial under
Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 342, 352, 307,
302 and 308 IPC.

4. Aggrieved by this order, the present
application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has
been filed by the accused-persons with a
prayer for quashing the impugned order.

5. It has been submitted by the
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
applicants that the impugned order passed
by the trial court is against the law and
when
the
Sessions
court
has
taken
cognizance under Section 193 Cr.P.C.
earlier on 31.08.2018, then it was not
within the scope of the trial court to again
take cognizance of the present accusedapplicants on the basis of police papers
submitted by the police. It has been further
submitted that when the trial was in
progress, the evidence of PW-1 was
recorded
on
20.09.2018,
then
the
application under Section 193 Cr.P.C. is
not legally maintainable, as it was beyond
the scope of the trial judge to summon the
accused-applicants
under
Section
193
Cr.P.C. It is also submitted that when the
trial has progressed, then the court can
summon the accused-persons, who were
not arrayed as accused in the charge sheet
or against whom charge has not been
1726 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
framed only under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
after considering the evidence during trial.

6. Learned counsel for the applicants
has relied on the judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Dharm Pal
& Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.
reported in 2014 3 SCC 306, Hardeep
Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Ors.
reported in 2014 3 SCC 92 and in the case
of Y. Saraba Reddy Vs. Puthur Rami
Reddy & Anr. reported in 2007 4 SCC
773.

7. Sri Ravi Prakash Pandey, learned
AGA
has
vehemently
opposed
the
arguments advanced by learned counsel for
the applicants and submitted that the
impugned order passed by the learned trial
judge under Section 193 Cr.P.C. is a
perfect order and no interference is legally
required in that impugned order as it was
well within the scope of the learned trial
judge to array some other persons as an
accused in the trial.

8. This Court would like to refer to
the provisions of Sections 190 and 193
Cr.P.C. of the Code, which has come into
play in the instant case for the proper
understanding thereof, as it shall provide
categorical answer to the issue in hand and
will help this Court in tracing the
underlying legal principle laid down in the
present case.

"Section 190. Cognizance of
offences by Magistrates. (1) Subject to the
provisions of this Chapter, any Magistrate
of the First Class, and any Magistrate of
the Second Class specially empowered in
this behalf under sub-section (2), may take
cognizance of any offence ---

(a) upon receiving a complaint
of facts which constitute such offence;

(b) upon a police report of such
facts;

(c) upon information received
from any person other than a police
officer, or upon his own knowledge, that
such offence has been committed.

(2)
The
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate may empower any Magistrate
of the Second Class to take cognizance
under sub-section (1) of such offences as
are within his competence to inquire into
or try.

Section
193.
Cognizance
of
offences by courts of Session.--- Except as
otherwise expressly provided by this Code
or by any other law for the time being in
force, no Court of Session shall take
cognizance of any offence as a court of
original jurisdiction unless the case has
been committed to it by a Magistrate
under this Code."

9. Sections 190 and 193 of the Code
are in Chapter XIV. This Chapter contains
the title "Conditions requisite for initiation
of proceedings". Section 190 deals with
cognizance of offence by Magistrates. It
empowers any Magistrate of the First
Class, and any Magistrate of the Second
Class which are specially empowered to
take cognizance "of any offence" under
three circumstances mentioned therein.
These three circumstances include taking of
cognizance upon a police report of such
facts which may constitute an offence. It is
trite law that even when police report is
filed stating that no offence is made out, the
Magistrate can ignore the conclusion
arrived at by the investigating officer and is
competent to apply its independent mind to
the facts emerging from the investigation
and take cognizance of the case if it thinks
3-5 All. Farman & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1727
that
the
facts
emerging
from
the
investigation do lead to prima facie view
that commission of an offence is made out.
In such a situation, the Magistrate is not
bound to follow the procedure laid down in
sections 200 and 202 of the Code for taking
cognizance of the case under Section
190(1)(a) though it is open for him to act
under Section 200 or Section 202 as well as
held in the case of Minu Kumari Vs. State
of Bihar, reported in (2006) 4 SCC, 359.
Thus, when a complaint is received by the
Magistrate under Section 190(1)(a) of the
Code, the Magistrate is empowered to
resort to procedure laid down in Section
200 or 202 of the Code and then take
cognizance. If police report is filed he
would take cognizance upon such a report,
as provided under Section 190(1)(b) of the
Code in the manner mentioned above as
highlighted in the case of Minu Kumari
(Supra).

10. Likewise, Section 193 of the Code
empowers the Court of Session to take
cognizance of offences and states that the
Court of Session shall not take cognizance
of any offence as the court of original
jurisdiction unless the case has been
committed to it by the Magistrate under this
Code. As per this section, the Court of
Session can take cognizance only after the
case has been committed to it by the
Magistrate, However, once the case is
committed to it by the Magistrate, the
Court of Session is empowered to take
cognizance acting "as a court of original
jurisdiction".

11. In view of the aforesaid
provisions, the question that arises is as to
whether the Magistrate can take cognizance
of an offence which is triable by the Court
of Session or he is to simply commit the
case to the Court of Session, after
completion of committal proceedings as it
is the Court of Session which is competent
to try such cases. On the one hand, Section
190 of the Code empowers the Magistrate
to "take cognizance of any offence" which
gives an impression that such Magistrate
can take cognizance even of an offence
which is triable by the Court of Session. On
the other hand, when the case if committed
to the Court of Session by the Magistrate,
Section 193 of the Code stipulates that the
Court of Session shall take cognizance "as
a court of original jurisdiction" which
shows that the cognizance is taken by the
Court of Session as a court of original
jurisdiction and, thus, it is the first time the
cognizance is taken and any order passed
by the Magistrate while committing the
case to the Court of Session did not amount
to taking cognizance of the offence which
is triable by the Court of Session.

12. A bare reading of Section 190 of
the Code which uses the expression "any
offence" amply shows that no restriction is
imposed on the Magistrate that the
Magistrate can take cognizance only for the
offence triable by the Magistrate Court and
not in respect of the offence triable by a
Court of Session. Thus, he has the power to
take cognizance of an offence which is
triable by the Court of Session. If it is so,
the question is as to what meaning is to be
assigned to the words "as a court of
original jurisdiction" occurring in Section
193 of the Code when the Court of Session
takes cognizance of any offence. To put it
otherwise, when the Magistrate has taken
cognizance and thereafter only committed
the case to the Court of Session, whether
the Court of Session is not empowered to
take cognizance of an offence again under
Section 193 of the Code or it still has
power to take cognizance acting as court of
original jurisdiction. In order to find the
1728 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
answer, it is necessary to have a look on the
decision of the Apex Court in the case of
Dharam Pal Vs. State of Haryana,
reported in (2014) 3 SCC., 306.

13. In the case of Dharam Pal Vs.
State of Haryana (Supra), an F.I.R. was
registered against one N and the appellants
for the commission of offences under
Sections 307 and 323 read with Section 34
I.P.C.
The
police
after
investigation
submitted its report under Section 173(2) of
the Code before the Magistrate sending
only N for trial while including the names
of the appellants in Column 2 of the report.
On receipt of such police report, the
Magistrate did not, straightaway, commit
the case to the Sessions Court but, on an
objection being raised by the complainant,
issued summons to the appellants therein to
face trial with the other accused N as the
Magistrate was convinced that a prima
facie case to go for trial had been made out
against the appellants as well. Further,
while doing so, the Magistrate did not hold
any further inquiry, as contemplated under
Sections 190, 200 or even 202 of the Code,
but proceeded to issue summons on the
basis of the police report only. In this
background, the following questions arose
for the consideration by the Constitution
Bench. (SCC p.312, para 7).

"7.1
Does
the
Committing
Magistrate have any other role to play
after committing the case to the Court of
Session on findings from the police report
that the case was triable by the Court of
Session ?

7.2 If the Magistrate disagrees
with the police report and is convinced
that a case had also been made out for
trial against the persons who had been
placed in Column 2 of the report, does he
have the jurisdiction to issue summons
against them also in order to include their
names, along with Nafe Singh, to stand
trial in connection with the case made out
in the police report ?

7.3 Having decided to issue
summons against the appellants, was the
Magistrate
required
to
follow
the
procedure of a complaint case and to take
evidence before committing them to the
Court of Session to stand trial or whether
he was justified in issuing summons
against them without following such
procedure ?

7.4 Can the Sessions Judge issue
summons under Section 193 Cr.P.C. as a
court of original jurisdiction ?

7.5
Upon
the
case
being
committed to the Court of Session, could
the
Sessions
Judge
issue
summons
separately under Section 193 of the Code
or would he have to wait till the stage
under Section 319 of the Code was
reached in order to take recourse thereto ?

7.6 Was Ranjit Singh Vs. State
of Punjab, reported in the case of (1998) 7
SCC, 149, which set aside the decision in
the case of Kishun Singh Vs. State of
Bihar, reported in (1993) 2 SCC, 16,
rightly decided or not ?'

14. Answering the reference, the
Constitution Bench in the case of Dharam
Pal Vs. State of Haryana (Supra), held
that :

"The Magistrate has ample
powers to disagree with the final report
that may be filed by the police authorities
under section 173(2) of the Code and to
proceed against the accused persons
3-5 All. Farman & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1729
dehors the police report. The Magistrate
has a role to play while committing the
case to the Court of Session upon taking
cognizance on the police report submitted
before him under Section 173(2) of the
Code. In the event the Magistrate
disagrees with the police report, he has
two choices. He may act on the basis of a
protest petition that may be filed, or he
may, while disagreeing with the police
report, issue process and summon the
accused. Thereafter, if on being prima
facie satisfied that a case had been made
out to proceed against the persons named
in Column 2 of the report, he may proceed
to try the said persons or if he is satisfied
that a case had been made out which was
triable by the Court of Session, he must
commit the case to the Court of Session to
proceed further in the matter. Further, if
the Magistrate decides to proceed against
the persons accused, he would have to
proceed on the basis of the police report
itself and either inquire into the matter or
commit it to the Court of Session if the
same is found to be triable by the Sessions
Court.

The Sessions Judge is entitled to
issue summon under Section 193 of the
Code upon the case being committed to
him by the Magistrate. Section 193 speaks
of cognizance of offences by the Court of
Session. The key words in the section are
that (Dharam Pal Dharam Pal Vs. State of
Haryana (Supra) (SCC p.319, para 38).

"38................no
Court
of
Session shall take cognizance of any
offence as a court of original jurisdiction
unless the case has been committed to it
by a Magistrate under this Code."

The provision of section 193
entails that a case must, first of all
committed to the Court of Session by the
Magistrate. The second condition is that
only after the case had been committed to
it, could the Court of Session take
cognizance of the offence exercising
original jurisdiction. The submission that
the cognizance indicated in Section 193
deals not with cognizance of an offence
but of the commitment order passed by the
Magistrate, was specifically rejected in
view of the clear wordings of Section 193
that the Court of Session may take
cognizance of the offences under the said
section.

Cognizance of an offence can
only be taken once. In the event, a
Magistrate takes cognizance of the offence
and then commits the case to the Court of
Session, the question of taking fresh
cognizance of the offence and, thereafter,
proceeding to issue summons, is not in
accordance with law. If cognizance is to
be taken of the offence, it could be taken
either by the Magistrate or by the Court of
Session. The language of Section 193 of
the Code very clearly indicates that once
the case is committed to the Court of
Session by the Magistrate, the Court of
Session assumes original jurisdiction and
all that goes with the assumption of such
jurisdiction. The provisions of section 209
of the Code will, therefore, have to be
understood as the Magistrate playing a
passive role in committing the case to the
Court of session on findings from the
police report that the case was triable by
the Court of Session. Nor can there by any
question of part cognizance being taken
by the Magistrate and part cognizance
being taken by the Sessions Judge.

In the process of coming to the
aforesaid conclusions, this Court in
Dharam Pal Vs. State of Haryana (Supra)
1730 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
accepted the view expressed in the of
Kishun Singh Vs. State of Bihar, reported
in (1993) 2 SCC, 16 (SCC p.320, para 40)
the Sessions Court has jurisdiction on
committal of a case to it, to take
cognizance of the offences of the persons
not named as offenders but whose
complicity in the case would be evident
from the materials available on record. It
specifically held that upon committal
under Section 209 of the Code, the
Sessions Judge may summon those
persons shown in Column 2 of the police
report to stand trial along with those
already named therein.

Interestingly, at the same time,
the Court in the case of Dharam Pal Vs.
State of Haryana (Supra) also held that it
would not be correct to hold that on
receipt of a police report and seeing that
the case is triable by a Court of Session,
the Magistrate has no other function but
to commit the case for trial to the Court of
Session and the Sessions Judge has to
wait till the stage under Section 319 of the
Code is reached before proceeding against
the persons against whom a prima facie
case is made out from the material
contained in the case papers sent by the
Magistrate while committing the case to
the Court of Session."

15. In this view of the matter Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Balveer Singh
Vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in
(2016) 6 SCC, 680, held as under :

"In that view of the matter, we
have no hesitation in agreeing with the
views expressed n Kishun Singh Vs. State
of Bihar (Supra) that the Sessions Court
has jurisdiction on committal of a case to
it, to take cognizance of the offences of the
persons not named as offenders but whose
complicity in the case would be evident
from the materials available on record.
Hence, even without recording evidence,
upon committal under Section 209, the
Sessions Judge may summon those
persons shown in Column 2 of the police
report to stand trial along with those
already named therein."

16. It is well settled position of law
that cognizance of an offence can only be
taken once and if once the cognizance of
the offence has been taken in the present
case by the Sessions Court after committal
of the case to the Sessions Court and the
Sessions Court had charged the accused
and the trial of the accused has commenced
then again the Sessions Court will not be
able to go back and to take further
cognizance of the case again under Section
193 Cr.P.C.

17. In the present matter as the
cognizance has already been taken by the
learned Sessions Judge and charges were
framed
against
the
accused
after
considering the police papers annexed with
the charge-sheet and the trial had started, it
would not be proper for the trial court to
take further cognizance of the case and to
summon the three accused by the impugned
order. The summoning of the three accused
by the impugned order is not in consonance
with the legal provisions of law. The
cognizance taken by the trial sessions court
under Section 193 Cr.P.C. for the second
time is not perfectly valid and permissible
by law. The impugned order is not legally
proper and the impugned order transpires
that the trial sessions court has abused the
process of law. The impugned order is
liable to be quashed.

18. The impugned order dated
18.09.2019 passed by Additional Sessions
3-5 All. K.P. Thakur & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1731
Judge, Court No.10, Meerut in S.T. No.447
of 2018 and 912 of 2018 (State of U.P. Vs.
Ikram and Ors.), under Sections 147, 148,
149, 323, 342, 352, 307, 302 and 308 IPC,
Police
Station
Parichitgarh,
District
Meerut, is hereby quashed with the
direction that since the trial has proceeded
and is at an advanced stage as the
prosecution has examined the prosecution
witness of the trial and if the trial court
considers after evaluating the evidence
before it, which has come during trial then
the trial court may proceed against the
persons, who appears to be guilty of the
commission of offence with the aid of
Section 319 Cr.P.C.
----------
(2020)03-05ILR A1731
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.02.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM, J.

Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 40418 of 2012

K.P. Thakur & Anr. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Sunil Tripathi, Sri S.K. Tripathi, Sri
Amitabh Trivedi, Sri Devesh Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.G.A., Sri Ashok Kumar

Criminal
law-Applicants
were
Enquiry
Officer and Presiding Officer respectivelyApplicant was delinquent employee-false
caomplaint
under
SC/St
Act
filedingredients of section 3(1) (X) not foundalleged place of incidence was chamber-not
a public view-no mention that he was
insulted being a member of Scheduled
Caste-Application
partly
allowedsummoning
for
offence
u/s
3(1)
(X)
quashed. (E-9)
Cases cited:

1. Gorige Pentaiah Vs. St. of A.P. & ors. (2008) 12
Supreme Court Cases 531

2. . of A.P. Vs. Gaurishetty Mahesh, JT 2010 (6) SC
588: (2010) 6 SCALE 767: 2010 Cr. LJ 3844

3. Hamida Vs. Rashid, (2008) 1 SCC 474

4.Monica Kumar Vs. St. of U.P., (2008) 8 SCC 781

5.Popular Muthiah Vs. State, Represented by
Inspector of Police, (2006) 7 SCC 296

6.Dhanlakshmi Vs. R.Prasana Kumar, (1990) Cr LJ
320 (DB): AIR 1990 SC 494

7. State of Bihar Vs. Murad Ali Khan, (1989) Cr LJ
1005: AIR 1989 SC 1

8. Vaijnath Kondiba Khandke Vs. St. Of Mah. & anr.
AIR 2018 SC 2659

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,
J.)

1. The applicants, by means of this
application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., have
invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court
with prayer to quash the entire proceeding of
Complaint Case No. 1577 of 2012, under
Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section
3(1)(X) of the Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989, pending in the Court of Judicial
Magistrate, Duddhi, Sonebhadra.

2. Heard learned counsel for applicants,
learned counsel for opposite party no. 2,
learned A.G.A. for State and perused the
record.

3. Learned counsel for applicants
argued that a departmental inquiry was
pending against Vinod Kumar Tanay,