# Ramakant Mihir v. Union of India & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 4 ILRA 1198
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-04-07
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 14890 of 2021
- **Bench:** Alok Mathur
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ramakant-mihir-v-union-of-india-ors-49829
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Rules,
Section
67(h)
-
Disciplinary
Proceedings - Compulsory Retirement -
Double Jeopardy - Repeated misconduct
by an employee can itself constitute
misconduct. Reference to a charge proved
in
a
prior
disciplinary
inquiry
to
demonstrate
that
the
delinquent
employee is a habitual offender does not
attract the principle of double jeopardy.
The imposition of a previous penalty on
the
petitioner
is
relevant
when
considering punishment in subsequent
disciplinary proceedings. (Para 14)

B. State Bank of India Officers Service
Rules,
Section
67(h)
-
Disciplinary
Proceedings - Compulsory Retirement -
When a person is employed in the banking
business, they are duty-bound to perform
with utmost honesty and sincerity. Any
infraction leading to the misappropriation
of funds amounts to serious misconduct,
4 All. Ramakant Mihir Vs. Union of India & Ors.
1199
as it strikes at the root of banking
operations and erodes customer trust. In
this case, the petitioner was found guilty
of misappropriation of funds on two
separate occasions, having failed to credit
customer funds to the bank's accounts
and not voluntarily refunding the money.
There was no denial of the petitioner's
involvement in both acts of misconduct.
Held: The punishment of compulsory
retirement is neither disproportionate nor
excessive, given the petitioner's repeated
misconduct. (Para 20)

Dismissed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

1198 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Chancellor
while
passing
the
order
impugned before us, dated 03.03.2021.

26. There is no dispute that the relevant
First Statute as also the advertisement
provided that minimum qualification shall be
determined in terms of the Regulations
framed in consultation with the NCTE. It is
also not in dispute that the NCTE Regulations
2014 are applicable for the reason that the
advertisement in this case was issued in the
year 2017. The relevant Regulation of NCTE
Regulation, 2014, namely, Regulation 6.2 B
(iv) has already been discussed above, which
uses the word 'or' and thus, any candidate
fulfilling the requisite qualification prescribed
either by the UGC or by the State
Government, in our considered opinion, will
have the minimum eligibility for being
considered for appointment to the post of
Associate Professor in the Faculty of
Education in the University.

27. For the reasons aforesaid, we are
convinced that the order dated 03.03.2021
passed by the Hon'ble Chancellor is not
sustainable.

28. Accordingly, the writ petition is
allowed. The order dated 03.03.2021 passed
by the Hon'ble Chancellor, as is contained in
Annexure No.1 to the Writ Petition, is hereby
quashed.

29. Consequential resolution of the
Executive Council of the University dated
15.03.2021, so far as it relates to the
petitioner, is also hereby quashed. We also
quash the relieving order dated 16.03.2021
passed by the Registrar of the University as is
contained in Annexure 3 to the Writ Petition.

30. The Petitioner thus shall be
permitted to join his duties as Associate
Professor in the Faculty of Education in
Chaudhary
Charan
Singh
University,
Meerut forthwith.

31. There will, however, be no order
as to costs.
----------
(2023) 4 ILRA 1198
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 07.04.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.

Writ-A No. 14890 of 2021

Ramakant Mihir ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Alok Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G., Sharad Dwivedi

A. State Bank of India Officers Service
Rules,
Section
67(h)
-
Disciplinary
Proceedings - Compulsory Retirement -
Double Jeopardy - Repeated misconduct
by an employee can itself constitute
misconduct. Reference to a charge proved
in
a
prior
disciplinary
inquiry
to
demonstrate
that
the
delinquent
employee is a habitual offender does not
attract the principle of double jeopardy.
The imposition of a previous penalty on
the
petitioner
is
relevant
when
considering punishment in subsequent
disciplinary proceedings. (Para 14)

B. State Bank of India Officers Service
Rules,
Section
67(h)
-
Disciplinary
Proceedings - Compulsory Retirement -
When a person is employed in the banking
business, they are duty-bound to perform
with utmost honesty and sincerity. Any
infraction leading to the misappropriation
of funds amounts to serious misconduct,
4 All. Ramakant Mihir Vs. Union of India & Ors.
1199
as it strikes at the root of banking
operations and erodes customer trust. In
this case, the petitioner was found guilty
of misappropriation of funds on two
separate occasions, having failed to credit
customer funds to the bank's accounts
and not voluntarily refunding the money.
There was no denial of the petitioner's
involvement in both acts of misconduct.
Held: The punishment of compulsory
retirement is neither disproportionate nor
excessive, given the petitioner's repeated
misconduct. (Para 20)

Dismissed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

1. Central Industrial Security Force v. Abrar Ali,
(2017) 4 SCC 507

2. Divisional Controller, KSRTC v. A.T. Mane,
(2005) 3 SCC 254

3. Chairman and Managing Director, United
Commercial Bank & ors. Vs P.C. Kakkar, (2003)
4 SCC 364

4. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur Vs Nemi
Chand Nalwaya, (2011) 4 SCC 584

5.
Deputy
General
Manager
(Appellate
Authority) & ors. Vs Ajai Kumar Srivastava,
(2021) 2 SCC 612

(Delivered by Hon'ble Alok Mathur, J.)

1. The petitioner has assailed the
order of compulsory retirement dated
05.05.2017 which has been imposed as a
measure of punishment pursuant to the
disciplinary proceedings initiated against
him. The appeal preferred against the said
order on 28.06.2017 has also been rejected
vide order dated 26.07.2017. Both the
orders i.e. 05.05.2017 and 26.07.2017 have
been assailed in the present writ petition.

2. The facts of the case and brief are
that the petitioner while working at the
Cash Counter in the State Bank of India,
Girijapuri Branch (hereinafter referred to as
the Bank) was served with a charge sheet
on 16.03.2005 where the allegation against
him was that he had accepted an amount of
₹ 5000/- from one customer namely Raj
Narayan for depositing the same in his
account
No.5104.
The
petitioner
discharging the duties of a Cashier
accepted the said amount, and made an
endorsement in the passbook of the
customer but did not enter the said deposit,
and no entries were made in Bank's official
records, and similarly another amount of ₹
500 was accepted from a customer and not
accounted by him in the Bank's books. The
petitioner was issued charge-sheet on
16.3.2005 and disciplinary proceedings
were conducted and vide order dated
9.3.2006 the petitioner was awarded
compulsory retirement with superannuation
benefits from service. In the appeal
preferred by the petitioner the order of
punishment was modified vide order dated
12.6.2006 to stoppage of 4 increments for 4
years with cumulative effect. It has been
recorded that a lenient and compassionate
view has been taken by the appellate
authority as the petitioner has an unmarried
daughter and 3 minor children and further
an opportunity was given to the petitioner
to show improvement in his conduct and
reform himself.

3. The petitioner was again subjected
to disciplinary proceedings and a chargesheet was given on 28.07.2016 containing 3
charges. The first charge related to not
crediting to customer's account the amount
received by him, and only when the
customer complained about the non-credit
of the amount, it was refunded to him. The
second charge related to the earlier
punishment granted to the petitioner for the
misconduct committed by him where he
1200 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
was given stoppage of 4 increments for 4
years with cumulative effect and it was
stated
that
he
had
been
given
an
opportunity to show improvement in his
functioning but has committed similar
irregularity again.

4. In the disciplinary proceedings
which resulted in the impugned punishment
order dated 5.5.2017, according to charge
no.1 one Pradeep Kumar, a savings Bank
account holder, deposited cash of ₹
34,000/- over the counter on 26.06.2015.
The acknowledgement receipt was issued
to the customer but the petitioner retained
the cash without crediting the savings
account of the customer. It is only when the
customer made complaint against the
petitioner that he returned the money to the
customer on 10/07/2015. The disciplinary
authority held that the charge No.1 was
proved, and with regard to charge No.2 he
returned a finding that the officer was given
opportunity to show improvement when
previously
committed
similar
act
of
misconduct, however he has committed
similar act of misconduct and imposed
penalty in terms of 67 (h) of the State Bank
of
India
Officers
Service
Rules
of
compulsory retirement upon the petitioner
by means of impugned order dated
05/05/2017. The appeal against the said
order of punishment was also rejected by
the appellate authority by means of order
dated 26/07/2017.

5. The petitioner has challenged the
punishment order as well as the appellate
order on the ground that previously, the
petitioner having been punished by means
of order dated 09/03/2006 and again on the
same charges has been punished and
accordingly the order of punishment is
illegal and arbitrary in as much as it suffers
from vice of double jeopardy as a person
cannot be punished again for the same
charge on which he has been punished
earlier and also that the punishment
imposed is excessive.

6. Sri Sharad Dwivedi, learned
counsel for the respondents, supporting the
impugned orders has submitted that on the
previous occasion in the year 2005 when
the petitioner was working at the Cash
Counter in the Girijapuri Branch was
alleged to have received ₹ 5000 and ₹ 500
from the customers and did not credit them
in the books of the accounts of the Bank. In
the disciplinary enquiry conducted against
the petitioner all the charges were found to
be proved. The petitioner was awarded
punishment of compulsory retirement by
the disciplinary authority, the appellate
authority taking a lenient view of the
matter,
imposed
the
punishment
of
stoppage of 4 increments for 4 years, with
the condition "Please note that should a
whiff
of
inappropriate
behaviour
be
observed about you in future, no further
mercy will be shown. This will also be
recorded in your service sheet". He submits
that only a reiteration of the previous
disciplinary proceedings have been made in
the charge-sheet, and the same charge was
not required to be proved in the present
enquiry, but provided only a reference to
his previous conduct, as it was material for
the purposes of imposing the punishment.
With regard to the quantum of punishment,
he submitted that the petitioner being an
employee of the Bank was supposed to
show
full
sincerity,
honesty
and
faithfulness towards the customers, and
defalcation of the funds of the customers is
a very serious misconduct as it affects the
credibility and reputation of the Bank. In
the present case, charge sheet was given to
the petitioner stating that he has admittedly
received the amount from the customers
4 All. Ramakant Mihir Vs. Union of India & Ors.
1201
but did not make necessary entries in the
Bank records, nor did he inform any higher
official of the Bank, and refunded the
money only when complaint was made
after substantial length of time, and
consequently for the repeated misconduct,
the punishment of compulsory retirement
has
been
imposed
which
is
not
disproportionate and consequently has
opposed the writ petition.

7. I have heard the counsel for the
parties and perused the record.

8. The first ground canvassed by the
petitioner in assailing the impugned order
of compulsory retirement is that he is being
punished twice for the same offence, and
hence the impugned order is hit by the vice
of
double
jeopardy.
Previously,
the
petitioner was charge-sheeted by means of
order dated 16/03/2005 and charge number
(i) and (ii) were as follows:-

"(i) Jh jkt ukjk;.k tks fd 'kk[kk esa
cpr [kkrk /kkjd gSa] us mudks :-5]000@& vius
cpr [kkr la[;k 5104 esa tek djus gsrq fn;s Fks
fdUrq mUgksaus mDr jkf'k muds cpr [kkrs esa tek fd,
fcuk mudh iklcqd esa vuqfpr :i ls izfof"V dj nh

(ii) Jherh xkserh nsoh us viuk cpr
[kkrk [kksyus gsrq :0 500@& mudks fn;s mUgksauas
Jherh xkserh nsoh dk [kkrk 'kk[kk esa ugha [kksyk rFkk
Jherh xkserh nsoh dks QthZ cpr ikl cqd lkSsi nh**

9. The customers, who were affected
by the conduct of the petitioner, had made a
complaint to the Bank making allegations
against him for receiving the money and
issuing a receipt for the said amount but the
same was never entered in the books of
accounts of the Bank. Though subsequently
after the complaint, the amount was
returned back to the customers, but the
enquiry officer found both charges to be
proved and it was established that the
petitioner had acted malafidely with the
intention of defrauding the customers of the
Bank, and no satisfactory explanation could
be given by him for his conduct and
accordingly the disciplinary authority had
imposed a punishment of compulsory
retirement with superannuation benefits.
While deciding the appeal, the appellate
authority took a lenient view of the matter
considering the fact that the petitioner had
an ailing mother of 62 years, one daughter
of marriageable age, and 3 minor children,
and consequently reduced punishment to
stoppage of 4 increments for 4 years
cumulatively, with a condition that "Please
note that should a whiff of inappropriate
behaviour be observed about you in future,
no further mercy will be shown. This will
also be recorded in your service sheet".

10. Subsequently, when the petitioner
was posted as Customer Assistant at
Fatehpur,
Barabanki
Branch
from
19/07/2011 to 19/09/2015 he was given
chargesheet on 28/07/2016 with the first
charge that he did not credit to the
customers' account the amount received by
him for being so credited. The customer
made a complaint, and only then the
petitioner refunded the amount to him.
Charge No. 2 stated that previously also
have been punished for similar charges and
plenty of compulsory retirement was given
to him with stoppage of 4 increments for 4
years
cumulatively
by
the
appellate
authority, and despite being given an
opportunity to show improvement in his
functioning and conduct, again committed
similar irregularities/ mistake.

11. The petitioner after due inquiry
has been awarded with the punishment of
compulsory retirement, and the appeal
preferred by him against the order of
punishment has also been rejected which
1202 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
orders have been impugned in the present
petition.

12. The issue to be decided is as to
whether the charge no.2 in the chargesheet
dated
26/07/2016
pertaining
to
the
punishment imposed upon the petitioner in
the
previous
disciplinary
proceedings,
would amount to punishing the petitioner
for the same charge again?

13. To decide this question one will
have
to
go
into
both
the
charges
themselves. In the year 2005 when the
petitioner was working at the cash counter
in the Girijapuri branch he was alleged to
have received ₹ 5000 and ₹ 500 from the
customers and did not enter them in the
books of the Bank for which he was
punished, and the condition was also
imposed which was recorded in his service
sheet "that should a whiff of inappropriate
behaviour observed about you in future, no
further mercy will be shown". In the year
2015, again disciplinary proceedings were
initiated against him in charge No. 2 is as
follows:-

"for similar charges indicating
malafides
on
your part, penalty
of
compulsory retirement in terms of Para
6(c) of memorandum of settlement dated
10/04/2002, was imposed upon you by the
disciplinary authority vide order dated
09/03/2006, which was committed to
stoppage of 4 increments for 4 years with
cumulative
effect
by
the
appellate
authority.
You,
therefore
giving
an
opportunity
to
however,
you
again
committed similar to regular mistake
indicating malafides on your part."

14. The perusal of the above charge
clearly indicates that the petitioner has
committed the similar misconduct again
despite having been warned in the previous
disciplinary proceedings of 2005 not to
repeat any such misconduct in the future,
failing which no mercy would be shown.
The charge is clearly distinct from the
charge included in the previous disciplinary
enquiry. The present charge involves a
separate misconduct which has arisen
because of the petitioner indulging in a
similar misconduct subsequently. This
aspect would further be clear when we see
that the previous misconduct was not
required to be proved in the subsequent
disciplinary proceedings. Had the previous
charge been also proved in the subsequent
enquiry, the principle of double jeopardy
would come to the defence of the
delinquent employee, but a repeated act of
misconduct, by an employee may itself be a
misconduct, and mention of a charge
having been proved in previous disciplinary
inquiry, to bring home the charge that the
delinquent employee is habitual offender,
would not attract principle of double
jeopardy. The fact of previous penalty
imposed upon the petitioner will be
relevant for imposing punishment in the
subsequent disciplinary proceedings. The
question whether the previous misconduct
of an employee can be taken into
consideration in the subsequent disciplinary
proceedings is no longer res-integra and
has been concluded by the Supreme Court
in the case Central Industrial Security
Force v. Abrar Ali, (2017) 4 SCC 507
where it has been held:-

"Charge
3
was
that
the
respondent
had
become
habitual
in
committing indiscipline and disorderliness.
A reference was made to two major
penalties of deduction of pay and one
minor punishment of reduction of seven
days' salary earlier. The disciplinary
authority found that the respondent did not
4 All. Ramakant Mihir Vs. Union of India & Ors.
1203
improve in spite of being punished earlier.
The
High
Court
agreed
with
the
contention of the respondent and held
that a fresh enquiry cannot be initiated
into a misconduct for which a delinquent
had already suffered a penalty. The High
Court found that any penalty imposed
under Charge 3 would amount to double
jeopardy. We disagree with the finding of
the High Court as we are of the view that
the respondent was not being tried again
for
previous
misconduct.
As
the
respondent did not improve in spite of
being punished earlier and had become
habitual
in
indiscipline
and
disorderliness, the disciplinary authority
rightly found Charge 3 as proved. The
desirability
of
continuance
of
the
respondent was considered on the basis
of his past conduct which does not
amount to double jeopardy. In any event,
past conduct of a delinquent employee
can be taken into consideration while
imposing penalty. We are supported in
this view by a judgment of this Court in
Union of India v. Bishamber Das Dogra
[Union of India v. Bishamber Das Dogra,
(2009) 13 SCC 102 : (2010) 1 SCC (L&S)
212] , held as follows : (SCC p. 111, para
30)

"30.
...
But
in
case
of
misconduct
of
grave
nature
or
indiscipline, even in the absence of
statutory rules, the authority may take
into consideration the indisputable past
conduct/service record of the employee
for adding the weight to the decision of
imposing the punishment if the facts of
the case so require."

15. With regard to argument of the
learned counsel the petitioner that the
impugned order suffers from double
jeopardy,
is
not
made
out
and
is
accordingly rejected.

16. The next ground urged by learned
counsel for the petitioner is with regard to
the
quantum
of
punishment.
While
imposing the penalty it has been taken into
account that the nature of misconduct
pertains to financial misappropriation by
the petitioner who was an employee of the
Bank, where financial discipline, honesty
and sincerity are of foremost attributes for
the employees. Any breach of the aforesaid
attributes would be a misconduct, more
serious in the Banking business where
customers entrust the Bank with hard
earned money, and the job requires all
employees to maintain high standards of
financial
discipline.
In
the
case
of
Divisional
Controller,
KSRTC
Vs.
A.T.Mane, 2005 (3) SCC 254 it has been
held as under:-

"12. Coming to the question of
quantum of punishment, one should bear in
mind the fact that it is not the amount of
money misappropriated that becomes a
primary factor for awarding punishment,
on the contrary, it is the loss of confidence
which is the primary factor to be taken into
consideration. In our opinion, when a
person is found guilty of misappropriating
corporation's fund, there is nothing wrong
in the corporation losing confidence or
faith in such a person and awarding a
punishment of dismissal."

17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Chairman and Managing Director,
United Commercial Bank and others Vs
P.C. Kakkar, 2003 (4) SCC 364 held as
under:-

"A Bank officer is required to
exercise higher standards of honesty and
integrity. He deals with money of the
depositors and the customers. Every
officer/employee of the Bank is required to
1204 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
take all possible steps to protect the
interests of the Bank and to discharge his
duties with utmost integrity, honesty,
devotion and diligence and to do nothing
which is unbecoming of a Bank officer.
Good
conduct
and
discipline
are
inseparable from the functioning of every
officer/employee of the Bank. As was
observed by this Court in Disciplinary
Authority-cum-Regional
Manager
v.
Nikunja Bihari Patnaik (1996 (9) SCC 69),
it is no defence available to say that there
was no loss or profit resulted in case, when
the
officer/employee
acted
without
authority. The very discipline of an
organization more particularly a Bank is
dependent upon each of its officers and
officers acting and operating within their
allotted sphere. Acting beyond one's
authority is by itself a breach of discipline
and is a misconduct. The charges against
the employee were not casual in nature and
were serious. These aspects do not appear
to have been kept in view by the High
Court."

18. The respondents, on the other
hand, have vehemently submitted that there
was loss of confidence in the petitioner,
and consequently the punishment meted out
to him is not harsh. In the case of State
Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur Vs. Nemi
Chand Nalwaya, 2011 (4) SCC 584 it has
been held as under:-

"8. When a court is considering
whether punishment of `termination from
service' imposed upon a Bank employee is
shockingly excessive or disproportionate to
the gravity of the proved misconduct, the
loss of confidence in the employee will be
an important and relevant factor. When an
unknown person comes to the Bank and
claims to be the account-holder of a long
inoperative account, and a Bank employee,
who does not know such person, instructs
his colleague to transfer the account from
"dormant"
to
"operative"
category
(contrary
to
instructions
regulating
dormant accounts) without any kind of
verification,
and
accepts
the
money
withdrawal form from such person, gets a
token and collects the amount on behalf of
such person for the purpose of handing it over
to such person, he in effect enables such
unknown person to withdraw the amount
contrary to the Banking procedures; and
ultimately, if it transpires that the person who
claimed to be account holder was an imposter,
the Bank can not be found fault with if it says
that it has lost confidence in the employee
concerned. A Bank is justified in contending
that not only employees who are dishonest, but
those who are guilty of gross negligence, are
not fit to continue in its service."

19. In the case of Deputy General
Manager (Appellate Authority) and others Vs.
Ajai Kumar Srivastava , 2021 (2) SCC 612
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

"42. Before we conclude, we need to
emphasize that in Banking business absolute
devotion, integrity and honesty is a sine qua
non for every Bank employee. It requires the
employee to maintain good conduct and
discipline and he deals with money of the
depositors and the customers and if it is not
observed,
the
confidence
of
the
public/depositors would be impaired. It is for
this additional reason, we are of the opinion
that the High Court has committed an apparent
error in setting aside the order of dismissal of
the respondent dated 24th July, 1999 confirmed
in departmental appeal by order dated 15th
November, 1999."

20. A perusal of the aforesaid
judgments would indicate that when a
person is employed in banking business, he
4 All. Moti Lal Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1205
is duty bound to discharge his duties with
utmost honesty and sincerity and any
infraction leading to misappropriation of
funds would amount to a very serious
misconduct as such an action may strike at
the root of Banking business and the faith
of the customers will be impaired. In the
present case, undoubtedly on two separate
occasions the petitioner was found to have
indulged in misappropriation of funds. In
the year 2005 after conclusion of the
disciplinary proceedings he was found
guilty and punished and was categorically
asked not to repeat the same misconduct.
Despite the aforesaid punishment meted out
to him the petitioner again indulged in act
of misconduct and misappropriation of
funds in 2015 which has led to the
impugned punishment order. There is no
denial of the involvement of the petitioner
in both the above acts of misconduct.

21. The only defence taken by the
petitioner is that he was not aware of the
law. We have noticed that the petitioner is
employed in banking business since more
than one and half decades, and such
defence that he was not aware of the legal
principles and law is not believable nor is a
valid defence. In the present case, we have
noticed that the petitioner deliberately did
not credit the money received from the
customers in the books of account of the
Bank and it is only after complaint was
made by the customers that such amount
was refunded, which clearly indicates that
his intention was not bonafide but a
deliberate attempt to defraud the customers.
This observation is based upon the fact that
during
this
period
neither
had
he
voluntarily refunded the money to the
customers, nor had he informed any higher
official of the Bank about such incident in
case it was under any mistaken belief of
fact. In the aforesaid circumstances, the
punishment of compulsory retirement is
clearly not disproportionate or excessive
considering the repeated misconduct by the
petitioner.

22. In view of the above, this Court is
of
the
considered
opinion
that
the
punishment awarded to the petitioner is in
consonance with the misconduct committed
by him and, hence, does not require any
interference by this Court. The petition is
bereft of merits and is accordingly
dismissed.
----------
(2023) 4 ILRA 1205
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 22.03.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DEVENDRA KUMAR
UPADHYAYA, J.
THE HON'BLE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.

P.I.L. No. 210 of 2023

Moti Lal Yadav ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
In Person

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., C.S.C.

Constitution of India, Article 27 - Freedom
as to payment of taxes for promotion of
any particular religion - The petitioner
sought the quashing of the Government
Order/Letter dated 10.03.2023. By the
said Government Order/Letter, the State
Government
issued
directions
to
celebrate, between 29th and 30th March
2023, the occasions of Ashtami and Shri
Ram
Navami.
Held:
The
impugned
Government
Order/Letter
does
not
contain any provision for payment to