Balak Ram vs State Of Haryana And Others

CWP-23504-2026 (O&M) 1 of 17
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
111 CWP-23504-2026 (O&M)
Date of decision: 28.10.2026
Balak Ram ...Petitioner(s)
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ...Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA
Present:- Mr. D.S.Sarkaria, Advocate
for the petitioner.
.
Mr. Suneel Ranga, D.A.G., Haryana
*
NIDHI GUPTA, J.
CM-19807-CWP-2026
This is an application under Section 151 of C.P.C. for placing
on record photocopy of Medical Certificate as Annexure P-1 and Enquiry
Report as Annexure P-14/A.
2. Notice of this application.
3. Mr. Suneel Ranga, D.A.G., Haryana accepts notice on behalf
of the non-applicants/official respondents.
4. Heard.
5. Application is allowed and the said documents are taken on
record as Annexure P-1 and Annexure P-14/A, subject to all just
exceptions. Registry is directed to tag the same at appropriate place.
DIVYANSHI
2026.10.31 10:06
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-23504-2026 (O&M) 2 of 17
CWP-23504-2026 (O&M)
Present Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of the
Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for the issuance of:-
(i) A writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 08.07.2026
(Annexure P-15) passed by the Respondent No.2 whereby the petitioner
has been given the punishment of compulsory retirement, illegally,
without application of mind and against the principle of natural justice.
(ii) A writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to allow
the petitioner to continue in service till the date of superannuation as he
has served the respondent department without any complaint
whatsoever except the charges of absent from duty for which he had
given the explanation for his illness on account of spinal cord dislocation.
(iii) Any other writ, order of direction which this Hon'ble Court in the
peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case may deem fit and
proper may kindly be issued in favour of the petitioners.
2. Brief sequence of events in chronological order is as under: -
27.02.2023: Petitioner was working as Sub Inspector in the office of
Naraingarh Centre of the respondent-Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer
Affairs Department. Vide order dated 27.02.2023, petitioner was directed
to be transferred to Mulana Center as Assistant Officer Barara.
Nil: It is the case of the petitioner that before he could join the transferred
post at Mulana Centre under the Barara Subdivision, petitioner had
suffered ‘Spinal Cord Dislocation’; for which petitioner had undergone
treatment at Vardaan Private Hospital and had been advised complete
DIVYANSHI
2026.10.31 10:06
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-23504-2026 (O&M) 3 of 17
bed rest from 17.02.2023 to 23.05.2023 as evident from Medical
Certificate dated nil (Annexure P-1) issued by the said private hospital.
18.04.2023: In the meantime, respondent issued a letter dated
18.04.2023 (Annexure P-3) to the petitioner asking him to join duty
immediately and give his explanation. It is averred in para 7 of the present
writ petition that although petitioner had submitted his joining, but his
joining was not accepted. It is also contended that petitioner had
performed his duties which is on record.
26.5.2023/21.08.2023: Thereafter, petitioner was taken to Paras
Hospital, Panchkula where he continued his treatment from 26.05.2023 to
21.08.2023 which is evident from the Medical Certificate (Annexure P-2).
11.08.2023: However, without taking into account the Medical Certificate
submitted by the petitioner, vide order dated 11.08.2023 (Annexure P-4),
petitioner was placed under suspension.
06.10.2023: Thereafter, a Charge Sheet dated 06.10.2023 (Annexure P-6)
was issued to the petitioner with the allegation that petitioner had
remained absent from duty without any sufficient cause and petitioner
was asked to submit his reply to the Charge sheet.
10.10.2023: Thereafter, vide letter dated 10.10.2023 (Annexure P-5),
petitioner had submitted his Medical Fitness Certificate to the
respondents.
27.10.2023: Vide letter dated 27.10.2023, petitioner had requested the
respondents to provide certified copies of documents related to Charge
Sheet dated 06.10.2023.
DIVYANSHI
2026.10.31 10:06
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-23504-2026 (O&M) 4 of 17
31.10.2023: Vide letter dated 31.10.2023 (Annexure P-10), petitioner was
informed that “as per government instructions, certified copies of the
concerned documents cannot be provided to you. However, you may
present yourself at the office on any working day to inspect/review the
said documents.”
02.11.2023: Petitioner had submitted letter dated 02.11.2023 for
supplying him the complete record to enable the petitioner to reply to the
Charge Sheet. However, petitioner received no reply from the
respondents.
16.11.2023: In order to file his reply to the Charge Sheet, petitioner had
sought documents through R.T.I. vide letter dated 16.11.2023 (Annexure
P-9). However, petitioner was not given any relevant documents to defend
himself for the charges levelled against him.
26.12.2023: Despite the fact that petitioner did not have sufficient
documents, petitioner had duly filed his reply dated 26.12.2023 (Annexure
P-11) to the Charge Sheet.
18.01.2024: In the meantime, suspension order dated 11.08.2023 was
revoked and he was reinstated vide order dated 18.01.2024 (Annexure P-
7) and petitioner was posted at Yamunanagar.
24.01.2024: However again after a week, he was transferred from
Yamunanagar to the office of District Food and Supply/Consumer
Controller Yamunanagar vide transfer order dated 24.01.2024 (Annexure
P-8).
DIVYANSHI
2026.10.31 10:06
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-23504-2026 (O&M) 5 of 17
14.01.2025: Vide order dated 14.01.2025, Inquiry Officer was appointed
for conducting regular Departmental inquiry against the petitioner.
12.02.2025: Vide Inquiry Report dated 12.02.2025 (Annexure P-14),
petitioner was found guilty of all the charges levelled against him.
15.06.2026/08.07.2026: Vide impugned order dated
15.06.2026/08.07.2026 (Annexure P-15), petitioner was compulsorily
retired from service under Rule 4(b)(v) of the Haryana Civil Services
(Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 2016 (hereinafter ‘Rules, 2016’).
20.07.2026: Hence, present Writ Petition has been filed on 20.07.2026.
3. It is inter alia submitted by ld. Counsel for the petitioner that
petitioner had suffered medical ailment of Spinal Cord Dislocation and was
admitted in Vardaan Private Hospital, which had advised him complete
bed rest, vide Medical Certificate Annexure P-1. After petitioner was given
Fitness Certificate Annexure P-2, he had reported for duty in the office,
where he was transferred and was performing his duties. However, for
one reason or the another, petitioner was not marked present and was
rather marked absent from duty from the place of posting. For his alleged
absence, petitioner was even charge sheeted. Petitioner had duly given
his explanation for absence from his duty that the same was not wilful
rather was compulsion for which the Medical Certificate had been duly
given to the Department. However, without considering his explanation,
the Inquiry Officer held him guilty without giving adequate opportunity to
defend himself during the enquiry. Vide the impugned order (Annexure P-
DIVYANSHI
2026.10.31 10:06
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-23504-2026 (O&M) 6 of 17
15), petitioner has been given extreme punishment of compulsory
retirement.
4. Ld. Counsel further submits that the impugned order dated
15.06.2026/08.07.2026 (Annexure P-15) is unsustainable as the Inquiry
Officer conducted the inquiry, however, the petitioner was not given
adequate opportunity by the Inquiry Officer also. The petitioner was not
given any assistance by the co-employee of the department which the
Enquiry Officer was duty bound to ask for. However, the petitioner was
never provided any such assistance. Moreover, the Inquiry Officer has
acted himself as Presiding Officer and he had examined the petitioner as
well as prosecution witnesses himself and the petitioner was not given the
property opportunity to cross examine the witnesses. Even the documents
provided by the petitioner during the course of enquiry with regard to
absence of duty along with Medical Certificate was not considered by the
enquiry officer. In these circumstances, the Inquiry Officer has given the
Inquiry Report (Annexure P-14) whereby he had held the petitioner guilty
of all the charges levelled against him in the report.
5. Ld. Counsel also submits that the Inquiry Report was never
communicated to the petitioner and he was not given any opportunity of
being heard. Punishment order has been passed by respondent No.2
without application of mind. As such, impugned order is against the
principles of natural justice and the same is also non-speaking order.
Petitioner has never been conveyed any adverse remarks in his entire
DIVYANSHI
2026.10.31 10:06
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-23504-2026 (O&M) 7 of 17
service of 21 years. However, this aspect has not been considered by the
respondents while imposing harsh punishment of compulsory retirement.
6. Ld. Counsel further submits that the petitioner has been
given the punishment of compulsory retirement which is an extreme
punishment with reference to the allegations levelled against him. It is
submitted that the petitioner was seriously incapable to attend the office
for which, he had given the sufficient explanation along with medical
certificates, which have not been considered by the Authorities as well as
the Inquiry Officer and the Punishing Authority. Even if the petitioner has
absented himself from duty but that was not without any sufficient cause,
as he had valid reason for remaining absent from duty due to his illness
which was beyond his control. For the said reason, there is no justification
for the respondent for giving the extreme punishment of compulsory
retirement to him. The petitioner has supplied sufficient proof of illness,
he should have been given lesser punishment for the allegations levelled
against him. The action of the respondent giving him extreme punishment
of compulsory retirement is disproportionate to the allegation levelled
against him. On this ground the order dated 08.06.2026 is liable to be set-
aside.
7. It is further submitted that it is the respondents who had
transferred the petitioner on two location, firstly he was transferred from
Naraingarh to Mullana Centre and thereafter he was again transferred
vide order dated 05.04.2023 as additional employee to attend Mandis of
Talhedi, Barara and Ugala as Peethasheen Officer-1 (Presiding Officer). It is
DIVYANSHI
2026.10.31 10:06
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-23504-2026 (O&M) 8 of 17
on record that petitioner had performed the duty in the relevant period in
some of the Mandis for inspection, for which sufficient proof was given to
the Enquiry Officer and to the competent authority also, which can be
produced during the course of hearing. Despite the fact the petitioner has
not been given the benefit of attending the duty during course of extreme
illness in the relevant period. Thus, the order passed by the respondent
No.2 is without application of mind and is not speaking order, therefore,
the same is liable to be set aside.
8. Ld. Counsel further submits that because the petitioner has
not been given the adequate opportunity at the stage of conducting of
Inquiry as well as by the Punishing Authority, the order impugned and
proceeding against him are liable to be quashed being illegal and violative
of principles of Natural Justice.
9. It is accordingly prayed that present Writ Petition be allowed;
and following prayers be accepted: -
“(i) A writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated
08.07.2026 (Annexure P-15) passed by the Respondent No.2
whereby the petitioner has been given the punishment of
compulsory retirement, illegally, without application of mind
and against the principle of natural justice.
(ii) A writ in the nature of mandamus directing the
respondents to allow the petitioner to continue in service till
the date of superannuation as he has served the respondent
department without any complaint whatsoever except the
charges of absent from duty for which he had given the
DIVYANSHI
2026.10.31 10:06
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-23504-2026 (O&M) 9 of 17
explanation for his illness on account of spinal cord
dislocation.”
10. Per contra, learned State Counsel appearing on advance
notice has vehemently opposed submissions advanced on behalf of the
petitioner and has contended that no Medical Certificates were produced
by the petitioner at any time. Even otherwise, the Medical Certificates
(Annexures P-1 and P-2) sought to be relied upon by the petitioner, are
unreliable. Moreover, this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India cannot go into the merits of the matter and can only examine as to
whether inquiry was conducted in accordance with law. It is submitted
that it is not the case of the petitioner that due process was not followed
in the conduct of the inquiry. He accordingly prays for dismissal of the
present Writ Petition.
11. No other argument has been raised on behalf of learned
counsel for the parties. I have heard learned counsel and perused the case
file in detail. I find no merit in the submissions of the petitioner.
12. A perusal of the Inquiry Report dated 12.02.2025 (Annexure
P-14) shows that following charges were levelled against the petitioner
under Rule 7 of the Rules, 2016: -
“"Sh. Balak Ram, S/o Sh. Jageer Singh, Sub-Inspector Food &
Supplies, during his posting in Ambala District during the
years 2022-23 and 2023-24, committed the following
Irregularities and lapses, for which he is charged under Rule-7
of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules,
2016:
DIVYANSHI
2026.10.31 10:06
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-23504-2026 (O&M) 10 of 17
1. That Sh. Balak Ram, Sub-Inspector Food & Supplies, was
posted at Naraingarh Centre. The official was
transferred/relieved from Naraingarh Centre and posted as
the second set at Mullana Centre vide Order Endst. No. Estt.-
2023/625 dated 06.02.2023 issued by DFSC Ambala.
However, AFSO Barara vide letter No. AFSO/1812 dated
31.03.2023 informed that Sh. Balak Ram, Sub-Inspector Food
& Supplies, has not registered his joining report till date. In
this regard, the office of DFSC Ambala contacted Naraingarh
Centre, and AFSO Naraingarh vide letter No. AFSO/951 dated
05.04.2023 informed DFSC Ambala that Sh. Balak Ram, Sub-
Inspector, has been continuously absent from the office
without prior information from 17.02.2023 to 05.04.2023,
due to which the official could not be relieved of charge. For
this, the official is held responsible.
3. That explanations were sought from the official in this
regard by DFSC Ambala vide Endst. No. Estt.-2023/1241
dated 03.04.2023, Endst. No. Estt.-2023/1286 dated
07.04.2023, and Endst. No. Estt.-2023/1419 dated
19.04.2023, but no response was submitted by the official in
time. Thereafter, the official submitted his explanation vide
letter dated 27.04.2023 stating that from 17.02.2023 to
26.04.2023 he could not attend Naraingarh Centre due to
illness. He was getting treated privately, due to which he
could not get a medical certificate made. As the official's
response was not found satisfactory, it clearly appears that
the official is habitually absent from duty , for which he is fully
responsible.
4. That Sh. Balak Ram, Sub-Inspector Food & Supplies, in Rabi
Season 2023-24, was posted as second set at Mullana Centre
and was assigned additional duties at Mullana, Talheri,
DIVYANSHI
2026.10.31 10:06
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-23504-2026 (O&M) 11 of 17
Barara, and Ugala Mandis for filling PR-1 forms. However, the
official did not report for duty at the said mandis, resulting in
severe disruption of work in those mandis, for which the
official is held responsible. That Sh. Balak Ram, Sub-Inspector
Food & Supplies, by displaying the above negligence, failed to
prove himself a devoted government servant, violating Rule-4
of the Haryana Government Employees Conduct Rules, 2016,
for which he is responsible."” (Emphasis added)
13. The petitioner has sought to explain that his absence from
duty was due to his ‘ Spinal Cord Dislocation ’; for which petitioner was
under treatment from Vardaan Hospital and had been advised best rest
from 17.02.2023 to 23.05.2023 vide Medical Certificate dated nil
(Annexure P-1). Vide last order dated 18.08.2026, petitioner had been
directed to place on record photocopy of the original Medical Certificate
(Annexure P-1). The same has been placed by way of CM-19807-CWP-
2026. A perusal of the photocopy of Medical Certificate dated nil
(Annexure P-1) shows that Vardaan Hospital from which petitioner was
allegedly taking treatment for his ‘ Spinal Cord Dislocation ’ is “ An Advance
Urology & Kidney Care Centre.” Even the said Medical Certificate dated nil
(Annexure P-1) is issued by Dr. Rajesh Bansal, who is ‘ Urology &
Transplant Surgeon’; with speciality in Dialysis; Endoscopy; Urethroplasty;
Sling Surgery; Surgery for Dialysis; and all types of Surgical Operation by
Laproscopy. As such, it is not clear as to how a Urologist is qualified to
treat petitioner for his Spinal Cord Dislocation treatment. Thus, the
DIVYANSHI
2026.10.31 10:06
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-23504-2026 (O&M) 12 of 17
Medical Certificate/P-1 issued to the petitioner in respect of his spinal
cord, dislocation is unreliable.
14. The said Medical Certificate (Annexure P-1) is also not reliable
on the ground that petitioner has categorically stated in his Writ Petition
that petitioner has suffered “ Spinal Cord Dislocation” . Whereas as per the
said Certificate, petitioner was suffering from “ Lumbar Spine Back Pain on
17.02.2023 and advised take rest for four months. He was under my
treatment from 17.02.2023 to 25.05.2023 after rest he is fit to join duty.”
15. Furthermore, even the Medical/Fitness Certificate dated Nil
(Annexure P-2) cannot be relied upon being an undated document.
Original of the photocopy of the same has not been produced by the
petitioner. The said Certificate has been issued by one Park Hospital. The
address of the said hospital is not mentioned in Annexure P-2 and the
same merely reads as under: -
“Park Hospital
Group Super Specialty Hospital
Medical Certificate of Fitness
I, Dr. Devwart Kaushik after careful personal examination of
the case hereby certify that Balak Ram son of Jagir Singh
aged 53 years Gender Male of village Mandkheri P.O.
Chhachhrauli, District Yamuna Nagar Sate Haryana Pin
135103 is suffering from # Lbs Spine (LS Spine) and advised to
take rest 3 months. I consider that he was under my
examination from 26.05.2023 to 21.08.2023 is absolutely
necessary for the restoration of his health and find that he
DIVYANSHI
2026.10.31 10:06
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-23504-2026 (O&M) 13 of 17
has recovered from his illness. Now he fit for resume his
duties in Government/ Private service.
Sd/- Sd/-
Signature of Applicant Medical Officer”
16. Clearly therefore, the above said certificate is also suspicious.
No other medical record whatsoever has been produced by the petitioner
to prove his treatment for the serious ailment of spinal cord dislocation. It
would appear that the petitioner is trying to mislead not just the
respondents but also this Court. As such, the reasons sought to be given
by the petitioner for his absence from duty, do not stand scrutiny.
17. Further, despite repeated Court queries as to whether these
Medical Certificates (Annexure P-1 and P-2) were produced by the
petitioner before the Inquiry Officer, ld. Counsel for the petitioner is
unable to demonstrate/show that the said Medical Certificates were
produced before the Inquiry Officer. It has been contended by the
petitioner that the said Medical Certificates were supplied by the
petitioner to the respondents vide communication dated 10.10.2023
(Annexure P-5). However, vide letter dated 10.10.2023 (Annexure P-5),
petitioner has sought medical leave by stating that petitioner “was ill from
17.02.2023 to 25.05.2023, due to which I could not be present in the
office. Therefore, attaching the medical certificate for the aforementioned
period with this letter, I requested you to kindly grant me medical leave for
the above-mentioned days. I shall be very thankful to you.”
DIVYANSHI
2026.10.31 10:06
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-23504-2026 (O&M) 14 of 17
18. From all of the above facts, it is clear that petitioner is unable
to give any acceptable reason for his prolonged absence from his duty. In
the face of above facts, contention of the petitioner that disproportionate
and harsh punishment of compulsory retirement has been inflicted upon
the petitioner, is without merit.
19. The petitioner has further contended that he was not given
proper opportunity to defend himself in the enquiry proceedings.
However, even the said contention is without merit as the record reveals
that the petitioner had duly appeared for inquiry proceedings on
11.02.2025. Petitioner has admitted receiving Charge Sheet alongwith
relevant documents. It is categorically recorded in the Inquiry Report
dated 12.02.2025 (Annexure P-14) that all relevant documents have been
duly supplied to the petitioner. It is also recorded in the Inquiry Report
that petitioner had submitted that “ He will contest the case at his own
level. ” Thus, contention of the petitioner that he was not given sufficient
opportunity to defend himself is also without merit.
20. Furthermore, a perusal of the Inquiry Report shows that
every relevant aspect of the matter has been considered and dealt with by
the Disciplinary Authority. Petitioner was also granted personal hearing by
the Inquiry Officer on 11.02.2025. Thus, principles of natural justice have
been duly followed, and all the charges stood proved against the
petitioner.
21. Thus, contention of the petitioner pertaining to the manner
in which inquiry was conducted against the petitioner remain
DIVYANSHI
2026.10.31 10:06
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-23504-2026 (O&M) 15 of 17
unsubstantiated as despite repeated Court queries, ld. Counsel for the
petitioner has been unable to point out any infirmity in the inquiry
process.
22. It is settled law that scope of interference in disciplinary
proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is very limited.
Powers under Article 226 can be exercised by this Court only when
findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer are shown to be manifestly
arbitrary or prejudicial to the delinquent official; and procedural lapses
are demonstrated. However, in the present case, petitioner has not even
alleged any procedural errors in the inquiry conducted against him. No
flaws are shown in the procedure adopted by the Disciplinary Authority.
Thus, no ground is made out for interference in the impugned order.
23. In this regard, reference is made to a 3-Judge Bench
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v.
Ashok Kumar Arora, (SC); Law Finder Doc Id # 20237, the relevant para of
which reads as under:-
"20. At the outset, it needs to be mentioned that the High
Court in such cases of departmental enquiries and the
findings recorded therein does not exercise the powers of
appellate court/authority.  The jurisdiction of the High Court
in such cases is very limited  for instance where it is found
that the domestic enquiry is vitiated because of non-
observance of principles of natural justice, denial of
reasonable opportunity; findings are based on no evidence,
and/or the punishment is totally disproportionate to the
proved misconduct of an employee. There is a catena of
DIVYANSHI
2026.10.31 10:06
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-23504-2026 (O&M) 16 of 17
judgments of this Court which had settled the law on this
topic and it is not necessary to refer to all these decisions.
Suffice it to refer to a few decisions of this Court on this topic
viz.  State of A.P. v. S. Sree Rama Rao [(1964) 3 SCR 25 : AIR
1963 SC 1723 : (1964) 2 LLJ 150], State of A.P. v. Chitra
Venkata Rao [(1975) 2 SCC 557 : 1975 SCC (L&S) 349 : (1976)
1 SCR 521], Corpn. of the City of Nagpur v. Ramchandra
[(1981) 2 SCC 714 : 1981 SCC (L&S) 455 : (1981) 3 SCR
22] and Nelson Motis v. Union of India [(1992) 4 SCC 711 :
1993 SCC (L&S) 13 : (1993) 23 ATC 382 : AIR 1992 SC 1981].”
(Emphasis added)
24. Even contention of the petitioner that the impugned order
dated 15.06.2026/08.07.2026 (Annexure P-15) is a non-speaking order, is
not made out. The relevant extract of the impugned order dated
15.06.2026/08.07.2026 (Annexure P-15) reads as follows: -
“In light of the records available in the file, the inquiry
report submitted by the Inquiry Officer, the medical certificate
issued by Park Hospital, Karnal, and the arguments presented
by the employee during the personal hearing, I have reached
the conclusion that Sh. Balak Ram, Sub-Inspector Food and
Supplies, is habitually absent from his duty and has failed to
demonstrate the expected sensitivity and accountability
toward discharging his duties and responsibilities. Such
conduct adversely affects discipline, operational efficiency,
and administrative order in the office, and is also contrary to
public interest. As per the provision under Rule 4(b) (v) of the
Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 2016,
it would be appropriate to punish him with compulsory
retirement with immediate effect. Furthermore, it is justified
DIVYANSHI
2026.10.31 10:06
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-23504-2026 (O&M) 17 of 17
that the employee's suspension period (from 11.08.2023 to
18.01.2024) be counted solely for his retirement benefits, and
nothing extra shall be paid beyond the allowances received
during his suspension period.”
25. In the facts and circumstances of the case, no error can be
found in the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed upon the
petitioner under Rule 4(b)(v) of the Rules, 2016.
26. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner is unable to controvert or
dispute the above said factual and legal position.
27. Consequentially, I find no merit in the present Writ Petition
and the same stands dismissed .
28. Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of.
28.10.2026 (NIDHI GUPTA)
Divyanshi
JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
DIVYANSHI
2026.10.31 10:06
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document