Sukhwinder Singh vs Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd And Ors

CWP-1087-2024 (O
O&M)
(1)

E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB
IN THE
B AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
H


CWP-1087-2024 (O&M)


Singh
Sukhwinder
...Petitioner
Versus
Punjab State
Power Corporation Limited & o
others ...Respondents

Sr.
No.
Partic
culars
Details
1. The d
2. The d
3. The d
4. Wheth
or full
5. The d
and re
date when the judgment is reserved
date when the judgment is pronounc
date when the judgment is uploaded
19.08.2026
ced 08.09.2026
d on the website 08.09.2026
ment is pronounced Full
her only operative part of the judgm
l judgment is pronounced
delay, if any, of the pronouncement o
of full judgment, N.A.
easons thereof

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NA

AMIT KUMAR

Present:







Mr. K.S.Nalwa, Senior Advocate
Mr. Yuvraj Singh Sidhu and Ms.
for the petitioner.
e, with
. Sanya Gupta, Advocates,
Ms. Harpriya Khaneka and Ms.
for the respondents-PSPCL.
Richa Tayal, Advocates,
NAMIT KU
UMAR, J.

1.
The present petition has been
n filed by the petitioner under
r
Article 226 o
of the Constitution of India for is
ssuance of a writ in the nature of
f
certiorari fo
or quashing charge-sheet date
d 06.06.2013 (Annexure P-2)
)
issued by res
spondent No.4; order dated 23.0
02.2017 (Annexure P-5) passed
d
by responde
nt No.3, whereby his services
s were terminated; order dated
d
15.10.2020 (
(Annexure P-7) passed by resp
pondent No.2, whereby appeal
l
preferred by
the petitioner against the order
r of dismissal was rejected; and
d
communicati
ion having Memo No.35718 date
ed 06.11.2023 (Annexure P-12),
,
VIMAL KUMAR
2026.09.08 18:07
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

CWP-1087-2024 (O
O&M)
(2)

the petitioner vide letter dated
conveyed to
d 29.11.2023 (Annexure P-13),
,
whereby repr
resentations dated 26.06.2023 (A
Annexure P-10) and 21.11.2023

(Annexure P
P-11) submitted by the petiti
oner seeking reinstatement in
n
service, were
e rejected. Further, a writ in the
e nature of mandamus has been
n
sought direct
ting the respondents to reinstate
the petitioner in service with all
l
consequentia
al benefits along with interest @
18% p.a.
2.
Briefly stated, the facts of the
case are that the petitioner was
s
appointed as
s Regular T-Mate with the ers
stwhile Punjab State Electricity
y
Board [now
Punjab State Power Corporation
n Ltd. (PSPCL)] on 24.10.1990
0
and was sub
bsequently promoted to the p
post of Assistant Lineman on
n
17.10.1996.

3.
It has further been pleaded that
the petitioner was residing in a
a
joint family a
along with his father and brothe
er. His brother had rented out a
a
portion of t
the house in the year 2012 to
o one Ravinder Singh son of
f
Manmohan S
Singh, a private contractor runni
ing the business under the name
e
and style of
M/s S.R.Powers, Guruharsai.
The said tenant/contractor was
s
working with
h PSPCL and, according to the p
petitioner, he had made an illegal
l
direct connec
ction from the meter in order to
o obtain electricity supply in an
n
unauthorized
d manner, without the knowledge
e of the petitioner and his family
y
members. T
he petitioner has asserted that h
he had no direct dealing with the
e
said tenant an
nd had no knowledge of the alleg
ged illegal connection.
4.
On 01.03.2013, officials of the P
PSPCL conducted an inspection
n
at the premis
ses. During inspection, it was no
oticed that the meter, which was
s
installed on t
the pillar box outside the house,
, was neither locked nor bearing
g
MTC seals.
The LED of the meter was not
flickering, the terminal block of
f
meter was b
burnt and the incoming wire
had allegedly been connected
d
VIMAL KUMAR
2026.09.08 18:07
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

CWP-1087-2024 (O
O&M)
(3)

bypassing the meter. On the
directly by
e basis of said inspection, the
e
inspecting of
fficials recorded a finding that
the residents of the inspecting
g
premises we
ere obtaining electricity supply
y in an unauthorized manner.
.
Consequently
y, a notice was issued to the pet
titioner to deposit Rs.2,62,566/-
-
as compensa
ation and Rs.50,000/- as comp
pounding fee. Pursuant to the
e
report submi
itted by the inspecting team, th
he petitioner was placed under
r
suspension.
5.
Subsequently, FIR No.82 dated
d 07.03.2013 under Section 135
5
of the Electr
ricity Act was registered against
t the petitioner at Police Station
n
Anti Power T
Theft Bathinda, Bathinda. Ther
eafter, the petitioner was served
d
with charge-s
sheet dated 06.06.2013 containin
ng the following charge:
“The Addl. SE/Enforcement, PSPC
CL, Sri Muktsar Sahib checked A/c
c
N
No.CK46/503 on dated 01.03.201
13, which was in the name of Sh.

N
Natha Singh. During checking, it w
was found that he (Sh. Sukhwinder
r
Singh, Assistant Lineman) is resid
ding in this premises and he (Sh.

Sukhwinder Singh, Assistant L
Lineman) is getting electricity
y
concession on this account. His m
meter was installed in the pillar box
x
outside his residence. The pillar
box was not locked and there was
s
no MT seal attached to it. The LED
D flicker of meter was closed. The
e
terminal block of meter was bur
rnt. He (Sh. Sukhwinder Singh,

A
Assistant Lineman) was found i
indulging in the theft of energy
y
through incoming electric wire b
by bypassing the meter. Besides
s
above, he (Sh. Sukhwinder Singh, A
Assistant Lineman) made a joint in
n
4 core cable passing over the roof
f of his house by adjoining it with 3
3
p
phase supply to run his cutter/pre
ess motor and in this way, he was
s
f
found indulging in theft of
f energy. Due to above
e
omissions/commissions/irregularit
ties, he (Sh. Sukhwinder Singh,

A
Assistant Lineman) is held directly
y responsible under Act 4 and 20 A
A
– 1971 of PSEB now PSPCL.”

of Employees Conduct Regulation

The petitioner submitted a detai
6.
iled reply to the charge-sheet on
n
28.06.2013
(Annexure P-3). However,
no departmental inquiry was
s
VIMAL KUMAR
2026.09.08 18:07
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

CWP-1087-2024 (O
O&M)
(4)

hereafter. Meanwhile, the crim
conducted th
minal proceedings arising out of
f
FIR No.82 d
dated 07.03.2013, culminated in
the conviction of the petitioner
r
by the learne
ed Judge, Special Court, Sri M
Muktsar Sahib, vide judgment of
f
conviction an
nd order of sentence dated 24.0
01.2017 (Annexure P-4) and he
e
was ordered
to undergo rigorous imprisonme
ent for a period of 2 years. The
e
petitioner cha
allenged the judgment of convic
ction and order of sentence dated
d
24.01.2017
(Annexure P-4) by filing CR
RA-S-625-SB-2017 before this
s
Court. On t
the basis of said conviction, the
e petitioner was dismissed from
m
service vide o
order dated 23.02.2017 (Annexu
ure P-5).
7.
Aggrieved against the order
of dismissal, the petitioner
r
preferred an
appeal before the Appellate Au
uthority. Since the appeal was
s
not being co
onsidered and decided, the petit
ioner approached this Court by
y
filing CWP-
12379-2020 titled ‘Sukhwinder
Singh Vs. Punjab State Power
r
Corporation
Limited, Patiala & others’. The
e said writ petition was disposed
d
of by this C
Court, vide order dated 21.08.
.2020 (Annexure P-6), thereby
y
directing the
Appellate Authority to decide t
the appeal filed by the petitioner
r
against the o
order of dismissal dated 23.02.
.2017, within a period of three
e
months. In
compliance thereof, the Appe
ellate Authority considered the
e
appeal of the
e petitioner and rejected the sam
me, vide order dated 15.10.2020
0
(Annexure P
-7).
8.
The petitioner, thereafter, cha
allenged the said order dated
d
15.10.2020 (
(Annexure P-7), by filing CWP-
-23330-2021 titled ‘Sukhwinder
r
Singh Vs. P
Punjab State Power Corporatio
on Limited, Patiala & others’.
.
However, sin
nce the criminal appeal preferre
ed by the petitioner against his
s
conviction w
was pending adjudication, the sa
aid writ petition was withdrawn
n
VIMAL KUMAR
2026.09.08 18:07
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

CWP-1087-2024 (O
O&M)
(5)

to file a fresh petition after the d
with liberty t
decision of the appeal, vide order
r
dated 17.08.2
2022 (Annexure P-8).
9.
The criminal appeal i.e. CRA-
-S-625-SB-2017, was thereafter
r
allowed by th
his Court, vide judgment dated 0
08.06.2023 (Annexure P-9), and
d
the petitioner
r was acquitted of the charges lev
veled against him.
10.
After his acquittal in the crimina
al case arising out of FIR No.82
2
dated 07.03.2
2013, the petitioner submitted a
representation dated 26.06.2023

(Annexure P
P-10) seeking reinstatement in
service, followed by reminder
r
dated 21.11.2
2023 (Annexure P-11). Howeve
er, the claim of the petitioner for
r
reinstatemen
t has been rejected, vide i
internal communication dated
d
06.11.2023 (
(Annexure P-12), which was co
onveyed to the petitioner, vide
e
letter dated 2
29.11.2023 (Annexure P-13). He
ence, the present writ petition.
11.
Short reply on behalf of the resp
pondents has been filed, wherein
n
all the mater
rial facts stated in the petition h
have been admitted. It has been
n
stated that af
fter issuance of charge-sheet da
ated 06.06.2013 and submission
n
of reply by th
he petitioner on 28.06.2013, the
petitioner was convicted by the
e
learned Judg
e, Special Court, Sri Muktsar Sa
ahib and was ordered to undergo
o
rigorous imp
prisonment for a period of 2 yea
ars, vide judgment of conviction
n
and order of
f sentence dated 24.01.2017 (An
nnexure P-4) and consequently,
,
the petitione
er was dismissed from service
e, vide order dated 23.02.2017
7
(Annexure P
P-5). It is further admitted that
the petitioner was subsequently
y
acquitted by
this Court vide judgment dated
d 08.06.2023 (Annexure P-9) in
n
CRA-S-625-
SB-2017. However, the stand
of the respondents is that since
e
the Appellat
e Authority had already rejecte
ed the petitioner’s appeal, vide
e
order dated 1
15.10.2020 and this Court, while
e acquitting him, had not granted
d
VIMAL KUMAR
2026.09.08 18:07
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

CWP-1087-2024 (O
O&M)
(6)

garding reinstatement, therefore
any relief reg
, no further action was required
d
on his repres
entation.
12.
Learned counsel for the peti
itioner submits that the very
y
foundation o
of the order of dismissal was the
e conviction of the petitioner in
n
the criminal
case i.e. FIR No.82 dated 07.03.
.2013, and once such conviction
n
has been set
aside by this Court and the peti
itioner has been acquitted of the
e
charges, the
respondents cannot deny him re
einstatement on the basis of the
e
very same al
llegations. It is further submitte
ed that the departmental charge-
-
sheet was ne
ever taken to its logical conclus
ion and no finding of guilt was
s
recorded aga
ainst the petitioner in any departm
mental inquiry. Learned counsel
l
submits that
t the petitioner is, therefore,
entitled to reinstatement with
h
continuity of
f service and consequential ben
nefits, including release of full
l
salary for the
e period of suspension and paym
ment of back wages. In support of
f
his submissio
ons, reliance has been placed up
pon the judgment of the Hon'ble
e
f India & others , (2019) 5 SCC
C
Supreme Cou
urt in Raj Narain Vs. Union of
809.
13.
Per contra, learned counsel
representing the respondents
s
submits that
t the petitioner was dismissed
d from service pursuant to his
s
conviction in
n a criminal case and that the or
rder dated 15.10.2020 passed by
y
the Appellate
e Authority had attained finality
y. It is further submitted that the
e
subsequent a
acquittal of the petitioner wo
ould not, by itself, confer an
n
automatic rig
ght to reinstatement or back w
wages. Learned counsel for the
e
respondents p
placed reliance upon the judgme
ent of Hon’ble Supreme Court in
n
2004(1) SCT 108 .
Union of Ind
dia & others Vs. Jaipal Singh, 2
14.
I have heard learned counsel fo
or the parties and have perused
d
the record.
VIMAL KUMAR
2026.09.08 18:07
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

CWP-1087-2024 (O
O&M)
(7)

It is an admitted fact that the pe
15.
etitioner was issued charge-sheet
t
dated 06.06.2
2013 (Annexure P-2) on the sam
me set of allegations, which were
e
subject matte
er of the criminal case. After
submitting reply to the charge-
-
sheet on 28.
.06.2013 (Annexure P-3), no fu
urther action was taken by the
e
respondents.
It is only after the judgmen
nt of conviction and order of
f
sentence dat
ted 24.01.2017 (Annexure P-4)
), the petitioner was dismissed
d
from service
e, vide order dated 23.02.2017
7 (Annexure P-5). Thus, the
e
dismissal w
was not founded upon any
finding of guilt recorded in
n
departmental
l proceedings. Thereafter, the
e petitioner preferred criminal
l
appeal bearin
ng CRA-S-625-SB-2017 against
t the judgment of conviction and
d
order of sen
ntence and was acquitted by th
his Court, vide judgment dated
d
08.06.2023 (A
Annexure P-9), wherein the follo
owing findings were recorded:
“7. In view of the amendment if
if the meter is installed outside the
e
p
premises of the consumer he w
will not be responsible for the
e
p
protection of the meter not only
from the theft or damage to the
e
seals/ meter, but also in case of
of tempering of the seals/ meter,

however, the benefit of the extende
ed scope of this regulation was not
t
given to the appellant as this
notification came into force on
n
21.06.2013, whereas, in the presen
nt case, inspection was carried out
t
on 01.03.2013. It was held by Ho
on'ble Apex Court in
"T. Barai v.

Henry Ah Hoe and Another" repo
orted as 1983 (1) SCC 177 that:
H
"22. It is only retroact
tive criminal legislation that is
s
prohibited under Article 20
0(1). The prohibition contained in
n
Article 20(1) is that no p
person shall be convicted of any
y
offence except for violation
of a law in force at the time of the
e
commission of the act cha
arged as an offence prohibits nor
r
shall he be subjected to a
a penalty greater than that which
h
might have been inflicted un
nder the law in force at the time of
f
the commission of the offen
nce. It is quite clear that insofar as
s
the Central Amendment Act
t creates new offences or enhances
s
punishment for a particular
r type of offence no person can be
e
convicted by such ex post
facto law nor can the enhanced
VIMAL KUMAR d
2026.09.08 18:07
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

CWP-1087-2024 (O
O&M)
(8)

punishment prescribed by t
the amendment be applicable. But
t
insofar as the Central
Amendment Act reduces the
e
punishment for an offe
ence punishable under Section
n
16(1)(a) of the Act, there
e is no reason why the accused
d
should not have the benef
efit of such reduced punishment.

The rule of beneficial con
nstruction requires that even ex
x
post facto law of such a ty
ype should be applied to mitigate
e
the rigour of the law. The
principle is based both on sound
d
reason and common sense."
"
xx xx
xx
11. Secondly, on record this is
s an admitted fact that procedure
e
regarding seizure of equipments
used for the purpose of theft or
r
tampering was not followed by th
he raiding team. Regulation 37.2
2
(a)(ii) of Supply Code – 2007 whic
ch laid down the procedure in this
s
regard is as under:-
“(ii) In case where a c
consumer is suspected to have
e
indulged/indulging in elect
tricity by tampering theft with of
f
the meter/metering equipm
ment and/or its seals or otherwise
e
then such equipment shall b
be sealed by the Authorized Officer
r
so as to keep it as 'in foun
d condition'. The consumer or his
s
representative will also be
permitted to affix his seal at that
t
time.”
xx xx
xx
This is also an admitted fact th
hat meter was not taken into the
e
p
possession. No photography or
videography of the incident was
s
conducted. Though, a CD regardi
ing videography was produced by
y
PW1-Kulwant Singh during his tes
stimony; but it was rightly rejected
d
by the learned Court as no ment
tion of any such videography was
s
made in the checking report whil
le admittedly, it was procedurally
y
mandated to record any such activ
vity in the checking report.
12. In view of the discussion
made above and on the basis of
f
conjoint consideration of all the a
aspects, in my considered opinion,

p
prosecution has failed to prove it
ts case beyond reasonable doubts,

therefore, the present appeal is all
lowed and appellant is acquitted of
f
the charges in the present case.”

VIMAL KUMAR
2026.09.08 18:07
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

CWP-1087-2024 (O
O&M)
(9)

Once the petitioner has been a
16.
acquitted of the charges leveled
d
against him,
the petitioner gets the right to
be reinstated into service. The
e
dismissal is n
not on the basis of having proved
d the charge in the departmental
l
inquiry and
it is the case of the respon
ndents that after the petitioner
r
submitted hi
is reply, the charge-sheet issu
ued to the petitioner was kept
t
pending. It
is also not disputed that the
petitioner was dismissed from
m
service, vide
e order dated 23.02.2017 (Annex
xure P-5), solely on account of
f
his convictio
on by the learned Judge, Special
l Court, Sri Muktsar Sahib, vide
e
judgment da
ated 24.01.2017 (Annexure P-4
). Thus, the dismissal was not
t
founded upo
on any independent finding of
guilt recorded in departmental
l
proceedings.
The entire basis of the order o
of dismissal was the conviction
n
suffered by th
he petitioner in the criminal case
e. The said conviction, however,
,
no longer sur
rvives. This Court in CRA-S-625
5-SB-2017, vide judgment dated
d
08.06.2023 (A
Annexure P-9), examined the m
matter on merits and acquitted the
e
petitioner. W
While doing so, this Court
specifically noticed material
l
deficiencies i
in the inspection and seizure pro
ocedure and ultimately recorded
d
a categorical
finding that the prosecution had
d failed to prove its case beyond
d
reasonable do
oubt. Once the conviction, which
h constituted the sole foundation
n
for the order
r of dismissal, has been set asi
ide and the petitioner has been
n
acquitted of t
the charges leveled against him
by this Court, the very basis on
n
which the pe
titioner was dismissed from serv
vice stands extinguished.
17.
The contention of the respo
ondents that the order dated
d
15.10.2020 (
(Annexure P-7) passed by the
e Appellate Authority was not
t
challenged b
by the petitioner before his acqui
ittal also does not advance their
r
case. The pe
etitioner had, in fact, challenged
d the said order by filing CWP-
-
23330-2021,
which was permitted to be with
hdrawn with liberty to approach
h
VIMAL KUMAR
2026.09.08 18:07
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

CWP-1087-2024 (O
O&M)
(10)

fter the decision of his criminal a
this Court af
appeal. The petitioner thereafter
r
approached
the respondents immediately u
upon his acquittal and sought
t
reinstatemen
t. The subsequent acquittal of
the petitioner by this Court on
n
08.06.2023 (
(Annexure P-9) constitutes a ma
aterial change in circumstances.
.
The responde
ents were, therefore, required to
reconsider the petitioner's claim
m
in the light
of the judgment of acquittal. T
The rejection of the petitioner's
s
representatio
on merely by relying upon the
earlier order dated 15.10.2020
0
(Annexure P
P-7), without considering the eff
fect of the subsequent acquittal,
,
cannot be sus
stained.
18.
In view of the above discussio
on, the order dated 23.02.2017
7
(Annexure P
P-5) dismissing the petitioner fro
om service cannot be sustained.
.
The consequ
uential order dated 15.10.2020
(Annexure P-7) passed by the
e
Appellate Au
uthority and the subsequent co
ommunication dated 06.11.2023

(Annexure P
P-12), conveyed vide letter date
ed 29.11.2023 (Annexure P-13),
,
rejecting the
e petitioner's claim for reinstate
ement, are also liable to be set
t
aside.
19.
The question which now ar
rises is as to the extent of
f
consequentia
al monetary benefits to which th
he petitioner is entitled. In Raj
j
se (supra) , relied on by the pe
etitioner, the Hon’ble Supreme
e
Narain’s cas
Court consid
dered the entitlement of an emp
ployee to back wages upon his
s
acquittal in
criminal proceedings and hel
ld that such claim has to be
e
examined ha
aving regard to the circumstanc
ces in which the employee was
s
kept out of s
ervice. The Hon’ble Supreme C
Court approved the grant of back
k
wages from t
the date of acquittal till the date
e of reinstatement and also held
d
that the appe
ellant therein was entitled to fu
ull salary for the period during
g
which he rem
mained under suspension.
VIMAL KUMAR
2026.09.08 18:07
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

CWP-1087-2024 (O
O&M)
(11)

At the same time, in Union o
20.
of India and others v. Jaipal
l
4) 1 SCC 121 , relied on by
the respondents, the Hon’ble
e
Singh, (200
Supreme Co
ourt examined the claim for co
onsequential monetary benefits
s
where the em
mployee had been dismissed f
from service on account of his
s
involvement
in a criminal case and was sub
bsequently acquitted. The Court
t
held that, wh
here the employee was kept out o
of service on account of his own
n
conduct lead
ding to his prosecution, he cou
uld not, merely because of his
s
subsequent a
acquittal, claim full back wage
es for the entire period during
g
which he r
remained out of service. The
e entitlement to consequential
l
monetary ben
nefits, therefore, has to be determ
mined having regard to the facts
s
and circumst
tances of each case and the r
eason for which the employee
e
remained out
t of service.
21.
The facts of the present case, h
however, stand on a somewhat
t
different foo
oting. The departmental enquiry
y initiated against the petitioner
r
was never co
oncluded and the order of dism
missal was founded exclusively
y
upon his co
onviction in the criminal ca
ase. The said conviction was
s
subsequently
y set aside by this Court and th
he petitioner was acquitted vide
e
judgment dat
ted 08.06.2023 (Annexure P-9).
Thereafter, the petitioner sought
t
his reinstatem
ment, but the respondents, despi
ite being aware of his acquittal,
,
declined to r
reconsider his case and continu
ued to deny him the benefit of
f
reinstatemen
t in service. Thus, the continued
exclusion of the petitioner from
m
service after
r 08.06.2023 was no longer
r attributable to the criminal
l
proceedings
or to any subsisting finding of g
guilt, but was a consequence of
f
the responden
nts’ failure to take consequential
l action following his acquittal.
22.
In the light of the aforesaid deci
sions, the claim of the petitioner
r
for back wag
ges for the entire period commen
ncing from the date of dismissal
l
VIMAL KUMAR
2026.09.08 18:07
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

CWP-1087-2024 (O
O&M)
(12)

cepted merely on the ground tha
cannot be acc
at he was subsequently acquitted.
.
The appropri
iate relief would be to grant the
petitioner back wages from the
e
date of his ac
cquittal, i.e. 08.06.2023 (Annexu
ue P-9), till the date of his actual
l
reinstatemen
t. This approach also balances t
the equities between the parties
s
while ensurin
ng that the petitioner is not de
eprived of salary for the period
d
during which
h, despite having been acquitted
d, the respondents continued to
o
deny him rein
nstatement.
23.
Consequently, the present writ
petition is allowed. The order
r
dated 23.02.
2017 (Annexure P-5), whereby
y the petitioner was dismissed
d
from service
e; order dated 15.10.2020 (A
Annexure P-7) passed by the
e
Appellate A
Authority, rejecting the petitio
oner’s appeal; communication
n
bearing Mem
mo No.35718 dated 06.11.2023
(Annexure P-12), conveyed to
o
the petitione
er vide letter dated 29.11.2023
(Annexure P-13), rejecting the
e
petitioner's
representations dated 26.06.
.2023 (Annexure P-10) and
d
21.11.2023 (
(Annexure P-11), are hereby q
quashed. The respondents are
e
directed to r
einstate the petitioner in service
e. The petitioner is also held
d
entitled to ba
ack wages from 08.06.2023, i.e.
the date of his acquittal, till the
e
ondents are directed to calculate
date of his a
actual reinstatement. The respo
e
and release
the arrears of back wages pay
able to the petitioner, within a
a
period of thr
ree months from the date of rec
ceipt of a certified copy of this
s
order.

08.09.2026
Vimal




Whether speaking/reasoned:

Whether reportable:
(NAMIT KUMAR)
JUDGE
Yes/No
Yes/No
VIMAL KUMAR
2026.09.08 18:07
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.