Sri Sabyaschi Pandey, Constable / GD vs Union of India

2026:MHC:4464
WP No. 10586 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on 28.10.2026
Pronounced on 03.11.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
WP No. 10586 of 2023
CNR:{HCMA010353702023}
and
WMP No.10528 of 2023
Sri Sabyaschi Pandey
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. Union of India
Service through Secretary,
Ministry of Home Affairs,
New Delhi- 110 001.
2. The Inspector General CISF
South Sector Headquarters Ch Pt. Campus,
Chennai, pin- 600 009.
3. The Deputy Inspector General
CISF, SZ -I, HQ. Chennai,
D Block, Rajaji Bhawan,
Vasant Nagar, Chennai- 600 090.
4. The Commandant
CISF,4th RB Sivagangai, P.O,
Amaravathipudur, DT Sivagangai,
Tamil Nadu, Pin- 630 301.
..Respondent(s)
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
to issue a Writ of certiorari to call for the records from the Respondents and
quash the order passed by the 2nd Respondent in vide No. V- 15016 /CISF /
__________
Page1 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:09:57 pm )

2026:MHC:4464
WP No. 10586 of 2023
SS / L & R/ SP / Rev / 2021 / 5297 dated 07/ 04/2021 and the order passed by
the Appellate Authority /4th respondent in vide No.V- 15014 /CISF / 4th RB(S)
MAJ- 36/ DISC /SP / 2020 / 1447 dated 08/ 07/ 2020 and the order in original
passed by the 3rd Respondent in vide No. 15014 (1) / Appeal -12/ SP -4th RB
(S) SZ-1 / L and R / 2020 / 6094 dated 04/11/ 2020 as illegal, arbitrary and
contrary to law.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.Prabir Kumar Ghosh
Senior Counsel
for Mr.C.Mohan Raj
For Respondent(s): Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan,
Additional Solicitor of India
assisted by Mr.A.R.Sakthivel,
Senior Panel Counsel
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorari,
calling for the records of the respondents and quashing the order passed by the
second respondent dated 07.04.2021, the order passed by the Appellate
Authority/fourth respondent dated 08.07.2020, and the original order passed by
the third respondent dated 04.11.2020.
2. The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of the present Writ
Petition are that the petitioner was appointed as a Constable in the Central
Industrial Security Force (CISF). While he was on deputation with BOI, Delhi
(IB), a charge memorandum dated 24.03.2020 was served on him. The charge
__________
Page2 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:09:57 pm )

2026:MHC:4464
WP No. 10586 of 2023
memorandum contained two charges, to which the petitioner submitted his
explanation. Not being satisfied with the explanation, the disciplinary authority,
viz., the fourth respondent, appointed an Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer
conducted a departmental enquiry and submitted the enquiry report on
06.06.2020, holding that both the charges were proved.
2.1. Upon considering the enquiry report, the disciplinary authority
imposed the punishment of removal from service by order dated 08.07.2020.
Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate
Authority, which confirmed the order of the disciplinary authority by order
dated 04.11.2020. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a revision, which was also
dismissed by order dated 07.04.2021. Not being satisfied with the aforesaid
orders, the petitioner preferred another appeal, which was rejected on
07.09.2021. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No.27496 of 2021.
By order dated 08.08.2022, this Court granted liberty to the petitioner to
challenge the final order dated 08.07.2020. Pursuant to the said order, the
present Writ Petition has been filed.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the
materials available on record.
__________
Page3 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:09:57 pm )

2026:MHC:4464
WP No. 10586 of 2023
4. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend
that the charges framed against the petitioner relate to cognizable offences,
namely, human trafficking and corrupt practices. However, in the present case,
the authorities have not even registered an FIR. Instead, they have initiated
disciplinary proceedings on the basis of vague charges. It is his contention that,
when allegations of human trafficking have been levelled against the petitioner,
the absence of an FIR itself indicates the lack of supporting material. Further,
with regard to the alleged disproportionate assets, though the respondent
authorities have stated that a substantial amount of Rs.56.31 lakhs was credited
to the petitioner's two SBI credit accounts, the said allegation has not been
substantiated by the respondents. They have merely relied upon certain bank
entries, whereas the petitioner submitted a detailed explanation supported by
relevant documents. Without considering those documents, the disciplinary
authority arrived at an erroneous conclusion.
4.1. The learned Senior Counsel would further contend that the entire
disciplinary proceeding originated from the seizure of the petitioner's cell phone
and the data retrieved therefrom. Having initiated the proceedings on that basis,
the respondent authorities failed to follow the procedure contemplated under
Section 12 read with Rule 14 of the Central Industrial Security Force Act, 1968
(hereinafter referred to as the “CISF Act”). It is his further contention that no
witnesses having direct knowledge of the alleged incidents were examined.
__________
Page4 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:09:57 pm )

2026:MHC:4464
WP No. 10586 of 2023
Though the alleged occurrence took place in Delhi, the enquiry was conducted
at Sivagangai, thereby depriving the petitioner of an effective opportunity to
cross-examine the relevant witnesses. The learned Senior Counsel would further
submit that the documents were marked without examining the relevant
witnesses and, therefore, their veracity was not established in the manner known
to law.
4.2. The learned Senior Counsel would further contend that, as per
Section 21(3) of the CISF Act, any proceedings against CISF personnel for the
alleged delinquency ought to have been initiated within a period of three
months. Therefore, the present disciplinary proceedings are barred by limitation.
He would further contend that, as per Section 8, Rule 21 and Appendix A, the
President of India is the appointing authority of the petitioner. In the absence of
proper authorisation from the President of India, the order of removal from
service passed by the fourth respondent is non est in law. He would also
contend that the disciplinary, appellate and revisional authorities have failed to
record findings on each of the articles of charge after taking into consideration
the defence raised by the petitioner. In support of his contentions, the learned
Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon the following
judgments:
(i) State of Uttar Pradesh and Others v. Saroj Kumar
Sinha , reported in (2010) 2 SCC 772;
__________
Page5 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:09:57 pm )

2026:MHC:4464
WP No. 10586 of 2023
(ii) Ram Lal v. State of Rajasthan and Others, reported in
(2024) 1 SCC 175; and
(iii) Dr. J. Nelson Samuel Jebastin v. State of Tamil Nadu
(W.P.No.39645 of 2024 dated 29.09.2026).
5. Per contra, the learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the
respondents would submit that the factual contentions raised by the learned
Senior Counsel for the petitioner cannot be examined in detail in writ
proceedings. According to him, this Court can examine the correctness of the
procedure followed by the authorities, but not reappreciate the correctness of the
decision itself. He would further contend that the failure to initiate criminal
prosecution cannot, by itself, be a ground for the petitioner to escape the
charges levelled against him. It is his further contention that the objection raised
by the petitioner regarding the non-preparation of a mahazar is not applicable to
the present departmental proceedings, as the relevant provision deals with the
procedure to be followed by CISF personnel when an offence is committed in
their presence.
5.1. The learned Additional Solicitor General would further contend that,
though the agreement under Section 8, Rule 21 and Appendix A was executed
by a person on behalf of the President of India, Section 32 of the CISF Act deals
with the power of disciplinary authorities. In the case of the petitioner, who is a
Constable, the competent disciplinary authority is specified in Schedule I.
__________
Page6 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:09:57 pm )

2026:MHC:4464
WP No. 10586 of 2023
According to Schedule I, a Senior Commandant or Deputy Commandant is
empowered to impose the punishment of removal from service on enrolled
members of the Force, except Sub-Inspectors and Inspectors. In the present
case, the petitioner, being a Constable, was subjected to disciplinary action by
the competent authority. It is also his contention that, though the respondent
authorities disputed the alleged seizure of the cell phone, the petitioner himself
admitted during cross-examination that the cell phone had been seized.
Therefore, the petitioner cannot raise any grievance in that regard. Hence, he
prayed to dismiss the present Writ Petition.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made on
either side.
7. Before proceeding to examine the factual aspects of the case, it would
be appropriate to consider the legal defences raised by the petitioner. The first
and foremost contention raised by the petitioner relates to Section 12 read with
Rule 14 of the CISF Act. It is his contention that, whenever an offence is
committed and any property is seized, a mahazar has to be prepared in
accordance with Rule 14. In the present case, since the entire issue arose from
the seizure of the petitioner's cell phone, the absence of a seizure mahazar
renders the seizure liable to be doubled.
__________
Page7 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:09:57 pm )

2026:MHC:4464
WP No. 10586 of 2023
8. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer to Section 12 of the CISF Act,
which reads as follows:-
“12. Power to search without warrant.—(1) Whenever any
member of the Force, not below the prescribed rank, has reasons
to believe that any such offence as is referred to in section 11 has
been or is being committed and that a search warrant cannot be
obtained without affording the offender an opportunity of
escaping or of concealing evidence of the offence, he may detain
the offender and search his person and belongings forthwith and,
if he thinks proper, arrest any person whom he has reason to
believe to have committed the offence.
(2) The provisions of the 42[Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (2 of 1974)] relating to searches under that Code shall, so
far as may be, apply to searches under this section.”
9. On a reading of Section 12 of the CISF Act, it is evident that the
provision prescribes a certain procedure to be followed when an offence is
committed or comes to the notice of CISF personnel while discharging their
duties. However, in the present case, the CISF personnel himself, being a
member of the Force, came under adverse notice for the commission of certain
irregularities and misconduct, which came to light through WhatsApp
communications. Therefore, as rightly contended by the learned Additional
Solicitor General, Section 12 of the CISF Act is not stricto sensu applicable to
__________
Page8 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:09:57 pm )

2026:MHC:4464
WP No. 10586 of 2023
the present departmental proceedings. Without prejudice to the aforesaid
finding, it is also relevant to note that, when the petitioner was cross-examined
by the Presenting Officer on behalf of the management, he answered Question
No.2 as follows:-
“Q.No.2 PW-1 Insp/Min, S.Ravichandran in his statement
stated that an enquiry reported received from IB HQ, New
Delhi through DIG SZ HQ Chennai along with your posting
order? What is the reason for conducting enquiry by IB against
your?
Ans: During deputation, IB authorities seized my mobile
No.9910149673 from mobile bag during duty hours and
conducted enquiry on the documents i.e. copies of visas,
passport and travel itinerary of Indian and Nepal Passengers,
seemingly of the passengers travelling to and from IGI Airport
New Delhi have been found storing in my phone.”
10. Thus, the petitioner has categorically admitted the seizure of his cell
phone. Therefore, even assuming, for the sake of argument, that a seizure
mahazar ought to have been prepared, in view of the petitioner's admission
regarding the seizure of the cell phone, this Court does not find any serious
infirmity in the disciplinary proceedings on that ground.
11. The next contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner relates to Section 21(3) of the CISF Act. Here again, it is contended
that any disciplinary proceedings against CISF personnel must be initiated
__________
Page9 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:09:57 pm )

2026:MHC:4464
WP No. 10586 of 2023
within a period of three months. For ready reference, this Court deems it
appropriate to extract Section 21(3) of the CISF Act:
“ 21. Protection of acts of members of the Force._ (3)
Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the
time being in force, any legal proceeding, whether civil or
criminal, which may lawfully be brought against any member of
the Force for anything done or intended to be done under the
powers conferred by, or in pursuance of, any provision of this
Act or the rules thereunder shall be commenced within three
months after the act complained of shall have been committed
and not otherwise; and notice in writing of such proceeding and
of the cause thereof shall be given to the person concerned and
his supervisory officer at least one month before the
commencement of such proceeding.”
12. The heading of Section 21(3) of the CISF Act relates to the
“Protection of acts of members of the Force.” On a harmonious reading of
Section 21 of the CISF Act, it is evident that, while CISF personnel discharging
their duties, if any third parties “body or property” affected, and if such act
gives rise to any civil or criminal proceedings to those persons, such
proceedings must be initiated within the prescribed period of three months. As
rightly contended by the learned Additional Solicitor General, the said provision
cannot be pressed into service by the CISF personnel for their misconduct. To
put it precisely, they above provision only applies to proceedings arising out of
acts done by CISF personnel in the discharge of their duties. Therefore, the
contention that the present disciplinary proceedings are barred by limitation is
also liable to be rejected.
__________
Page10 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:09:57 pm )

2026:MHC:4464
WP No. 10586 of 2023
13. Another legal defence raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner relates to Section 8 read with Rule 21 and Appendix A of the CISF
Act. Relying upon these provisions, the learned Senior Counsel would contend
that, since the President of India is the appointing authority of the petitioner,
any final, appellate or revisional order passed by the respondents, in the absence
of a delegation of power by the President of India, is without authority.
However, the learned Additional Solicitor General would draw the attention of
this Court to Rule 32(1) of the CISF Rules. For ready reference, the same is
extracted hereunder:-
“32. Disciplinary Authorities._ (1) The disciplinary
authority in respect of an enrolled member of the Force for the
purpose of imposing any particular penalty or the passing of
any disciplinary order shall be the authority specified in this
behalf in Schedule I under whose administrative control the
enrolled member is serving and shall include any authority
mentioned in the said Schedule superior to such authority.”
14. According to Section 32(1) of the CISF Act, the disciplinary authority
in respect of enrolled members of the Force is specified in Schedule I. As per
Schedule I, the Senior Commandant and Deputy Commandant are empowered
to impose the punishment of removal from service on enrolled members of the
Force, except Sub-Inspectors and Inspectors. Therefore, since the present
disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner, who was serving
__________
Page11 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:09:57 pm )

2026:MHC:4464
WP No. 10586 of 2023
as a Constable, this Court finds no reason to hold that the impugned order
suffers from any infirmity on the ground of lack of competence, as the same is
in accordance with Section 32(1) of the CISF Act.
15.Now let us analyse to the factual aspects of the case. The learned
Senior Counsel would contend that the alleged occurrence took place in Delhi,
whereas the enquiry was conducted at Sivagangai, and no witness having direct
knowledge of the alleged incidents was examined. He would further contend
that the Enquiry Officer merely marked the documents produced through the
departmental witnesses and recorded findings without proper proof of the same.
However, this Court is unable to accept the above submission.
16. A perusal of the charge memorandum reveals that the persons through
whom the documents were proposed to be proved. Even if the witnesses did not
have direct knowledge of the alleged occurrence, the relevant question is
whether the documents relied upon by the management, being official records,
were properly proved through the witnesses concerned. The departmental
witnesses could explain the records, which they came to know through the
same. Therefore, the mere fact that the witnesses did not have direct knowledge
of the occurrence does not, by itself, establish that the documents were not
proved.
__________
Page12 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:09:57 pm )

2026:MHC:4464
WP No. 10586 of 2023
17. Though the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner relies upon the
judgment in Saroj Kumar Sinha (cited supra), that case involved a situation
where no witnesses had been examined. In the present case, witnesses were
examined, through whom the documents were marked. Apart from that, the
petitioner himself submitted a letter dated 23.07.2018, wherein he categorically
admitted that he had facilitated passengers during immigration in return for
handsome amounts of money. He also admitted that he had received money
from various persons in India and from foreign countries. Though the learned
Senior Counsel for the petitioner would contend that the said letter was obtained
by coercion and duress, but the petitioner has miserably failed to establish the
same by placing relevant material on record. But, the learned Senior Counsel
would submit that the fact that the petitioner's thumb impression was obtained
in addition to his signature in the letter would demonstrate that the letter was
obtained through coercion and duress. However, the mere fact that both the
signature and thumb impression were obtained would only show alertness of the
respondent and not the coercion or duress.
18. Further, during cross-examination, the petitioner admitted that
substantial amounts had been credited to his bank account. Though the
petitioner contended that the amounts had been received from his father, mother
__________
Page13 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:09:57 pm )

2026:MHC:4464
WP No. 10586 of 2023
and brother, he fairly admitted that no documents were available to substantiate
the same. Admittedly, the amounts were not transferred through the bank
accounts of his father, mother or brother; rather, the transactions involved either
cash deposits or transfers from other accounts. Furthermore, the petitioner's
failure to disclose the purchase of a flat worth Rs.15 lakhs also lends support to
the case of the respondents.
19. Another contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner is that, in the absence of criminal prosecution for the alleged offences
of human trafficking and corruption, the disciplinary proceedings cannot be
sustained. In support of this contention, he relies upon the judgment in Ram Lal
(cited supra), contending that, when an acquittal entitles an employee to be
discharged from disciplinary proceedings, the absence of any criminal
prosecution should also render the disciplinary proceedings liable to be
interfered with. This Court is unable to accept the said submission.
20. The service rules do not mandate that a criminal complaint must be
lodged whenever a charge is framed against an employee, even the alleged
misconduct may also give rise to criminal prosecution. What is essential is
whether the charges framed against the delinquent employee have been
established in accordance with law. In the present case, the petitioner has
__________
Page14 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:09:57 pm )

2026:MHC:4464
WP No. 10586 of 2023
admitted the seizure of his cell phone. It is also an admitted fact that details
relating to 280 passengers were identified in the cell phone, and this fact was
not seriously disputed by the petitioner.
21. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to set out the contours of
judicial review in disciplinary proceedings. In this regard, this Court would like
to refer to the following judgments:-
(i) B.C.Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India reported in (1995)
6 SCC 749
(ii) Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) Vs.
Ajai Kumar Srivastava reported in (2021) 2 SCC 61.
(iii) The Indian Oil Corporation & Ors., Vs. Ajit Kumar
Singh & Anr., reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 478.
Through the above judgements, the following principles
would emerge:-
(i) Power of Judicial review is not like an appeal. But such
power is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair
treatment and the compliance of natural justice.
(ii) The power of judicial review is not like an appellate
remedy to substitute its own finding, unless the findings of the
Original Authority and Appellate Authority is perverse and
without evidence.
(iii) The High Court had no jurisdiction to review the
penalty, unless the same is shockingly disproportionate.
(iv) The mere possibility to arrive at yet another finding,
cannot be a reason to substitute the finding of the disciplinary
Authority.
(v) The judicial review is meant only to ensure fairness in
treatment and not to ensure fairness of conclusion.
__________
Page15 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:09:57 pm )

2026:MHC:4464
WP No. 10586 of 2023
(vi) While exercising the power of judicial review, so long
as there is some evidence to support the conclusion arrived at by
the original authority, the same has to be sustained.
22. In the present case, as already discussed, there is material available
against the petitioner. He has failed to satisfactorily explain to the authorities
about the source of the substantial amounts credited to his account and the
circumstances in which the three credits referred to in the proceedings were
received. In view of the aforesaid factual position, as rightly contended by the
learned Additional Solicitor General, this Court is of the view that, it cannot
interfere with the findings of the disciplinary authority unless the same are
shown to be perverse or vitiated by a recognised ground for judicial review. On
a consideration of the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner, this Court does not find any such perversity in the impugned order.
23. The learned Senior Counsel would further contend that the orders
passed by the Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority do not contain
adequate reasons and are, therefore, liable to be interfered with. In this regard, it
is relevant to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in AAI v.
Pradip Kumar Banerjee , reported in (2025) 4 SCC 111. The relevant portion of
the said judgment is extracted hereunder:-
“ 35. It is trite law that in disciplinary proceedings, it is not
necessary for the disciplinary authority to deal with each and every
ground raised by the delinquent officer in the representation against
__________
Page16 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:09:57 pm )

2026:MHC:4464
WP No. 10586 of 2023
the proposed penalty and detailed reasons are not required to be
recorded in the order imposing punishment if he accepts the
findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer. Our view stands fortified
by the decision of this Court in Boloram Bordoloi v. Lakhimi Gaolia
Bank [Boloram Bordoloi v. Lakhimi Gaolia Bank, (2021) 3 SCC
806 : (2021) 1 SCC (L&S) 624] , wherein it was held : (SCC p. 810,
para 11)
“11. … Further, it is well settled that if the disciplinary authority
accepts the findings recorded by the enquiry officer and passes an
order, no detailed reasons are required to be recorded in the order
imposing punishment. The punishment is imposed based on the
findings recorded in the enquiry report, as such, no further
elaborate reasons are required to be given by the disciplinary
authority.
36. All that is required on the part of the disciplinary authority is
that it should examine the evidence in the disciplinary proceedings
and arrive at a reasoned conclusion that the material placed on
record during the course of enquiry establishes the guilt of the
delinquent employee on the principle of preponderance of
probabilities. This is precisely what was done by the disciplinary
authority and the appellate authority while dealing with the case of
the respondent.”
According to the above ratio, the primordial requirement is the application of
mind.
24. This Court has perused the orders passed by the Appellate Authority
and the Revisional Authority and finds that they contain a detailed discussion of
the respective charges and that there is sufficient material to demonstrate the
application of mind by the authorities concerned. Therefore, even the aforesaid
contention is liable to be rejected in view of the principles laid down in the
above judgment.
__________
Page17 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:09:57 pm )

2026:MHC:4464
WP No. 10586 of 2023
25. In view of the foregoing detailed discussion, this Court does not find
any merit in the present Writ Petition. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is
dismissed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No
costs.
03-11-2026
Index: Yes
Speaking Order
Neutral Citation: Yes
KV
To
1. Union of India
Service through Secretary,
Ministry of Home Affairs,
New Delhi- 110 001.
2. The Inspector General CISF
South Sector Headquarters Ch Pt. Campus,
Chennai, pin- 600 009.
3. The Deputy Inspector General
CISF, SZ -I, HQ. Chennai,
D Block, Rajaji Bhawan,
Vasant Nagar, Chennai- 600 090.
4. The Commandant
CISF,4th RB Sivagangai, P.O,
Amaravathipudur, DT Sivagangai,
Tamil Nadu, Pin- 630 301.
__________
Page18 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:09:57 pm )

2026:MHC:4464
WP No. 10586 of 2023
C.KUMARAPPAN J.
KV
Pre-Delivery in
W.P No.10586 of 2023
03-11-2026
__________
Page19 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:09:57 pm )