Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank vs Ramesh Chandra Meena

 [REPORTABLE] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No. 7451 of 2021 The Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank        …Appellant (s) (RMGB) & Anr. Versus Ramesh Chandra Meena & Anr.           …Respondent (s) J U D G M E N T M. R. Shah, J. 1.0. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 07.07.2021 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.311 of 2021, by which, the Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed the said Appeal and has confirmed the judgment and Page  1 of  27 order dated 28.01.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge, by which, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ   petition   preferred   by   the   respondent   herein (hereinafter referred to as the “original writ petitioner”) and directed the appellant Bank to allow the original writ petitioner to be represented by a retired employee of the Bank in the departmental inquiry, the Appellant Bank has preferred the present appeal. 2.0. The facts leading to the present appeal in nutshell are as under: 2.1. That the respondent herein – original writ petitioner was working as Cashier – cum­ Clerk (office Assistant). While working as a Branch Manager is alleged to had committed   certain   irregularities   amounting   to misconduct. A show cause notice was issued by the Bank   dated   24.4.2019   whereby   it   was   stated   that while working at Rawastar Branch, he had committed irregularities   while   granting   loans   to   farmers   / villagers under the loan scheme and he did not take adequate precautions and without written mandates of Page  2 of  27 borrowers, he transferred the loan amount in favour of another person and had thus committed misconduct. One another similar show cause notice was issued on dated 24.6.2019. Departmental Inquiry was initiated against   him.   A   chargesheet   dated   1.11.2019   was served upon the original writ petitioner by the Bank in terms of Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulation, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as the “Regulation, 2010”). A written reply was submitted by the original writ petitioner to the chargesheet   issued.   He   denied   the   charges   leveled against him. Not satisfied with the reply, the Bank initiated departmental inquiry. One Shri K.C. Gupta was appointed as an Enquirer Officer. An opportunity was   afforded   to   the   original   writ   petitioner   to   take assistance   of   a   defence   representative   (hereinafter referred to as “DR”) in accordance with  Regulation, 2010 as also in accordance with guidelines issued by the   Bank.   However,   the   original   writ   petitioner informed the Enquiry Officer that he may be allowed to defend   himself   in   the   inquiry   through   a   legal Page  3 of  27 practitioner.   Keeping   in   view   the   restrictions   under Regulation 44 of the Regulation, 2010 on engagement of   legal   practitioner   during   the   inquiry,   vide communication   dated   17.3.2020,   his   request permitting   him   to   defend   himself   through   a   legal practitioner   came   to   be   declined   by   the   Enquiry Officer.   A   request   was   made   to   the   Disciplinary Authority by the original writ petitioner permitting him to   engage   a   legal   practitioner   as   his   DR.   Having considered   that   no   complicated   legal   question   has been involved in the matter  and the Presenting Officer appointed by the Disciplinary Authority is neither Law Officer nor a legal practitioner and keeping in mind the Regulation 44 of Regulation, 2010 on engagement of legal practitioner during the inquiry, the request to permit   him   to   represent   through   legal   practitioner came to be   declined by the Disciplinary Authority, which was communicated to him vide communication dated 27.5.2020. Again a request was made by the original writ petitioner to permit him to engage a legal practitioner   as   his   DR   in   the   inquiry   proceedings, Page  4 of  27 which again came to be rejected. During the inquiry proceedings on 11.08.2020, the original writ petitioner submitted a consent letter of one Shri Mahesh Kumar Atal to be engaged as his DR. The said request was turned down. Again a request was made to permit him to engage any legal practitioner or any retired officer from the Bank as his DR, which again came to be turned down by the Disciplinary Authority. Aggrieved by   the   order   passed   by   the   Disciplinary   Authority dated   19.08.2020,   the   original   writ   petitioner approached the High Court by way of SB Civil Writ Petition No.8363 of 2020 inter alia, praying that he may be permitted to engage any legal practitioner or retired officer of the Bank as his DR. The said writ petition was opposed by the Bank. Regulation 44 of Regulation, 2010 and the Circular dated 31.01.2014 as also the guidelines issued by the Bank in respect of disciplinary   proceeding   that   no   outsider,   not associated with the Bank can be permitted to act as a DR were pressed into service. That by judgment and order   dated   28.1.2021,   the   learned   Single   Judge Page  5 of  27 allowed the said writ petition and directed the Bank to permit the original writ petitioner to be represented through retired officer of the Bank in the disciplinary proceedings.   Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, the Bank preferred appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court. By impugned judgment and order,   the   Division   Bench   of   the   High   Court   has dismissed the said appeal mainly on the ground that since circular dated 31.1.2014 and the Regulation 8.2 did not prohibit the utilization of the services of exemployee of the Bank, therefore, judgment and order passed   by   the   learned   Single   Judge   is   not   to   be interfered with. 2.2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment   and   order   passed   by   the   High   Court directing the Bank to permit the original petitioner to be represented through retired officer of the Bank in the disciplinary proceedings, the Bank has preferred present appeal. Page  6 of  27 3.0. Shri Rishabh Sancheti, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court has committed a grave error in directing the appellant Bank to permit the respondent original writ petitioner to be represented through retired officer of the Bank in the disciplinary proceedings. 3.1. It is submitted that  the High Court has not  at all adverted   to   Regulation   8.2   of   the   Handbook   of Vigilance   Administration   &   Disciplinary   Action (hereinafter referred to as the “Handbook Procedure”) which has been duly approved by the Board of the Bank and applicable to all kind of matters. 3.2. It is vehemently submitted that Regulation 8.2 of the Handbook   Procedure   specifically   provides   that   the defence   representative   should   be   serving   official   / employee   from   the   Bank.   It   is   submitted   that   the provisions of Handbook Procedure are binding on all the employees and applicable to all kind of matters. It Page  7 of  27 is   submitted   that   even   there   was   no   challenge   to Regulation   8   of   the   Handbook   Procedure   by   the original writ petitioner. 3.3. It   is   further   submitted   that   High   Court   has   not properly   appreciated   the   fact   that   provisions   of Regulation,   2010   are   to   be   read   with   Handbook provisions in a harmonious manner. 3.4. It is further submitted that High Court has erred in construing Regulation 44 as permitting outsiders into a   disciplinary   inquiry.   It   is   submitted   that   in   fact Regulation   44   restricts   legal   practitioner   to   be   DR without   prior   permission.   It   is   submitted   that Regulation 44 can in no manner can be construed to mean that it permits all outsiders except lawyers. It is submitted that this is so, since the basic principle is that an employee has no right to representation in the departmental   proceedings   by   another   person   or   a lawyer unless the Service Rules specifically provides for   the   same.   It   is   submitted   that   right   to representation   is   available   only   to   the   extent Page  8 of  27 specifically   provided   for   in   the   Rules.   Reliance   is placed on the decisions of this Court in the case of P. Raghava Kurup & Anr. v. V. Ananthakumari & Anr. reported in (2007) 9 SCC 179;  N.  Kalindi  &  Ors.  v. Tata Locomotive & Engg. Co. Ltd reported in (1960) 3 SCR 407; National Seeds Corporation Limited vs. K.V. Rama Reddy reported in (2006) 11 SCC 645 and Bharat   Petroleum   Corporation   Limited   v. Maharashtra General Kamgar Union & Ors. reported in (1999) 1 SCC 626. 3.5. It   is   submitted   that   right   to   representation   in   the inquiry can be restricted, controlled or regulated by the   Statute,   Service  Rules,  Regulations   or  Standing Orders and the extent of representation in any enquiry has   to   be   in   accordance   with   the   Statute,   Service Rules, Regulations or Standing Orders etc. In support of above submission, reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in the case of  Cipla  Limited  &  Ors  v. Ripu Daman Bahnot & Anr. reported in (1999) 4 SCC Page  9 of  27 188;   in   the   case   of  Crescent   Dyes   &   Chemicals Limited v. Ram Naresh Tripathi reported in (1993) 2 SCC 115 and in the case of Indian Overseas Bank vs. Indian   Overseas   Bank   Officer’s   Association   and Another reported in (2001) 9 SCC 540. 3.6. It is further submitted that as held by this Court in the case   of  Bharat   Petroleum   Corporation   Limited (supra) there should be minimum intervention of any outsider   /   legal   practitioner   in   departmental proceedings and the choice, if granted by the Statute, Service Rules, Regulations or Standing Orders, cannot be   allowed   to   travel   beyond   the   Statutes   /   Service Rules/ Regulations/ Standing Orders. 3.7. It is submitted that in the present case the service conditions of the employee of the bank are governed by Regulation, 2010, which do not contain any provision enabling the Candidate under the enquiry to have any defence representative  outside the employees of the Bank. It is submitted that the object and purpose of Regulation 44 was to keep a check on frivolous and Page  10 of  27 unnecessary request made for legal practitioner if the facts and situation do not demand so. It is submitted that   Handbook   Procedure   issued   by   the   Vigilance Department of the Bank which was duly approved by the Board also do not allow the employee to choose any   outsider   or   a   legal   practitioner   as   his   defence representative   and   the   same   is   expressly   provided under   Clause   8   of   Chapter   VIII   of   the   Handbook Procedure. 3.8. It is submitted that the impugned judgment and order has created an anomalous situation where: I. Ex­employees   who   themselves   may   have   been subject of a disciplinary enquiry/ chargesheeted / dismissed from service are also enabled to act as Defence Representatives. II. Ex­employees who were part of Vigilance or Audit Sections who come across a lot of information of confidential nature are enabled to act as Defence Representatives,   which   would   result   in   grave injustice. III. The solemn nature of proceedings is taken away and would result in issues of orderliness as well Page  11 of  27 as decorum when a disgruntled ex­employee is enabled to act as a Defence Representative. CVC Circular no.19.9.2021 dated 6.10.2021 prescribes the   time   limit   for   completion   of   departmental enquiry   within   6   months   and   the   same   has adopted in the Vigilance Handbook page no.55 para 7.2. If an outsider gets permitted completion of   departmental   inquiry   within   prescribed   time limit shall be a problem. IV. It is a matter of record that presently in almost all the pending Disciplinary enquiries, most of the Employees­ under­  enquiry  are  now  asking for retired officials to act as Drs. 3.9. It is submitted that aforesaid aspect has not at all been considered by the High Court while permitting the respondent employee to allow ex­employee as his DR. Making the above submissions, it is prayed to allow the present appeal. 4.0. Learned   counsel   appearing   for   the   respondent   has submitted that Regulation 44 of the Regulation 2020 do not bar engagement of retired employee of the Bank to act as a DR. It is submitted that the only bar under Page  12 of  27 the   Rules   and   the   Regulation   is   with   regard   to appointment   of   legal   practitioner   as   a   DR   without permission of the Bank. It is submitted that therefore, the High Court has rightly directed the Bank to permit the respondent employee to avail service of the retired employee of the Bank as defence representative. 4.1. It   is   submitted   that   Handbook   of   Vigilance Administration   and   Disciplinary   Action   dated 15.3.2019  are not  binding rules or guidelines and are merely directory in nature. 4.2. It is submitted that on conjoint reading of Clause 7.2 and Clause 8.2 of Handbook Procedure would mean that only officer who is junior to the presenting officer and  Enquiry  Officer can   be  appointed  as  DR.  It is submitted that this would result in gross miscarriage of   justice   and   in   violation   of   principles   of   natural justice. 4.3. It is submitted that judgments cited by the learned counsel for the appellant shall not be applicable to the Page  13 of  27 facts of the present case as every bank has its own Rules   and   Regulations.   It   is   submitted   that   in   the present case there is no specific bar in the service regulation in engaging retired employee of the Bank as defence representative. It is submitted that therefore, in  absence  of  any  specific  bar  and  considering  the Regulation 44, the High Court has not committed any error. 4.4. It   is   submitted   that   similar   question   came   up   for determination before the High Court of Allahabad in the   case   of  Rakesh   Singh   vs.   Chairman   and Disciplinary  Authority  and  Another  in Writ Appeal No. 64711 of 2013 wherein the High Court has held that in absence of any specific bar in the Regulation, the denial of the right to engage a retired employee of the Bank as defence representative is not justified. It is submitted that said judgment of the Allahabad High Court has been affirmed by this Court and the SLP against   the   said   judgment   and   order   has   been dismissed. Page  14 of  27 Making the above submissions and relying upon the above decisions, it is prayed to dismiss the present appeal.   5.0. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties at length. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has permitted the respondent employee who is facing disciplinary proceedings to represent through ex­employee   of   the   Bank.   While   permitting   the respondent employee, the High Court while construing Regulation 44 of Regulation, 2010 has observed that the Regulation 44 only restricts representation by a legal practitioner, and even that too is permissible of course with the leave to the competent authority, and there is no complete or absolute bar even on engaging a   lawyer,   the   employee   cannot   be   restrained   from availing   services   of   retired   employee   of   a   Bank. However, it was the specific case on behalf of the Bank that in view of circular dated 31.01.2014 and clause 8.2 of the Handbook Procedure, the DR should be a serving official / employee from the Bank. Therefore, Page  15 of  27 the short question which is posed for consideration of this Court is whether the respondent employee, as a matter of right is entitled to avail the services of an Exemployee of the Bank as his DR in the departmental proceedings ? 6.0. While considering the aforesaid issue, few decisions of this   Court   on   the   right   of   the   employee   to   make representation   in   the   Departmental   Proceedings   are required to be referred to. 6.1. In the case of Kalindi and Ors (supra), it is observed and held that ordinarily in inquiries before domestic tribunals   the   person   accused   of   any   misconduct conducts his own case and therefore, it is not possible to accept the argument that natural justice ex­facie demands   that   in   the   case   the   enquiries   into   a chargesheet   of   misconduct   against   a   workman   he should   be   represented   by   a   member   of   his   Union; though of­course an employer in his discretion can and may allow his employee to avail himself of such Page  16 of  27 assistance.   The   dictum   of   this   decision   has   been subsequently elucidated.   6.2. In the case of the Dunlop Rubber Co. (India) Ltd v. Workmen  reported in   (1965)   2   SCR   139,   after considering its earlier decision in the case of Kalindri and ors (supra), it is observed and held that there is no per se right to representation in the departmental proceedings   through   a   representative   through   own union   unless   the   company   by   its   Standing   Order recognized such a right. It is observed that refusal to allow representation by any Union unless the Standing Orders   confer   that   right   does   not   vitiate   the proceedings.   It   is   further   observed   that   in   holding domestic enquiries, reasonable opportunity should be given to the delinquent employees to meet the charge framed against them and it is desirable that at such an enquiry the employee should be given liberty to represent their case by persons of their choice, if there is   no   standing   order   against   such   a   course   being adopted and if there is nothing otherwise objectionable Page  17 of  27 in the said request.  It is further observed that denial of   such   an   opportunity   cannot   be   said   to   be   in violation of principles of natural justice.    6.3. In   the   case   of  Cipla   Ltd.   and   Ors  (supra),   it   is observed and held as under: “13. In N. Kalindi v. Tata Locomotive & Engg. Co Ltd, it   was   held   that   a   workman   against   whom   a departmental enquiry is held by the Management has no   right   to   be   represented   at   such   enquiry   by   an outsider, not even by a representative of his Union though the Management may in its discretion allow the employee to avail of such assistance. So also in Dunlop Rubber Company vs. Workmen, 1965 (2) SCR 139 = AIR 1965 SC 1392 = 1965 (1) LLJ 426, it was laid   down   that   an   employee   has   no   right   to   be represented in the disciplinary proceedings by another person unless the Service Rules specifically provided for   the   same.   A   Three­Judge   Bench   of   this   Court inCrescent Dyes and Chemicals Ltd. vs. Ram Naresh Tripathi, (1993) 2 SCC 115 = 1992 Suppl. (3) SCR 559, laid   down   that   the   right   to   be   represented   in   the departmental   proceedings   initiated   against   a delinquent employee can be regulated or restricted by the Management or by the Service Rules. It was held that the right to be represented by an advocate in the departmental   proceedings   can   be   restricted   and regulated by statutes or by the Service Rules including the   Standing   Orders,   applicable   to   the   employee concerned. The whole case law was reviewed by this Court   in  Bharat   Petroleum   Corporation   Ltd.   vs. Maharashtra Genl. Kamgar Union & Ors., (1999)  1 SCC 626, and it was held that a delinquent employee has no right to be represented by an advocate in the departmental  proceedings  and  that  if  a right  to  be represented   by   a   co­workman   is   given   to   him,   the departmental proceedings would not be bad only for the reason that the assistance of an advocate was not provided to him.” Page  18 of  27 6.4. In the case of  Crescent  Dyes   and  Chemicals  Ltd. (supra),   it   is   observed   and   held   that   in   the departmental   proceedings   right   to   be   represented through counsel or agent can be restricted, controlled or regulated by statute, rules, regulations or Standing Orders. A delinquent has no right to be represented through counsel or agent unless the law specifically confers such a right. The requirement of the rule of natural   justice   insofar   as   the   delinquent's   right   of hearing is concerned, cannot and does not extend to a right to be represented through counsel or agent. In the case before this Court, the delinquent's right to representation was regulated by the Standing Orders which permitted a clerk or a workman working with him in the same department to represent him and said right stood expanded permitting representation through an officer, staff­member or a member of the Union, on being authorised by the State Government. Holding that the same is permissible and cannot be said to be in violation of principles of natural justice, Page  19 of  27 it is observed that the object and purpose of such provisions are to ensure that the domestic enquiry is completed   with   despatch   and   is   not   prolonged endlessly; secondly, when the person defending the delinquent is from the department or establishment in which  the delinquent  is working he would  be well conversant with the working of that department and the relevant rules and would, therefore, be able to render satisfactory service to the delinquent. In the present   case   also   clause   8   permits   representation through serving officials / employee from the Bank. 6.5. A similar view has been expressed by this Court in the case of Bharat Petroleum  Corporation  Limited (supra)   as   well   as   in   the   case   of  National   Sees Corporation Limited (supra). 6.6. In the case of  Indian  Overseas   Bank  (supra), it is observed   and   held   that   law   does   not   concede   an absolute   right  of  representation  to   an  employee  in domestic enquiries as part of his right to be heard Page  20 of  27 and   that   there   is   no   right   to   representation   by somebody   else   unless   the   rules   or   regulation   and standing orders, specifically recognize such a right and provide for such representation. 7.0. Applying law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions   to   the   facts   of   the   case   on   hand,   the respondent employee / respondent delinquent has no absolute right to avail the services by ex­employee of the Bank as his DR in the departmental proceedings. It is true that Regulation 44 puts specific restriction on engagement of a legal practitioner and it provides that for the purpose of an enquiry under Regulation, 2010, the Officer or Employee shall not engage a legal practitioner   without   prior   permission   of   the competent   authority.   Therefore,   even   availing   the services of legal practitioner is permissible with the leave of the competent authority. However, Regulation does not specifically provides that an employee can avail   the   services   of   any   outsider   and   /   or   exemployee of the Bank as DR. Therefore, Regulation, Page  21 of  27 2010   neither   restricts   nor   permits   availing   the services of any outsider and / or ex­employee of the Bank as DR and to that extent Regulation is silent. If the reasoning of the High Court is considered, the High   Court   is   of   the   opinion   that   as   there   is   no complete or absolute bar even on engaging a lawyer, it is difficult to accept that a retired employee of the Bank cannot be engaged to represent a delinquent officer in the departmental inquiry. However, the High Court has not appreciated the effect of the Handbook. As per Clause 8 of the Handbook Procedure which has been approved by the Board of Directors and it is applicable   to   all   the   employees   of   the   Bank   and Clause 8 is with respect to the defence representative, it   specifically   provides   that   DR   should   be   serving official / employee from the Bank. The said Handbook Procedure which has been approved by the Board of Directors of the Bank is binding to all the employees of   the   Bank.   The   High   Court   has   considered Regulation 44 of the Regulation, 2010, however has not considered clause 8 of the Handbook Procedure Page  22 of  27 on the ground that the same cannot be said to be supplementary. However, we are of the opinion that Handbook   Procedure   can   be   said   to   be supplementary. The same cannot  be said to be in conflict with the Regulation 44  of Regulation, 2010. As   observed   herein   above,   neither   Regulation   44 permits nor restricts engagement of an ex­employee of the Bank to be DR. Therefore, Clause 8.2 cannot be said to be in conflict with the provisions of Regulation, 2010.   Provisions   of   Regulation,   2010   and   the provisions of Handbook Procedure are required to be read   harmoniously,   the   result   can   be   achieved without   any   violation   of   any   of   the   provisions   of Regulation, 2010 and the Handbook Procedure. The objects   of   Regulation   44   of   Regulation,   2010   and Clause 8 of the Handbook Procedure seem to be to avoid   any   outsider   including   legal   representative and / or even ex­employee of the Bank. At the cost of repetition,  it is observed that  there is no  absolute right   in   favour   of   the   delinquent   officer’s   to   be represented in the departmental proceedings through Page  23 of  27 the agent of his choice and the same can be restricted by the employer. 8.0. As per the Bank there is a justification also to permit the   delinquent   officer   to   be   represented   in   the departmental proceedings through serving official / employee from the Bank only. The Bank has justified its action of not permitting ex­employee of the Bank as DR and according to the Bank, the ex­employee who   themselves   may   have   been   subject   of   a disciplinary enquiry/ chargesheet / dismissed from service; the ex­employee might be a part of vigilance or audit sections who come across a lot of information of   confidential   nature   and   therefore,   if   they   are allowed to be DR in the departmental proceedings, which   would   result   in   grave   injustice;   the   solemn nature of proceedings is taken away and would result in issues of orderliness as well as decorum when a disgruntled ex­employee is enabled to act as defence representative;   they   may   adopt   delay   tactics   in departmental enquiry and may not permit completion Page  24 of  27 of   department   enquiry   within   six   months   as mandated by the CVC Circular and as per Vigilance Handbook  adopted by the Bank. For all the aforesaid reasons not permitting the delinquent officer to be represented through ex­employee of the Bank in the departmental enquiry cannot be said to be in any way in breach of principles of natural justice and / or it violates any of the rights of the delinquent officer. As per settled proposition of law and as observed herein above, in decisions referred to herein above, the only requirement is that delinquent officer must be given fair opportunity to represent his case and that there is no absolute right in his favour to be represented through the agent of his choice. However, at the same time, if the charge is severe and complex nature, then request to be represented through a counsel can be considered   keeping   in   mind   Regulation   44   of Regulation, 2010 and if in a particular case, the same is   denied,   that   can   be   ground   to   challenge   the ultimate   outcome   of   the   departmental   enquiry. However, as a matter of right in each and every case, Page  25 of  27 irrespective of whether charges is severe and complex nature   or   not,   the   employee   as   a   matter   of   right cannot pray that he may be permitted to represent through the agent of his choice. 9.0. Now so far as reliance placed upon the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of   Rakesh Singh  (supra)   by   the   learned   counsel   for   the respondent is concerned, it is required to be noted that at the time when the High Court decided the matter no such Clause 8 of the Handbook Procedure was in force. Handbook Procedure has been adopted by   the   Board   of   Directors   in   its   meeting   held   on 15.3.2019. Therefore, the said decision shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand. 10. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the High Court has committed an error in permitting respondent delinquent officer to be represented in the departmental   enquiry   through   ex­employee   of   the Bank. The view taken by the learned Single Judge confirmed by the Division Bench is unsustainable. Page  26 of  27 Accordingly,   present   appeal   is   allowed   and   the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single   Judge   confirmed   by   the   Division   Bench permitting   the   respondent   delinquent   officer   to   be represented in the departmental proceedings through ex­employee of the Bank is hereby quashed and set aside. Present appeal is accordingly allowed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.  …………………………………J.          (M. R. SHAH) …………………………………J. (SANJIV KHANNA) New Delhi,  January, 04 2022 Page  27 of  27

Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले


Popular posts from this blog

100 Questions on Indian Constitution for UPSC 2020 Pre Exam

भारतीय संविधान से संबंधित 100 महत्वपूर्ण प्रश्न उतर

संविधान की प्रमुख विशेषताओं का उल्लेख | Characteristics of the Constitution of India