Patna High Court
Amarendra Kumar Aman vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 28 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.24348 of 2013
======================================================
Amarendra Kumar Aman S/O Late Daroga Chaudhary Resident Of Village-
Ibrahimpur, P.O. and P.S.- Kachhawan, Distt.- Rohtas Presently Posted As
Superintending Engineer, Western Koshi Canal Circle No. 2 Darbhanga
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government Of Bihar, Old
Secretariat, Patna
2. Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government Of Bihar,
Sinchai Bhawan, Patna
3. Special Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government Of Bihar,
Sinchai Bhawan, Patna
4. Joint Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government Of Bihar, Sinchai
Bhawan, Patna
5. Deputy Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government Of Bihar,
Sinchai Bhawan, Patna
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bajrangi Lal, Advocate
Mr. Surendra Mishra, Advocate
Mr. Rachna Shukla, Advocate
Mr. Rajiv Ranjan Pandey, Advocate
Mr. Aman Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sita Ram Yadav, G.P.16
Mr. Rakesh Kumar Shrivastava, A.C. to G.P.16
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RITESH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 28-04-2026
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for the
following reliefs:
"(i) For quashing and setting aside the
notification no. 1465 dated 25.11.2011 issued under
the signature of Sri Bharat Jha, Deputy Secretary,
Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar
to the extent it relates to punishment no. 1 to 3
whereby and where under ignoring all the rules and
Patna High Court CWJC No.24348 of 2013 dt.28-04-2026
2/19
regulations order of punishments have been passed
against the petitioner without application of mind as
such the same is fit to be rejected by this Hon'ble
Court.
(ii) For quashing and setting aside the
Notification No. 981 dated 16.08.2013 of the Water
Resources Department, Government of Bihar issued
under the signature of Special Secretary, Water
Resources Department, Government of Bihar
whereby and where under appeal of the petitioner
dated 06.01.2012 annexure- filed before the Hon'ble
Governor has been rejected without application of
mind, ignoring all the rules regulations mechanically
in routine manner as such the impugned order is fit to
be rejected.
(iii) For direction to the respondents
authorities concerned to grant and pay all the
consequential benefits to the petitioner treating his
suspension period as on duty period.
(iv) For direction to the respondents
authorities to grant any such other relief or releifs for
which the petitioner is found legally entitled."
3. The brief facts, giving rise to the present writ
petition, are that the petitioner was appointed vide Notification
No.2323, dated 19.05.1987, on the post of Assistant Engineer in
the Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna
and gave his joining on 02.07.1987. Subsequently, he was given
the charge of the Superintending Engineer in the year 2004 and
later on the same was confirmed on 01.01.2009. While the
petitioner was posted as the Superintending Engineer, Water
Patna High Court CWJC No.24348 of 2013 dt.28-04-2026
3/19
Ways Circle, Gaya, he was put under suspension and his
Headquarter was fixed in the office of the Chief Engineer, Water
Resources Department, Patna vide Notification No.223, dated
01.04.2009
. The petitioner was issued show-cause notice, with
regard to certain allegations, which he duly replied to the
authority concerned on 16.06.2009, wherein he denied all the
allegations levelled against him. Vide Memo No.589, dated
29.06.2009, issued under the signature of the Joint Secretary to
the Government (Water Resources Department), Government of
Bihar, Patna, the memo of charge was issued to the petitioner and
simultaneously the Conducting Officer and Presenting Officer
were also appointed. Altogether three charges were levelled
against the petitioner. Immediately thereafter, the petitioner filed
a writ petition bearing C.W.J.C. No.17686 of 2009 for quashing
the Notification No.223, dated 01.04.2009, whereby the
petitioner was put under suspension and resolution issued vide
Memo No.589, dated 29.06.2009, whereby decision to initiate
departmental proceeding against the petitioner was taken. The
writ petition filed by the petitioner was disposed of vide order
dated 26.02.2010 by a learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Court
with a direction to the respondents to consider the representation
of the petitioner for revocation of his suspension in accordance
Patna High Court CWJC No.24348 of 2013 dt.28-04-2026
4/19
with law. The departmental enquiry was conducted, wherein the
petitioner participated and after conclusion of the enquiry, the
Enquiry Officer submitted his enquiry report vide Letter No.866,
dated 22.02.2011, before the disciplinary authority. Second show-
cause notice was issued to the petitioner vide Letter No.786,
dated 04.07.2011 and along with the second show-cause notice,
the enquiry report was also provided to the petitioner. In
compliance thereof, the petitioner submitted his reply to the
second show-cause notice on 04.08.2011, wherein a request was
made by the petitioner, to the disciplinary authority to exonerate
him from all the charges levelled against him. However, the
disciplinary authority vide the impugned order contained in
Memo No.1465 dated 25.11.2011, proceeded to award
punishment of censure for the year 2008-2009, reduction to a
lower stage in time-scale of pay and stoppage of annual
increments for five years with cumulative effect. It was further
ordered that apart from subsistence allowance, which was paid to
the petitioner during the period under suspension, no other
amount will be paid to the petitioner. Being aggrieved with the
order dated 25.11.2011, the petitioner preferred statutory appeal
before the appellate authority on 06.01.2012. Since the
authorities were not deciding the appeal preferred by the
Patna High Court CWJC No.24348 of 2013 dt.28-04-2026
5/19
petitioner, he again approached this Court by filing a writ petition
bearing C.W.J.C. No.48 of 2013, however vide order dated
04.01.2013, the writ petition was withdrawn with a liberty to
pursue the matter before the appellate authority. Subsequently,
the appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected and the same
was communicated vide Memo No.981, dated 16.08.2013, passed
by the Special Secretary, Water Resources Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the entire departmental proceeding was conducted in complete
violation of the provisions contained in Bihar C.C.A. Rules, 2005
inasmuch as that from perusal of the memo of charge itself, it
would appear that no document was mentioned to be relied upon
by the prosecution during course of enquiry and similarly no list
of witnesses were provided to the petitioner, whom the
department intended to produce during course of enquiry for their
evidences to prove the charge. Even the Enquiry Officer travelled
beyond the documents which were said to have been submitted
by the Presenting Officer, inasmuch as that he considered the
documents relating to other person, against whom also a
departmental proceeding was going on, which is not permissible,
since the petitioner was never ever given any opportunity to go
Patna High Court CWJC No.24348 of 2013 dt.28-04-2026
6/19
through the document or the said document was never provided
to the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner further
submits that even the so called documents which have been said
to have been produced during course of enquiry were not proved
by any of the witnesses, including their respective authors.
Further, he submits that from the entire order sheet of the
departmental proceeding, it would transpire that no proceeding
was held during entire enquiry, since the Enquiry Officer kept on
adjourning the matter for providing the relevant documents to the
petitioner and direction was being issued to the Presenting
Officer to bring on record the documents or to provide the said
documents to the petitioner.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further
submits that the entire departmental proceeding has been
conducted in complete violation of the provisions contained in
Rule 17(3) (4) and (14) of the Bihar C.C.A. Rules, 2005. He
further submits that even the provisions contained in Rule 18(7)
of the Bihar C.C.A. Rules was not followed by the Enquiry
Officer during course of the enquiry. Further, since no witnesses
were examined during course of the enquiry, the petitioner was
denied an opportunity to rebut the charges and even the
documents which were asked for by the petitioner, were never
Patna High Court CWJC No.24348 of 2013 dt.28-04-2026
7/19
provided to him. It is further submitted that the Enquiry Officer
only on his own presumption, proceeded to hold the petitioner
guilty of charge no.1, which he found to be proved and with
regard to charge no.2, he found the same to be partially proved.
With regard to charge no.3, the Enquiry Officer gave benefit of
doubt to the petitioner and held the same to be not proved. It is
also submitted that the disciplinary authority, while imposing
punishment of non-payment of salary for the suspension period,
was required to issue show-cause in terms of Rule 97(3) of the
Bihar Service Code, however no such notices were issued to the
petitioner and the order of stoppage of salary for the said period,
is in complete violation of Rule 11(5) of the Bihar C.C.A. Rules,
2005 read with 97(3) of the Bihar Service Code.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner refers to and
relies upon a judgment of the learned Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court dated 01.02.2024, passed in C.W.J.C. No.1380 of 2020
(Ravi Ranjan Vs. Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank & Ors.),
wherein in paragraph no.14, it has been held as follows:
“14. It is one of the fundamental points
of the service jurisprudence that opportunity to defend
must be granted to the delinquent on the charges
alleged against him. Here in the present case, in view
of the Court, the delinquent had demanded the
documents to defend him from the charges alleged,
consistently, but those documents have not been
Patna High Court CWJC No.24348 of 2013 dt.28-04-2026
8/19provided instead the bank has provided, only one
document and taken a plea before this Court by way
of filing affidavit that no specific document was
demanded by the petitioner, which is apparently
wrong upon perusal of Annexure -3 as well as
paragraph 14 of the rejoinder of the counter affidavit.
In the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court rendered in the case of the State of Uttar
Pradesh and Ors. vs. Rajit Singh reported
in 2022(2) PLJR (SC) 196, relevant paragraph 8 -10
is quoted as under :-
“(8.) It appears from the order
passed by the Tribunal that the Tribunal also
observed that the enquiry proceedings were
against the principles of natural justice in as
much as the documents mentioned in the
charge sheet were not at all supplied to the
delinquent officer. As per the settled
proposition of law, in a case where it is found
that the enquiry is not conducted properly
and/or the same is in violation of the
principles of natural justice, in that case, the
Court cannot reinstate the employee as such
and the matter is to be remanded to the
Enquiry Officer/Disciplinary Authority to
proceed further with the enquiry from the
stage of violation of principles of natural
justice is noticed and the enquiry has to be
proceeded further after furnishing the
necessary documents mentioned in the charge
sheet, which are alleged to have not been
given to the delinquent officer in the instant
case. In the case of Chairman, Life Insurance
Corporation of India and Ors. Vs. A.
Masilamani, (2013) 6 SCC 530, which was
Patna High Court CWJC No.24348 of 2013 dt.28-04-2026
9/19also pressed into service on behalf of the
appellants before the High Court, it is
observed in paragraph 16 as under:-
“16. It is a settled legal
proposition, that once the court sets
aside an order of punishment, on the
ground that the enquiry was not
properly conducted, the court cannot
reinstate the employee. It must remit
the case concerned to the disciplinary
authority for it to conduct the enquiry
from the point that it stood vitiated,
and conclude the same. (Vide ECIL v.
B. Karunakar [(1993) 4 SCC 727],
Hiran Mayee Bhattacharyya v. S.M.
School for Girls [(2002) 10 SCC 293],
U.P. State Spg. Co. Ltd. v. R.S. Pandey
[(2005) 8 SCC 264] and Union of
India v. Y.S. Sadhu [(2008) 12 SCC
30]).”
(9.) From the impugned
judgment and order passed by the High Court,
it appears that when the aforesaid submission
and the aforesaid decision was pressed into
service, the High Court has not considered the
same on the ground that the other officers
involved in respect of the same incident are
exonerated and/or no action is taken against
them. Applying the law laid down in the case
of A. Masilamani (supra) to the facts of the
case on hand, we are of the opinion that the
Tribunal as well as the High Court ought to
have remanded the matter to the Disciplinary
Authority to conduct the enquiry from the
stage it stood vitiated. Therefore, the order
Patna High Court CWJC No.24348 of 2013 dt.28-04-2026
10/19passed by the High Court in not allowing
further proceedings from the stage it stood
vitiated, i.e., after the issuance of the charge
sheet, is unsustainable.
(10.) In view of the above
discussion and for the reasons stated above,
the findings recorded by the Tribunal as well
as the High Court quashing and setting aside
the order of punishment imposed by the
Disciplinary Authority by applying the
Doctrine of Equality is hereby quashed and
set aside. However, as the enquiry is found to
be vitiated and is found to be in violation of
the principles of natural justice in as much as
it is alleged that the relevant documents
mentioned in the charge sheet were not
supplied to the delinquent officer, we remand
the matter to the Disciplinary Authority to
conduct a fresh enquiry from the stage it stood
vitiated, i.e., after the issuance of the charge
sheet and to proceed further with the enquiry
after furnishing all the necessary documents
mentioned in the charge sheet and after
following due principles of natural justice.
The aforesaid exercise shall be completed
within a period of six months from today.”
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner further refers
to and relies upon a judgment of the learned Co-ordinate Bench
of this Court dated 04.05.2015, passed in C.W.J.C. No.16214 of
2006 (Jai Narayan Prasad vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.),
wherein the learned Co-ordinate Bench has recorded as follows:
“I have considered the rival submissions
Patna High Court CWJC No.24348 of 2013 dt.28-04-2026
11/19of the parties. I would first deal with the submission
of the parties on infliction of punishment contained in
item (ii) i.e. non-payment of pay/allowance for the
period the petitioner remained under suspension
(2.9.1999 to 2.9.2001) save and except the
subsistence allowance. The Bihar Service Code is the
substantive law which deals with different aspects of
the service conditions of an employee of the
Government whereas Rules 2005 provides the
procedure for initiation, continuance and imposition
of punishment. Rule 97(3) of the Code reads as under:
’97(3) In other cases, the
Government servant shall be given such
proportion of such pay and allowances as such
competent authority may prescribe:
Provided that the payment of
allowance under clause (2) or clause (3) shall
be subject to all other conditions under which
such allowance are admissible.”
Mr. Prakash has cited a Division Bench
judgment of this Court in the case of Dinesh Prasad
versus The State of Bihar (2006 (4) PLJR 514)
wherein this Court while dealing with the fascicules
of provision contained in Rule 97 of the Code and
finding support from 2003 (4) PLJR 68 in paragraph
10 of the report held as under:-
“10. Admittedly, it appears from
the materials on record and also from the
record produced before us by the State
Counsel that no such opportunity was given to
the petitioner in terms of Rule 97(3) of the
Code. A Bench of this court while considering
this question in the case of Pramod Kumar
vs. The Champaran Kshetriya Gramin
Bank and Ors. reported in 2003(4) PLJR 68
relying upon a decision of this court rendered
in the case of Mahabir Prasad vs. State of
Bihar reported in 1988 PLJR 82, held that
non-observance of the provisions of Rule
97(3) of the Code would amount to violation
of the principles of natural justice. The orders
impugned on these scores, appear to be
violative of the principles of natural justice as
Patna High Court CWJC No.24348 of 2013 dt.28-04-2026
12/19
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner further refers
to and relies on a judgment of the learned Co-ordinate Bench of
this Court dated 23.11.2017, passed in C.W.J.C. No.8589 of
2014 (Ram Tawakal Singh vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.),
wherein the learned Co-ordinate Bench proceeded to held as
follows:
“Having heard the submission of both
sides, the sole question arises for consideration as to
whether the report of the Inquiry Officer without
being produced any evidence by the Presenting
Officer as required under sub-rule(14) of Rule 17, on
perusal of the records not brought on record in
accordance with law is legal and any punishment can
be inflicted on such report?
It is important to reproduce sub-rule (14)
of Rule 17 which is as follows:
“(14) On the date fixed for the
inquiry, the oral and documentary evidence
by which the articles of charge are
proposed to be proved shall be produced by
or on behalf of the disciplinary authority.
The witnesses shall be examined by or on
behalf of the Presenting Officer and may be
cross-examined by or on behalf of the
government servant. The Presenting Officer
shall be entitled to re-examine the witnesses
on any points on which they have been
cross-examined, but not on any new matter,
without the leave of the inquiring authority.
Patna High Court CWJC No.24348 of 2013 dt.28-04-2026
13/19
The inquiring authority may also put such
questions to the witnesses, as it thinks fit.”
From bare perusal of sub-rule(14) and
different sub-rules of Rule 17, it is crystal clear that
the legislature has prescribed the procedures for
holding departmental inquiry in the prescribed
manner. It is needless to say that violations of the
procedure meant for holding departmental proceeding
amounts to violation of natural justice and if inquiry
is held in contravention of any provisions of Rule 17
meant for holding departmental inquiry, the inquiry
report as well as the punishment thereon shall be
vitiated. It is evident that the proceeding was initiated
on the basis of the inquiry report of Technical
Committee of the Vigilance Department. The
petitioner was served with the article of charge
containing six charges on the basis of the inquiry
report of the Technical Committee. The petitioner
submitted his detailed show cause but the disciplinary
authority did not satisfy with the show cause of the
petitioner and ordered for initiation of a proceeding
under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules. The
disciplinary authority appointed Additional Inquiry
Commissioner to hold the inquiry. The inquiry
report(Annexure-5) shows that the Inquiry Officer
considered the show cause and the submissions of the
Presenting Officer but it does not appear that the
Presenting Officer during the course of inquiry
brought on record any documentary evidence in
accordance with law as required under sub-rule(14) of
Rule 17. The Presenting officer is bound to bring on
any document in accordance with law and that should
have been marked as exhibit. Without bringing the
documents on record in accordance with law, the
same cannot be treated as legal evidence. It further
Patna High Court CWJC No.24348 of 2013 dt.28-04-2026
14/19
appears that the Presenting Officer did not even
examine the member of the Committee who held
preliminary inquiry on the basis of which the
proceeding under Rule 43(b) of the pension Rules
was initiated against the petitioner. Unless the author
of the report is examined and petitioner was allowed
to cross-examine, the author of the report on the basis
of which the proceeding was initiated, the finding of
the Inquiry Officer with regard to guilt and
punishment on such report by the disciplinary
authority in my view is absolutely illegal and not
sustainable.”
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner further refers
to and relies on a judgment of this Court dated 12.02.2026,
passed in C.W.J.C. No.565 of 2023 (Shashi Kala Chaudhary
vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.), wherein in paragraph nos. 24
and 25, it has been held as follows:
“24. Having heard the learned counsel
for the parties and after going through the records, it
appears that memo of charge was issued to the
petitioner wherein certain charges were levelled
against the petitioner, but no list of witnesses or the
documents to be relied upon by the department were
mentioned therein, which is in violation of the
provisions contained in Rule 17(3) and (4) of the
Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control
& Appeal) Rules, 2005. The same has prejudiced the
case of the petitioner since he was denied an
opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and the
documents which were relied upon by the respondent
authorities and in absence thereof, the authorities
proceeded to prove the charges on their own.
Patna High Court CWJC No.24348 of 2013 dt.28-04-2026
15/19
25. The Inquiry Officer, during course of
inquiry, did not give his specific finding to the
charges levelled against the petitioner and proceeded
to submit his inquiry report wherein he found the
charges to be proved against the petitioner only on the
basis of the allegations levelled by the Presenting
Officer and recommended for action to be taken
against the petitioner.”
10. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the Respondents-State submits that while the petitioner
was posted as Superintending Engineer in the Water Ways Circle,
Gaya, he committed certain irregularities in raising and
strengthening work of Zamindari Bandh from Danu Bigha to
Kachnawan Sabdalpur under Makhdumpur block of Jehanabad
district for which an enquiry was done by the Technical
Examination Cell of the Vigilance Department of the
Government of Bihar and based on the report submitted by the
department, the petitioner was put under suspension vide
Notification No.223, dated 01.04.2009. The departmental
proceeding was initiated against him in terms of Rule 17 of the
Bihar C.C.A. Rules, 2005. The petitioner duly participated in the
departmental proceeding and submitted his written defence
before the Enquiry Officer. He was also given an opportunity to
participate in the proceeding and he was also given an
opportunity of hearing. The Enquiry Officer submitted his
Patna High Court CWJC No.24348 of 2013 dt.28-04-2026
16/19
enquiry report wherein he found the charge no.1 to be proved,
charge no.2 to be partially proved and charge no.3 to be not
proved by giving benefit of doubt to the petitioner. The enquiry
report submitted by the Enquiry Officer was considered at the
level of the government and based on the said consideration,
second show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner, which he
duly replied. The disciplinary authority, after considering the
reply submitted by the petitioner and the report submitted by the
Enquiry Officer, proceeded to award punishment against the
petitioner. The petitioner preferred statutory appeal before the
appellate authority, though the said appeal was not maintainable
under Rule 24(2) of the Bihar C.C.A. Rules, 2005, however the
appeal/representation of the petitioner was treated to be review
petition and the authority concerned after duly considering each
and every aspect, with regard to each and every charge proceeded
to reject the appeal/review filed by the petitioner vide order dated
16.08.2013. Appropriate punishment has been awarded to the
petitioner for the charges, which have been found to be duly
proved by the Enquiry Officer, during course of enquiry and the
principles of natural justice has also been followed, while
awarding the punishment to the petitioner. The learned counsel
for the State further submits that the petitioner never asked for
Patna High Court CWJC No.24348 of 2013 dt.28-04-2026
17/19
supply of the copy of certain relevant documents/register,
however the said documents were duly examined during course
of enquiry and this fact would be evident from paragraph 28 of
the enquiry report. He submits that all due procedure was
followed by the authorities concerned while passing the
impugned order of punishment.
11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and after going through the records, it appears that memo of
charge was issued to the petitioner, however the same does not
contain any list of documents, except Letter No.5390, dated
15.09.2008 of the Vigilance Department and no list of witnesses
was mentioned, along with the memo of charge, which is in
complete violation of the provisions contained in Rule 17(3) (4)
of the Bihar C.C.A. Rules, 2005. Since no list of witnesses was
mentioned with the memo of charge, no witnesses were examined
on behalf of the prosecution during course of the departmental
enquiry and even the document which is mentioned with the
memo of charge, was not proved by its author during course of
enquiry. Further, since no witnesses were examined during course
of enquiry, there is no question of giving opportunity to the
petitioner to cross-examine the witness, which is in violation of
the provisions contained in Rules 17 (14) of the Bihar C.C.A.
Patna High Court CWJC No.24348 of 2013 dt.28-04-2026
18/19
Rules, 2005. Further, while passing the order of punishment, with
regard to non-payment of any amount, except what has been paid
to the petitioner, during the period under suspension, the
disciplinary authority did not bother to issue notice to the
petitioner in terms of Rule 11(5) of the Bihar C.C.A. Rules, 2005
and Rule 97(3) of the Bihar Service Code. It further appears that
the entire departmental proceeding was conducted in complete
violation of the provisions contained in Bihar Service Code and
Bihar C.C.A. Rules, 2005.
12. From the considerations made above, this Court
has not option but to set aside the order contained in Memo
No.1465, dated 25.11.2011, issued under the signature of the
Deputy Secretary to the Government, Water Resources
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna and the order contained
in Memo No.981, dated 16.08.2013, issued under the signature of
the Special Secretary to the Government, Government of Bihar,
Patna. Since, the petitioner has already superannuated from
service on 31.03.2022, there is no justification in remitting the
matter back to the disciplinary authority for proceeding afresh in
the matter. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled for all the
increments which he would have been entitled, prior to passing of
the impugned order dated 25.11.2011. He will further be entitled
Patna High Court CWJC No.24348 of 2013 dt.28-04-2026
19/19
for payment of entire salary for the period during which he was
under suspension. The entire exercise must be completed within a
period of four months from the date of receipt/ production of a
copy of the order. The respondent authorities are directed to re-
examine the entitlement of the petitioner and to pay the
consequential benefits, including the pensionary benefits, if any,
to the petitioner within the said period of four months.
13. The writ petition is allowed in the aforementioned
terms.
14. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
(Ritesh Kumar, J.)
Sanjay/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 05.05.2026 Transmission Date NA
