P L D 1959 (W (PLP)

KAYANI, C. J.

‑The petitioner, Mr. S. A. H. Bokhari, was employed as a Civilian Gazetted Officer, being designated as an Assistant Stores Keeper, in the Central Medical Stores Depot, Nowshera, holding charge of group 1I, dealing with surgical instruments, appliances etc. On the 14th July 1956, he was sus?pended on a charge of criminal breach of trust, having dishonestly built up a surplus of certain appliances "with a view to defraud" (appendix A). On the 24th August 1956, a charge‑sheet, of which a copy appears in appendix `B', was delivered to him. It con?tained two charges : (1) mischief in that he had caused the destruction of stores specified in the charge and rendered them unserviceable, and (2) criminal breach of trust in that he was found, on 13th July 1956, in wrongful possession of the stores specified in the charge‑sheet with intention to dishonestly mis?appropriate and dispose of them. In para. 4 of the charge‑sheet it was stated that all reasonable facilities will be provided to the petitioner to consult his record if he so desired, but that he should note that these are confidential documents and that he should not make any use of the information contained therein for any purpose, except that of his defence. The last sentence, which is material to the fate of the present petition, reads thus ? "He will not be authorized to make a copy in full or in part of any official document".

2. On the 1st September 1956, Mr. Bokhari made an application to the Officer Commanding, Central Medical Stores Depot, Nowshera (appendix `D'), stating that in accordance with the charge‑sheet he was not allowed to make a copy, in full or in part, of any of the documents shown to him and inquiring if he would be allowed to take down notes from the documents relating to his charge‑sheet. On the same day, the Officer Commanding replied by a letter which appears in appendix B', that he "can be shown all the documents and exhibits thereon relating to your charge‑sheet, but you cannot be allowed to make copies, in full or in part, of any of the documents in question", and he was referred to para. 4 of the charge‑sheet, which is to the same effect. In other words, he was not allowed to take down notes.

3. On the 10th September 1956, Mr. Bokhari made an application to the Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Defence (appendix `C'), with reference to the charge‑sheet, that as he had not been allowed to get copies or extracts of the documents relating to the charge‑sheet, it was not possible for him to submit any explanation. He enclosed a copy of the letter of the Officer Commanding, dated the 1st September 1956, and made a request that suitable orders be issued to the said officer to provide him with copies of the relevant documents. It is not clear "whether the Deputy Secretary Defence made any reply to this letter, but appendix `F' reproduces a letter of the Commanding Officer to Mr. Bokhari, bearing some date in October 1956, with the following note: "The accused officer has been shown the relevant papers. He can surely prepare his defence by being given access to the relevant documents which has been done. He should be asked to submit his explanation without the least delay".

4. Mr. Bokhari thereupon furnished an explanation and a Court of Enquiry was constituted to try him, and did try him on the 15th November 1956 and the two following days. A copy of the report made by the Court of Enquiry was furnished to Mr. Bokhari who was called upon' to show cause why he should not be dismissed. He submitted an explanation, but was dismissed from service with effect from the 19th February 1957 (appendix `G').

5. Mr. Abdul Qayyum Khan, who argued the case for the petitioner, submitted that the dismissal should be set aside on the following grounds :‑ (i) The order of suspension being by the Officer Commanding was without proper authority. (ii) The first charge served on the petitioner with the reason of his suspension was varied and the articles stated therein were increased in number in the second charge‑sheet. (iii) In so far as the petitioner was neither provided with copies of the relevant documents nor allowed to take down notes, he was robbed of a reasonable opportunity to prepare his defence.

6. As regards the first point, although it is true that the order of suspension was passed by the Officer Commanding and the approval of the Secretary was obtained only later, it would be futile to set aside that order because it has now merged into the order of dismissal. If an order of suspension with a substantial defect in proceedings leads to dismissal, then the order of dismissal might be defective on the ground that the order of suspension was defective. This, however, not being the case, the result will not be altered by our setting aside the order of suspension.

7. As regards the second point, the learned counsel has wrongly interpreted the order of suspension as the first charge?-sheet. It says in para. 1 that the petitioner has been suspended for the reason stated in para. 2, and it is stated in para. 2 that he had committed an act of criminal breach of trust by dishonestly building up a surplus of the articles named in his letter with intent to defraud. This reason appears in charge No. 2 of the charge sheet, although the appliances in respect of which it has been framed have increased in number. This is because between the date of suspension and the date of the charge‑sheet further mis?appropriations were discovered. There is also an additional charge in respect of mischief, and this has apparently come into being because mischief was discovered after the date of suspension. We do not see anything wrong in the charge sheet.

8. The third objection, which relates to the absence of reasonable opportunity to prepare the defence, is very substantial, It is idle to say that a person can carry in his head a voluminous record relating to the number of appliances in stores, so that it should be unnecessary for him to take down notes of relevant matters while he was allowed to inspect the record. It is these notes which should have enabled him to cross‑examine the witnesses effectively, and if he was not allowed to take down notes, he could only rely on his memory, and it requires no argument to convince us that in these circumstances a satisfactory defence could not be prepared. We do not know of any lawyer who has been able to prepare his case on an inspection of the file without taking down notes, because it is on these notes that he relies when he argues his case or cross‑examines the witnesses. We would, therefore, set aside the entire proceeding if Article 181 of the Constitution is applicable to the petitioner's case.

9. It has been argued by the learned Additional Advocate-General; however, that article 181 does not apply as the petitioner is not a member of a civil service of the Federation, because he holds a post "connected with defence". For this reason, he relies on two judgments of this Court, one delivered at Lahore and the other at Peshawar. The first was in Writ Petition No. 10 of 1957, Ghairat Hayat v. Federation of Pakistan (P L D 1959 Lah. 389). The judgment was written by Muhammad Yaqub Ali, J. and Rahman, C. J. agreed with him. In‑that case the petitioners were clerks in the Central Ordnance Depot, Rawalpindi. The provision of law applicable at the relevant time was the Govern?ment of India Act, and the petitioners relied on subsection (3) of section 240 of that Act. Their Lordships based their argument on sections 235 and 238 of the Government of India Act, 1935, which had been deleted at the time of the Partition. These pro?visions are as follows:‑ "

235. Without prejudice to the generality of the powers conferred on him by this Act, the Secretary of State may, acting with the concurrence of his advisers, from time to time specify what rules, regulations and orders affecting the conditions of service of all or any of His Majesty's Forces in India shall be made only with his previous approval. "

238. The provisions of the three last preceding sections shall apply in relation to persons who, not being members of His Majesty's forces, hold, or have held, posts in India connected with the equipment or administration of those forces or other?wise connected with defence, as they apply in relation to persons who are, or have been, members of these forces."

10. Having reproduced the substance of these two sections, their Lordships observed :‑ "That sections 235 and 238 have since been repealed is immaterial for the purpose of ascertaining who were members of civil service of the Crown in India or held any civil post under the Crown within the purview of subsection (1) of section

240. By comparing the provisions of these two sections with section 240, it becomes obvious that persons who served in connection with equipment and administration of armed forces or otherwise connected with defence were not intended to be included within the ambit of section 240."

11. If the object of citing section 238 was to show that civilian gazetted officers hold posts which are connected with defence, then the matter is so obvious that it may at once be conceded. If, however, it was intended to convey that officers holding posts connected with defence would be governed by the same conditions of service as members of His Majesty's forces, we submit that this was not the intention of section

238. Section 235 provided that in respect of certain rules affecting His Majesty's forces the Secretary of State may require, whether in respect of all or some of those forces, that those rules shall be made only with his previous approval ; and section 238 said that the provisions of section 235 shall apply to officers holding posts connected with defence. This only means that the Secretary of State could require that his previous approval should be obtained in respect of any rules affecting the conditions of service of officers C connected with defence, not that these officers shall have the same conditions of service as members of His Majesty's forces.

12. In the second case (Writ Petition No. 398 of 1957 Peshawar Bench), the judgment was recorded by Masud Ahmad, J., and Constantine, J., agreed with him. This was a case under the Constitution, and the judgment in Writ Petition No. 10 of 1957, was brought to their Lordships' notice. Their Lordships observed :‑ "That case was under the Government of India Act, 1935, and whatever might have been the position at that time, the position now seems to be that the guarantees contained in Article 181 of the Constitution do not apply to persons who are members of the defence service, as well as to those who hold posts connected with the defence. This would be clear if the language of the relevant provisions of Article 181 is compared with the language employed in Article 180 of the Constitution. Under the last? mentioned Article, subject to any provision of the Constitution, every person who is a member of the defence service, or of a civil service of the Federation, or of an All‑Pakistan service, or holds any post connected with the defence, or a civil post in connection with the affairs of the Federation, holds office during the pleasure of the President, * * *? * *. Clause (1) of Article 181 of the Constitution which lays down that no person who is a member of a civil service of the Federation, or of a Province, or of an All‑Pakistan Service, or holds a civil post in connection with the affairs of the Federation, or of a Province, can be dismissed or removed from service, or reduced in rank, by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed, does not extend such a guarantee to any person, who is 'a member of the defence service' or any person, who 'holds any post connected with the defence'. Clause (2) of Article 181, which lays down that no 'such person', as aforesaid, shall be dismissed, or removed from service, or reduced in rank, until he has been given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken in regard to him, excludes from its purview the case of those persons who are members of the defence service, or who hold any post connected with the defence."

12. Now, if Articles 180 and 181 stood by themselves, we have no doubt that the petitioner would be regarded as holding a post connected with defence, rather than in a civil service of the Federation. If, however, the Government has expressly notified the post of an Assistant Stores Officer to be included in one of the civil services of the Federation, it would be idle to argue that, nevertheless, for the purpose of Article 180 it should be regarded as a post connected with defence. The notification to which I refer is contained in the Gazette of Pakistan, dated the 14th October 1955, at page 175, and the number of the notification is 860/55. It is to the following effect :‑ "The civilian posts under the Ministry of Defence, shown in Schedule I, shall be included in the General Central Service, Class 1 (gazetted). "

2. The Civilian' posts under the Ministry of Defence, shown in Schedule 1, shall be included in the General Central Service, Class II (gizetted). "

3. The classification will have retrospective effect from the Ist January 1949 * * * * * ."

13. At No. 32 of the second Schedule the post entered is Assistant Stores Officer.

14. Further, we have been shown a copy of the Pakistan Army Orders in the form of a pamphlet, hearing date the 22nd September 1953. The annexure to P. A. O. No. 677/53 makes it clear that in respect of civilian posts in the defence services the Government itself contemplates the application of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. The following passages are important:‑ "I am directed to say that uncertainty appears to exist in the Armed Forces Headquarters with regard to the authorities competent tot make first appointment of civilian gazetted posts in the Defence Services and to impose penalties on the holders of such posts. In accordance with the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, the authority competent to make first appointment to Class I and Class II posts and to impose penalties on incumbents of those posts is the Governor‑General in Council, * * * * "Since the gazetted posts tenable by civilians of the Defence Services have not yet been classified, it has not been found possible to apply to them the rules mentioned in para. I above, nor to delegate powers of the Governor‑General to any authorities in respect of Class II Officers. Necessary action is being taken by this Ministry to complete classification of services and posts tenable by civilians of the Defence Services, and to frame suitable rules to regulate their discipline and conduct. * * * * * ."

15. The letter, which has been reproduced in this annexure, bears date the 19th August 1953, and it says that since the civil posts in the defence department have not been classified, it has not been found possible to apply to them the Classification, Control and Appeal Rules. The gazette of the 14th October 1955, to which I have referred earlier, is apparently a classification within the meaning of that letter. In fact the word "classification" is mentioned in para. 3 of the passage which I have reproduced from the gazette.

16. Next, there is before us a copy of the R. O. No. 26/58, which is to the following effect:‑ "Despite the fact that comprehensive instructions for the submission of appeals, petitions, representations, etc., already exist, the civilian officers and non‑gazetted staff employed in Armed Forces Headquarters do not always follow the correct procedure. The correct procedure in this regard is, therefore, specified below for the information and guidance of all concerned :‑ Appeals. "

2. Allowance of appeals. Appeals are allowed against orders :‑ (i) imposing any of the penalties specified in rule 49 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. (ii) *???? *????????? *????????? *????????? *????????? *????????? *????????? *????????? *????????? * (iii) *??? *????????? *????????? *????????? *????????? *????????? *????????? *????????? *????????? * (iv) altering or misinterpreting conditions of service, * * * to the disadvantage of a Government servant, vide rule 58, Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. (v) *???? *????????? *????????? *????????? *????????? *????????? *????????? *????????? *????????? *????????? *????????? "

3. The appointing, punishing and appellate authorities in respect of punishments awarded under rule

49. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules (item (i) of para. 2 above) are specified below :‑

17. The date of this Routine Order is not given, but considering that it bears the No. 26/58, it should relate to the year 1958.

18. This literature leaves no doubt in my mind that the Central Government has included these officers holding civil posts connected with defence in one of the civil services of the Federation, and since Article 181 is applicable to the services, the petitioner, is entitled to the benefit of that Article whether or not he holds a post connected with defence.

19. Since this material was not presented to the Benches to which I have referred, and since they have taken a contrary view, it is desirable that the matter should be referred to a Full Bench, and the only question for the Full Bench would be: Does an Assistant Stores Officer belong to a civil service of the Federation within the meaning of Article 181 ? HABIBULLAH, J.

‑I agree. OPINION OF FULL BENCH SHABIR AHMAD, J.

‑This Full Bench has been constituted to answer the question, whether an Assistant Stores Officer in the Military Medical Service belongs to a civil service of the Federation of Pakistan within the meaning of Article 181 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan ? The question arises in a writ petition presented before the Peshawar Bench of this Court by Mr‑ S. A. H. Bokhari who was an Assistant Stores Officer in the Military Medical Service at Nowshera against whom an inquiry was held which resulted' in his dismissal. As he believed that during the course of inquiry he had not been afforded the opportunity the law granted to members of the civil service of Pakistan of showing cause against the action taken in regard to him, he put in a petition for issue of an appropriate writ for grant of relief basing his claim on the assertion that he was a member of the civil services and not of defence services of Pakistan. From the order of reference passed by his Lordship the Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Habibullah Khan of the Peshawar Bench, who heard the case at Peshawar, it appears that the main reason for referring the determination of the above‑mentioned question to a Full Bench was that some other Division Benches appeared to have taken the view that persons holding civil posts connected with defence could not be deemed to be members of the civil service of the Federation.

2. The main reliance of the learned counsel for the petitioner was on Notification No. 860/55, dated the 14th of October 1955, which appeared in Part III of the Gazette of Pakistan dated the 14th of October 1955 at pages 175‑

176. The relevant part of the notification reads as follows :‑ "The civilian posts under the Ministry of Defence, shown in Schedule I, shall be included in the General Central Service, Class I (gazetted). "

2. The civilian posts under the Ministry of Defence, shown in Schedule 11. shall be included in the General Central Service, Class II (gazetted). "3. *???? *????????? *????????? *????????? *????????? *????????? *????????? *????????? *????????? * "4. *???? *????????? *????????? *????????? *????????? *????????? *????????? *????????? *????????? *????????? SCHEDULE I ??? ??? *????? *????????? *????????? *????????? *????????? *????????? *????????? *????????? *????????? *????????? SCHEDULE II ? "I toVIII *??????? *????????? *????????? *????????? *????????? *????????? *????????? *????????? *? "IX. Medical Services. 37. *??? *????????? *????????? *

38. Assistant Stores Officer." The effect of this notification clearly is that the holder of the post which the petitioner was holding was declared to be a member of one of the civil services of Pakistan, and if the notification suffers from no defect, the question before the Full Bench cannot but be answered in the affirmative.

3. It would appear from Article 180 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan enforced on the 23rd of March 1956 that there were inter alia, the following public services of Pakistan :‑ (i) Defence service ; (ii) civil service of the Federation ; (iii) All‑Pakistan service ; (iv) posts connected with defence ; and (v) civil posts in connection with the affairs of the Federation. That Constitution, which will in the sequel be referred to as the late Constitution, does not give any definition of the civil service of the Federation, but the definition can be arrived at by reference to the rules issued from time to time. The most important rules in this connection are the Civil Services (Classi?fication, Control and Appeal) Rules which were made by the Secretary of State for India in Council under section 96‑B (2) of the Government of India Act, 1919, on the 27th of May 1930, which were continued in force when that Act was repealed by the Government of India Act of 1935. Sections 276 and 277 of the Government of India Act, 1935, which are relevant for considering the force of the rules issued by the Secretary of State for India in Council under section 96‑B of the Government of India Act, 1919, read as follows :‑ "

276. Transitional Provisions.‑Until other provision is made under the appropriate provisions of this part of this Act, any rule made under the Government of India Act relating to the civil services of, or civil posts under, the Crown in India which were in force immediately before the commencement of Part III of this Act, shall, notwithstanding the repeal of that Act, continue in force so far as consistent with this Act, and shall be deemed to be rules made under the appropriate provisions of this Act. "

277. Interpretation, etc.‑(1) In this part of this Act‑

the expressions "all‑India Services", "Central Service Class I", "Central ‑ Service Class 11" "Railway Service Class I," "Railway Service Class II," and "Provincial Service" mean respectively the services which were immediately before the commencement of Part III of this Act, so described respectively in the classification rules then in force under section 96‑B of the Government of India Act ; and references to dismissal from His Majesty's service include references to removal from His Majesty's service." These two sections make it clear that the Civil Services (Classi?fication, Control and Appeal) Rules made by the Secretary of State for India in Council were to continue in force till altered or amended by the competent authority subject to the condition that if any of those Rules were repugnant to the' Government of India Act, 1935, they were to be deemed to have been deleted. No material alteration in the rules was made by the Indian Independence Act, 1947, and, in fact, they were continued in force by that Act and by the Orders issued under section 9 thereof. The repeal of the Government of India Act, 1935, the Indian Independence Act, 1947, and other enactments amending or altering those Acts did not affect those rules, because by reason of Article 224 of the late Constitution all laws in force in Pakistan, other than those mentioned in Article 221 of the late Constitution, including Ordinances, Orders‑in‑Council, Orders, rules, bye‑laws, regulations, notifications and other legal instruments which were in force in Pakistan or in any part thereof, or had extra‑territorial validity, immediately before the 23rd of March 1956, the date on which the late Constitution was enforced, were, so far as applicable and with the necessary adaptations, to continue in force until altered, repealed or amended by the appropriate legislature or other competent authority. The only alteration made in the rules issued by the Secretary of State under the Government of India Act, 1919, is that some of, the services, for example, the Indian Civil Service and the Indian Police Service, which are now known as the Civil Service of Pakistan and Pakistan Police Service, were reconstituted, because though formerly appointments to these services used to be on provincial basis, from the date of the alteration in the rules appointments to these services were to be on all‑Pakistan basis. At the time when the late Constitution came into force on the 23rd March 1956, notification ‑No. 860/55, dated the 14th of October 1955, which declared that the post held by the petitioner was to be included in the General Central Service, Class II (Gazetted), was in force and as it is no 'body's case that the notification has been superseded by another order issued by a competent authority it follows that the notification continued in force and was in force during the inquiry against the petitioner, unless it could be shown that it was, in any manner, repugnant to any provision of the late Constitution. It was not contended, and indeed it could not be, that the notification went counter to any pro?vision of the late Constitution, and therefore, the only question that requires determination is whether the notification is con?clusive with regard to the petitioner being a member of a civil service of Pakistan.

4. Ordinarily, when a question arises in some proceedings in, a Court which class of public servants a person in Government employ, belongs to, it would be for the Court to determine it, but when an authority competent to do so has determined the class to which a public servant belongs, the Court's jurisdiction to give a decision would not, in my opinion, exist. In the present case, Notification No. 860/55, dated the 14th of October 1955, said in very clear terms that the post, which the petitioner held, was to be included in the General Central Service, Class 11 (gazetted). If one turns to the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930. the significance of the words used to the notification with regard to the service of which the petitioner was a member becomes apparent. Part 11 of the rules is headed as `Classification' and consists of rules 14 to

22. The relevant part of rule 14 and rules 16 and 17, with necessary modifications, read as follows :‑ "R.

14. The public services in Pakistan shall be classified as follows :‑ (1) (2) the Central Services, Class I, (3) the Central Services, Class 11, _ (4) (5)??????? *????????? *????????? * ???????? *????????? *????????? *????????? *????????? *????????? *????????? *????????? (6)??????? *????????? * ???????? *????????? *????????? *????????? *????????? *????????? *????????? *????????? *????????? (7)??????? *????????? *????????? *????????? *????????? *????????? *????????? *????????? *????????? *????????? * "R.

16. The Central Services, Class I, shall consist of the services included in Schedule II to these rules. "R.

17. The Central Services, Class II, shall consist of such services (other than the services included in Schedules I and Il) under the administrative control of the Governor‑General or Government of a Province, as the Governor‑General may from time to time declare, by notification in the Gazette of Pakistan, to be included in the Central Services Class II provided that one of the services so included shall be entitled the General Service." It is clear that the service of which Assistant Store Officers in the Military Medical Service were declared to be members was the one mentioned in rule 14 and rule 17 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. `Now, as rule 17 of the above rules left it to the Governor‑General to declare what services were included in the Central Services Class II mentioned in rule 14 of the Rules, it is obvious that in the present case the Courts were precluded from giving a finding whether or not a public servant was a member of the Central Services Class 11 and the order of the Governor‑General was to determine the question.

5. It is not contended by the learned Advocate‑General, West Pakistan, who appeared for the respondents, that notification No. 860/55, dated the 14th of October 1955, was issued by an authority incompetent to issue it, but he urged that notwith?standing the notification the petitioner did not become a member of a civil service of Pakistan and, therefore, governed by Article 181 of the late Constitution and the Civil Services (Classi?fication, Control and Appeal) Rules. In support of his con?tention the learned Advocate‑General relied on a copy of the Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Defence letter No. F. 85! MD/R/53/DSIII, dated the 19th of August 1953, regarding the procedure for making first appointments to civilian gazetted posts in the Defence Service and for disciplinary action against the holders of such posts pending classification. It is true that that letter said that necessary action was being taken to complete the classification of services and posts that could be held by civilians of the Defence Service, and to frame suitable rules to regulate their discipline and conduct, but the letter cannot in any manner invalidate the notification issued oil tile 14th of October 1955 on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Rules could certainly be made with regard to the disciplinary action against persons mentioned in the notification, subject to the condition that they were not repugnant to Article 181 of the late Constitution, but it is clear that the action contemplated in the letter relied upon by the learned Advocate‑General was taken by the Central Government of Pakistan and resulted in the Order published as notification No. 860/55 dated the 14th of October 1955. The learned Advocate?-General next contended that even if it be held that the petitioner was a member of civil service of Pakistan, the rules contained in the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules slid not apply to him as they were not specifically applied to members of his service. The argument cannot be accepted because as soon as the petitioner became a member of a civil service of Pakistan on the 14th of October 1955 section 240 of the Government of India Act and after the 23rd of March 1956 Article 181 of the late Constitution as well as the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, in so far as they were not inconsistent with the statutory provisions, became applicable to him.

6. The learned Advocate‑General, relying on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court presided over by his Lordship the present Chief Justice in Writ Petition No. 8 of 1958 decided on the 3rd of March 1959 and the decisions in the cases men?tioned in the referring order, namely, Writ Petition No. 10 of 1957, Lahore Bench, Ghairat Hayat v. The Federation of Pakistan and Writ Petition No. 398 of 1957, Peshawar Bench, pointed out that civilian Officers working in the defence department were held in those cases not to be members of any of the civil services of Pakistan In my view those decisions call he of little, if any, assistance for the determination of the ques?tion that arises in the present case because the notification relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner had no applica?tion to the public servants whose cases were considered in those decisions.

7. In view of what 1 have said above I answer the question referred to the Full Bench in the affirmative and direct that the petitioner shall have his costs of the hearing before the Full Bench from the respondents. The case will no to the Division Bench for decision of the other points raised by the petitioner.

13. Z. KAIKAUS, J.

‑I agree. ABDUL AZIZ KHAN, J.

‑I also agree. A. H.??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Reference answered in affirmative.