Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
S Sharavanan vs Deptt Of Electronics Information ... on 7 April, 2026
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
ERNAKULAM BENCH, ERNAKULAM
Original Application No. 180/00165/2025
Tuesday, this the 7th day of April, 2026
CORAM:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sunil Thomas, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Braj Mohan Agrawal, Member (A)
S. Sharavanan, S/o. G. Subramania Siva, aged 58 years,
Senior Administrative Officer (under orders of dismissal from service),
C-DAC, Technopark, Thiruvananthapuram - 695 582, residing at
67-A, Sreerangam Lane, Sasthamangalam PO,
Thiruvananthapuram - 695 010. ..... Applicant
(By Advocates : Mr. P. Nandakumar, Mr. Vivek Vijayakumar and
Mr. Rishi Rajeev Menon)
Versus
1. Union of India, represented by the Secretary to Government,
Ministry of Electronics & Information Technology, Electronics
Niketan, 6, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003.
2. Centre for Development of Advanced Computing (C-DAC),
Corporate Office, Pune University Campus, Ganeshkhind Road,
Pune - 411 007, represented by its Director General.
3. The Director General (Appellate Authority), Centre for
Development of Advanced Computing, Corporate Office,
University Campus, Ganeshkhind, Pune - 411 007.
4. The Executive Director (Disciplinary Authority),
Centre for Development of Advanced Computing, C-DAC,
Knowledge Park, No. 1, Old Madras Road, Byappanahalli,
Bengaluru - 560038. ..... Respondents
Sebastian Antony 2026.04.07 17:29:27+05'30'
2
(By Advocate : Mr. Sinu G. Nath, Senior Panel Counsel)
This Original Application having been heard on 25.03.2026, the
Tribunal on 07.04.2026 delivered the following:
ORDER
Per: Justice Sunil Thomas, Judicial Member -
The sole applicant, aggrieved by Annexure A9 order by which he was terminated from service pursuant to disciplinary proceedings, and on rejection of his appeal by Annexure A11 order, has approached this Tribunal challenging both the orders.
2. The applicant joined the service of Centre for Development of Advanced Computing (hereinafter referred to as C-DAC) as Senior Administrative Officer on 30.6.2011. While so, by an order dated 26.11.2021 he was suspended from service in exercise of powers under Rule 10(1)(a) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings. Later he was issued with Annexure A1 memorandum raising four charges against him. The crux of the main allegation was that he without permission of any authority, had sent emails directly to the Hon'ble Finance Minister and Minister of State for Sebastian Antony 2026.04.07 17:29:27+05'30' 3 Finance and Corporate Affairs, alleging various acts of misconduct, and alleging misappropriation of money, etc. against the Director General and the officers of C-DAC, Thiruvananthapuram and corporate office at Pune. By Annexure A1, the applicant was directed to submit a written statement of defence. He submitted Annexure A2 defence statement dated 14.2.2022. Thereafter, an inquiry authority was appointed by order dated 5.4.2022 to inquire into the memorandum of charges levelled against the applicant.
3. According to the applicant one witness was a close associate of the inquiry authority and consequently he submitted Annexure A3 letter requesting the disciplinary authority his apprehension of bias that is likely to occur in the course of inquiry. His representation was rejected by Annexure A4. Thereafter, the inquiry was conducted and Annexure A7 report was submitted. A copy of the report was submitted to the applicant and he was directed to give his representation against the allegations levelled against him. He submitted Annexure A8 representation. However, rejecting the defence of the applicant, by Annexure A9 major penalty was imposed on the applicant, terminating him from service with immediate effect.
Sebastian Antony 2026.04.07 17:29:27+05'30' 4
4. Challenging Annexure A9 order, an appeal was preferred by the applicant before the appellate authority, which was dismissed by Annexure A11. Aggrieved by the above orders, applicant has approached this Tribunal seeking the following main reliefs:
"I) To call for the records leading to Annexures A9 and A11 and quash the same;
II) To declare that the punishment imposed against the applicant as per Annexure A9 is highly illegal and disproportionate;
III) To direct respondents 2 to 4 to immediately reinstate the applicant with all consequential monetary benefits."
5. In the reply statement filed by respondents Nos. 1 to 4, it was contended that the applicant had made unauthorized communications with higher authorities bypassing official channels and raising absolutely baseless allegations constituting grave misconduct, that undermined the organization's discipline and integrity. Since there was delay in completing the inquiry due to reasons beyond the control of the respondents, the suspension of the applicant was revoked and he was reinstated into service. The allegation of procedural bias is absolutely baseless. Even though the applicant had alleged bias it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India [(1987) 4 SCC 611] that procedural bias must be demonstrably evident to vitiate Sebastian Antony 2026.04.07 17:29:27+05'30' 5 disciplinary proceedings. The allegations of the applicant are speculative and unsupported by material evidence. The delay in completing the disciplinary proceedings was caused due to procedural complexities and extensions as requested by the applicant as well. It did not in any manner invalidate the proceedings. Denial of documents and examination of defence witnesses raised by the applicant are also wrong. The applicant was afforded all opportunities to adduce evidence as provided in Rule 14(12) of the CCS (CCA) Rules. The documents and witness deemed relevant to the charges were allowed and accepted by the inquiring authority. The record of the disciplinary proceedings shows that the applicant's request for production of documents was evaluated on merit and was rightfully rejected being irrelevant to the case and the reasons of such rejection have been recorded in Annexure R1. The allegation that the penalty imposed on the applicant was disproportionate particularly for a partly established charge is untenable and denied. Unauthorized communications with higher authorities, bypassing official channel and making scandalous remarks about alleged wide spread corruption within the organization, constitutes grave misconduct that undermines the organization's discipline and integrity. The proportionality of Sebastian Antony 2026.04.07 17:29:27+05'30' 6 administrative penalty aligns with the gravity of the misconduct established against the applicant.
6. It was further stated that applicant has been always in the habit of raising allegations and putting up false complaints against the organizations and its officers before the higher authorities including Union Ministers. In such a case of habitual overstepping of the formal channel of reporting, he was awarded with a major penalty of removal from service with effect from 28.2.2018 and was subsequently reinstated based on his appeal. The past conduct was factored during penalty determination and it was not intended to reopen and punish the applicant for previous act but to assess the proportionality of the penalty. In Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. v. Mohd. Taher Ali [(2007) 8 SCC 656] the Hon'ble Supreme Court had rejected the contention that unless the past conduct is a part of charge sheet, it cannot be taken into consideration while imposing the punishment.
7. The applicant has not exhausted his statutory remedies before approaching this Tribunal. Annexure R2 by-laws of the respondents clearly defines the appellate authorities in clause 17.2. The applicant has Sebastian Antony 2026.04.07 17:29:27+05'30' 7 filed his appeal before the 4th respondent Director General, C-DAC. His order is susceptible to challenge before the Vice Chairman, Governing Council of C-DAC, 1st respondent, being the appellate authority. Without adopting that procedure, the applicant has approached this Tribunal and hence, it is hit by Section 20 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Hence, the respondents sought for dismissal of the Original Application.
8. Heard both sides and examined the records.
9. Annexure A1 is the memo of charges. Four specific articles of charges were attributed against the applicant. The 1st article was that the applicant while functioning as the Administrative Officer of C-DAC contrary to the Rules and established practices of the C-DAC office, unauthorizedly wrote to the Finance Minster and Minster of State for Finance and Corporate Affairs by their names threatening in his strangely choicest words that within 30 days of email dated 10.6.2021, addressed to the Ministers, if all the punitive actions taken by the Director General of C-DAC, Pune in his order dated 15.10.2018 was not set aside and grant the applicant an opportunity to serve as Registrar in DRT, on deputation, he will be constrained to proceed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Sebastian Antony 2026.04.07 17:29:27+05'30' 8 India by filing a PIL petition which would be creating a very pathetic situation more than the present corona pandemic and thereby committed grave misbehaviour in violation of Rule 3(1)(i) and 3(1)(iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. The 2nd charge referred to the same charge and a further allegation incorporating that he had raised baseless allegations against C-DAC, Thiruvananthapuram Centre and the Corporate Office at Pune that crores and crores of public taxpayers' money were being misappropriated every month in C-DAC and all the Scientist E, F and G were sitting together and the families were enjoying huge amount of salary by violating existing GOI Rules. The 3rd article stated that the applicant without getting prior sanction from the competent authority unauthorizedly wrote directly overstepping the formal channels to the Finance Minister and the Minister of State and Director General of C- DAC in disrespectful language and committed grave misconduct and misbehaviour in violation of Rules 3(1)(iii) and 3(1)(vi) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. In article 4 it was alleged that the applicant, while assigned with the duties of taking care of the entire activities of administration of C-DAC, Technopark office during the period 2021- 2022, failed to maintain good and cordial relationship with other research Sebastian Antony 2026.04.07 17:29:27+05'30' 9 and startup firms and had shown strange and unfriendly behaviour to the startup firms associated with C-DAC leading them to face multiple issues while entering their allotted space in C-DAC building and thereby committed grave misconduct.
10. In Annexure A2 reply the contention of the applicant was that the three charges levelled against him as articles 1 to 3 were one and same and it was deliberately split up as a part of a calculated and malicious design to fix him under some pretext or other. It was also stated that the alleged representation to the higher authorities was submitted by him due to his genuine concern and purity in public interest. If there was anything unbecoming on his part in sending the representation, the authorities could have called him for his explanation giving him an opportunity to explain the circumstances in which the representation happened to be submitted. The Ministry to which it was forwarded had not rejected his representation. On the contrary they only forwarded it to Financial Advisor, New Delhi for necessary action indicating that they in fact had accepted it. The charge No. 4 was also specifically denied by him. Sebastian Antony 2026.04.07 17:29:27+05'30' 10
11. On the basis of the above charges and reply an inquiry was conducted. The report of inquiry indicates that 5 witnesses were examined on the side of the respondents and 3 defence witnesses were examined on the side of the applicant. It also indicates that the applicant was given opportunity to participate in the inquiry proceedings, that he has examined the witnesses and cross-examined the witnesses of the respondents. Regarding the conduct of the inquiry, he has no specific case except two specific instances that the original officer who had conducted the inquiry was biased and that the inquiry was unduly prolonged. Regarding the bias petition filed by him as Annexure A3, a speaking order was passed as Annexure A4. Thereafter, the inquiry officer himself was changed and another officer was appointed. Hence, this contention will not survive. Regarding the contention that there was considerable delay is also well explained by stating that it was due to administrative exigencies and followed to aid the applicant to participate in the inquiry properly. In the background of this explanation, we find no reason to hold that inquiry was unduly delayed.
12. Annexure A7 is the inquiry report. Regarding article No. 1, the inquiry officer held that the first part of the charge that the applicant had, Sebastian Antony 2026.04.07 17:29:27+05'30' 11 contrary to Rules and established practices of C-DAC, unauthorizedly wrote to the Finance Minster and Minister of State for Finance and Corporate Affairs was established. Regarding the second part that the applicant wrote to the Finance Minister using threatening language in his strangely choicest words could not be established since the various terms used were subjective and the perception of threatening may change from person to person. Regarding 2nd and 3rd charge, it was held that the 2nd charge was almost similar as that of charge No. 1. Regarding the 3rd charge also it was held that the article 3 was almost similar to that of the 1st charge and hence, the remaining part was not established. Regarding the article 4 it was held that it was not established.
13. The inquiry report was forwarded to the applicant and his explanation was sought regarding the inquiry report. The applicant admittedly gave a reply. However, by Annexure A9 order, the penalty was imposed on him by imposing major penalty of dismissal from service with immediate effect and ordering that the suspension period from 26.11.2021 to 17.5.2022 will be treated as non-duty for all practical purposes.
Sebastian Antony 2026.04.07 17:29:27+05'30' 12
14. Thereafter, an appeal was submitted which was dismissed by Annexure A11 order. It is pertinent to note that the applicant has no case that the inquiry was conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice. He has also no case that he was denied effective opportunity to contest the proceedings. He has also no case that the principles of natural justice were not followed. It is also on record that the factual findings are not under dispute in this proceeding. Hence, we are only confining to the specific legal issues raised by the learned counsel for the applicant on the basis of facts available on record.
15. Assailing Annexures A9 and A11 orders, the learned counsel for the applicant advanced three specific grounds. Firstly, it was contended that though four articles of charges were framed against the applicant and only the 1st charge was partly established, still on that basis of the partly established charge alone the applicant was inflicted with the harshest of the punishment by ordering dismissal from service. Hence, it was shockingly disproportionate to the established allegations. Secondly, it was contended that after the submission of the representation to the inquiry report as solicited, and before inflicting the harshest punishment, the applicant ought to have been given an opportunity to plead against the Sebastian Antony 2026.04.07 17:29:27+05'30' 13 penalty that was proposed to be imposed. Thirdly it was contended that for inflicting the maximum penalty the past conduct of the applicant was relied on, regarding which there was no specific charge and the applicant was not given an opportunity to raise his objections regarding such a practice.
16. Advancing the first ground of attack to Annexures A9 and A11, the learned counsel for the applicant contended that in the inquiry report though four specific articles of charges were raised against the applicant, part of the first charge alone was established and the remaining were not established. In the above circumstances, the granting of extreme punishment of dismissal from service was unwarranted, was disproportionate to the misconduct and liable to be interfered with. It was contended that merely forwarding a communication to the superior officers that too the Minister regarding his apprehension about the functioning of C-DAC can only be considered at the most as an improper conduct and not a misconduct warranting the ultimate penalty of dismissal from service. Advancing the contention that the punishment has to suit the offence and the offender and should not be vindictive or unduly harsh, the learned counsel relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Sebastian Antony 2026.04.07 17:29:27+05'30' 14 Court in Ranjit Thakur's case (supra). The punishment so imposed should not be disproportionate to the offence as to shock the conscience and amount in itself to conclusive evidence of bias, it was contended. The learned counsel further relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Bhagat Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh [(1983) 2 SCC 442]. The learned counsel also relied on the decision in State of Karnataka & Anr. v. Umesh [(2022) 6 SCC 563], to contend that in exercise of judicial review the Tribunal must determine whether the penalty was disproportionate to the proven misconduct.
17. Essentially it is to be noted that the crux of the allegation was that the applicant, bypassing the said norms and Rules had forwarded communications to the Ministers raising very serious allegations against the functioning of the Establishment. In the written statement the applicant did not contend that he had not sent such a letter. He has also no case that there existed any Rule which enable him to bypass the authorities. On the other hand, he had set up a definite contention that he had issued such a communication bypassing the authorities by virtue of the orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 239 of 2016. It appears that he was a party to the above proceedings, though the Sebastian Antony 2026.04.07 17:29:27+05'30' 15 records are not available before us. He has also not produced the copy of the said order. It seems that the specific contention of the applicant as discernible from the inquiry report was that he had bypassed the formal communication channels based on an oral direction of the CAT, Ernakulam Bench in the above OA, the order of which was pronounced on 5.4.2016.
18. The specific defence set up by the respondents that he had bypassed the formal communication channels by virtue of the direction of this Tribunal is unbelievable. It was rightly held that there was no reason to believe that the CAT would orally direct the respondents to disregard the Government Rules and Regulations based on oral directions. It appears that no such direction was given in the order. The contention was found to be baseless for yet another reason also. It was held by the disciplinary authority that even, if it was believed that CAT, Ernakulam Bench had given such directions, several facts which occurred after the order are also included in the representations submitted to the Minsters. Definitely no such direction could have been issued by the CAT in relation to facts that came into existence much after the order of the Tribunal. Sebastian Antony 2026.04.07 17:29:27+05'30' 16
19. In the light of the above conclusion it is an established fact that the applicant had bypassed the Rules. He also raised false allegations against his own parent establishment. Inquiry officer only diferred with the phraseology used in the charge to denote the false allegations, that such usages may have different connotations, changing from person to person.
20. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant assailing the penalty imposed on him as disproportionate is based on his conclusion that out of the four articles of charges which were framed against him only part of the 1st charge alone was found established against him. This is partly incorrect. The fact that the applicant had bypassed the known channels and directly wrote to the authorities raising several allegations is not disputed. In fact, it was established also. The only finding regarding second part of Article (I) was that the phraseology used in the said charge was that he had used "strange" or "threatening" words, which was a fact which depends on the perception of any person which may differ from person to person. It was only in that context it was held to be not established. On the other hand, charges Nos. (II) and (III) were held to be overlapping the 1st part of the charge No. (I). Hence, it was answered accordingly. It is not a case where articles Nos. (II) and (III) were found Sebastian Antony 2026.04.07 17:29:27+05'30' 17 in favour of the applicant. It is true that article (IV) was not established.
21. In the above circumstances, the contention of the applicant on a broad proposition that since out of four articles of charges raised against the applicant only one is partly established, the punishment should be proportionately scaled down is without any basis. The applicant had specifically written letters directly to the Ministers concerned. Further there is no justification in the contention that the Ministers did not reject his communications but only forwarded it to the Financial Advisor, thereby found content in his representation is also not legally sustainable. It is only a formality that when such representations are received, they are forwarded for necessary action.
22. The second contention advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant was that before imposing the penalty, the applicant was not given an opportunity of being heard. In Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad & Ors. v. B. Karunakar & Ors. [(1993) 4 SCC 727] it was held that employees/delinquents are entitled for two specific opportunities, firstly to submit representations against the findings and secondly against the proposed penalty. The learned counsel for the Sebastian Antony 2026.04.07 17:29:27+05'30' 18 applicant invited our attention to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indu Bhushan Dwivedi v. State of Jharkhand & Anr. [(2010) 11 SCC 278]. The Supreme Court relied on an earlier decision of it in State of Mysore v. K. Manche Gowda (AIR 1964 SC 506) wherein the Supreme Court held that a Government servant must have a reasonable opportunity not only to prove that he was guilty of the charges levelled against him, but also to establish that the punishment proposed to be imposed is either not called for or excessive. The said opportunity is to be a reasonable opportunity and therefore, it is necessary that the Government servant must be told of the grounds on which it was proposed to take such an action.
23. The above decision cannot apply to the facts of this case. The facts involved in that case shows that, while imposing the penalty, the authority had taken into consideration his past adverse service records without giving him an opportunity to explain his position and considering his explanation. It was in that context, the Supreme Court held that he should have been given an opportunity to answer the penalty proposed to be imposed. It does not lay down an absolute proposition that whenever punishment is proposed to be imposed, the delinquent should also be Sebastian Antony 2026.04.07 17:29:27+05'30' 19 heard.
24. Thirdly it was contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the disciplinary authority went wrong in relying on the past conduct of the applicant and the punishment imposed on him was without giving him an opportunity to answer it and without including it in the charge. It is true that in the charge sheet no such specific charge is framed touching on his previous conduct and punishment of dismissal was imposed for bypassing the superior authorities in making complaints. No specific ground is also raised in the OA on the specific contention now advanced. However, being a mixed question of facts and law and we find from records that the authority has relied on his previous conduct, we propose to consider that also. By Annexure A9, the authority has dealt with in detail the findings on each article of charge. The authority disagreed with the conclusions arrived at by the inquiry authority on the 2nd charge and held that from the records it was established. However, while proceeding to analyze Annexure A9 the authority had specifically referred to his past conduct. In Annexure A9 under the heading of findings of DA on Article I at page 7 there is a specific finding that the repetition of such gross misconduct, especially by a senior Group A officer is deeply concerning Sebastian Antony 2026.04.07 17:29:27+05'30' 20 and reflects a complete lack of accountability and professional integrity. Thereafter, the authority proceeded to consider the decision on Article I on various heads. The second reason relied on by the authority is repetition of the misconduct. The disciplinary authority at page 9 of Annexure A9 had specifically held that the CO has a history of misconduct, for which he was previously removed from service. Despite giving an opportunity to reform, he has repeated similar misconduct, it was held. This repetition demonstrates a clear disregard for the disciplinary process and lack of intent to adhere to organizational norms, it was held. It was further held that repeated violations by a senior officer undermine the authority of the institution.
25. Though the authority has given 8 separate reasons on article No. I, we find that in reasons Nos. 2 and 6, the authority had specifically referred to the earlier punishment and misconduct. In the ultimate paragraph of Annexure A9 also the authority has referred to the repeated misconduct committed by the officer.
26. In fact, Indu Bhushan Dwivedi's case (supra) relied on by the learned counsel for the applicant applies to this finding of the authority. Sebastian Antony 2026.04.07 17:29:27+05'30' 21 Further, the DoP&T has also specifically laid down the manner in which reliance is to be placed by the authority on the past misconduct. In OM No. 134/20/68 dated 28.8.1968 it was directed that if the authority proposes to rely on the past conduct or the punishments imposed earlier, either it should be made part of the charge sheet or the delinquent should be given an opportunity to answer to such an allegation. This was issued in the background of the decision in K. Manche Gowda's case (supra) and in the context of the 15th amendment to the Constitution to Article 311(2). The applicant is entitled to represent against the findings of the disciplinary authority. The penalty has to be imposed on the basis of the evidence adduced on record. In the case at hand the authority has relied on the past conduct also. The records of past misconduct were not placed in the inquiry. Hence, to our mind, reliance placed on past misconduct, without being heard, is illegal and improper and to that extent it is liable to be set aside. Hence the question of proportionality of punishment cannot be considered without answering the question of reliance on past misconduct.
Sebastian Antony 2026.04.07 17:29:27+05'30' 22
27. Having considered the entire facts, we are inclined to set aside Annexures A9 and A11 on the limited ground that the authorities have relied on the past conduct of the applicant for imposing the penalty without either making it as a part of the charge or without giving him an opportunity of being heard before the penalty was imposed. Accordingly, Annexures A9 and A11 are set aside and the matter is remanded to the disciplinary authority for the limited purpose of giving a reasonable opportunity to the applicant to submit his representation as to why the past misconduct shall not be considered while moulding the ultimate relief. It is made clear that it is only to enable the applicant to give his representation against reliance on his past conduct and to justify why a lesser punishment would serve the purpose. All other contentions of applicant shall stand concluded. The applicant will be entitled to file his representation against the proposed penalty in the background of his past conduct. The respondents are directed to give a notice to the applicant as to why the past conduct of the applicant shall not be taken into consideration for appropriate orders. Notice shall be given within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The applicant shall submit his reply within three weeks, from the date of receipt of such Sebastian Antony 2026.04.07 17:29:27+05'30' 23 notice. The authority shall thereafter pass appropriate orders on the penalty, if any, on the basis of his representation strictly on the basis of the materials available on record and untrammeled by any of our observations made hereinabove.
28. OA is allowed to the limited extent as above. No costs.
(BRAJ MOHAN AGRAWAL) (JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS)
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
"SA"
Sebastian Antony 2026.04.07 17:29:27+05'30'
24
Original Application No. 180/00165/2025
APPLICANT'S ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 - True copy of memorandum No. ED/C-
DAC(T)/018/2021 dated 4.2.2022 issued by the 4th
respondent.
Annexure A2 - True copy of written statement of defence dated
14.2.2022 submitted by the applicant along with
enclosures.
Annexure A3 - True copy of letter dated 14.9.2022 submitted by the
applicant to the 3rd respondent.
Annexure A4 - True copy of order No. CORP:DG:4079 dated
27.10.2022 issued by the 3rd respondent.
Annexure A5 - True copy of letter dated 21.8.2023 submitted by the
applicant before the 4th respondent.
Annexure A6 - True copy of letter No. Inquiry/IO/C-DAC(K)/2023-
2024/010 dated 22.12.2023.
Annexure A7 - True copy of inquiry report dated 14.6.2024.
Annexure A8 - True copy of representation submitted by the applicant
to the 4th respondent on 28.8.2024.
Annexure A9 - True copy of order No. C-DACB/DA/TVM/003 dated
30.11.2024 issued by the 4th respondent.
Annexure A10 - True copy of appeal submitted by the applicant before the 3rd respondent on 18.12.2024.
Annexure A11 - True copy of order No. CORP:DG:4544 dated 17.3.2025 issued by the 3rd respondent.
Sebastian Antony 2026.04.07 17:29:27+05'30' 25 RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES Annexure R1 - True copy of the IO No. Inquiry/IO/C-DAC(K)/2023- 2024/010 dated 22.12.2023.
Annexure R2 - True copy of the relevant portion of the C-DAC Bye-
Laws.
-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-
Sebastian Antony 2026.04.07 17:29:27+05'30'