Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
C J Thomas vs Revenue on 23 June, 2025
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
ERNAKULAM BENCH,
ERNAKULAM
Original Application No. 180/00237/2023
Monday, this the 23rd day of June, 2025
CORAM:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sunil Thomas, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Varun Sindhu Kul Kaumudi, Member (A)
C.J. Thomas, S/o. C.T. John, aged 54 years,
Superintendent of Central GST & Central Excise,
Office of the Assistant Commissioner,
Central GST & Central Excise,
Kozhikode Central Division,
Mananchira, Kozhikode - 673 001,
Residing at Bhoomka, PO Karuvissery,
Calicut - 673 010. ..... Applicant
(By Advocates: Mr. T.C. Govindaswamy, Ms. Kala T. Gopi,
Mr. Kailesh T. Gopi & Ms. Nishitha Balachandran)
Versus
1. Union of India, represented by the Secretary to the
Government of India, Ministry of Finance,
Department of Revenue, North Block,
New Delhi - 110001.
2. The Chief Commissioner of Central Excise,
Customs and Service Tax, Kerala Zone,
Central Revenue Buildings,
I.S. Press Road, Kochi - 682018.
SEBASTIAN ANTONY 2025.06.23 15:20:37+05'30'
2
3. The Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs
(GST & Central Excise), Central Revenue Buildings,
I.S. Press Road, Kochi - 682018.
4. The Joint Commissioner (P&V),
Central Excise and Customs,
(GST & Central Excise),
Central Revenue Buildings,
I.S. Press Road, Kochi-682018. ..... Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. C. Rajendran, Senior Panel Counsel)
This Original Application having been heard on 04.06.2025, the
Tribunal on 23.06.2025 delivered the following:
ORDER
Per: Justice Sunil Thomas, Judicial Member -
The applicant was an Inspector of Customs, posted at Calicut International Airport in 2005 under the respondents. He challenges the penalty imposed on him by Annexure A1 and the related orders in appeal and revision preferred by him, challenging the penalty order.
2. CBI conducted a search and investigation at Calicut Airport on 2.11.2005. Alleging rampant corruption among the Customs officials, in collusion with certain agents, registered RC No. 26(A)/2005/CBI/ACB/KER against 36 officers who had worked in various categories in the Customs Department of Calicut Airport, during SEBASTIAN ANTONY 2025.06.23 15:20:37+05'30' 3 the period August 2005 to November, 2005. The offences alleged against those accused were under Section 120B IPC and Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It was alleged in the charge sheet that the above officers entered into a criminal conspiracy to obtain undue pecuniary advantage for themselves by receiving illegal gratification from passengers arriving at Calicut Airport from foreign countries. The bribe so collected were entrusted to certain third parties, including one P.P. Abdul Rehman alias Paithal, P.P. Ahamed and V.P. Vijayan, who used to distribute the respective shares to accused and other non-accused officers of the Customs Department. It was alleged that each of them received specified amount. On the basis of the crime registered, investigation was conducted and after conclusion of investigation, final report was laid. All the accused faced trial before the Court of Special Judge (SPE/CBI)-II, Ernakulam in CC No. 7/2007. All of them were acquitted by Annexure A8 judgment.
3. Alleging that in the course of investigation of RC 26(A)/2005, it was revealed that a system of bribe collection from the passengers existed, and that several officers of Customs on duty at Calicut including the applicant herein were party to the system of receiving their portion of SEBASTIAN ANTONY 2025.06.23 15:20:37+05'30' 4 bribe. 23 officers including the applicant herein who were not arrayed as accused in RC No. 26(A)/2005 were charge sheeted. Annexure A4 is the memorandum of charge issued to the applicant herein. Annexure A4, the statement of article of charge framed against the applicant reads as follows:
"During the course of investigation in RC 26(A)/2005 registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation against officers working in Calicut Airport, Karipur, it was revealed that a system of bribe collection from passengers arriving from abroad was prevalent in the Calicut Airport since February, 2005. Shri C.J. Thomas, worked as Inspector of Central Excise & Customs at Calicut Airport during the period from 29.8.2003 to 1.9.2005. Shri C.J. Thomas, while working as Inspector of Customs at Calicut Airport, failed to maintain absolute integrity by giving directions, as Station Duty Officer, to Shri V.P. Vijayan, a casual labourer at the Calicut Airport to act as a carrier of bribes and also obtained share of bribes collected from passengers arriving from abroad at Calicut Airport.
By the above acts, Shri C.J. Thomas, as a Government servant, violated Rule 3(1)(i) of the CCS© Rules, 1964.".
The applicant denied the allegations and submitted reply. A composite inquiry was ordered against all the 23 officials. By Annexure A5 report, the inquiry officer found the above applicant guilty. A copy of the report was forwarded to the applicant. Annexure A6 representation was submitted by the applicant. Annexure A1 is the order of penalty imposed on the applicant. By the above order the pay of the applicant was reduced by two stages from Rs. 17,500/- and GP Rs. 4,800/- to Rs. 16,220/- and SEBASTIAN ANTONY 2025.06.23 15:20:37+05'30' 5 GP Rs. 4,800/- in the time scale of pay of Rs. 9,300-34,800/- and GP Rs. 4,800/- for a period of two years w.e.f. 1st May, 2011 under Rule 11(v) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. It was further ordered that the applicant will not earn increments of pay during the period of reduction and that on expiry of the period, the reduction will have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay.
4. Applicant preferred an appeal. It was rejected by Annexure A2 order. Challenging the order of appeal and the penalty imposed on her he preferred a revision to the Government. It was dismissed by Annexure A3 order.
5. Aggrieved by the above orders, the applicant has preferred this OA specifically challenging Annexure A1 order imposing penalty, Annexure A2 order in the appeal and Annexure A3 order in the revision.
6. Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned Senior Panel Counsel for the respondents.
7. Advancing the argument, the learned counsel for the applicant contended that this was a clear case in which the applicant was proceeded SEBASTIAN ANTONY 2025.06.23 15:20:37+05'30' 6 against without any evidence at all. The charges were not proved by any iota of legally admissible evidence and that it was a clear case of no evidence. The learned counsel further contended that even the conclusions arrived at by the inquiry officer were illogical, largely unsustainable and no reasonable person could have arrived at such conclusions. The basic conclusions arrived at by the authority were only based on surmises and assumptions.
8. In the inquiry report the inquiry officer essentially considered the materials in the light of the charge sheet and concluded that the statement of article of charge consist of three parts as follows:
A) A system of bribe collection from passengers arriving from abroad was prevalent in Calicut Airport since February, 2005. B) Shri C.J. Thomas, Inspector used to give directions to V.P. Vijayan, a casual labourer, to act as a carrier of bribes and also obtained share of bribes collected from passengers arriving from abroad at Calicut Airport.
C) That the applicant while functioning as the Inspector of Customs and Central Excise at Calicut Airport during the period 29.8.2003 to 1.9.2005 by the above conduct failed to maintain SEBASTIAN ANTONY 2025.06.23 15:20:37+05'30' 7 absolute integrity and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant.
In the inquiry, 10 documents were marked and 9 witnesses examined on the side of the disciplinary authority. The applicant got himself examined as defence witness.
9. To sustain part-A of the above charge, the enquiry officer essentially relied on S1 and S10 which were the confession statements of P.P. Ahamed and P.P. Abdul Rehman. This was sought to be supported by S9, a list of shares, which was allegedly recovered from P.P. Abdul Rehman. To sustain part-B of the allegations, the inquiry officer relied on S10 and the oral statement of P.P. Abdul Rehman and the statement of V.P. Vijayan, who were examined as witnesses before the inquiry officer. To sustain part-C of the allegations, he relied on S6 and S7 joint inspection reports, S8 the search list of accounts of bribe allegedly maintained by SW1-P.P. Abdul Rehman, S9, the account of bribe distribution from 16.9.2005 and 30.9.2005 and S10 the confession statement given by P.P. Abdul Rehman.
SEBASTIAN ANTONY 2025.06.23 15:20:37+05'30' 8
10. The appreciation of facts by the inquiry officer reveal that he has heavily relied on the confession statement given by P.P. Abdul Rehman to the judicial magistrate, recorded on 25.3.2006 and marked as S10 before the inquiry officer and confession statement of V.P. Vijayan. In the confession statement of Abdul Rehman, there is a direct reference to the applicant. It was stated therein that every week list of share of bribes payable to each officer was given. Accordingly, shares were distributed. However, when the confession statement was shown, he denied it except the signature. He also said that he had no financial dealings with any person. Though he admitted that he knew the applicant, he had not entrusted any money with him. V.P. Vijayan, though admitted his confession statement, did not depose anything incriminating the applicant. The inquiry authority concluded that considering the inconsistent version of Abdul Rehman and taking into account the demeanor of the witness, the statement given by the witness before the Magistrate was voluntary and acceptable as evidence.
11. Since the inquiry officer heavily relied on the confession statement, the evidentiary value of the confession statement, has to be carefully looked into. It is true that in Section 164 Cr.PC statement of Abdul SEBASTIAN ANTONY 2025.06.23 15:20:37+05'30' 9 Rehman, he had specifically referred to the applicant, though before the inquiry, he did not own it. It is available from the records that when examined as a witness in the criminal case, said Abdul Rehman turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. He was declared as hostile. His confession statement was not accepted by the learned Sessions Judge. In the light of the above, the evidentiary value of the retracted confession of the said witnesses have to be looked into.
12. To contend that the retracted confession statement of a witness has only a limited value, the learned counsel for the applicant relied on the decisions reported in Ram Kishan Singh v. Harmit Kaur & Anr. (AIR 1972 SC 468) and Baij Nath Sah v. State of Bihar [(2010) 6 SCC 736]. The contention of the learned counsel was that confession statement has only a limited value and needs to be corroborated at least on material particulars. It was contended that in the inquiry the retracted confession was not only relied, but it was omitted to be noted that the retracted confession statement of the witness was sought to be used against a person who was not arrayed as accused before the criminal court. Retracted confession of an accused was sought to be relied in a disciplinary proceeding against person who was not arrayed as an SEBASTIAN ANTONY 2025.06.23 15:20:37+05'30' 10 accused. Hence, it could not be used for any purpose, it was argued. In Ram Kishan Singh's case (supra) it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that a statement under Section 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure is not a substantive piece of evidence. It can be used only to corroborate the statement of a witness and to contradict the witness. In Baij Nath Sah's case (supra), relying on Ram Kishan Singh's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that a statement given under Section 164 of Cr.PC was not a substantive piece of evidence and can be utilized only to corroborate or contradict the witnesses, vis-à-vis statement made in court. In other words, it can be utilized as the previous statement and nothing more. In Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank & Ors. [(2009) 2 SCC 570], the delinquent employee was found guilty in a departmental proceeding only on the basis of his confessional statement to the Police. It was held that some more evidence ought to have been brought on record to establish the allegation. This contention of the learned counsel was further supplemented referring to the decisions in G.M. Tank v. State of Gujarat & Ors. [(2006) 5 SCC 446] and R. Shaji v. State of Kerala [(2013) 14 SCC 266]. Evidently, apart from the incriminating material in the Section 164 Cr.PC, statement of Abdul SEBASTIAN ANTONY 2025.06.23 15:20:37+05'30' 11 Rehman, there is no other material to supplement his version.
13. Answering the above contention, the learned Senior Panel Counsel relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pyare Lal Bhargava v. State of Rajasthan (1963 AIR 1094) wherein it was held that a retracted confession may form the legal basis of a conviction, if the court was satisfied that it was true and was voluntarily made. But it was cautioned that the court shall not base a conviction on such a confession, without corroboration. It was not a Rule of law, but was only a Rule of evidence. It was also reiterated that it cannot even be held down as an inflexible Rule of practice or prudence that under no circumstance such a conviction can be made without corroboration, or a court may in a particular case be convinced of the absolute truth of a confession and be prepared to act upon it, without corroboration, but it may be laid down as a general Rule of practice that it was unsafe to rely upon a confession, much less a retracted confession unless the court was satisfied that the retracted confession was true and voluntarily made and has been corroborated in material particulars. It is correct that a finding in a criminal court may not always be a ground for disbelieving the version in an inquiry proceedings. It was held in Commissioner of Police, New SEBASTIAN ANTONY 2025.06.23 15:20:37+05'30' 12 Delhi v. Narender Singh (2006 KHC 574) that if an employee has been acquitted of a criminal charge, the same by itself would not be a ground not to initiate a department proceedings against him or should drop the same in the event of an acquittal is passed.
14. Further, counsel for the applicant contended that the Sessions Court, not only did not rely on the retracted confession statement, but had held that the confession statements were improperly recorded. The inquiry officer could not have remained oblivious about the judgment of acquittal rendered after a full fledged trial, it was contended. In this context, the manner in which the confession statements of the approvers who were examined before the Sessions Court as PW1, PW2 and PW13 were recorded and how their evidence was evaluated by the Sessions Court need to be looked into. The learned Sessions Judge did not reject the evidence of the approvers solely considering the fact that all of them turned hostile before the Sessions Judge. He found that the witnesses had stated that they were compelled to depose before the Magistrate under threat or duress of the CBI officials. They also asserted that they did not know about the facts stated in the statements recorded by the Magistrate. They turned hostile and did not in any manner, support the statements SEBASTIAN ANTONY 2025.06.23 15:20:37+05'30' 13 given to the Magistrate. The court held that threat or coercion on the part of the CBI officials could not be ruled out. The court took note of the fact that the Magistrate was not examined. The Sessions Judge held that in the above circumstance accused cannot be fastened with the retracted confession of the witness. It was also held by the court that Section 164 Cr.PC statement can only be used to corroborate other evidence. However, the only evidence laid before the Session Court was the confession statement. Another aspect relied on by the Session Judge to reject the confession statement was that it was not recorded in compliance with Rule 70 of the Criminal Rules of Practice. Hence, the Court concluded that the retracted confessions were not legally and factually sustainable.
15. On the other hand, the legality of the recording of the evidence was considered by inquiry officer. The inquiry officer in his inquiry report seen at page 27 of Annexure A3 held that on a reference of the statement given by Abdul Rehman it was clear that the Magistrate has put several questions to the deponent as proceeding to ascertain the voluntary nature of the statement entered by him and on being convinced that he was giving the statement without any inducement of threat on the part of the SEBASTIAN ANTONY 2025.06.23 15:20:37+05'30' 14 CBI or anybody, and that it was voluntarily made, the confession was recorded. According to the inquiry officer, it was seen from the records that the deponent was made aware of the fact that based on the statement of deponent could be punished by Court. Thereafter it was recorded that he was satisfied that the witness was aware of the legal consequences of giving such a statement. Based on it, it was concluded by the inquiry officer as sufficient to satisfy the requirement under Rule 70 of the Criminal Rules of Practice.
16. The above seems to be on an absolutely mistaken interpretation of law. Rule 70 provides that no Magistrate shall record any statement or confession made by an accused under Section 164 of the Code until the Magistrate has first recorded in writing his reasons for believing that the accused was prepared to make the statement voluntarily and until he has explained to the accused that he was under no obligation to answer any question at all and has warned the accused that it was not intended to make him an approver and anything he says may be used against them. This mandatory requirement of Rule 70 was not followed by the SEBASTIAN ANTONY 2025.06.23 15:20:37+05'30' 15 Magistrate, as correctly found by the learned Sessions Judge. Hence, the Section 164 statement heavily relied on by the inquiry officer, was correctly rejected by the Session Judge on legal points and in the eye of law it was not properly recorded. This finding goes to the very legality and root of the Section 164 Cr.PC statement. Hence, the credibility of the above is absolutely doubtful in the case at hand. This assumes significance since the only crucial material relied on by the inquiry officer to arrive at a conclusion of guilt as against the applicant was essentially the confession statement alone. Since the statements under Section 164 Cr.PC were recorded in complete breach of the procedure, it could not have been relied upon, for any purpose. Further, even the persons who gave the statements retracted from it. This finding arrived at, by the Sessions Judge after testing the credibility of Section 164 Cr.PC statement through the process of cross-examination cannot be ignored.
17. Though we have already held that the retracted confession of the accused ought not have been legally accepted and relied on, by the Inquiry Officer, still we are inclined to consider on merits as to whether the said confession statements, along with the other materials placed before the Inquiry Officer brings out any material to establish the guilt of SEBASTIAN ANTONY 2025.06.23 15:20:37+05'30' 16 the applicant.
18. In Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank & Ors. [(2009) 2 SCC 570] Supreme Court held that though indisputably departmental proceeding was a quasi judicial proceeding, the inquiry officer performs a quasi judicial function. The charges leveled against the delinquent must be found to have been proved. The inquiry officer has a duty to arrive at a finding upon a consideration of the materials placed before it by the parties. If the whole of the evidence in the inquiry is accepted as true, he should consider whether the conclusion follow that the charge in question was true against the respondent. The learned counsel to contend that if there was no evidence to support the misconduct alleged, the delinquent cannot be proceeded against, placed reliance on the decision in Union of India & Ors. v. Gyan Chand Chattar [(2009) 12 SCC 78]. The learned counsel further relied on the decisions reported in V. Ramana v. A.P. SRTC & Ors. [2005 (7) SCC 338], Union of India v Parna Nanda (AIR 1989 SC 1185) and Ministry of Finance v. S.B. Ramesh [(1998) 3 SCC 227].
SEBASTIAN ANTONY 2025.06.23 15:20:37+05'30' 17
19. The catena of decisions placed above clearly lay down the judicial limits of the jurisdiction of Tribunal in interfering with the finding in a department proceeding or in the punishment, if, and only if, it was a case of no evidence. However, if there is some evidence, the Tribunal cannot go into the adequacy of evidence. It cannot also interfere with the punishment imposed, unless, it was shockingly disproportionate to the guilt proved.
20. With the judicial precedents in mind, we propose to examine the available materials. The joint inspection reports prepared in the search conducted by the CBI officials at different parts of the airport, including the rest room of Air Intelligence Unit were produced before the inquiry as S6 and S7. In the course of investigation few incrementing materials are stated to have been recovered from SW1 P.P. Abdul Rehman. It includes S8, the search list relating to a list of bribe maintained by SW1. S9 is the account of bribe distribution from 16.09.2005 to 30.09.2005.
21. Based on the materials placed before the inquiry officer, he arrived at a conclusion regarding the guilt of both the delinquent officers. In S8 and S9 names of few officers who allegedly received bribe during the SEBASTIAN ANTONY 2025.06.23 15:20:37+05'30' 18 period 16.09.2005 to 30.09.2005 are mentioned. At the outset it has to be reiterated that in S8 and S9 documents relied on by the prosecution, the name of the applicant is not recorded. According to the customs department AIU indicated Air Intelligence Unit. Another set of bribe was meant to be given to "Mini". On the basis of the retracted confession of SW1, Abdul Rehman, the prosecuting agency tried to establish that 'Mini' indicated Ministerial Staff. Hence by a process of reasoning, the inquiry officer concluded that since one person has received bribe on behalf of AIU (Air Intelligence Unit), it must be held that all the officers posted in AIU has also received the bribe. By same process of reasoning, the inquiry officer held that since retracted confession along with S9 indicated that somebody has received bribe on behalf of Mini (Ministerial Staff), it must be presumed that all the ministerial staff also have received bribe.
22. In the confession statement of P.P. Abdul Rehman which was marked as S10 before the inquiry officer, certain incriminating materials were revealed. According to the above witness, Station Duty Officer C.J Thomas used to give him a list showing the share of each person to whom the bribe was to be given. The list was given after determining the shares SEBASTIAN ANTONY 2025.06.23 15:20:37+05'30' 19 of each Customs Officer. According to him, after deducting his own commission, the balance used to be kept with him and money was distributed among the concerned officers as per the list. According to him, Balakrishnan, Ramachandran and Raghuram the Havildars used to bring money to him. SDOs Thomas and Rajkumar who succeeded him used to fix the shares. He further stated that he used to give shares to 9 named Superintendents, 8 Inspectors and 4 Havildars. He further added that, at the request of Sepoys and Ministerial staffs he used to entrust the total amount to one Raghuram, Balakrishnan, Korukutty and Ramachandran, In other words he has specifically mentioned the names of Superintendents who were given the shares. He also specifically referred to the names of Inspectors to whom bribes were given as per the list. S9, the list, also does not contain the name of the applicant. He also stated that the amount due to Sepoys and Ministerial staff were entrusted to four different persons. His evidence does not disclose the names of the Sepoys or the Ministerial staff to whom, he had given the shares, since the amounts due to them were entrusted with other persons for being distributed among the Sepoys and Ministerial staffs. However, in the later course of his version, he stated that the abbreviations found in the chit SEBASTIAN ANTONY 2025.06.23 15:20:37+05'30' 20 recovered from him as 'Mini' indicated Ministerial staff, 'Sipa' Sepoys and 'AIU' meant Air Intelligence Unit. On the basis of these materials the Inquiry Officer concluded that all the Officers/Staffs of AIU, Ministerial staffs and Sepoys had received their share of bribes, though the witness did not specifically state that all the Inspectors of AIU and all the members of Ministerial staff were given bribe.
23. Yet another conclusion arrived at by the inquiry officer was that the applicants could not bring in any evidence to suggest that they had not accepted any bribe/share of bribe. On that basis, the inquiry officer concluded that possibly the applicants accepted their share of money. This again, is fundamentally wrong in so far as no adverse evidence could be drawn against the delinquent on the only basis that he could not establish his innocence. In other words, the delinquent cannot be fastened with the liability on the mere basis that negative evidence to the extent that he has not committed any illegal act, could not be produced by him.
24. On an overall evaluation of the entire materials, we are satisfied that the inquiry officer went wrong in accepting the retracted confession SEBASTIAN ANTONY 2025.06.23 15:20:37+05'30' 21 under Section 164 Cr.PC statement, since it was legally and factually not an acceptable material. Even assuming that the Section 164 Cr.PC statement could be accepted and the materials on record indicated that the system of bribe among the officials in the Calicut Airport existed, that does not ipso facto lead to the conclusion that the applicant had received the bribe. On an evaluation of the entire materials, we are satisfied that there is absolutely no material to connect the delinquents with the allegations and is a clear case of absolutely no evidence.
25. Having considered the entire materials in the above perspective, the disciplinary order and the consequential orders on appeal and revision are liable to be set aside. The inquiry report to the extent of holding the applicant guilty, is liable to be set aside holding that it was based on no evidence. Consequently, the punishments imposed on the delinquent is liable to be set aside.
26. Hence, the OA is allowed. The Annexure A1, disciplinary order to the extent it applies to the applicant is set aside and all the consequential orders Annexures A2 and A3 imposed on the applicant are set aside. Applicant will be given all consequential benefits as if no penalty was SEBASTIAN ANTONY 2025.06.23 15:20:37+05'30' 22 imposed on him. The entire arrears if any, due to him shall be calculated and paid within three months from the date of receipt of this order. No costs.
(VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI) (JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS)
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
"SA"
SEBASTIAN ANTONY 2025.06.23 15:20:37+05'30'
23
Original Application No. 180/00237/2023
APPLICANT'S ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 - True copy of penalty order bearing
C.No.II/10A/7/2007 Vig.Cx dated 27.4.2011 issued by respondent No. 3.
Annexure A2 - True copy of the appellate order bearing C. No. IV/16/217/2011 CC(KZ)-IV dated 7.2.2012 issued by the 2nd respondent.
Annexure A3 - True copy of revision order No. 31/2017 dated 27.12.2017 issued by the 1st respondent.
Annexure A4 - True copy of the memorandum bearing C. No. II/10A/7/2007 Vig.Cx dated 21.2.2007 issued by 4th respondent.
Annexure A5 - True copy of the inquiry report bearing C.No. II/39/62/2007-CC(KZ) dated 30.7.2009.
Annexure A6 - True copy of the detailed reply to the inquiry report dated 25.8.2009 submitted by the applicant.
Annexure A7 - True copy of the revision petition dated 25.6.2014 filed by the applicant is addressed to the first respondent.
Annexure A8 - True copy of the judgment dated 29.7.2016 of the Hon'ble Special Judge (SPE/CBI)-II, Ernakulam in calendar case No. 7/2007 (RC No. 26(A)/2005/CBI/ACB/KER).
Annexure A9 - True copy of the order in OA No. 347/2020 dated 4.1.2023 rendered by the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench.
SEBASTIAN ANTONY 2025.06.23 15:20:37+05'30' 24 Annexure A10 - True copy of common orders in OA No. 779/2018 and OA No. 85/2019 dated 18.10.2022.
Annexure MA1 - True copy of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3/2020 and the connected Miscellaneous Applications dated 10.1.2022.
Annexure MA2 - True copy of the order in Crl. MC No. 5118/2017(H) dated 18.2.2021 rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala.
RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES Nil
-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-
SEBASTIAN ANTONY 2025.06.23 15:20:37+05'30'