Kerala High Court
P.Basheer vs Union Of India on 5 October, 2020
Bench: A.M.Shaffique, P Gopinath
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
MONDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 13TH ASWINA, 1942
OP (CAT).No.298 OF 2016(Z)
AGAINST THE ORDER IN OA 496/2013 DATED 07-07-2016 OF CENTRAL
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH
PETITIONER:
P.BASHEER,AGED 38 YEARS,
S/O.SRI.MOIDEENKUTTY,RESIDING AT PALLIYALIL
HOUSE,SOUTH PALLAR,VYRAMCODE
POST,THIRUNAVAYA,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
KERALA,PIN-676301.
BY ADVS.
SRI.SHAFIK M.A.
SMT.C.H.ABEENA
SRI.JOJO JOSEPH
SMT.S.LAKSHMY
SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE
SRI.P.PRIJITH
SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.)
SRI.THOMAS J.ANAKKALLUNKAL
RESPONDENTS:
1 UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,DEPARTMENT OF
PERSONNEL AND TRAINING,MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL,
PUBLIC GRIEVENCES AND PENSION,NEW DELHI-110001.
2 CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR,PLOT NO.5B CGO
COMPLEX,7TH FLOOR,LODHI ROAD,NEW DELHI-110003.
R1 BY SRI.T.V.VINU, CGC
R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHARA PILLAI, C.B.I.
R2 BY ADV. SHRI.SASTHAMANGALAM S. AJITHKUMAR, SC,
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
THIS OP (CAT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-09-2020, THE
COURT ON 05-10-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP(CAT) No.298/2016
-:2:-
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 5th day of October, 2020 Shaffique, J.
This Original Petition is filed by the applicant in OA No.496/2013 challenging the order passed by Central Administrative Tribunal by which his application came to be rejected.
2. The short facts of the case would disclose as under:
The petitioner/applicant applied for the post of Public Prosecutor in response to advertisement No.51/2012. Petitioner was one among the candidates selected for interview after the written test and he was included in the list of candidates to be recommended for appointment. He was rank No.29. The UPSC had intimated him that he has been recommended to the post of Public Prosecutor in the Central Bureau of Investigation (for short 'CBI'). He was examined by a Medical board on 27/9/2012 and he was asked to submit all his certificates for verification. He submitted the requisite certificates on 8/10/2010. By yet another communication dated 17/5/2013, he was informed that his case is OP(CAT) No.298/2016 -:3:- under consideration with the Department of Personnel and Training and a decision is awaited. Since there was inordinate delay in making the appointment, petitioner preferred OA No.496/2013 seeking for a direction to appoint him to the said post under the Central Bureau of Investigation. The Tribunal by order dated 14/8/2014 directed the respondents to appoint the petitioner to the post of Public Prosecutor on the basis of his merit and rank. The respondents however filed OP (CAT) No. 22/2015 challenging the order passed by the Tribunal. The said Original petition was allowed setting aside the order passed by the Tribunal and the matter was remitted back for fresh consideration. On such consideration, the Tribunal dismissed the Original Application on a finding that the respondents were justified in cancelling the candidature of the applicant as Public Prosecutor.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Tribunal had erroneously arrived at a conclusion that the involvement of the petitioner in a murder case in which he was acquitted several years back was the sole reason for denying him the opportunity for the aforesaid employment. It is contended OP(CAT) No.298/2016 -:4:- that he was honourably acquitted in the case. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner placed before us the judgment of the Apex Court in Mohammed Imran v. State of Maharashtra and others (AIR 2018 SC 4895). That was a case in which a candidate who had applied for a post in Judicial Service was denied appointment on account of moral turpitude. He was alleged to have got involved at the age of 21 years in an offence charged u/s 376 of I.P.C. The allegation against him was that he was travelling with another person in an autorickshaw that was following the autorickshaw in which the prime accused who was charged u/s 376 I.P.C. was travelling along with the girl in question. The Apex Court having considered the factual aspects involved in the case and after referring to judgment in Pawan Kumar. v. State of Haryana [(1996) 4 SCC 17] having considered the expression "moral turpitude", held at paragraph 10 as under:-
"10. In the present proceedings, on 23.03.2018, this Court had called for a confidential report of the character verification as also the antecedents of the appellant as on this date. The report received reveals that except for the criminal case under reference in which he has been acquitted, the appellant has a clean record and there is OP(CAT) No.298/2016 -:5:- no adverse material against him to deny him the fruits of his academic labour in a competitive selection for the post of a judicial officer. In our opinion, no reasonable person on the basis of the materials placed before us can come to the conclusion that the antecedents and character of the appellant are such that he is unfit to be appointed as a judicial officer. An alleged single misadventure or misdemeanour of the present nature, if it can be considered to be so, cannot be sufficient to deny appointment to the appellant when he has on all other aspects and parameters been found to be fit for appointment. The Law is well settled in this regard in Avtar Singh v. Union of India, (2016) 8 SCC 471. If empanelment creates no right to appointment, equally there can be no arbitrary denial of appointment after empanelment.
4. Reference is also made to the judgment in Avtar Singh v. Union of India [(2016) 8 SCC 471].
5. Before proceeding further, it will be useful to refer to the facts involved in Sessions Case No.238/2001 of the Court of Sessions, Manjeri, in which the petitioner was the 4 th accused. The alleged incident happened on 3/7/1997. The allegation was that the petitioner was part of an unlawful assembly and during the alleged incident, the 4th accused had beaten CW2 with hands on his chest, back and also kicked him thereby causing injuries to OP(CAT) No.298/2016 -:6:- him. The victim in that case Aboobacker Sidhique was attacked by the first accused and even according to the prosecution, the first accused had stabbed Sidhique on his right hand and left shoulder with a dagger, 2nd accused stabbed him with a dagger on his back and the third accused had bet Sidhique with a stick. When CW1 to CW3 tried to interfere, the 4 th accused along with a few other accused had beaten CW2 is the charge. It is pointed out that after a full fledged trial, all the eyewitnesses including the injured eyewitness PW1 turned hostile to the prosecution. They stated that they did not witness the occurrence of any injury being sustained to Sidhique or CW1 to CW3. Since all these witnesses turned hostile, the Prosecutor did not examine CW1 Kewin or CW2 Ummer as there was no likelihood of apprehending their presence to give evidence before Court and they were given up. Even the recovery witnesses turned hostile to the prosecution. CW2's wound certificate was marked as Ext.P6 and the Doctor stated that the injuries are simple in nature and can be caused due to a scuffle. Apparently, the charge was that the 4th accused was part of an unlawful assembly and the only overt act he had committed was that he had bet CW2. As already OP(CAT) No.298/2016 -:7:- mentioned, CW2's injuries were only simple which can occur in a scuffle. The evidence of the Doctor clearly specifies the same.
6. Learned counsel for CBI Sri.Sasthamangalam S.Ajithkumar however would submit that after the matter had been remitted back to the Tribunal by this Court, as per judgment in OP(CAT)No. 22/2015, necessarily, the Tribunal had to consider whether the acquittal was honourable. It is pointed out that merely for the reason that the person is acquitted does not indicate that the acquittal is honourable. In its earlier order, the Tribunal did not attempt to enter into such a finding with regard to the nature of acquittal and therefore, the order of Tribunal was set aside and the matter was remitted back. It is pointed out that after remittance, the Tribunal had considered the entire aspects of the matter and having placed reliance on Commissioner of Police, New Delhi and Another v. Mehar Singh [(2013) 7 SCC 685], Delhi Administration through its Chief Secretary and Others v. Sushil Kumar [(1996) 11 SCC 605], Management of Reserve Bank of India, Delhi v. Bhopal Singh Panchal [(1994) 1 SCC 541] and State of M.P. And Others v. Parvez Khan (Civil Appeal No.10613/2014), it was held that the acquittal OP(CAT) No.298/2016 -:8:- of the applicant cannot be said to be based on a real evaluation of the true evidence of the witnesses. Insofar as the witnesses turned hostile based on which the acquittal was placed, it could be seen that there was no adjudication after evaluating the merit of the real evidence. In the said background of the case when it is found that the acquittal was not honourable after a full fledged trial, there is justification in not appointing the petitioner for the said job. It was further argued that CBI being one of the premier investigating agencies, the integrity of the officials including the Prosecutors is beyond doubt and when very important cases involving serious crimes and economic offences are being considered, linking a candidate for Prosecutor who has a background in a murder case will give a stigma in the mind of common citizens and to avoid the same, if a decision had been taken, it will cast a shadow not only on the system of prosecution but also pave way for losing faith in the system. Learned counsel therefore reiterated his stand based on the judgment of the Apex Court in Mehar Singh (supra) and also the factual issues involved in the matter.
7. Mehar Singh (supra) had been decided with OP(CAT) No.298/2016 -:9:- reference to a claim by the candidate for appointment as Police Constable. Mehar Singh was involved in offence under Sections 143, 323, 341 and 427 of I.P.C. Pursuant to a compromise, all the accused were acquitted for offences under Sections 323, 341 and 427 and the Court found that there was no evidence for offence u/s 147 of I.P.C. On account of the violent behaviour as evident from the crime, his name was not recommended by the Screening Committee. The aforesaid issue along with yet another matter came up for hearing before the Apex Court. Reference was made to the standing orders relating to the policy for deciding cases of candidates provisionally selected in Delhi police involved in criminal cases. Paragraphs 22 to 26 of the said judgment are relevant which reads as under:
22. Clause (3) of the comprehensive policy delineated in the Standing Order is material for the present case. It refers to the Screening Committee comprising high police officers.
After a candidate, who has disclosed his involvement, is acquitted or discharged, the Committee has to assess his/her suitability for appointment. Clause (6) states that those against whom serious offences or offences involving moral turpitude are registered and who are later on acquitted by extending benefit of doubt or because the witnesses have turned hostile due to fear of reprisal by the accused person OP(CAT) No.298/2016 -:10:- shall not generally be considered suitable for government service. However, all such cases will be considered by the Screening Committee manned by senior officers. In our opinion, the word "generally" indicates the nature of discretion. As a matter of rule, such candidates have to be avoided. Exceptions will be few and far between and obviously must be substantiated with acceptable reasons.
23. A careful perusal of the policy leads us to conclude that the Screening Committee would be entitled to keep persons involved in grave cases of moral turpitude out of the police force even if they are acquitted or discharged if it feels that the acquittal or discharge is on technical grounds or not honourable. The Screening Committee will be within its rights to cancel the candidature of a candidate if it finds that the acquittal is based on some serious flaw in the conduct of the prosecution case or is the result of material witnesses turning hostile. It is only experienced officers of the Screening Committee who will be able to judge whether the acquitted or discharged candidate is likely to revert to similar activities in future with more strength and vigour, if appointed, to the post in a police force. The Screening Committee will have to consider the nature and extent of such person's involvement in the crime and his propensity of becoming a cause for worsening the law and order situation rather than maintaining it. In our opinion, this policy framed by the Delhi Police does not merit any interference from this Court as its object appears to be to ensure that only persons with impeccable character enter the police force.
24. We find no substance in the contention that by cancelling the respondents' candidature, the Screening Committee has overreached the judgments of the criminal OP(CAT) No.298/2016 -:11:- court. We are aware that the question of co-relation between a criminal case and a departmental enquiry does not directly arise here, but, support can be drawn from the principles laid down by this Court in connection with it because the issue involved is somewhat identical, namely, whether to allow a person with doubtful integrity to work in the department. While the standard of proof in a criminal case is the proof beyond all reasonable doubt, the proof in a departmental proceeding is preponderance of probabilities. Quite often criminal cases end in acquittal because witnesses turn hostile. Such acquittals are not acquittals on merit. An acquittal based on benefit of doubt would not stand on a par with a clean acquittal on merit after a full-fledged trial, where there is no indication of the witnesses being won over. In R.P. Kapur v. Union of India [AIR 1964 SC 787] this Court has taken a view that departmental proceedings can proceed even though a person is acquitted when the acquittal is other than honourable.
25. The expression "honourable acquittal" was considered by this Court in S. Samuthiram [Inspector General of Police v. S. Samuthiram, (2013) 1 SCC 598 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 566 : (2013) 1 SCC (L&S) 229] . In that case this Court was concerned with a situation where disciplinary proceedings were initiated against a police officer. Criminal case was pending against him under Section 509 IPC and under Section 4 of the Eve-Teasing Act. He was acquitted in that case because of the non-examination of key witnesses. There was a serious flaw in the conduct of the criminal case. Two material witnesses turned hostile. Referring to the judgment of this Court in RBI v. Bhopal Singh Panchal [(1994) 1 SCC 541 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 594 : (1994) 26 ATC 619] , OP(CAT) No.298/2016 -:12:- where in somewhat similar fact situation, this Court upheld a bank's action of refusing to reinstate an employee in service on the ground that in the criminal case he was acquitted by giving him benefit of doubt and, therefore, it was not an honourable acquittal, this Court held that the High Court was not justified in setting aside the punishment imposed in the departmental proceedings. This Court observed that the expressions "honourable acquittal", "acquitted of blame"
and "fully exonerated" are unknown to the Criminal Procedure Code or the Penal Code. They are coined by judicial pronouncements. It is difficult to define what is meant by the expression "honourably acquitted". This Court expressed that when the accused is acquitted after full consideration of the prosecution case and the prosecution miserably fails to prove the charges levelled against the accused, it can possibly be said that the accused was honourably acquitted.
26. In light of the above, we are of the opinion that since the purpose of the departmental proceedings is to keep persons, who are guilty of serious misconduct or dereliction of duty or who are guilty of grave cases of moral turpitude, out of the department, if found necessary, because they pollute the department, surely the above principles will apply with more vigour at the point of entry of a person in the police department i.e. at the time of recruitment. If it is found by the Screening Committee that the person against whom a serious case involving moral turpitude is registered is discharged on technical grounds or is acquitted of the same charge but the acquittal is not honourable, the Screening Committee would be entitled to cancel his candidature. Stricter norms need to be applied while appointing persons in OP(CAT) No.298/2016 -:13:- a disciplinary force because public interest is involved in it."
8. Apparently in Mehar Singh's case (supra), though the candidate was acquitted on account of a compromise, the screening committee which was enjoined with the power under the rules to consider whether such a person could be accommodated as a police officer arrived at a finding that he cannot be accommodated to the said post. The screening committee consisted of high police officers who were to verify whether such a person can be included as a police officer. It is in the said background that the aforesaid case came to be decided. Of course, the principle laid down in the aforesaid judgment cannot be doubted.
9. Copy of Chapter 2 of Central Bureau of Investigation (Admin) Manual is produced as Annexure A13. With reference to verification of character and antecedents, it is recorded as under;
"2.2.7 Verification of Character and Antecedents :
(a) The appointing authority should satisfy itself that the character and antecedents of the person proposed to be appointed are such that they do not render him/her unsuitable for appointment to government service.
(b) Persons dismissed from service of the Central or a State government including the administration of Union Territories, should be deemed ineligible for appointment.OP(CAT) No.298/2016 -:14:-
(c) While normally a person convicted for an offence involving moral turpitude should be regarded as ineligible for government service, in cases where the appointing authority feels that there are redeeming features and reasons to believe that such a person has cured himself of the weakness, he can be considered for appointment after obtaining specific approval of the government.
Therefore as far as appointments in CBI are concerned, even in respect of a person who is convicted in an offence involving moral turpitude, it is for the appointing authority to consider whether there are redeeming features and reasons to believe that such a person has cured himself of the weakness in which event he can be considered for appointment after obtaining specific approval of the Government. This is not a case in which the petitioner had been convicted. But he had been acquitted. The only question is whether it was an honourable acquittal or not.
10. In Mohammed Imran's case (supra), a 3 Judge Bench had gone into the facts of the case and found that the person concerned was following an autorickshaw in which the prime accused who was charged with offence u/s 376 was travelling with the girl in question and the appellant was only 21 years as on the said date of occurrence which was 25/5/2000. He OP(CAT) No.298/2016 -:15:- applied for the post in a judicial service on 4/6/2010 nearly 10 years after the said date. He was acquitted on 28/10/2004.
11. The Tribunal in the case on hand just proceeded on the basis that it is not an honourable acquittal based on the judgment in Mehar Singh's case (supra).It was observed that since all the witnesses turned hostile to the prosecution, it does not amount to an honourable acquittal after a full consideration of the prosecution case. But what was the role of the present accused in the case is a matter which ought to have been considered by the Tribunal. It is not fair on our part to remit the matter back to the Tribunal as the matter gets delayed again and again. Annexure A9 produced along with Ext.P1 is the judgment in SC No.238/2001. As already stated, the involvement of the 4 th accused in the case was that he had beaten CW2 and was part of the unlawful assembly. None of the witnesses who were examined, ie PW1 to PW6 had witnessed the incident and they had turned hostile to the prosecution. Even according to the prosecution, the petitioner who was the 4 th accused did not commit any aggressive act on the deceased victim Sidhique. His presence was stated by the prosecution and according to them, OP(CAT) No.298/2016 -:16:- he was part of the unlawful assembly. The other allegation was that he had beaten CW2. Though CW2 was not examined and was given up by the prosecution, the medical certificate of CW2 was produced and proved through the Doctor PW13. Evidence of PW13 indicates that the alleged injury on CW2 were simple in nature and she opined that it can be caused due to a scuffle. The relevant portion reads as under:
"PW13 was the another Civil Surgeon attached to Govt.Hospital, Tirur. She had also examined CW2 Ummer and issued wound certificate which was marked as Ext.P6 and she had also stated that injuries are simple in nature and can be caused due to a scuffle".
This aspect of the matter was not considered by the Tribunal. When a person is involved in a criminal case, even in respect of a person who is convicted of an offence, the Administrative Manual of CBI indicates that he can be considered for appointment provided there are redeeming features and reasons to believe that such person has cured himself of his weakness. In the case of the petitioner, he had clearly disclosed even at the initial stage that he was involved in a criminal case and that he was acquitted. As already stated, the incident in the crime case OP(CAT) No.298/2016 -:17:- occurred on 3/7/1997. At the relevant time, the petitioner was only 19 years of age. He was acquitted as per judgment dated 10/9/2004. Substantial time had elapsed and he had become a lawyer started practicing and acquired the necessary qualification for being appointed as a Public Prosecutor. It might be true that CBI may look forward for persons without any blemish. But, as held by the Apex Court in Mohammed Imran's case (supra), a character verification of the petitioner ought to have been done before ruling him out. The appointing authority ought to have considered the fact that after the alleged incident in 1997, whether the petitioner got involved in any other similar activity or participated in like issues or whether he was leading a decent life as expected of a normal Indian citizen. Without making such an enquiry, merely for the reason that he was involved in a case of the aforesaid nature, it is too cruel for the employers to deny public employment to such a person. If during the interregnum period, ie after the aforesaid incident and before appointment, he continued with any such activity involving moral turpitude, definitely his candidature could have been rejected. But that is not the situation in the case on hand. A person who is involved in OP(CAT) No.298/2016 -:18:- a crime case and that too when he was alleged to be part of an unlawful assembly which resulted in murder of person, has to be given an opportunity to retrieve and correct himself especially when such issues take place at a very young stage. There is no such material available in this case to indicate that the petitioner got himself involved in similar activities or in activities involving moral turpitude subsequent to the aforesaid incident. Petitioner's conduct had been verified and it was reported to the Superintendent of Police. In Annexure R1 dated 11/12/2012, the District Collector, Malappuram had sent a communication to the Administrative officer (Pers) CBI regarding the character and antecedents of the petitioner. The said letter reads as under;
"The attestation form in respect of the candidate mentioned below is returned herewith after due verification.
On enquiry, District Police Chief Malappuram has reported that the candidate was arrested as A4 in Tirur Police Station Crime No. 299/97 u/s 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 302 r/w 149 IPC as per Prosecution Case and underwent remand custody. The Case has been acquitted u/s 232 Cr.PC on 10/09/2004. However, the District Police Chief has not recommended for the recruitment of the said candidate bearing such an antecedent for the post of Public Prosecutor in C.B.I. In the circumstance, OP(CAT) No.298/2016 -:19:- appointment of Sri. Basheer. P to the post of Public Prosecutor is not recommended.
The form of acknowledgment appended to this letter may be returned duly filled up and signed".
The report given to the Superintendent of Police, CBI, Cochin is produced as Annexure R2. The relevant portion reads as under;
"2. Shri Basheer P. S/o Shri Moldeen Kutty, Palliyalil House, South Pallavuramcode P.O., Thirunavaya, Malappuram District, Kerala.
Shri Basheer is a candidate for the post of Public Prosecutor in CBI. On conducting enquiries at the Tirur Police Station, Malappuram District (The Police Station of the area in which the candidate resides) it was revealed that a case of murder and related offences U/s 302, 143, 147, 341, 324 r/w 149 IPC was registered in Crime No. 299/97 in the Tirur police station on 3.7.1997 against five accused persons including Shri P. Basheer. The case has been charge sheeted in District & Sessions Court, Manjeri under SC No. 238/2001. It is also learnt that Manjeri Sessions Court has acquitted the accused persons including the applicant Basheer. The verification conducted on the OBC caste certificate (Non Creamy Layer - Mappila) issued in the name of Shri Basheer by Tahsildar, Taluk Office Tirur has been confirmed by Shri Radhakrishnan, Tahsildar Taluk Office, Tirur that the certificate as genuine."
The Cochin office had sent a report to the Head of Zone, CBI, Chennai in which the recommendation reads as under:
"Shri Basheer.P., Palliyalil House, South Pallaryyramcode P.O., Thirunavaya, Malappuram Dist. OP(CAT) No.298/2016 -:20:-
The verification revealed that a case of murder and related offences U/S 302, 143, 147, 341,324 r/w 149 IPC was registered in Crime No.299/97 in the Tirur Police Station on 3-7-1997 against five accused persons including the candidate Shri.P. Basheer. The case has been charge sheeted in District & Sessions Court Manjeri under SC 238/2001 and the Manjeri Sessions Court has acquitted the accused persons including the candidate Shri Basheer. Further verification about the details of the Judgment and pending appeal if any are to be carried out. Details will be sent after the verification."
12. In Annexure R2/3 dated 31/10/2012, which was the communication sent by CBI, Cochin to Chennai, it was indicated that further verification is being made. By Annexure R3 dated 13/1/2014 issued by Department of Personnel and Training, the competent authority had approved cancellation of candidature of the petitioner as Public Prosecutor in CBI.
13. Having regard to the aforesaid factual situation, we are of the view that all the factual circumstances involving the case in which a person is involved requires to be verified before treating him as a person who was involved in a case of moral turpitude. Of course, murder is a very serious crime and being part of the unlawful assembly has also to be viewed with such seriousness. But, still, viewed in the light of the judgments of the OP(CAT) No.298/2016 -:21:- Apex Court, it has to be verified whether the acquittal was honourable and what exactly was the charge against the concerned person and his involvement in the crime. While considering such issues, the Tribunal ought to have considered the entire judgment before arriving at a conclusion that the petitioner was not honourably acquitted. Taking into consideration the aforesaid factual situation, we are of the view that the Tribunal's order is liable to be set aside.
14. Having found so, we are of the view that the reason for cancelling the candidature cannot be sustained and to that extent, we set aside the said order.
15. As far as the relief sought for effecting appointment, since substantial time had already elapsed, petitioner shall be accommodated in an existing vacancy or in the next vacancy that arises after receipt of a copy of this judgment. If already there is an existing vacancy, necessary orders for appointment shall be issued within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment or if there is presently no vacancy, order of appointment shall be issued within one month from the date of occurrence of next arising vacancy OP(CAT) No.298/2016 -:22:- Accordingly, this Original petition is allowed as under:-
The order of the Tribunal dated 7/7/2016 is set aside. OA No.496/2013 is allowed. The impugned orders are set aside and the petitioner shall be appointed as Public Prosecutor of CBI in an existing vacancy or in the next arising vacancy, within the time as specified above.
Sd/-
A.M.SHAFFIQUE JUDGE Sd/-
GOPINATH P.
Rp JUDGE
OP(CAT) No.298/2016
-:23:-
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION
NO.496/2013 FILED BEFORE THE C.A.T.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED
BY THE RESPONDENT IN THE O.A.496.2013
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER FILED IN
O.A.496/2013
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ADDL.REPLY STATEMENT
FILED IN O.A.496/2013
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14.08.2014
OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
IN O.A.496/2013
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 07.07.2016
OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
IN O.A.496/2013
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
13.12.2015 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF
KERALA IN OP(CAT)NO.22/2015(Z).
ANNEXURE A1 PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTIFICATION
PERTAINING THE POST OF PUBLIC
PROSECUTORS IN THE CBI SPECIAL
RECRUITMENT ADVERTISEMENT NO.51/2012.
ANNEXURE A2 PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION
NO.11901101422 FOR THE POST OF PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR.
ANNEXURE A3 PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE OF RESULT DATED
04.09.2012 OF THE UNION PUBLIC SERVICE
COMMISSION.
OP(CAT) No.298/2016
-:24:-
ANNEXURE A4 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ATTESTATION FORM
WARNING SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT
DATED 22.08.2012.
ANNEXURE A5 PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER
NO.F.1/248(53)/2011-SPC-I/ROLL NO.1308 DATED NIL OF THE UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION.
ANNEXURE A6 PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER NO.DP/PERS.I/2012/2953/10/2/2011 DATED 27.09.2012 RECEIVED BY THE APPLICANT FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE A7 PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER NO.DP/PERS.I/2012/2887/10/2/2011 DATED 27.09.2012 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE A8 PHOTOCOPY OF THE MEDICAL BOARD
CERTIFICATE SL.NO.133/12 DATED
04.10.2012 ISSUED BY THE MEDICAL BOARD,
DISTRICT HOSPITAL, TIRUR.
ANNEXURE A9 PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED
10.09.2004 IN SESSIONS CASE NO.238 OF
2001 OF SESSIONS COURT, MANJERI.
ANNEXURE A10 PHOTOCOPY OF THE MEMORANDUM-OFFER OF
APPOINTMENT NO.DP
PERS.I/2013/204/10/2/2011 DATED
15.01.2013 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE A11 PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
29.04.2013 OF THE APPLICANT TO THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE A12 PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER
NO.DPPERS.12013/1594/3/90/2012 DATED
17.05.2013 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE R1 PHOTOCOPY OF REPORT DATED 11.12.2012 OF
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM.
OP(CAT) No.298/2016
-:25:-
ANNEXURE R2 PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPORT DATED
30.10.2012.
ANNEXURE R3 PHOTOCOPY OF THE DOPT ID
NO.202/66/2012-AVD-II DATED 13.01.2014.
ANNEXURE A13 TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (ADMIN) MANUAL.