K.Haridas vs Union Of India on 11 April, 2025

[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

K.Haridas vs Union Of India on 11 April, 2025

1. Present petition is directed against the judgment dated 25.11.2019 of the Central Administrative Tribunal in OA 941 of 2017, whereby the challenge laid to the orders of the disciplinary authority dated 19.09.2012 and that of the appellate authority dated 22.08.2017, confirming the imposition of compulsory retirement, had been dismissed.

2. Succinctly the facts relevant for the adjudication of the lis are extracted herein below:

Petitioner - applicant joined the service in 1971 as lower division clerk and after obtaining regular promotions, had come up to the rank of Joint Assistant Director in 2007, from which he was compulsorily retired. Petitioner-applicant along with party of Internal Audit Party- I was detailed to carry out the audit of records of GC, CRPF, Pune. While so, requisitioned the service of an official Barber for his body 2025:KER:32272 OP (CAT) NO. 312 OF 2019 4 massage, as, he was suffering from lower back pain. The barber, so provided, massaged him. To his utter shock and dismay, came to be served with an order of suspension dated 13.12.2010. A copy of the memo of charges was also issued to him in which was alleged that the petitioner-

applicant had attempted to have unnatural sex with two barbers on two different occasions.

3. Based on the complaint, applicant was placed under suspension with effect from 17.12.2010 which was further reviewed from time to time by a suspension review committee.

4. The applicant submitted his written statement of defence in which he denied all the charges levelled against him. Accordingly, an enquiry was set in motion and an Inquiry Officer was assigned for conducting a detailed inquiry. In view of the detailed deliberation and analysis of evidence adduced during the course of enquiry, the inquiry report held that the allegations levelled by the 2025:KER:32272 OP (CAT) NO. 312 OF 2019 5 complainants, i.e., two barbers, against the petitioner- applicant were false and stood contradicted by the statement of complainants and also could not be substantiated for want of an eye witness of the incident. Thus the Inquiry Officer had held the charge levelled against him stood "Not Proved".

5. The Disciplinary Authority, after going through the entire records of the enquiry proceedings, though tentatively disagreed with the report of the Inquiry Officer and held the charge against the applicant as "Proved" on the principles of preponderance of probability and formed an opinion that a major penalty of compulsory retirement was liable to be imposed on the applicant.

6. The applicant responded to the very same letter by submitting a detailed representation and requested to concur with the findings of the Inquiry Officer. On non consideration of his representation, was imposed major penalty of termination.

2025:KER:32272 OP (CAT) NO. 312 OF 2019 6

7. The applicant-petitioner preferred an appeal under Rule 23(2) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. During the pendency of the appeal, the applicant had attained the age of superannuation. When the appeal was preferred by the petitioner-applicant, the same officer who was the Disciplinary Authority, who issued the major penalty of compulsory retirement, sat as the Presiding Officer of the Appellate Authority and confirmed the order of the Disciplinary Authority by the one and the same person and the appeal stood rejected.

8. Petitioner-applicant approached the Central Administrative Tribunal filing O.A No.511 of 2013, challenging the order of the Appellate Authority. Learned CAT vide order dated 21.01.2016, disposed off the appeal by directing the Appellate Authority to consider the appeal preferred by the petitioner-applicant afresh providing reasonable opportunity of hearing within a period of two(2) months.

2025:KER:32272 OP (CAT) NO. 312 OF 2019 7

9. The respondents assailed the same order before this court in OP(CAT)No.269 of 2016 and this court, vide order dated 18.10.2016, dismissed the OP with a direction to comply with the order of the CAT and granted a further period of two(2) months. Therefore, in compliance of the orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 21.01.2016 and this court dated 18.10.2016, had issued a speaking order on the appeal of the applicant, wherein, the said appeal was again rejected being devoid of merits, stating that the applicant had not brought out any new facts or documents in support of his contentions.

10. Aggrieved of the order of rejection of his appeal, filed the present O.A 941 of 2017 before the Central Administrative Tribunal. Learned Tribunal, on examination of the facts, dismissed the original application on the ground that the respondents have taken care to meet all requirements as per CCS(CCA) Rules in the matter of imposition of major penality as well the punishment is 2025:KER:32272 OP (CAT) NO. 312 OF 2019 8 proportionate to the act committed by the applicant. Present OP(CAT) is aggrieved of the same.

11. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner- applicant put forward the follwing submissions:

(i) The complaint lodged by the complainants are out of personal vendetta against the senior officer of the CRPF, on account of the fraudulent drawal of HRA and TPT of the said officer. Therefore, there was an organized and well planned conspiracy which had instigated to foist a false case against the petitioner.

(ii) The document annexed with the charge memo did not mention any dates when the complaint was lodged, but subsequently dates were included which reveals the allegation made is false and untrue.

(iii) Two witnesses did not specifically said it to be unnatural sex as contemplated in the charge memo.

(iv) The complaints were not lodged on the same day on which the incident alleged to have been taken 2025:KER:32272 OP (CAT) NO. 312 OF 2019 9 place. The complaint with regard to the incident alleged to have taken place on 23rd November was lodged on 27th November and the complaint with regard to the incident alleged to have been taken place on 24 th November was lodged on 1st December.

(v) The Inquiry Officer could not believe the story narrated by the witnesses and thus had reported the charges levelled against him as 'not proved'.

(vi) The Disciplinary Authority could interfere in the order of the Inquiry Officer only if the report of the Inquiry Officer is perverse. Since the inquiry report is not perverse, the Disciplinary Authority had gone beyond its power.

(vii) The Disciplinary Committee should have formed a committee of two (2) or more members to rule out the bias.

(viii) On normal course, the petitioner-applicant would have superannuated only on 31st December 2012, 2025:KER:32272 OP (CAT) NO. 312 OF 2019 10 almost 2 years of service was were left for his superannuation, at the time of compulsory retirement.

Due to suspension, he had lost increments for 2 years, 2011 and 2012. During the suspension period, he was given only subsistence allowance at 50%. When suspension was renewed after every 6 months, subsistence allowance was kept intact. This had adversely impacted the pension which he is drawing. As a result, petitioner is losing about Rs.1000 per month in pension which also reflect similar loss in gratuity.

(ix) The Disciplinary Authority has not stated any reason as to why the findings rendered by the Inquiry Officer in favour of the applicant is not acceptable. There is no findings by the 1 st respondent to the effect that the enquiry report is perverse. It is trite law that in the absence of such findings, 1st respondent ought not to have acted simply upon the recommendations of the 2 nd respondent.

2025:KER:32272 OP (CAT) NO. 312 OF 2019 11

(x) Appellate Authority was biased in the first round as the the Disciplinary Authority himself acted as the Appellate Authority. This is against the rule of "no person can be a judge of his own wrong". It is per se illegal. When an appeal is preferred against a decision of the Disciplinary Authority, the same could not have been heard by the very same officer. When the matter was remanded back, the Appellate Authority was a different. But neither the Tribunal nor the Appellate Authority appreciated this fact.

(xi) The order of the Tribunal is illegal and perverse as the order was based on the previous orders in the matter and without apreciating the material facts and evidences and prays for allowing the present petition.

(xii) In support of the aforesaid contentions, relied upon the judgment of the Supreme court in Chatrapal v. State of Utter Pradesh,(2024 KHC 6078). Paragraph 12 of the judgment reads as under:

2025:KER:32272 OP (CAT) NO. 312 OF 2019 12

"12. It is trite law that ordinarily the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer should not be interfered by the appellate authority or by the writ court. However, when the finding of guilt recorded by the Inquiry Officer is based on perverse finding the same can always be interfered as held in Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran, State of Haryana v. Rattan Singh and Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board v.T.T. Murali Babu. In P. Gunasekaran (supra), the following has been held by this Court in para nos. 12, 13, 16 & 17:

"12. Despite the well-settled position, it is painfully disturbing to note that the High Court has acted as an appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings, reappreciating even the evidence before the enquiry officer. The finding on Charge I was accepted by the disciplinary authority and was also endorsed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. In disciplinary proceedings, the High Court is not and cannot act as a second court of first appeal. The High Court, in exercise of its powers under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, shall not venture into reappreciation of the evidence. The High Court can only see whether:

(a) the enquiry is held by a competent authority;

(b) the enquiry is held according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf;

(c) there is violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting the proceedings;

2025:KER:32272 OP (CAT) NO. 312 OF 2019 13

(d) the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair conclusion by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case;

(e) the authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced by irrelevant or extraneous considerations;

(f) the conclusion, on the very face of it, is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at such conclusion;

(g) the disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to admit the admissible and material evidence;

(h) the disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which influenced the finding;

(i) the finding of fact is based on no evidence.

13. Under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not:

(i) reappreciate the evidence;

(ii) interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case the same has been conducted in accordance with law;

(iii) go into the adequacy of the evidence;

(iv) go into the reliability of the evidence;

2025:KER:32272 OP (CAT) NO. 312 OF 2019 14

(v) interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be based.

(vi) correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be;

(vii) go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience.

16. These principles have been succinctly summed up by the living legend and centenarian V.R. Krishna Iyer, J. In State of Haryana v. Rattan Singh [(1977) 2 SCC 491 : 1977 SCC (L&S) 298]. To quote the unparalleled and inimitable expressions : (SCC p. 493, para 4) "4. ... in a domestic enquiry the strict and sophisticated rules of evidence under the Indian Evidence Act may not apply. All materials which are logically probative for a prudent mind are permissible. There is no allergy to hearsay evidence provided it has reasonable nexus and credibility. It is true that departmental authorities and administrative tribunals must be careful in evaluating such material and should not glibly swallow what is strictly speaking not relevant under the Indian Evidence Act. For this proposition it is not necessary to cite decisions nor textbooks, although we have been taken through case law and other authorities by counsel on both sides. The essence of a judicial approach is objectivity, exclusion of extraneous materials or considerations 2025:KER:32272 OP (CAT) NO. 312 OF 2019 15 and observance of rules of natural justice. Of course, fair play is the basis and if perversity or arbitrariness, bias or surrender of independence of judgment vitiate the conclusions reached, such finding, even though of a domestic tribunal, cannot be held good."

17. In all the subsequent decisions of this Court up to the latest in Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. T.T. Murali Babu, (2014) 4 SCC 108 : (2014) 1 SCC (L&S) 38, these principles have been consistently followed adding practically nothing more or altering anything."

12. Learned counsel for the respondent contested the aforementioned contentions and submitted that the imposition of major penality of compulsory retirement is perfectly legal, therefore, the order of the Tribunal is not perverse. Further contended that the punishment is proportionate to the act committed by the applicant. In support of the contentions, relied upon the judgment of the Supreme court in CISF and Others v. Santhosh Kumar Pandey (2022 SCC OnLine SC 1734). Paragraph 17 of the same reads as under:

2025:KER:32272 OP (CAT) NO. 312 OF 2019 16 We have reservations regarding the reasoning given in paragraph 10 of the impugned judgment as it fails to take notice and properly apply the law of judicial review. Judicial review is not akin to adjudication of the case on merits, and adequacy or inadequacy of evidence, unless the court finds that the findings recorded are based on no evidence, perverse or are legally untenable in the sense that it fails to pass the muster of the Wednesbury principles3. Power of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India enables exercise of judicial review to correct errors of law, including procedural law, leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of fairness, without normally venturing into reappreciation of evidence4. The writ court, when disciplinary action is challenged, is primarily concerned with examination of the decision making process, which requires satisfaction that the competent authorities have held inquiry as per the prescribed procedure, and have duly applied their mind to the evidence and material placed on record, without extraneous matters being given undue consideration, and the relevant factors have been cogitated. The conclusions of fact, which are based upon evaluation and appreciation of evidence, when meticulously reached by the authorities, should not be interfered with merely because the court may have reached at a different conclusion. Thus, error of law, is apparent in the reasoning vide paragraph 10 of the impugned judgment.

13. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book.

2025:KER:32272 OP (CAT) NO. 312 OF 2019 17

14. No doubt, it is trite law that in view of the ratio decidendi culled out in Chatrapal (supra) that the High Court while exercising power under Article 226-227 of the Constitution of India cannot re-appreciate the evidence, interfere with conclusions in the enquiry, go into the adequacy of the evidence, correct the error of fact as well as into proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience. As evident from the facts narrated above, the report of the Inquiry Officer has been in favour of the petitioner. The Inquiry Officer had extensively relied upon the evidence brought on record to substantiate that the memo of charges against the applicant - petitioner were not proved. We have gone through inquiry report and deem it appropriate to extract the relevant portion of the findings of the Inquiry Officer:

(7) As regards the point at para 5(2)(e), here also, the complaint of alleged misconduct on 24.11.2010 was made by RT/CT Sandeep Somnath Udmale, who is also PWS, Als per this PW-5, he was detailed by CT/GD RR Rathore on 24.11.20105 at 0900 hrs in the night for massage of the 2025:KER:32272 OP (CAT) NO. 312 OF 2019 18 Charged Officer, who (CT/GD R R Rathore) also took this PW on his motor cycle upto the GOs' Mess. Thereafter, the sentry at the GOs Mess guided this witness to the room of the Charged Officer. When this witness entered the room, the security aide of the Charged Officer was present in the room and the Charged Officer instructed the security aide to leave the room. The Charged Officer then asked this PW to bolt the door from inside and further asked him to massage back and hip of the Charged Officer. As per this witness, during the course of massage, the Charged Officer caressed/touched this witness two or three times under his belly by hand. On each occasion, this witness removed the hand of the Charged Officer from his body and he felt that the Charged Officer was indulging in obscene activities. He has also reported the matter to CT/PTI R.R. Rathore and CHM on the same night. On 1.12.2010, he lodged a complaint with PS Talegaon about the misconduct. It cannot be overlooked that this PW-5 is a new appointee and reported in GC Pune on 19.11.2010.

The alleged misconduct took place on 24.11.2010 i.e. just after 4 days. He cannot be expected to be conversant with the functioning of CRPF Establishment in such a very short time even when he has not started basic training. However, there is apparent contradiction in the statements given by this witness in the PE and in the DE. During the PE, he has stated that he lodged the complaint with the police i.e. with PS Talegaon on his own volition on 1.12.2010 However, in the statement deposed during the DE, he has stated-that the matter of alleged misconduct that took place or 24.11.2010 was enquired 2025:KER:32272 OP (CAT) NO. 312 OF 2019 19 into from him by the officers of GO Pune and he was sent to Talegaon PS from GC Campus in the vehicle of State Police. Further, in the statement recorded during PE, this PW-5 has stated that he did not inform anybody in CRPF about the incident. However, in the statement deposed during the DE, he is stated to have reported the matter to CT/PTI and CHM on the same day i.e. 24.11.2010. In his statement recorded during DE, PW-5 has stated that the Charged Officer tried to touch/caress his (PW's) lower back portion, but in answer to Q.No.9 during examination by the PO, the PW-5 has stated that the Charged Officer tried to touch/caress his(PW's) under belly. In answer to Q.No.20 during cross-examination by the Charged Officer about the contradiction in the two statements, the PW-5 had stated that the statement being given in the DE is trueand factual. Further, as per the complaint (S-2), the PW-5 has alleged that the Charged Officer was fully naked and he was asked to do mässäge of the hip. However, in answer to Q.No.19 during cross examination by the Charged Officer, the very same PW-5 has stated that the Charged Officer was not fully naked, but was wearing jungii. Besides, during the deposition in the DE, deviating from the core of the police complaint i.e. demand to do massage of the naked hip, the PW-5 has shifted the emphasis to the allegation that the Charged Officer tried to touch/caress the lower portion of his(PW's) belly two to three times. Besides, no further action was taken by the State Police i.e. PS Talegaon on the complaint dated 1.12.2010 lodged with them and by the complainant himself (answer to Q.No.21 during cross-examination).

2025:KER:32272 OP (CAT) NO. 312 OF 2019 20 The deposition of PW-3 i.e. CT/GD Ganesh Gawane also does indicate anything of the sort of alleged misconduct, because when the Charged Officer asked PW-3 to bring a knife to slice apple over intercom and when he (PW-5) entered the room of Charged Officer, the complainant/PW-5 was not present/available in the room. It cannot also be overlooked that even if the allegation of misconduct on the part of the Charged Officer that took place on 23.11.2010 during massage done by CT(B/B) Ashok Kumar Malgave, is taken to be true, there will very unlikelihood in sending another person that too a new appointee (Recruit) to the room of the Charged Officer for the same purpose again on the very next day i.e. on 24.11.2010. To this extent, the defence of the Charged Officer has some weightage. In view of the detailed analysis of the evidence, without any evidence at all suggesting attempt to sodomize, and in the absence of more-than-remote circumstantial/ other corroborative evidence, coupled with the apparent contradictions in the versions of the complainant, the point whether the Charged Officer tried to have unnatural sex with RT/CT Sandeep Somnath Udmale on 24.11.2010 at 2100 hrs is answered in negative.

6.FINDINGS OF THE INQUIRY OFFICER In view of the detailed deliberation and analysis, of evidence adduced during the course of DE, the Article-1 of Charge framed against Shri K Haridas, JAD(U/S) (IRLA- 6366) of IAP-1, CRPF, Chennai vide DG, CRPF, New Delhi Memorandum No.D.IX-50/2010-CRC dated 14.4.2010 that

2025:KER:32272 OP (CAT) NO. 312 OF 2019 21 The said Shri. K.Haridas JAD, while posted and functioning as 'Jt. Asstt. Director in IAP 1, CRPF, committed a serious misconduct on 23/11/2010 at about 0800 Hrs in that while detailed for audit of records of GC Pune tried to have unnatural sex with No. 065253126 Ct. (B/B) Ashok Kumar Malgave of GC, Pune to satisfy his lust inside a room of the GO's Mess, GC PUNE állotted to him for his stay. The said CT. (B/B) had gone to the room for massage of the above JAD reportedly suffering from low back pain. Similarly, on 24/11/2010 at about 2100 Hrs, said JAD had tried to commit same activities of unnatural sex with Rt(GD) Sandeep Somnath Udmale of GC, CRPF, Pune who was also detailed for his body massage on demand by said JAD. Thus, the said Shri. K.Haridas,, Jt. Asstt. Director acted in a manner unbecoming of a Govt. Servant thereby violated the provisions contained in Rule 3 (1)(iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 - STANDS NOT PROVED

15. In a second round of litigation, while imposing the punishment, Under Secretary to the Government had passed a detailed order dated 22.08.2017 Ext.P2 differing with the penalty imposed upon him vide order dated 19.09.2012 and 10.11.2012 but failed to notice a very vital fact that the appellant- petitioner was suffering from severe back pain and also extreme pain on both knee 2025:KER:32272 OP (CAT) NO. 312 OF 2019 22 joints, hips besides shoulder joints due to osteo arthritis. He had been suffering from these ailments since 2007 and had not got relief despite undergoing Allopathic and Ayurvedic treatment and in this regard had also relied upon Annexure- II, letter of DIG(Med.) Ch, CRPF, Pallipuram dated 09.08.2011. However, no note of this letter was ever taken into consideration by the Disciplinary Authority as well as by the Appellate Authority.

16. Not only this, over and above osteo arthritis he had been suffering from a fungal infection in groins, skin and buttock since 21.11.2010 and a male Staff Nurse in CRPF Hospital, Pune on duty had examined him, on 22.11.2010 and gave some tablet and ointment and also advised him to apply mild hot salted water frequently and consult a doctor. But since there was no relief and owing to the bleeding and irritation he went to the same CRPF hospital on the very next date i.e., on 23.11.2010 at around

8.a.m. and the CMO on duty physically checked the affected 2025:KER:32272 OP (CAT) NO. 312 OF 2019 23 areas and was given medicines and treatment which continued from 23.11.2010 to 08.12.2010 as evident from the copy of OPD slip No.2925 dated 23.11.2010. Keeping in view that fungal inspection he could not have undertaken the alleged massage in the groin areas as noticed in the memo of charges. Moreover, at the time when the alleged complainant PW4 had attended charge officer i.e., the petitioner, he was lying on the bed on the stomach with back on the top and massage was done on the back of the charge officer. The allegation that an attempt was made to hold and pull the hand of the complainant towards genital area appears to be improbable and unacceptable. Learned Tribunal after examining the case law rejected the claim by expressing reasons only in paragraph Nos.13 and 14 of the order, which read as under:

13. On an examination of the facts before us, it is seen that the respondents have taken care to meet all requirements as per CCS(CCA) Rules in the matter of imposition of major penalty as well as the Office Memoranda issued by DoP&T from time to time. Every 2025:KER:32272 OP (CAT) NO. 312 OF 2019 24 opportunity has been afforded to the applicant to defend his side and these opportunities have been fully utilised by him. The disagreement expressed by the Disciplinary Authority over the conclusions of the Inquiry Officer is within the prerogative of that authority. Thus, the principles of natural justice have been followed scupulously in the case.

14. The applicant has raised another argument that the punishment meted out to him is disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. We do not agree with him here. The Apex Court in certain orders referred in the Original Application by the applicant has indeed stated that a Tribunal or a Court, if at all they choose to interfere in a disciplinary case can consider whether the punishment meted out to an alleged offender is out of proportion with the misconduct cited. In the case at hand, the applicant has been accused of a very serious misdemeanour amounting to a depraved act on two occasions, soliciting unnatural sex from two low ranked personnel who were under his power. It is difficult to imagine a worse behaviour from an officer who is visiting an Armed Unit for audit. The Disciplinary as well as Appellate Authority, after due consideration, have come to the conclusion that the charges are proved. Facts being so, we do not agree with the contention of the applicant that the punishment order is disproportionate to the act that he is accused of. Under the circumstances, the Original Application is dismissed as devoid of merit. No costs.

17. The aforementioned analogy has been 2025:KER:32272 OP (CAT) NO. 312 OF 2019 25 arrived at on the notion that the Inquiry Officer had also indicted the delinquent. Situation is converse as it is only the Disciplinary Authority on receipt of the inquiry report giving a clean chit to the appellant-petitioner, disagreed with the report and as for the sake repetition in the earlier round of litigation, the punishing authority sat as an Appellate Authority, which was ultimately set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication and even in the fresh adjudication, the Appellate Authority vide order Annexure R16 had not noticed all these facts in correct perspective.

The aforementioned observations are totally in line with the findings of the judgments aforementioned i.e., CSIF and Others, wherein paragraph No.17 it has been held that judicial review is not akin to adjudication of the case on merits regarding adequacy and inadequacy of evidence unless the court finds that the findings recorded are based on no evidence, are perverse or are legally untenable. In our considered view the findings are wholly perverse, untenable 2025:KER:32272 OP (CAT) NO. 312 OF 2019 26 and based on no evidence. This Court is not denuded of the power to differ with the findings of the Disciplinary Authority as well as the findings of the Central Administrative Tribunal.

18. The delinquent had categorically in his appeal stated that the allegations were totally motivated with a view to wreck vengeance against him due to the alleged corruption against the senior officer. None of the orders of the Disciplinary Authority in the earlier round and second round as well as the Appellate Authority had addressed such issue. We have gone through the report of the Inquiry Officer and are in agreement with the same as the presenting officer is miserably failed to prove the charges. Accordingly, we allow the present O.P.(CAT) by setting aside the order of the Tribunal, quash the impugned orders of punishment of Disciplinary Authority dated 22.08.2017 and 19.09.2012 compulsory retiring the petitioner from service and direct that the petitioner shall be 2025:KER:32272 OP (CAT) NO. 312 OF 2019 27 considered on employment, the period should be covered and by giving the benefits entitled to, treating him to be in service and all consequential benefits as expeditiously as possible within a period of forty five(45) days from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.

Sd/-

AMIT RAWAL JUDGE Sd/-

K. V. JAYAKUMAR JUDGE nak 2025:KER:32272 OP (CAT) NO. 312 OF 2019 28 APPENDIX OF OP (CAT) 312/2019 PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO D.IX-

50/2010-CRC DATED 13.12.2010 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO NO D-IX/50-2010- CRC DATED 14.4.2011 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ANNEXURE A6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO D.IX.50/2009- CRC DATED 19.9.2012 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ANNEXURE A12 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER F. NO D.IX 50/10-CRC DATED 22.8.2017 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT DATED 17.3.2010 ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO D.IX 50/2010-CRC DATED ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 25.7.2012 SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT ANNEXURE A7 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 10.11.2012 SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT ANNEXURE A8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO D.IX 50/2010- CRC DATED 21.2.2013 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ANNEXURE A9 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL ORDER DATED 21.1.2016 OF THIS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL IN OA NO 511 OF 2013 2025:KER:32272 OP (CAT) NO. 312 OF 2019 29 ANNEXURE A10 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 18.10.2016 IN OP(CAT) NO 269 OF 2016 OF THE HON'BLE COURT ANNEXURE A11 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 21.5.2017 SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT ANNEXURE R1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO D-IX-50/2010 CRC DATED 13.12.2010 ANNEXURE R2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.1.2011 ANNEXURE R3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14.3.2011 ANNEXURE R4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 2.9.2011 ANNEXURE R5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17.2.2012 ANNEXURE R6 TRUE COPY OF THE DTE.GENL.CRPF ORDER DATED 24.8.2012 ANNEXURE R7 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM NO D-IX 5/2010-CRC DATED 14.4.2011 ANNEXURE R8 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 10.5.2011 ANNEXURE R9 TRUE COPY OF THE PRESIDENTIAL ORDER DATED 23..8.2011 ANNEXURE R10 TRUE COPY OF THE PRESIDENTIAL ORDER DATED 4.10.2011 ANNEXURE R11 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF IO ALONG WITH TENTATIVE REASONS FOR DISAGREEMENT OF DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY ANNEXURE R12 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 25.7.2012 ANNEXURE R13 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.9.2012 2025:KER:32272 OP (CAT) NO. 312 OF 2019 30 ANNEXURE R14 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10.10.2012 ANNEXURE R15 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21.2.2013 ANNEXURE R16 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO .IX.50/10-CRC DATED 22.8.2017 Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER FILED ON 19.12.2010 IN OA 180/00941/2019 ALONG WITH ITS ANNEXURE ANNEXURE A13 TRUE COPY OF THE SLIP ISSUED FROM THE HOSPITAL FOR OUTPATIENT BEARING NO 2925/10 DATED 23.11.2010 AND 8.12.2010 WITH THE SEAL Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.11.2019 IN OA NO 941 OF 2017 ON THE FILE OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO 180/00941/2019 FILED BY THE APPLICANT ALONG WITH ANNEXURES.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED IN OA 180/00941/2019 ALONG WITH ITS ANNEXURES

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court