Sandeep.S vs Divya S.S.Rose on 13 May, 2022

[Cites 22, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Sandeep.S vs Divya S.S.Rose on 13 May, 2022

As the very same verdict of the Tribunal is challenged in the first two O.Ps and as the verdict of the Tribunal in a connected matter is challenged in the third O.P, all these cases are disposed of on the basis of this common judgment.

O.P(KAT) No.331/2021

& O.P(KAT) No.93/2022 The impugned final order dated 10.11.2021 is the subject matter of challenge in these two O.Ps filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. The two petitioners in O.P(KAT)No.331/2021 are contesting respondents 4 & 6 in the above O.A. Whereas, the three petitioners in O.P(KAT) No.93/2022 are the State of Kerala, Forest Department and the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) O.P(KAT) Nos.331/21 & 93/2022 & O.P(KAT) No.337 of 2021 2 concerned, who have been arrayed as official respondents 1 to 3 in the above O.A. Whereas, respondents 1 to 4 in O.P(KAT) No.331/2021 are the original applicants in the O.A, State of Kerala, Principal Chief Conservator of Forests & the DPC. The documents and pleadings as produced in O.P(KAT) No.331/2021 will be referred to in this judgment for the sake of convenience, as the said O.P was the one which was filed in an earlier point of time. Later, the Director of Vigilance & Anti-Corruption Bureau and the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance & Anti-Corruption Bureau have been impleaded as additional respondents 5 & 6 in O.P(KAT) No.331/2021 and the last person who has been included in Annexure A-2 select list, 2021 has been impleaded as additional respondent No.7 in that O.P. The four respondents in O.P(KAT)No.93/2022 are the original applicant and the contesting respondents 4 to 6 in the above O.A [who incidentally are the three petitioners in O.P(KAT) No.331/2021].

2. Heard Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners in O.P(KAT) No.93/2022 as well as official respondents 2 to 6 in O.P(KAT) No.331/2021, Sri.K.Sandesh Raja, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in O.P(KAT) No.331/2021 as well as for contesting respondents 2 to 4 in O.P(KAT) No.93/2022, O.P(KAT) Nos.331/21 & 93/2022 & O.P(KAT) No.337 of 2021 3 Sri.P.J.Elvin Peter, learned Advocate appearing for R1 in both the O.Ps (original applicant in the O.A) and Sri.Nirmal V.Nair, learned counsel appearing for additional contesting respondent No.7 in O.P(KAT) No.331/2021.

3. The applicant in the O.A will be referred for convenience as 'the original applicant/applicant'. The applicant was essentially aggrieved by the decision of the DPC referred to in Annexure R1(a), which resulted in the impugned Annexure A-8 select list, 2021 for promotion to the post of Assistant Conservator of Forest, whereby she has been excluded from the said select list on account of the pendency of vigilance proceedings at Annexure A-2. The Tribunal, after hearing the parties in the above O.A, had passed the impugned Ext.P-3 interim order dated 21.10.2021 in the above O.A, whereby the submission on behalf of the official respondents that statement will be filed on their behalf on or before 25.10.2021 and that until then, no promotion of the applicant's juniors will be effected in the meantime, was recorded and the case was posted for the statement of the official respondents on 25.10.2021. Later, the Tribunal has rendered the impugned Ext.P-7 final order dated 10.11.2021 finally disposing of the instant O.A No.1869/2021, with the clear finding in para No.6 thereof, that O.P(KAT) Nos.331/21 & 93/2022 & O.P(KAT) No.337 of 2021 4 the exclusion of the applicant, in pursuance of Annexure-R1(a) minutes of the DPC and Annexure A-8 select list for the year 2021, is in plain violation of the provisions contained in Note (i) to Rule 28(b)(i)(7) of KS&SSR Part-II and the dictum laid down by a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Sasidharan v. State of Kerala [2008 (4) KLT 149] and that the said error committed by the official respondents need not be allowed to be perpetuated and hence, the official respondents have been directed to include the original applicant in Annexure A-8 select list for 2021, between Sl.No.2 (M.Ajeesh) and Sl.No.3 (B.R.Anuraj - contesting respondent No.5 in the O.A) and that the 1st respondent-State Government was directed to issue necessary orders in that regard. Further, the Tribunal, as per the impugned Ext.P-7 final order, after noting the submissions made, that promotions have already been effected from Annexure A-8 select list 2021 and that, further promotions would not be effected by the official respondents, in view of the interim order dated 21.10.2021, etc., has made it clear that the said interim order dated 21.10.2021 only restricts the promotion of the juniors of the applicant and that since it is found that the applicant is entitled to be included in Annexure A-8 select list, the applicant's juniors also can be promoted after promoting the applicant. It will be pertinent to refer to the O.P(KAT) Nos.331/21 & 93/2022 & O.P(KAT) No.337 of 2021 5 contents of the relevant portion of paras 6 to 8 of Ext.P-7 final verdict of the Tribunal, which read as follows :

"6........................................ On perusing the minutes of the meeting of the DPC, which is produced as Annexure R1(a), it is found that the exclusion of the applicant from the select list for the year 2021 is plainly in violation of the provisions contained in Note (i) to Rule 28(b)(i)(7) of KS & SSR and the dictum laid down in Sasidharan's case.

7. It is a patent error and it need not be allowed to be perpetuated. Therefore there will be a direction to the respondents to include the applicant in the select list in between Sl.No.2 Sri.Ajeesh M and Sl.No.3 Sri.Anuraj B.R. The first respondent shall issue necessary orders forth with.

8. It is submitted at the Bar that promotions have already been effected from Annexure A8 select list for the year 2021 and that further promotions cannot be effected in view of the interim order dated 21.10.2021. The above order only restricts the promotion of the juniors of the applicant. Now since it is found that the applicant is entitled to be included in the select list applicant's juniors also can be promoted after promoting the applicant.

The Original Application is disposed of as above."

4. It is the abovesaid final verdict of the Tribunal at Ext.P-7, as produced in O.P(KAT) No.331/2021, that are under challenge in these two original petitions, one filed at the behest of the contesting respondents in the O.A and the other filed at the instance of the official respondents in the O.A.

5. A brief reference to the factual details in this case would be relevant.

O.P(KAT) Nos.331/21 & 93/2022 & O.P(KAT) No.337 of 2021 6 According to the applicant, she is a Forest Range Officer in the Forest Department, who had entered service in the year 2012 and that she has been duly included as Sl.No.17 in Annexure A-1 seniority list dated 03.11.2020 in the post of Range Forest Officers as on 01.01.2019. Incidentally, it is also to be noted that contesting respondent No.5 (B.R.Anuraj), contesting respondent No.6 (K.R.Veenadevi) & contesting respondent No.4 (S.Sandeep) in the O.A are shown as Sl.Nos.18, 19 & 21, respectively, in Annexure A-1 seniority list and thus the contesting respondents are shown as juniors to the original applicant in Annexure A-1 seniority list. The immediate senior of the original applicant in Annexure A-1 is Sl.No.16 thereof, one Sri.M.Ajeesh. On 15.08.2021 at 7 p.m., Annexure A-2 FIR in Vigilance Crime No.1/2021 has been registered by the Vigilance & Anti- Corruption Bureau, Southern Range, Thiruvananthapuram, (at the behest of additional respondents 5 & 6 in the O.P), wherein the original applicant Smt.Divya Rose (Range Officer), one Sri.Rajesh (Range Officer), Sri.K.K.Salim (Section Forest Officer) and a private person Sri.Balakrishnan ('C' class Forest Contractor) have been arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 4 in Annexure A-2 V.C No.1/2021, on the basis of the statement of the de-facto complainant therein, one Sri.C.P.Biju, for offences punishable under Sec.7 of Prevention of Corruption of Act, 1988. O.P(KAT) Nos.331/21 & 93/2022 & O.P(KAT) No.337 of 2021 7 The gist of the allegations in Annexure A-2 vigilance crime is to the effect that the de-facto complainant is a licensed forest contractor, who undertakes contract work in Kerala Forest Department and that the accused persons in the above FIR, the original applicant (Forest Officer), Sri.K.K.Rakesh (Forest Officer), Sri.K.K.Salim (Section Forest Officer), etc., have demanded illegal gratification from the complainant for approving and passing the bills of the amounts due to the said contractor for various works undertaken by him in the Forest Department and that in particular, the original applicant and A-3 (Sri.K.K.Salim, Section Forest Officer) had demanded that the de-facto complainant should give Rs.70,000/- as illegal gratification to the original applicant for passing the bills within her purview and that the said amount should be arranged to be paid by him on 16.08.2021 at the DCF office (office of the Deputy Conservator of Forest), Thiruvananthapuram, etc. Annexure A-2 FIR has been registered on 15.08.2021 at 7 p.m. The details of the said allegations and the trap case set apart in regard to the abovesaid transaction for demand of illegal gratification by the original applicant, etc. and the subsequent events are dealt with in detail in paras 3 to 8 of the statement dated 06.12.2021 filed on behalf of additional R5 & R6 in O.P(KAT) No.331/2021 (Vigilance & Anti-Corruption Bureau) and the same read as O.P(KAT) Nos.331/21 & 93/2022 & O.P(KAT) No.337 of 2021 8 follows :

"3. It is stated that the complaint (sic) undertook works in the Thiruvananthapuram Social Forestry Range office as well as Attingal Forest Range office and amounts were due to him from boththeoffices (sic). From the Thiruvananthapuram Social Forest Range office, A1, Range Forest Officer, Divya.S.S.Rose demanded 35% of the bill amount as bribe for taking steps for passing the bills. She demanded Rs.70,000/- as first installment of the illegal gratification. On 11/08/2021, he was again instructed to pay the said amount by Smt.Divya.S.S. Rose as well as her colleague A3, Forester K.K.Salim. Smt.Divya.S.S.Rose instructed to hand over the said amounts to Mr.K.K.Salim in person. It is submitted that, after registration of the FIR, the complainant on 16/08/2021, accompanied by official witnesses arrived at Range Forest Office, Thiruvananthapuram situated at PTP Nagar, Thiruvananthapuram at 15.00 hrs. Since Range Forest Officer, Divya.S.S.Rose was not present, the complainant contacted her over phone and she instructed to contact Forester, K.K.Salim. The complainant handed over the Trap money of Rs.70,000/- to A3, K.K.Salim as demanded by him in presence of official witnesses and he was immediately arrested after phenolphthalein test conducted which proved his guilt, at 15.45 hrs. Sri.Salim is set on conditional bail, later by the Hon.Court and the investigation is in progress

4. It is submitted that the Mobile phone of complainant whichcontained (sic) the phone conversation between complainant and accused persons were seized and produced before Hon'ble Court of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance), Thiruvananthapuram. And steps are taken to carry out forensic examination of the same to ascertain the genuineness of the voice records. Though Smt.Divya.S.S.Rose was not arrested or caught red handed the phone conversation she had with complainant point towards her connivance in the matter. The connivance between the A1, Divya.S.S.Rose, Range Forest Officer and A3, K.K.Salim, Forester with regard to the demand and acceptance of bribe money could be established only by the analysis of voice records in the phone of complainant as well as by conducting more investigation.

5. It is submitted that the registration of Trap Case, VC 01/2021 and further investigation was done strictly adhering to O.P(KAT) Nos.331/21 & 93/2022 & O.P(KAT) No.337 of 2021 9 Provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act(Amendment Act) (sic), 2018 and Vigilance Manual 2001. According to sec 17A of Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018, no previous sanction from the government or competent authority is necessary for cases involving arrest of a person on the charge of accepting or attempting to accept any undue advantage for himself or for any other person. VC 01/2021 clearly belongs to such category of Trap cases, which does not need previous sanction for registration and investigation.

6. It is humbly submitted that as per Vigilance Manual, the procedure for registration and further investigation of Trap Case is described in the chapter X, from sec.92 to 127. Complete secrecy is maintained from the registration till the successof the Trap. During the registration of Trap Case VC 01/2021 also secrecy was maintained by submitting the FIR in sealed cover, in person to the Hon.Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance) Thiruvananthapuram. Also the Trap Money was accounted in the presence of gazetted officers from other department and the entrustment mahazar was submitted person to the Hon.Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (vigilance) Thiruvananthapuram in sealed cover.

7. It is submitted that confidential preverification with regard to the antecedents of the accused officers were carried out by an officer in the rank of inspector before actualtrap was laid. But no preliminary Enquiry was conducted since it not warranted in the act as well as to maintain the secrecy of the Trap.

8. It is most humbly submitted that the above facts are submitted for kind perusal and necessary favourable action."

6. According to the respondent-vigilance authorities, in the very nature of things, a trap case has to be effectuated in a confidential and more secret manner, so as not to alert the accused persons, more particularly, the official accused persons and therefore, in the very nature of things and going by the specific provisions contained in the vigilance manual as well as the O.P(KAT) Nos.331/21 & 93/2022 & O.P(KAT) No.337 of 2021 10 first proviso to Sec.17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, no preliminary enquiry can be conducted for the institution of vigilance proceedings in relation to a trap case. From the abovesaid statement of the respondent-vigilance authorities, it is seen that the trap case was effectuated on 16.08.2021 and the accused No.3 (K.K.Salim, Section Forest Officer) was caught red-handed in the process of the handing over of the illegal gratification money, who was immediately arrested after phenolphthalein test on that day (16.08.2021) at 3.45 p.m. and later he was released on conditional bail by the Special Court, constituted as per the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the criminal investigation in the said case is in progress. It is thus seen that A1 (original applicant) was not in the scene of occurrence at the time when A3 was caught red-handed in the trap case on that day. The specific case of the respondent-vigilance authorities is that the mobile phone of the complainant contained phone conversation between the complainant and the accused persons, including A1 (original applicant) and that the said mobile phone was seized and produced before the Court of Enquiry Commissioner & Spl.Judge, Thiruvananthapuram and steps have been taken to carry out the forensic examination of the same to ascertain the genuineness of the voice records. Further that, though the O.P(KAT) Nos.331/21 & 93/2022 & O.P(KAT) No.337 of 2021 11 original applicant was not arrested or caught red-handed, the phone conversation she had with the complainant points out her connivance in the matter and that the connivance between A1 (original applicant), A3 (Salim, Section Forest Officer) with regard to the demand and acceptance of bribe money from the de-facto complainant could be established only by the analysis of voice records in the phone of the de-facto complainant.

7. The DPC (Higher) had met on 28.09.2020 for consideration and preparation of the select list, 2021 for promotion of eligible officers in the feeder category of Range Forest Officers for promotion to the next higher category of Assistant Conservator of Forest. Annexure R1(a) proceedings dated 28.09.2021 is a copy of the minutes of the DPC, held in that regard and has been produced in Ext.P-4 statement dated 23.10.2021, filed by the official respondents before the Tribunal in the above O.A. A perusal of Annexure- R1(a) DPC minutes would show that the DPC has been apprised about the pendency of the vigilance crime, as per Annexure A-2, in which the original applicant has been arrayed as accused No.1 therein and that therefore, the DPC was of the considered opinion that the original applicant is liable to be excluded from the said select list, in view of the provisions contained in Note (i) of Rule 28(b)(i)(7) of KS&SSR Part-II and on account O.P(KAT) Nos.331/21 & 93/2022 & O.P(KAT) No.337 of 2021 12 of the pendency of the said vigilance proceedings in Annexure A-2 FIR vigilance crime No.01/2021 under Sec.7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. However, the DPC, as per the provisions contained in KS&SSR has considered as to what would have been the position of the original applicant, but for the pendency of the abovesaid vigilance crime and noted that the original applicant would have been included as Sl.No.3 in between the aforementioned Sri.M.Ajeesh and Sri.B.R.Anuraj in the select list, 2021. Thus, the DPC has prepared the select list for 2021, in which seven incumbents have been placed therein and Sl.Nos.3 to 7 thereof are juniors to the applicant in Annexure A-8 select list and it is specifically noted therein that the original applicant and another incumbent have been superseded from inclusion in the select list, 2021. In pursuance of Annexure R1(a) DPC minutes dated 28.09.2021, the competent authority of the State Government in the Forest and Wild Life Department has issued Annexure A-8 G.O(P) No.33/2021/F&WLD dated 13.10.2021, inter alia publishing the impugned select list, 2021, in which the aforementioned seven persons have been included therein in the select list, 2021. Sl.Nos.1 to 7 of the impugned Annexure A-8 select list, 2021 are shown as Sl.Nos.15, 16, 18 (Anuraj.B.R.- R5 in O.A), Sl.No.19 (K.R.Veena Devi-R6 in O.A), Sl.No.21 (S.Sandeep - R4 O.P(KAT) Nos.331/21 & 93/2022 & O.P(KAT) No.337 of 2021 13 in O.A), Sl.No.22 & Sl.No.24 [Anisha Siddhik - additional R7 in O.P (KAT)No.331/2021] of Annexure A-1 seniority list, in which the original applicant has been placed as Sl.No.17 thereof. So, as mentioned hereinabove, five out of the seven incumbents included in Annexure A-8 select list, 2021, viz., Sl.Nos.3 to 7 of Annexure A-8 are juniors to the original applicant. A copy of Annexure A-8 has been produced along with Ext.P-2 M.A No.2060/2021 filed by the original applicant in the above O.A. Being aggrieved by her supersession and exclusion from the impugned Annexure A-8 select list, 2021, in pursuance of Annexure R1(a) DPC proceedings dated 28.09.2021, the applicant has approached the Tribunal by filing the instant original application, O.A No.1869/2021 with the aforementioned prayers.

8. A reading of Ext.P-3 interim order dated 21.10.2021 rendered by the Tribunal in the above O.A would indicate that the case had earlier come up for admission before the Tribunal on 05.10.2021, upon which the official respondents were directed to furnish instructions through the learned Government Pleader as to whether the DPC had decided to supersede the applicant and if so, to adduce reasons for the same. Further, when the case had come up before the Tribunal on 11.10.2021, it was submitted on behalf of the official respondents, by the learned Government Pleader, that the O.P(KAT) Nos.331/21 & 93/2022 & O.P(KAT) No.337 of 2021 14 applicant has been superseded due to the pendency of Annexure A-2 vigilance crime, but that her merit and suitability has been otherwise assessed and recorded in a separate sheet as required by the provisions of Rule 28 of KS&SSR Part-II. The Tribunal had then adjourned the case to 20.10.2021. The applicant contended that mere pendency of Annexure A-2 vigilance crime cannot be a ground for exclusion of a person from the select list and she can be excluded only when a charge is framed against her and that the select list has been notified as per Annexure A-8 and that the applicant should have been included between her immediate senior and immediate junior (i.e. between Sl.Nos.2 & 3 of Annexure A-8 select list, 2021) and accordingly, the applicant argued that promotion of her juniors, in pursuance of Annexure A-8 select list, may be stayed by the Tribunal, etc. The learned Government Pleader then submitted that statement on behalf of the official respondents will be filed on or before 25.10.2021 and that no promotions to the applicant's juniors will be effected in the meantime and the said submission, on behalf of the official respondents, has been recorded in para No.3 of Ext.P-3 interim order dated 21.10.2021. Thus, the undertaking made by the official respondents, as can be seen from para.3 of Ext.P-3 interim order is that they would file statement before the Tribunal O.P(KAT) Nos.331/21 & 93/2022 & O.P(KAT) No.337 of 2021 15 on or before 25.10.2021 and until then i.e. until the filing of the said statement, no promotion of the juniors of the applicants will be effected, etc. Thereafter, the official respondents in the O.A have filed Ext.P-4 statement dated 23.10.2021, in which the DPC proceedings dated 28.09.2021, for preparation of the select list, 2021, for promotion of Range Forest Officers to the next higher category post of Assistant Forest Commissioners, has been effected, etc. It is stated in Ext.P-4 statement that on account of the registration and pendency of Annexure A-2 Vigilance Crime No.01/2021 for offence against the applicant, who is accused No.1 therein, for offence under Sec.7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and that in view of the pendency of the said vigilance proceedings at Annexure A-2, the DPC has decided to supersede her from the select list, 2021, etc.

9. Later, the Tribunal has rendered the impugned Ext.P-7 final order dated 10.11.2021, holding that the impugned Annexure A-8 select list, 2021, in pursuance of Annexure R1(a) DPC proceedings dated 28.09.2021, relating to the exclusion of the applicant from the select list, is in violation of the provisions contained in Note (i) of Rule 28(b)(i)(7) of KS&SSR Part-II as well as the dictum laid down by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Sasidharan's case supra [2008 (4) KLT 149] and accordingly, the O.P(KAT) Nos.331/21 & 93/2022 & O.P(KAT) No.337 of 2021 16 Tribunal has directed that the official respondents shall include the applicant in Annexure A-8 select list in between Sl.No.2 (Sri.M.Ajeesh) and Sl.No.3 (Sri.B.R.Anuraj) and to pass orders thereon and that the juniors of the applicant need be promoted only after the promotion of the original applicant, as above. It was with those directions, as mentioned hereinabove, that the O.A has been finally disposed of by the Tribunal that contesting respondents 4 to 6 in the O.A, who are juniors to the applicant, have preferred O.P(KAT)No.331/2021 to challenge the abovesaid verdict of the Tribunal at Ext.P-7. Whereas, the State of Kerala and the other official respondents in the O.A have subsequently filed O.P(KAT)No.93/2022 to challenge the very same final order of the Tribunal as above.

10. O.P(KAT) No.331/2021 had come up for consideration before this Court on 01.12.2021. It was then contended by the petitioners in the O.P that the Tribunal has gone wrong in rendering the abovesaid final verdict in the above O.A, for reasons more than one. Firstly, that the reliance placed by the Tribunal on a judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Sasidharan's case supra [2008 (4) KLT 149] is misplaced and legally untenable, inasmuch as three separate judgments have been rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the judgment dated 13.10.2014 in O.P(KAT) Nos.331/21 & 93/2022 & O.P(KAT) No.337 of 2021 17 O.P(KAT) No.349/2014, judgment dated 08.03.2019 in O.P(KAT) No.375/2018 and judgment dated 26.12.2019 in O.P(KAT) No.336/2019 [2019 KHC 490 (DB)], that the dictum laid down by the learned Single Judge in Sasidharan's case supra does not lay down the correct legal position and is not in accordance with the statutory provision contained in Note (i) of Rule 28(b)(i)(7) of KS&SSR Part-II. Further that, the abovesaid provision contained in Note (i) of the abovesaid Rule specifically mandates that officers against whom vigilance or departmental proceedings are taken, after the charges have prima facie been established in a preliminary enquiry, should not be included in the select list, but that cases of such officers should also be assessed and the question of including them in the select list shall be considered as and when the result of the enquiry is known. It was contended on behalf of the petitioners in the O.P as well as the official respondents in the said O.P that the registration pendency of Annexure A-2 vigilance crime would mandate that the applicant cannot be included in the select list, as above, and that they have also contended that the consequential directions, issued by the Tribunal at Ext.P-7, that the juniors to the applicants can be promoted only after the promotion of the original applicant, is untenable and would go against the mandate of the statutory O.P(KAT) Nos.331/21 & 93/2022 & O.P(KAT) No.337 of 2021 18 rules, etc. Further, it was also pointed out that,during the pendency of the O.A, no specific interim orders were passed by the Tribunal except recording the undertaking of the official respondents in the O.A that no promotions of the applicant's juniors will be made till statement of the official respondents is filed and that Ext.P-4 statement dated 23.10.2021 was filed by the official respondents in the O.A and hence, the currency of the undertaking made on behalf of the official respondents in the O.A had then expired immediately thereafter and that therefore, as on the date the Tribunal had rendered Ext.P-7 final order dated 10.11.2021, there was no order of the Tribunal recording the said undertaking in force and also there was no other order by the Tribunal, interdicting the promotion of the juniors to the applicant. Thereupon, this Court had passed an interim order dated 01.12.2021 in O.P(KAT) No.331/2021, ordering that, prima facie, the Tribunal should not have interdicted all the regular promotions of all the junior persons included in the select list and if at all some ad- interim measures were required, the Tribunal should have ordered that regular promotions could be made as against six out of the total seven vacancies for the post of Assistant Conservator of Forests as per Annexure A-8 select list, 2021, so that, only the junior most incumbent i.e. Sl.No.7 of Annexure A-8 would have been O.P(KAT) Nos.331/21 & 93/2022 & O.P(KAT) No.337 of 2021 19 affected. Accordingly, this Court ordered that the operation and enforcement of the orders and directions passed by the Tribunal at Ext.P-7 shall remain stayed and that official respondents will be at liberty to make regular promotions for the first six candidates out of the total seven candidates included in Annexure A-8 select list, 2021 and that the seventh vacancy, out of the seven vacancies in the select list, 2021, need not now be regularly filled up. Further, this Court also ordered that the competent authorities of the Vigilance & Anti-Corruption Bureau should also be impleaded as additional respondents in the above O.P.

11. Later, the vigilance authorities have been impleaded as additional respondents in the above O.P as mentioned above. This Court also directed that the vigilance authorities will file a statement in the matter as to whether the norms of the Directorate of the Vigilance & Anti- Corruption Bureau insist that preliminary enquiry should have necessarily been conducted before registration of a vigilance case/vigilance crime, in a case of the present nature and if preliminary enquiry has not been conducted in the instant case, before the registration of Annexure A-2 vigilance crime, then the reasons for not conducting such preliminary enquiry may also be indicated in the said statement, etc. Later, this Court passed an interim O.P(KAT) Nos.331/21 & 93/2022 & O.P(KAT) No.337 of 2021 20 order on 07.12.2021, ordering the impleadment of the vigilance authorities as additional respondents in O.P(KAT) No.331/2021 and on that day, this Court also recorded the specific contention of the learned Advocate appearing for the original applicant (R1 in the O.P) that going by the provisions contained in Note (i) of Rule 28(b)(i)(7) of KS&SSR Part-II, cases of eligible applicants included in the field of choice for promotion by consideration by the DPC, can be superseded only if preliminary enquiry is conducted, in which prima facie charges are established. Further that, Annexure A-2 vigilance crime has been registered by the Vigilance & Anti- Corruption Bureau on 15.08.2021, without conducting any such preliminary enquiry and that therefore, the registration and pendency of Annexure A-2 vigilance crime, which has been instituted without such preliminary enquiry, cannot be the basis for superseding and excluding the applicant from Annexure A-8 select list, 2021, etc. This Court after recording the abovesaid contention of the original applicant, had also directed that the official respondents, more particularly, the vigilance authorities should state as to whether any such preliminary enquiry has been conducted and if not, reasons for the same and also to explain as to how the abovesaid rigour of the statutory provisions, contained in KS&SSR Part-II, could be invoked O.P(KAT) Nos.331/21 & 93/2022 & O.P(KAT) No.337 of 2021 21 against the applicant, in the instant case, as ordered in Annexure R1(a) and Annexure A-8. It is thereafter that the vigilance authorities have filed the above referred statement dated 06.12.2021 in the above O.P, the contents of paras.3 to 8 thereof has already been extracted in the earlier portion of this judgment. Thereafter, the last person in Annexure A-8 select list, 2021, i.e. Sl.No.7 thereof, has been impleaded as additional respondent No.7 in O.P(KAT) No.331/2021. The said additional respondent No.7 has also filed an affidavit along with her impleadment application and the same has been treated as her pleadings in this case. The original applicant has filed a counter affidavit dated 11.02.2022 to the abovesaid statement dated 06.12.2021 filed by the respondent vigilance authorities in the above O.P(KAT) No.331/2021. The contents of paras.3 to 5 of the abovesaid counter affidavit dated 11.02.2022 filed by R1 in O.P(KAT) No.331/2021 (original applicant), read as follows :

"3. The allegations in Paragraphs 2 & 3 of the Statement of Facts are not fully correct. The statements made are only the allegations raised by the de-facto complainant Mr.Biju against this respondent and other officers. The de-facto complainant alleged that this respondent demanded amounts for passing bill and that she instructed to pay the said amount through Forster(sic), Sri.K.K.Salim. The said averment is baseless and therefore denied. It is respectfully submitted that as on today no evidence is available against this respondent to implicate herself in the offence and hence, it is respectfully submitted that there is no legal embargo for promoting this respondent to the post of Assistant Conservator of O.P(KAT) Nos.331/21 & 93/2022 & O.P(KAT) No.337 of 2021 22 Forest.

4. The allegations in Paragraph 4 of the Statement of facts are not fully correct. It is true that the mobile phones of the complainant and accused were seized and steps have been taken for carrying out forensic examination. Admittedly, this respondent was not arrested or caught red-handed. The alleged connivance between this respondent and other officers are all baseless allegations and made only to deny promotion to this respondent.

5. It is respectfully submitted that as on today, except the allegations raised by the de-facto complainant, no material or evidence available implicating this respondent has involved in the alleged vigilance case. Hence, it is clear that the 1 st respondent is entitled to get promotion to the post of Assistant Conservator of Forest."

12. All the parties have been heard in detail and the pleadings and materials on record have also been examined by this Court. In view of certain contentions urged by the original applicant, this Court had directed on 31.03.2022 that the respondent vigilance authorities shall produce the relevant records in relation to Annexure A-2 Vigilance Crime No.01/2021. After the conclusion of the arguments of this case, the learned Government Pleader submitted that the expert opinion of the Centre for Development of Advanced Computing (CDAC), on the analysis of pendrive of the telephonic conversation between the de facto complainant and A-1 (original applicant), is over and it is expected to be given to the Investigating Agency only later and that the said record would be very crucial and that immediately after O.P(KAT) Nos.331/21 & 93/2022 & O.P(KAT) No.337 of 2021 23 receiving the expert report in that regard, the relevant records would be immediately handed over to the court. This Court, while reserving the case for judgment on 06.04.2022, had given time to the learned Senior Government Pleader to produce the said materials later. This Court had also passed an order on 06.04.2022, recording the submissions of the learned counsel for R7 in O.P(KAT) No.331/2021 that, apart from the seven vacancies mentioned in Annexure A-8 select list, 2021, two more additional vacancies are to arise by 30.04.2022 and that, merely on account of the pendency of the present O.P proceedings, the respondent-authorities were not considering the claim of additional R7 for appointment, at least by way of temporary promotion, as against such additional vacancies, inspite of her inclusion as Sl.No.7 in Annexure A-8 select list. Accordingly, this Court had passed an interim order on 06.12.2022, ordering that the mere pendency of the abovesaid O.Ps will not preclude the State and the departmental authorities from considering the case of R7 in O.P(KAT) No.331/2021, for appointment to any such vacancy, for temporary promotion under Rule 31(a) (i) of KS&SSR Part-II, subject to seniority and other criteria, etc. and that any such appointment, by way of temporary promotion, in favour of additional R7 will be subject to the result of the O.P, etc. It will be now O.P(KAT) Nos.331/21 & 93/2022 & O.P(KAT) No.337 of 2021 24 pertinent to refer to the contents of certain relevant provisions of KS&SSR Part-II, more particularly Rule 28 thereof.

13. Note (i) to Rule 28(b)(i)(7) of KS&SSR Part-II provides as follows :

"Note.-(i) Officers under suspension and Officers against whom criminal proceedings are pending in a Sessions Court or in any other higher Court for grave offences like murder, dacoity, etc. and Officers against whom departmental proceedings are taken for the imposition of a major penalty under the disciplinary rules applicable to them should not be included in the select list. But the suitability of such an Officer for promotion should be assessed at the relevant time by the Departmental Promotion Committee and a finding reached whether, if the Officer had not been suspended or the criminal proceedings/departmental proceedings had not been pending against him, he would have been recommended/selected for promotion. Where a select list is prepared the Departmental Promotion Committee shall also make a finding as to what the position of the Officer in that list would have been but for the suspension or the criminal proceedings/departmental proceedings against him. The findings as to the suitability and the place in the select list of the officer should be recorded separately and attached to the proceedings. The proceedings of the Departmental Promotion Committee need only contain a note. "The findings are recorded in the attached sheet of paper". The authority competent to fill the vacancy should be separately advised to fill the vacancy only on a temporary basis. Officers against whom vigilance or departmental proceedings are taken after the charges have prima facie been established in a preliminary enquiry should not be included in the select list. But, the cases of such Officers should also be assessed. The question of including them in the select list shall be considered when the result of the enquiry is known.

However Officers against whom departmental proceedings are taken for the imposition of a minor penalty may be included in the select list provisionally if they are found suitable but for the pendency of disciplinary proceedings initiated against them.

(emphasis supplied) O.P(KAT) Nos.331/21 & 93/2022 & O.P(KAT) No.337 of 2021 25 [The abovesaid highlighted portion has been introduced as an amendment to Note

(i) as per G.O(P) No.131/82/GAD dated 22.04.1982 published as SRO No.639/1982 in Kerala Gazette No.20 dated 18.05.1982].

14. Note (ii) to Rule 28(b)(i)(7) thereof provides as follows:

"Note (ii) The vacancy that would have gone to the Officer but for his suspension or the criminal proceedings/departmental proceedings against him for the imposition of a major penalty should be filled only on a temporary basis by the next person in the approved list. If the Officer concerned is completely exonerated, he will be promoted thereafter to the post filled on a temporary basis, the arrangements made previously being reversed. If the exoneration is not complete, the Departmental Promotion Committee may decide each case on its merits. Where, however, the post which would have gone to the Officer but for his suspension or the criminal proceedings/departmental proceedings against him, ceases to exist before the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings, he will be promoted to the first vacancy that may be available in future if he is found fit for promotion at that time. If the officers against whom departmental proceedings are taken for imposition of a minor penalty and who have been provisionally included in the select list are fully exonerated of the charges, their cases for promotion on the basis of such inclusion in the select list shall be considered. If the Officers are not fully exonerated of the charges, the Departmental Promotion Committee may decide each case on its own merit.

15. Note (iii) to Rule 28(b)(i)(7) thereof stipulate as follows :

"Note (iii) Officers whose names are included in the select list but who are subsequently placed under suspension or against whom criminal proceedings are taken in a sessions court or in any other higher court for grave offences and officers against whom departmental proceedings are taken for the imposition of a major penalty under the disciplinary rules applicable to them, shall not be promoted on the basis of their inclusion in the select list until they are fully exonerated of the charges against them. If the officer is fully exonerated of the charges, he shall be O.P(KAT) Nos.331/21 & 93/2022 & O.P(KAT) No.337 of 2021 26 promoted on the basis of his position in the select list to the post which has been filled on a temporary basis pending disposal of the charges against him. If the Officer is not fully exonerated, the Departmental Promotion Committee may consider each case on its own merit. Officers whose names are included in the select list but against whom departmental proceedings for imposing a minor penalty are initiated subsequently, may be promoted on a temporary basis pending disposal of the proceedings against them. If the Officer is fully exonerated of the charges the temporary promotion shall be treated as regular promotion and if the Officer is not fully exonerated of the charges, his case may be considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee on merits.

16. Rule 28(b)(i)(11) of KS&SSR Part-II reads as follows :

"Rule 28. (a) Promotion. ............ ................. .......................

XXX XXX XXX (11) The select list shall be reviewed and revised for the purpose of sub-clause (10) in cases where the acquisition of an extra qualification or the gaining of a prescribed period of experience is insisted on as conditions precedent to the selection to the higher post. In such cases the following procedure shall be followed:

The Convener of the Departmental Promotion Committee concerned should bring to the specific notice of the Committee the case of all senior hands who are being overlooked in drawing up the select list for want of qualification or experience and who are likely to acquire that qualification or experience during the pendency of the list. The select list drawn up at the meeting shall be treated as provisional to the extent to which it relates to the junior hands included in the select list whose seniors are likely to become fully qualified during the pendency of the list. When such senior hands acquire the qualification and/or experience which would make them eligible for appointment, the Convener shall take early steps for the convening of an ad hoc meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee and after considering the claims of such persons, revise, if necessary, the provisional portion of the select list. The provisional portion of the select list, if revised, shall be made absolute following the procedure laid down in sub-clause (8) O.P(KAT) Nos.331/21 & 93/2022 & O.P(KAT) No.337 of 2021 27 above and the process repeated wherever necessary."

17. One of the issues to be considered is as to whether the reliance placed by the Tribunal in the impugned verdict on the dictum laid down by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Sasidharan's case supra [2008 (4) KLT 149] is correct and tenable. For considering that aspect, it may be pertinent once again to refer to the relevant portion of Note (i) to Rule 28(b)

(i)(7) of KS&SSR introduced as per SRO No.639/1982 published in Gazette dated 18.05.1982, which reads as follows:

"............. Officers against whom vigilance or departmental proceedings are taken after the charges have prima facie been established in a preliminary enquiry should not be included in the select list. But, the cases of such Officers should also be assessed. The question of including them in the select list shall be considered when the result of the enquiry is known. However Officers against whom departmental proceedings are taken for the imposition of a minor penalty may be included in the select list provisionally if they are found suitable but for the pendency of disciplinary proceedings initiated against them."

18. Considering the effect of Note(i), the abovesaid provisions of Note(i) of Rule 28(b)(i)(7), a learned Single Judge of this Court in Sasidharan's case supra [2008 (4) KLT 149] has held that mere registration of an FIR by the police as against the employee concerned alleging offences as per general laws like IPC, etc. or for even special laws like the Prevention of Corruption Act will not be sufficient and what is O.P(KAT) Nos.331/21 & 93/2022 & O.P(KAT) No.337 of 2021 28 required is that charges should have been actually framed by the competent criminal court at the relevant time when the claim for promotion of the employees concerned arises. The learned Single Judge held therein that the departmental disciplinary proceedings can be said to be pending only when memo of charges is issued by the competent disciplinary authority and further that, going by the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in the decision in Union of India & Ors. v. K.V.Janakiraman & Ors. [(1991) 4 SCC 109], a criminal proceedings can be said to be pending only when charges are duly framed by the criminal court and that the law demands that disciplinary proceedings can be said to be pending only when memo of charges are issued by the competent disciplinary authority, in accordance with the relevant rules regulating disciplinary affairs. The learned Single Judge thus held in Sasidharan's case supra [2008 (4) KLT 149] that, merely because an FIR is registered by the Vigilance Police, against an employee concerned, for an offence arising out of a special enactment, like the Prevention of Corruption Act, will not make any difference from an FIR registered by the Police against an employee concerned for offences punishable as per the General Criminal Laws like IPC, etc. and that the right to be considered for promotion through the DPC process, in terms of Rule O.P(KAT) Nos.331/21 & 93/2022 & O.P(KAT) No.337 of 2021 29 28(b)(i)(7) of KS&SSR Part-II, can be curtailed only if the competent criminal court has framed charges, as against the employee, as an accused in the criminal proceedings or the employee has been served with memo of charges by the competent disciplinary authority, as per the Rules regulating disciplinary affairs at the relevant time, etc.

19. The Tribunal has placed reliance on the dictum laid down by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Sasidharan's case supra in granting relief to the applicant in the case, as per the impugned final verdict. However, it is to be noted that three separate judgments have been rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the judgment dated 13.10.2014 in O.P(KAT) No.349/2014, judgment dated 08.03.2019 in O.P(KAT) No.375/2018 and judgment dated 26.10.2019 in O.P(KAT) No.336/2019 [2019 KHC 490], that the dictum laid down by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Sasidharan's case supra, does not lay down the correct legal position and is not in accordance with the statutory provision contained in Note (i) to Rule 28(b)(i)(7) of KS&SSR Part-II and that the said position laid down in the Single Bench verdict will stand overruled, etc. The detailed consideration of various aspects in the matter, including the provisions contained in the vigilance manual and the provisions contained in the O.P(KAT) Nos.331/21 & 93/2022 & O.P(KAT) No.337 of 2021 30 Prevention of Corruption Act, etc., has been considered by the Division Bench of this Court in the judgment dated 28.10.2019 in O.P(KAT) No.336/2019 {in the case State of Kerala & Ors. v. Babu Prasad.B - [2019 KHC 940 (DB)]}. The Division Bench of this Court in Babu Prasad's case supra, held that the former part of Note (i) supra, with regard to pending criminal proceedings before Sessions Court or higher Courts for graver criminal offences and taking of disciplinary proceedings for imposition of major penalities, cannot be equated with the latter part, which is with respect to taking of vigilance or departmental proceedings, after the charges have been established in a preliminary enquiry. The Division Bench held therein that, categorically, all what is required is that such vigilance or departmental proceedings are taken after the charges have been prima facie established in a preliminary enquiry and such incumbents should not be included in the select list. But that the cases could be assessed and the question of including them in the select list shall also be considered when the result of the enquiry is known, etc., in terms of the latter part of Note (i) to Rule 28(b)(i)(7). However, later a judgment has been rendered by a Division Bench of this Court on 17.03.2021 in O.P(KAT) No.159/2021, by placing reliance on the dictum laid down by the learned Single Judge of this O.P(KAT) Nos.331/21 & 93/2022 & O.P(KAT) No.337 of 2021 31 Court in Sasidharan's case supra, but without referring or adverting to the findings of the Division Benches in the other three separate judgments mentioned hereinabove. It appears that none of the parties have apprised this Court about the earlier judgments of the Division Bench of this Court on the same subject matter regarding the overruling of the dictum laid down by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Sasidharan's case supra. After hearing all the parties concerned and after perusing through the abovementioned judgments, we are of the firm view that the subsequent judgment dated 17.03.2021 in O.P(KAT) No.159/2021, placing reliance on the dictum laid down by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Sasidharan's case supra, does not reflect the correct legal position and it is per incuriam, as the same has been rendered without noting the aforesaid earlier judgments of the Division Bench. Accordingly, it is only to be held that the impugned verdict of the Tribunal, by placing reliance on the dictum laid down by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Sasidharan's case supra, is misplaced and untenable in law.

20. Sri.P.J.Elvin Peter, learned counsel appearing for R1 in these O.Ps (original applicant), would submit, on the basis of instructions, that there is no dispute that the dictum laid down by the learned Single Judge of O.P(KAT) Nos.331/21 & 93/2022 & O.P(KAT) No.337 of 2021 32 this Court in Sasidharan's case supra does not reflect the correct legal position, as the same was already overruled by the judgments of the Division Bench of this Court, as above. But that the specific and cardinal case of the original applicant is that, to attract the detrimental provisions contained in the latter part of Note (i) to Rule 28(b)(i)(7) of KS&SSR Part-II, such vigilance or departmental proceedings should have been initiated only on the basis of a preliminary enquiry, wherein the charges should have been established. That in the instant case, neither the State authorities nor any of the other private parties have any case that Annexure A-2 vigilance FIR has been registered, pursuant to a preliminary enquiry conducted by the Vigilance & Anti-Corruption Bureau, in which the charges or allegation thereof have been established. Hence, it is argued forcefully by the learned counsel for the original applicant that the vital jurisdictional fact required for the invocation of the detrimental provisions contained in the latter part of Note (i) to Rule 28(b)(i)(7) of KS&SSR Part-II are conspicuously and fully absent in this case but for the mere registration of Annexure A-2 vigilance crime. Hence, it is urged that the mere registration of Annexure A-2 vigilance FIR, which has been so registered without conducting any preliminary enquiry by the Vigilance & Anti-Corruption Bureau, for prima O.P(KAT) Nos.331/21 & 93/2022 & O.P(KAT) No.337 of 2021 33 facie establishing such charges or allegations, cannot be the basis for excluding the original applicant from the select list, in terms of the latter part of Note (i) to Rule 28(b)(i)(7). Hence, it is pointed out that though the Tribunal may have been wrong in placing reliance on the dictum laid down by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Sasidharan's case supra, the Tribunal was fully right in holding that the impugned exclusion and supersession of the applicant by the DPC, as per Annexure A-8 and Annexure R-1(a), is not in accordance with the provisions contained in the latter part of Note (i) to Rule 28(b)(i)(7) and that therefore, the ultimate conclusion and relief granted in favour of the original applicant by the Tribunal, as per Ext.P-7, is not liable for any interdiction or interference at the hands of this Court. Alternatively, it is also argued on behalf of the original applicant that if at all the said Note (i) is to be invoked in such a case, then the official concerned, against whom Note (i) is to be invoked, should have been arrested on the spot in a trap case by the vigilance police and that in the instant case, the original applicant (A-1) has never been arrested on the spot, etc. Further, it is also contended by the original applicant that it may be true that the mobile phones may have been seized, then steps have been taken for carrying out the forensic examination. But O.P(KAT) Nos.331/21 & 93/2022 & O.P(KAT) No.337 of 2021 34 that, admittedly, the applicant has not been arrested or caught red-handed and that there are no material or evidence available for implicating the original applicant, in respect of the allegations involved in Annexure A-2 vigilance case.

21. Per contra, Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the State authorities as well as Sri.K.Sandesh Raja, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents in the O.A/petitioners in O.P(KAT) No.331/2021 as well as Sri.Nirmal V.Nair, learned counsel appearing for additional R-7 in O.P(KAT) No.331/2021, would argue that the various provisions contained in the vigilance manual as well as the provision contained in the first proviso to Sec.17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act would make it clear like the day light that a trap case set up by the Vigilance & Anti-Corruption Bureau is entirely different and distinct from other vigilance cases and by the very nature of the trap case, the same has to be conducted and, effectuated with all confidentiality and secrecy or otherwise the bribe taker/receiver will be alerted and the trap case will be completely frustrated and therefore, the vigilance manual contains detailed provisions, making it clear that the requirement of preliminary enquiry cannot be insisted in the case of a trap O.P(KAT) Nos.331/21 & 93/2022 & O.P(KAT) No.337 of 2021 35 case and that in such case, after following the requisite procedure, the competent vigilance police officials are fully empowered to register the FIR for trap case and to take further action thereon. Further that, the first proviso to Sec.17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, introduced as an amendment made effective from 26.07.2018, would also specifically mandate that the requirement of approval of the competent authority is not insisted in the case of arrest of an accused person involved in a trap case and that therefore, the Parliament has made it clear that since, even for arrest of an accused person in a trap case, no approval of the competent authority is required, there is no question of any insistence that an FIR in a trap case can be registered by the vigilance police officials, only on the basis of a preliminary enquiry conducted by the Vigilance & Anti-Corruption Bureau, wherein the charges or allegations are prima facie established. Further that, even going by the specific materials borne out from Annexure A-2, it can be seen that the specific case of the de-facto complainant is that A-1 had demanded illegal gratification of Rs.70,000/- to be paid by the de facto complainant to her for clearing the bills and for that purpose, the said illegal gratification money should be handed over by the de facto complainant to accused No.3 (Section Forest Officer), so that the same could be later O.P(KAT) Nos.331/21 & 93/2022 & O.P(KAT) No.337 of 2021 36 received by A-1 (original applicant). Further that, A-3 (Section Forest Officer) has been arrested and caught red-handed in the trap case on 16.08.2021 and by the very nature of the transactions insisted by A-1 & A-3, the illegal gratification money was not to be handed over directly to A-1, but that the complainant is to hand over the said money directly only to A-3 in order that the said money is passed on by him to A-1 (original applicant). In a case of that nature, the vigilance police officials can proceed only by registering an FIR and setting up the trap case and to arrest the bribe taker/receiver, after catching him red-handed and if it is insisted that even in such a case, preliminary enquiry is to be conducted for establishing the allegations on a prima facie basis and then only the FIR can be registered, then no trap case can ever be effectuated by the Vigilance & Anti-Corruption Bureau. Further that, in such a case, even after arresting A-3, who was caught for receiving the bribe money, on the spot, there could not have been any contingency of arresting A-1 on the spot, as the entire transactions designed by the accused persons were that the de-facto complainant should personally hand over the money only to A-3 and not to A-1 and therefore, in such a case, there is no question of catching A-1 red-handed and to arrest her on the spot, etc. The respondent-vigilance authorities have also produced O.P(KAT) Nos.331/21 & 93/2022 & O.P(KAT) No.337 of 2021 37 Sec.161 statements of three witnesses as Annexures-1, 2 & 3 along with memo dated 05.04.2022, filed through the learned Senior Government Pleader in O.P(KAT) No.93/2022. We have also perused through the said Sec.161 Cr.P.C statements given by those witnesses to the police officers of the Vigilance & Anti-Corruption Bureau.

22. In the light of these rival pleas, this Court will have to decide as to whether the latter part of Note (i) supra can be invoked for superseding an officer only if the vigilance crime/FIR has been registered, pursuant to a vigilance enquiry conducted by the Vigilance & Anti-Corruption Bureau, wherein the allegations have been prima facie established or whether in a vigilance proceeding, arising out of a trap case, the first proviso to Sec.17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, Note (i) supra could be invoked, pursuant to the pendency of an FIR in a trap case registered without a preliminary enquiry. Some of the various provisions contained in the Vigilance & Anti- Corruption Bureau Manual, more particularly, clauses 32, 44 to 50 thereof, have been elaborately considered by the Division Bench of this Court in Babu Prasad's case supra [2019 KHC 490 /940 (DB)], as can be seen from a reading of para.11 thereof. Some of the main functions of the Vigilance Bureau are referred to in clause 14 of the vigilance manual. Clause O.P(KAT) Nos.331/21 & 93/2022 & O.P(KAT) No.337 of 2021 38 14(e) thereof stipulates that the bureau conducts Vigilance Enquiries (VE) into matters referred to the Director for enquiry by the Government. But that, the Bureau does not initiate vigilance enquiries suo motu on complaints received directly by the Bureau and they are forwarded to the Government for further orders. However, clause 14(f) explicitly provides that, if at any stage during the vigilance enquiry conducted by the Bureau, there are reasonable grounds to believe that the public servant has committed an offence under the PC Act, the vigilance enquiry is stopped at that stage and a crime case is registered and investigated, after obtaining sanction from the Director. So, the said provision makes it clear that, subject to the satisfaction of those requirements, even without completing a vigilance enquiry, crime could be registered after obtaining sanction from the Government. Clause 22(iv) stipulates that, except in trap cases, registration of crime cases, when it is revealed during the course of an enquiry that the accused has committed an offence under the PC Act, is done only after obtaining sanction from the Director. So, it can be seen that, ordinarily, registration of a crime, during the course of an ongoing enquiry, can be done in cases where it is revealed that the accused has committed an offence under the PC Act. But registration of the crime can be ordered only after O.P(KAT) Nos.331/21 & 93/2022 & O.P(KAT) No.337 of 2021 39 sanction from the Director. However, the exception to that is in trap cases. So in other words, in trap cases it has been specifically envisaged that, where there are materials to clearly show that the accused has committed an offence under the PC Act, etc., then crime could be registered without sanction from the Director, if it is for instituting a trap case. Chapter VII of the vigilance manual deals with vigilance case and clause 56 thereunder deals with registration of vigilance cases. Clause 56 reads as follows :

"Clause 56. (i) If at any stage, during the Vigilance Enquiry conducted by the Bureau, there are reasonable grounds to believe that the public servant has committed an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the Vigilance Enquiry will be stopped at that stage and a crime case registered in respect of that allegation and investigated after obtaining sanction from the Director.

(ii) If the Deputy Superintendent of Police of the Unit considers, based on the findings of a Vigilance Enquiry/Confidential Verification/Surprise Check that, prima facie, there is adequate material to register a case in the vigilance Police Station, he will send a report to the Directorate through the concerned Supdt of Police with all relevant information indicating the suitability of registering a case and await instructions. No crime case will be registered in the Vigilance Police Station without instructions from the Directorate except in Trap cases, for the registration of which no such sanction is necessary."

23. Clause 56(i) is broadly relatable to clause 47 (f) supra. Clause 56(i) specifically stipulates that, if at any stage, during the vigilance enquiry conducted by the Bureau, there are reasonable grounds to believe that the O.P(KAT) Nos.331/21 & 93/2022 & O.P(KAT) No.337 of 2021 40 public servant has committed an offence under the PC Act, then vigilance enquiry will be stopped at that stage and a crime case is registered in respect of that allegation and investigated, after obtaining sanction from the Director. Clause 56 (ii) envisages that where the officer of the rank of Dy.SP considers, based on the findings of a vigilance enquiry/confidential verification/surprise check that, prima facie, there is adequate material to register a case in the vigilance police station, he will send a report to the Directorate through the Superintendent of Police with all relevant information indicating the suitability of registering a case and await instructions and that no crime case will be registered in the vigilance police station without instructions from the Directorate except in trap cases, for registration of which no such sanction is necessary. So in other words, the exception conceived in Rule 56(ii), in favour of trap cases, is relatable to the scenario envisaged in clause 22 (iv) mentioned above. Therefore, these cardinal provisions of the Vigilance & Anti-corruption Bureau Manual, more particularly clause 22(iv), clause 56(ii), would make it clear like the day light that ordinarily, where even in the course of an ongoing vigilance enquiry, if the officer is satisfied that materials are disclosing offence against public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act, then the enquiry could be O.P(KAT) Nos.331/21 & 93/2022 & O.P(KAT) No.337 of 2021 41 stopped and crime could be registered, but after obtaining orders from the Director. But the said requirement is not necessary where the scenario is one for the institution of a trap case. In other words, for a trap case, even without conducting any preliminary enquiry, the vigilance police officials are empowered to register the FIR/vigilance crime, as the objective for the same is crystal clear. If materials prima facie disclose the culpability of a public servant and the conditions for initiating a trap case are fulfilled, then vigilance police officials are fully empowered to register the crime, without conducting any preliminary enquiry/vigilance enquiry and without even getting formal sanction from the Director. If the meticulous and detailed procedure for conducting and concluding vigilance preliminary enquiry and then getting sanction from the Director and Government, etc., are insisted for effectuation of a trap case, then the very concept of trap case will become futile and will be frustrated, as by then, the alleged bribe takers/receivers will be alerted and even the remotest possibility for the success of a trap case will be thoroughly frustrated. Therefore, the learned Senior Government Pleader is fully right in contending that, by the very nature of a trap case, the same will have to be effectuated in a highly confidential and secret manner and if or otherwise the bribe takers/receivers are alerted, then any further O.P(KAT) Nos.331/21 & 93/2022 & O.P(KAT) No.337 of 2021 42 effective steps in the trap case will be futile and of no consequence. In view of these cardinal aspects, the Vigilance & Anti-corruption Bureau Manual has clearly mandated that such enquiry or preliminary enquiry can be dispensed with in the institution of a trap case by registering an FIR and this can be done even without getting orders from the Director of the Vigilance Bureau. The detailed provisions for conducting of a trap case are contained in Chapter-X of the vigilance manual, more particularly Rules 92 to 127 thereof. Clauses 92, 93 & 94 of the Vigilance & Anti-Corruption Bureau Manual provide as follows :

"Clause 92. A successful trap is a vital piece of telltale evidence to prove the alleged demand of illegal gratification by the accused public servant from the complainant and its subsequent acceptance by him in furtherance of the demand. A trap, in other words, is nothing but the means of detecting a crime by catching the criminal "flagrante delicto".

But an unsuccessful trap will not only cause obvious embarrassment to the Bureau but will also dent the reputation of the public servant, not to speak of the possible victimisation of the complainant by the public servant and his department. Hence, when laying a trap, proper fore- thought and planning are sine qua non. Every trap has its own characteristics and as such it is difficult to lay down any hard and fast procedures to cover every possible situation. The officers laying the trap will, therefore, have to improvise the mode and technique of the trap according to the exigencies of the situation without, of course, compromising the legal requirements or the evidentiary importance. The officers of the Bureau will bear in mind the following instructions while laying traps and investigating them.

93. When it is decided to register a case on a complaint of demand or illegal gratification by the public servant, the FIR should be registered under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The complainant, no doubt, should be the person from whom the bribe O.P(KAT) Nos.331/21 & 93/2022 & O.P(KAT) No.337 of 2021 43 was demanded. When the trap proves successful, Sections 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Act should also be added to Section 7. A report regarding the alteration of Section shall be forwarded to the Special Judge's Court.

94. The officer laying the trap should ensure that complete secrecy is maintained about the proposed trap. Every member of the trap party need know only as much as is necessary to enable him to perform the task assigned to him."

24. A reading of Clause.92 would make it clear that a successful trap is a vital piece of telltale evidence to prove the alleged demand of illegal gratification by the accused public servant from the complainant, etc. and that a trap is nothing but the means of detecting a crime by catching the criminal "flagrante delicto". Hence, for laying a trap case, proper fore- thought and planning are sine qua non and every trap case has its own characteristics and so it is difficult to lay down any hard and fast procedures to cover every possible situation and that the officers laying the trap will, therefore, have to improvise the mode and technique of the trap according to the exigencies of the situation without compromising the legal requirements or the evidentiary importance. Further, clause 93 mandates that when it is decided to register a case on a complaint of demand of illegal gratification by the public servant, the FIR should necessarily be registered under Sec.7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the complainant should be the person O.P(KAT) Nos.331/21 & 93/2022 & O.P(KAT) No.337 of 2021 44 from whom the bribe was demanded. Further that, when the trap case becomes successful, Sec.13(2) read with Sec.13(1)(d) of the PC Act should also be added to Sec.7 and a report regarding the alteration of sections shall be forwarded to the court of the Special Judge concerned.

25. Clause.94 further mandates that secrecy shall be maintained and the officer laying trap should ensure that complete secrecy is maintained about the proposed trap and every member of the trap party need know only as much as is necessary to enable him to perform the task assigned to him.

26. Clause.96 deals with properties of phenolphthalein powder. Clause.97 deals with proof for conscious acceptance. Clause.99 deals with public servants to witness and assist traps. Clause.100 deals with securing of witnesses. Clause 101 deals with phenolphthalein powder to be applied in the presence of witnesses. Clause. 102 deals with pre-trap mahazar to be signed by witnesses. Clause.104 requires complainant to be properly briefed. Clause 107 & clause.108 requires that trap party/witnesses shall subject themselves for search and test. Clause.109 speaks about conduct of phenolphthalein test. Clauses.110 & 111 deals with questioning of the accused and identification of bribe money, etc. Clause.114 deals with recovery mahazar to contain all the details. Various other meticulous O.P(KAT) Nos.331/21 & 93/2022 & O.P(KAT) No.337 of 2021 45 aspects are also dealt with in the various provisions contained in Chapter-X dealing with trap cases, which includes clause.92 to clause.127 thereof.

27. Now it may also be pertinent to refer to Sec.17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which has been introduced as an amendment made effective from 26.07.2018.

"Sec.17A. Enquiry or Inquiry or investigation of offences relatable to recommendations made or decision taken by public servant in discharge of official functions or duties.--(1) No police officer shall conduct any enquiry or inquiry or investigation into any offence alleged to have been committed by a public servant under this Act, where the alleged offence is relatable to any recommendation made or decision taken by such public servant in discharge of his official functions or duties, without the previous approval--

(a) in the case of a person who is or was employed, at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed, in connection with the affairs of the Union, of that Government;

(b) in the case of a person who is or was employed, at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed, in connection with the affairs of a State, of that Government;

(c) in the case of any other person, of the authority competent to remove him from his office, at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed:

Provided that no such approval shall be necessary for cases involving arrest of a person on the spot on the charge of accepting or attempting to accept any undue advantage for himself or for any other person:

Provided further that the concerned authority shall convey its decision under this section within a period of three months, which may, for reasons to be recorded in writing by such authority, be extended by a further period of one month." Sec.17A (1) mandates that no police officer shall conduct any enquiry or O.P(KAT) Nos.331/21 & 93/2022 & O.P(KAT) No.337 of 2021 46 inquiry or investigation into any offence alleged to have been committed by a public servant under this Act, where the alleged offence is relatable to any recommendation made or decision taken by such public servant in the discharge of his official functions or duties, without the prior approval of the competent authorities as mentioned in clauses (a) to (c) thereof. However, the first proviso to Sec.17A clearly mandates that no such approval shall be necessary for cases involving arrest of a person on the spot on the charge of accepting or attempting to accept any undue advantage for himself or for any other person. The scope and ambit of the provisions contained in Sec.17A has been dealt with in detail in a judgment of this Court in the case in Shankara Bhat & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors. [2021 (5) KHC 248] in paras.19 & 21.

It has been held by this Court in para.24 thereof that the scope of Sec.17A is that an approval thereunder for conducting any enquiry, inquiry or investigation is warranted only when the act done by the accused, which he was charged of, was relatable to a decision taken or recommendation made. That, if the offence was not relatable to any such decision or recommendation, prior approval under Sec.17A is not required and that, commission of an offence or allegation of acts of public servant, which is ex O.P(KAT) Nos.331/21 & 93/2022 & O.P(KAT) No.337 of 2021 47 facie criminal or constitute an offence or even demanding illegal consideration or receiving of it, either to routinely move the file or to keep the file pending, without any decision taken therein, will not fall within the scope of Sec.17A and hence, prior approval under Sec.17A is not warranted in such cases. That the reasonable conclusion to be arrived at, regarding the scope of Sec.17A, is that prior approval under Sec.17A for conducting any enquiry, inquiry or investigation is required only when the offence alleged is relatable to a decision taken or recommendation made by the public authority and it involves a debatable or suspicious or doubtful recommendation made or decision taken by such authority. That Acts, which are ex facie criminal or constitute an offence, do not require approval under Sec.17A of the P.C Act. That, it has been further held in para.15 thereof that, statutorily, cases involving the arrest of a person on the spot, on charges of accepting or attempting to accept any undue advantage for himself or any other person, has been exempted from the purview of the above previous approval and that this is justifiably so, since swift and prompt action is liable to be taken, while apprehending a person who is stated to have demanded and received bribe and the arresting officer cannot wait for previous approval.

O.P(KAT) Nos.331/21 & 93/2022 & O.P(KAT) No.337 of 2021 48

28. The first proviso to Sec.17A makes it clear that such prior approval is not required for cases involving arrest of a person in trap cases. So, since the more rigorous aspect of arrest of an accused in a trap case does not require prior approval, it can be safely concluded that for the registration of an FIR in a trap case, no prior approval or no prior preliminary enquiry is necessary. If it is held otherwise in a trap case, then the very objective of the trap case will not be fructified.

29. The applicability of the latter part of Note (i) to Rule 28(b)(i)(7) of KS&SSR Part-II, in relation to accused officials involved in vigilance crimes registered in a trap case, has not been considered in the aforecited judgments.

30. The issue as to whether a preliminary enquiry is mandatory in all Prevention of Corruption Act cases, has been considered by the Apex Court in various decisions. The Apex Court in the decision in P.Sirajuddin v. State of Madras [1970 (1) SCC 595] has inter alia held in para.17 thereof that ordinarily before a public servant, whatever be his status, is publicly charged with acts of dishonesty, which amount to serious misdemeanour or misconduct of the type alleged in the case involved therein and a first information is lodged against him, there must be some suitable preliminary O.P(KAT) Nos.331/21 & 93/2022 & O.P(KAT) No.337 of 2021 49 enquiry into the allegations by a responsible officer and lodging of such a report against a person, especially the one like the applicant therein, who occupied a top position in a department, even if baseless, would do incalculable harm, not only to the officer in particular but to the department he belonged to, in general. The scope of conduct of preliminary enquiry in criminal proceedings has been considered by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. [(2014) 2 SCC 1] and it will be pertinent to refer to paras 119 & 120 thereof, which read as follows :

"119. Therefore, in view of various counterclaims regarding registration or non-registration, what is necessary is only that the information given to the police must disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. In such a situation, registration of an FIR is mandatory. However, if no cognizable offence is made out in the information given, then the FIR need not be registered immediately and perhaps the police can conduct a sort of preliminary verification or inquiry for the limited purpose of ascertaining as to whether a cognizable offence has been committed. But, if the information given clearly mentions the commission of a cognizable offence, there is no other option but to register an FIR forthwith. Other considerations are not relevant at the stage of registration of FIR, such as, whether the information is falsely given, whether the information is genuine, whether the information is credible, etc. These are the issues that have to be verified during the investigation of the FIR. At the stage of registration of FIR, what is to be seen is merely whether the information given ex facie discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. If, after investigation, the information given is found to be false, there is always an option to prosecute the complainant for filing a false FIR.

120. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold:

O.P(KAT) Nos.331/21 & 93/2022 & O.P(KAT) No.337 of 2021 50

120.1. The registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation. 120.2. If the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not.

120.3. If the inquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the FIR must be registered. In cases where preliminary inquiry ends in closing the complaint, a copy of the entry of such closure must be supplied to the first informant forthwith and not later than one week. It must disclose reasons in brief for closing the complaint and not proceeding further.

120.4. The police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering offence if cognizable offence is disclosed. Action must be taken against erring officers who do not register the FIR if information received by him discloses a cognizable offence.

120.5. The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received but only to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable offence.

120.6. As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry is to be conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The category of cases in which preliminary inquiry may be made are as under:

(a) Matrimonial disputes/family disputes

(b) Commercial offences

(c) Medical negligence cases

(d) Corruption cases

(e) Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, for example, over 3 months' delay in reporting the matter without satisfactorily explaining the reasons for delay.

The aforesaid are only illustrations and not exhaustive of all conditions which may warrant preliminary inquiry.

120.7. While ensuring and protecting the rights of the accused and the complainant, a preliminary inquiry should be made time-bound and in any case it should not exceed 7 days. The fact of such delay and the causes of it must be reflected in the General Diary entry. O.P(KAT) Nos.331/21 & 93/2022 & O.P(KAT) No.337 of 2021 51 120.8. Since the General Diary/Station Diary/Daily Diary is the record of all information received in a police station, we direct that all information relating to cognizable offences, whether resulting in registration of FIR or leading to an inquiry, must be mandatorily and meticulously reflected in the said diary and the decision to conduct a preliminary inquiry must also be reflected, as mentioned above." In para.120.5 thereof, the Apex Court has categorically declared that the scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received but only to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable offence.

31. Later, the Apex Court in the decision in State of Telangana v. Managipet Alias Mangipet Sarveshwar Reddy [(2019) 19 SCC 87] has held that the preliminary inquiry, as contemplated in Lalita Kumari's case supra [(2014) 2 SCC 1], is not required to be conducted in all corruption cases and that any formal or informal collection of information, disclosing a cognizable offence to the satisfaction of the person registering the FIR, is sufficient.

32. In Charan Singh v. State of Maharashtra [(2021) 5 SCC 469], the Apex Court has again reiterated that the scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received but only to ascertain whether the information discloses any cognizable offence.

O.P(KAT) Nos.331/21 & 93/2022 & O.P(KAT) No.337 of 2021 52

33. The Apex Court has again recently held in the decision in Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) v. Thommandru Hannah Vijayalakshmi [AIR 2021 SC 5041] in para.19 thereof, it has been categorically held by the Apex Court that none of the precedents, including Lalita Kumari's case supra [(2014) 2 SCC 1], lay down a proposition that a preliminary enquiry must be conducted before the registration of an FIR in corruption cases and that an FIR will not stand vitiated because a preliminary enquiry has not been conducted. In para.20, it has been further held that a right cannot be granted to an accused before filing an FIR by making a preliminary enquiry mandatory and finally, it has been concluded in para.32 thereof that, in case the information received by the CBI discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, it can directly register a regular case instead of conducting a preliminary enquiry, where the police officer is satisfied that the information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. So, the overall approach of the Apex Court in the various case laws mentioned hereinabove is that preliminary enquiry is not mandatory in all corruption cases before the registration of an FIR and what is sufficient is that there is any formal or informal collection of information, which reveals to the satisfaction of the police officer concerned that it discloses the O.P(KAT) Nos.331/21 & 93/2022 & O.P(KAT) No.337 of 2021 53 commission of a cognizable offence.

34. The limited issue for consideration of this Court is as to whether the requirement of preliminary enquiry for initiating a vigilance proceeding, so as to attract the provisions contained in the latter part of Note (i) supra, will be applicable even in the case of a vigilance case involving a trap case registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The said issue has not been considered in the aforecited decisions mentioned hereinabove. The requirements of Note (i) supra in that regard has to be decided in the context of the provisions made therein. The Division Bench of this Court has also held in categorical terms in the decision in Babu Prasad's case supra [2019 KHC 940] that the former part of Note (i) to Rule 28(b)(i)(7), with respect to pending criminal proceedings before Sessions Court or Higher Courts for graver offences, etc., are completely different and distinct from the latter part of Note (i) and that the requirement of framing of charge by the criminal court in the former part, relating to pendency of offences in Sessions Courts, etc., cannot be equated to the matter of taking vigilance or departmental proceedings, after charges are established in a preliminary enquiry. The aforecited three Division Bench judgments mentioned hereinabove had categorically held that the position of law settled by the O.P(KAT) Nos.331/21 & 93/2022 & O.P(KAT) No.337 of 2021 54 learned Single Judge in Sasidharan's case supra does not reflect the correct legal position and that the same stands overruled, etc.

35. The word 'charges', appearing in the latter part of Note (i) supra, i.e. charges have prima facie been established in a preliminary enquiry, cannot be equated to a charge sheet/final report submitted by the vigilance police, after the conclusion of the criminal investigation into the offences, as per the PC Act nor can it be equated to a charge framed by the competent criminal court, like the special court constituted as per the PC Act, after taking cognizance on the charge sheet/police final report. The word 'charges', appearing in the latter portion of Note (i) has to be understood as allegations in the said vigilance proceedings. So, what is most paramount is that the allegations in the vigilance proceedings, should have been prima facie established and it is also stated therein that such charges/allegations are prima facie established in a preliminary enquiry. When preliminary enquiry is never contemplated at all, in the institution of a vigilance proceedings for trap cases, then can it be insisted that such vigilance proceedings in trap case, which may have more serious gravity than other vigilance cases, cannot be pressed into service for superseding the claims of an officer in terms of Note (i) supra, merely because preliminary enquiry has O.P(KAT) Nos.331/21 & 93/2022 & O.P(KAT) No.337 of 2021 55 not been conducted. In the very nature of trap case, ordinarily there is no question of conducting a preliminary enquiry and if there is a procedure for preliminary enquiry and getting approval or sanction from the various officers in a hierarchy, upto the Director, and then by the Government, etc., is insisted and if the FIR can be registered in a trap case only thereafter, then no effective purpose could be subserved, for by then, the alleged bribe takers/receivers will be sufficiently alerted and the whole purpose in a trap case will be completely or substantially frustrated. The abovesaid provisions, contained in the Vigilance Manual, makes it clear that there is no question of requirement of any preliminary enquiry and, on the officer being satisfied about the scenario for instituting a trap case, the FIR should necessarily be registered, as can be seen from Clause.93 of the Vigilance Manual and other provisions therein. Therefore, when it is well nigh impossible to conduct a preliminary enquiry before the registration of an FIR in a trap case, then can it still be insisted that such officers involved in a trap case, cannot be superseded or excluded from the select list in terms of Note (i), merely because a preliminary enquiry was not conducted. When preliminary enquiry itself is totally out of the question, will it be a proper and reasonable interpretation of the provisions contained in Note (i), to insist that O.P(KAT) Nos.331/21 & 93/2022 & O.P(KAT) No.337 of 2021 56 such an officer, involved in a practice, cannot be subjected to exclusion of promotion based on Note (i) supra, merely because preliminary enquiry is not conducted . Our answer to the said question is definitely in the negative and it is only to be held that, where the vigilance police officials have followed their internal norms for institution of a vigilance case, subject to their satisfaction about the requirements of a trap case and the disclosure of an offence in that regard, etc., then it is for them to register an FIR and then proceed to the trap case. In such a case, an accused in a trap case cannot take up the plea that he cannot be multed with the liability under Note (i) supra, merely because preliminary enquiry was not conducted before the registration of the FIR in the trap case. The position in that regard can be reasonably affirmed in a case where the accused officer himself has been caught red-handed and arrested in a trap case. In the instant case, the original applicant (A1) has not been arrested on the spot in the said trap case and A3 (Section Forest Officer) alone has been arrested on the spot in the institution of the trap case. So in such a case, where the FIR is registered by the Vigilance & Anti-Corruption Bureau in a trap case and the officer, who is expecting promotion by the DPC, is an accused in such an FIR, other than the one who has been arrested on the spot in the trap case, then it has to be O.P(KAT) Nos.331/21 & 93/2022 & O.P(KAT) No.337 of 2021 57 considered as to whether such an accused officer can also be multed with the detrimental effects of Note (i) supra. The said issue is quite a nuanced and subtle one.

36. The facts of this case, as borne out from Annexure A-2 FIR, etc., would make it clear that the specific case of the Vigilance & Anti-Corruption Bureau, as borne out from the complaint given to them by the de facto complainant is that A1 (original applicant) had demanded illegal gratification of Rs.70,000/- to be paid by the complainant for approval and passing of his bills and that the specific instructions by A1 was that the said illegal gratification money of Rs.70,000/- should be given by the complainant to A3 (K.K.Salim, Section Forest Officer), in order to enable A3 to pass on the said money to A1. In such a case, where the police officials or vigilance officers are satisfied about the requirements of institution of a trap case, then, they have to necessarily register the FIR for offence under Sec.7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, as mandated in clause.93 of the Vigilance Manual. The instant case is not the one wherein the allegation in the FIR is that the delinquent officer i.e., the original applicant herself is the direct recipient of the bribe. On the other hand, the specific case in Annexure A-2 FIR is that the direct recipient of the bribe is A3 and not the O.P(KAT) Nos.331/21 & 93/2022 & O.P(KAT) No.337 of 2021 58 original applicant (A1). In such a case, FIR has to be registered in terms of clause.93 supra. So also, the materials clearly indicate that the bribe taker/bribe receiver, A3 (Section Forest Officer), has been caught red- handed and arrested on the spot and then later released on conditional bail granted by the court of the Special Judge, as per the PC Act. So, in terms of the case set up by the vigilance investigation agency in Annexure A-2 FIR, the trap case has been successful to the extent of catching the bribe taker/bribe receiver, red-handed on the spot, who was also arrested. Here, the FIR has been registered and accused No.1 is not the direct bribe recipient, but the main demander of the bribe with the specific understanding that the bribe money is to be passed on by A3 to A1. The very concept of conduct of preliminary enquiry in the context of PC Act cases, is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received, but only to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable offence [see Charan Singh's case supra [(2021) 5 SCC 469, para.120.5 of Lalita Kumari's case supra [(2014) 2 SCC 1], etc.]. So, therefore in law nobody can demand that the preliminary enquiry should still be conducted for involving an accused like A1 in this case in the FIR. Once an FIR is registered in respect of a trap transaction, there is no question of registering O.P(KAT) Nos.331/21 & 93/2022 & O.P(KAT) No.337 of 2021 59 a second FIR on the same set of allegations, after a subsequent preliminary enquiry. So, at the same time it has to be borne in mind that the whole concept of preliminary enquiry was initially enunciated by the Apex Court as a judicially crafted rule in cases as in P.Sirajuddin's case supra [1970 (1) SCC 595].

37. So, the possibility of abuse of power or foisting of false cases, should also be borne in mind while deciding this issue. It is all the more so, since the original applicant has specifically urged in her counter affidavit, filed in this O.P, that it may be true that mobile phones involved in these cases have been seized and steps have been taken for carrying out forensic examination, but that the allegations raised against her in Annexure A-2 are all baseless and that, except the allegations raised by the de facto complainant, no material or evidence is available to implicate her in the alleged vigilance case, etc. So in a case of this nature, there should be some materials on the basis of which it can be safely concluded by this Court that the vigilance police officers had materials to implicate a person like the original applicant as an accused in the FIR, even though such an accused is not the person who was to directly receive the bribe money, even going by the versions in the FIR in the trap case.

O.P(KAT) Nos.331/21 & 93/2022 & O.P(KAT) No.337 of 2021 60

38. For reasons to be given hereinafter, it can be safely held that where such an accused person, who is not the alleged direct bribe receiver, has been arrayed as an accused in the FIR in a trap case on the basis of the materials of the Vigilance Police authorities, and if there is prima facie material to connect the accused with the said allegation, then it has to be held that even such an accused in a trap case could also be subjected to the detrimental effects of Note (i) supra, for the purpose of supersession and exclusion from the DPC select list. Since, the original applicant has strongly contended that there are no materials to connect her with the said allegation, we though it fit to direct the respondent Vigilance authorities to make available the relevant portions of the Vigilance Case records, including the opinion of the expert agency. We have perused those materials including a brief note submitted by the respondent Vigilance Investigation Officer.

39. The main case urged by the Vigilance & Anti-Corruption Bureau for sustaining the involvement of the original applicant (A1) in the above trap case at Anx.A-2 is that, the specific insistence made by A1 is that the complainant should give the bribe money amounting to Rs.70,000/- and for that purpose, the said amount shall be handed over by the complainant directly only to A3 and not to A1. Further, that the defacto complainant had O.P(KAT) Nos.331/21 & 93/2022 & O.P(KAT) No.337 of 2021 61 contacted A1 on the day in question over mobile phone, as A1 was not in the office in the afternoon of that day and at that time, A1 (original applicant) had told the complainant to give the bribe money to A3, etc. Further, that the abovesaid mobile phone has been seized, and based on the orders of the Special Court, the same has been sent to the expert agency, the Centre for Deveopment of Advanced Computing (C-DAC), for forensic examination, etc. We have also perused through the Sec.161 Cr.P.C. Statements of the witnesses, and the written version of the verbatim of the voice clip retrieved from the mobile phone of the defacto complainant, made available in this case. Prima facie, the abovesaid verbatim transcripts would show the tenability of the basic prosecution version in this case. Since, the matter is pending investigation, it may not be proper for us to enter into the merits of those aspects, except to say that a strong prima facie case is established, based on the said materials of the telephonic conversation.

40. We are apprised that, after getting orders from the Special Court, the respondent Vigilance authorities have forwarded the abovesaid mobile phone of the defacto complainant, for forensic examination by the expert agency concerned (C-DAC), for extraction and retrieval of the said voice clip in a pen drive. The Cyber Forensics Analysis Report, furnished by the Cyber O.P(KAT) Nos.331/21 & 93/2022 & O.P(KAT) No.337 of 2021 62 Security Group of the C-DAC, Thiruvananthapuram, [which is a scientific society functioning under the Union Ministry of Communications & Information Technology, Government of India] has also been perused by us. The details of the nature of the crime, involved in the instant Vigilance Crime No. 1/2021 of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Thiruvananthapuram, are mentioned in para 1.0 of the said expert report. Para 2.0 thereof deals with the gist of the investigation, regarding the material objects that were produced before the C-DAC for Cyber Forensics Examination, which is the mobile phone of the defacto complainant. Details of the suspect device details are mentioned in para 3 thereof. Paras 4 and 5 deals with the analysis set up and the observations of the expert agency. Table 1 & Table 2, given on page 6 of the said Report, deals with the details of material objects, the tools used for analysis and the details of Forensic Imaging, respectively. Table 3, given on page 7 thereof, deals with the details of analysis of material evidences, wherein the details of the operating system of the mobile phone is mentioned, and information about the IMEI was extracted, and that call logs, contacts, SMS and calendar entries were extracted. It is also stated that audio files, pictures, videos & documents were extracted and further, more particularly that, call recordings and voice messages were extracted from the O.P(KAT) Nos.331/21 & 93/2022 & O.P(KAT) No.337 of 2021 63 mobile phone. Para 6 thereof deals with the conclusions. Therein, it was stated that the C-DAC was requested to forensically analyse and submit the Forensics Analysis Report, relating to the material objects associated with the abovesaid crime, vide the communication issued on 16.9.2021 from the Court of the Enquiry Commissioner (Special Judge), Thiruvananthapuram. Further, it is stated therein that seals of the forwarding note and the packets were found verified, prior to the analysis at the C-DAC and found to be correct. As regards the nature of the examination required in such a case, it is stated therein that the same is to conduct analysis of mobile phones and extract stored phone recordings and voice clippings from the phone. Further, it is also stated that the submitted mobile phone was forensically imaged, and the data were forensically extracted, and the data mentioned thereunder were examined, wherein the audio files mentioned therein were observed, and further that the call recordings and voice messages mentioned therein were also found, and that all those files were extracted from the mobile phone and stored to a pen drive, etc. Anx.3 deals with photographs of the sealed covers and Anx.4 thereof, deals with the mobile phone imaging procedures. Anx.5 deals with the pen drive information. O.P(KAT) Nos.331/21 & 93/2022 & O.P(KAT) No.337 of 2021 64

41. It is to be noted that the expert report of the C-DAC, with the pendrive, is stated to have been submitted before the Court of the Enquiry Commissioner (Special Judge), Thiruvananthapuram, and a copy thereof has also been furnished by the C-DAC to the Investigating Officer concerned, as per letter dated 29.4.2022, along with the abovesaid pen drive.

42. From the abovesaid materials, it is seen that the mobile phone, seized from the defacto complainant, was sent, as per the directions of the competent court, to the C-DAC for expert forensics examination, and after conducting forensics examination, the C-DAC has also extracted the abovesaid voice clippings from the mobile phone and stored to a pen drive. Further, it appears that the abovesaid process of expert examination, by the C-DAC, is regarding forensics examination of the seized phone, and for extraction of voice clipping from the mobile phone, and storage to a pendrive. Further that now, it is for the investigating agency to get orders from the the Special Court concerned to take voice samples of the defacto complainant and A1 (original applicant), and then send the specimen voice samples of the parties, along with the extracted voice clippings from the mobile phone, to another expert lab for identification of the voice records, to ascertain as to whether the voices contained in the extracted voice clippings O.P(KAT) Nos.331/21 & 93/2022 & O.P(KAT) No.337 of 2021 65 from the mobile phone is that of the defacto complainant and A1, by expert comparison with the specimen voices.

43. It is also brought to our notice that the Call Data Records (CDR) pertaining to the alleged telephonic conversations between the defacto complainant and the original applicant have been duly secured by the Vigilance Police authorities from their respective Service Providers.

44. We have dealt with the abovesaid aspects only because it was strongly contended by the applicant that except the unilateral allegations of the defacto complainant, there are no cogent materials, whatsoever, to connect the applicant with the allegations in the above Vigilance Crime. Since, the verdict of the Tribunal is in favour of the applicant, and taking note of the abovesaid contention of the applicant, we wanted to ascertain as to whether a prima facie case is disclosed against the applicant in the above Vigilance case. In the light of the abovesaid aspects, we are of the view that a prima facie case is seen disclosed, regarding the involvement of A1 in the above Vigilance Crime at Anx.A-2. We make it clear that the abovesaid observations made by us, cannot, in any manner, affect the pending vigilance investigation, and the said investigation will have to proceed independently, and in accordance with law.

O.P(KAT) Nos.331/21 & 93/2022 & O.P(KAT) No.337 of 2021 66

45. The main issue relating to the applicability or otherwise of Note

(i) supra to a case, where a Government servant is arrayed as an accused in a trap case, either as the alleged direct bribe receiver or otherwise, will have to be examined. We have already noted that the Division Bench of this Court has categorically held in B.Babu Prasad's case supra [2019 KHC 940] that there is substantial difference between the first part and the second part of Note (i) of Rule 28(b)(i)(7) of KS&SSR Part-II, inasmuch as the first part mainly deals with involvement of government servants in criminal proceedings pending in sessions court or in any other higher courts for grave offences like murder, decoity, etc., whereas the second part thereof deals with officers against whom vigilance or departmental proceedings have been taken after the charges/allegations have been prima facie established in a preliminary enquiry. We have already noted that, in a trap case, it is well- nigh impossible to conduct a preliminary enquiry and then register the vigilance case or vigilance crime, in view of the very nature of things. The norms of the vigilance bureau explicitly envisages that trap case can be registered without preliminary enquiry, provided the internal procedure thereof, is followed and based on cogent materials. Further, the Apex Court has consistently held that non-conduct of preliminary enquiry will not vitiate O.P(KAT) Nos.331/21 & 93/2022 & O.P(KAT) No.337 of 2021 67 the criminal proceedings taken in pursuance of the FIR/crime. Further, very crucially, it has also been held that the scope of the preliminary enquiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received, but only to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable offence. So also, it has been held by the Apex Court in State of Telangana v. Managipet Alias Mangipet Sarveshwar Reddy [(2019) 19 SCC 87] that the preliminary enquiry, as envisaged as per Lalita Kumari's case supra [(2014) 2 SCC 1], is not required to be conducted in all corruption cases and any formal or informal collection of information, disclosing a cognizable offence, to the satisfaction of the person recording the FIR, is sufficient. The purpose of incorporating the norm as per the second part of Note(i) supra, is that vigilance cases may have to be treated on a separate level and ordinarily, since it was envisaged, as per judicially crafted rules, that such FIR needs to be registered in PC Act cases only after the conduct of a preliminary enquiry that the rule making authority has made the abovesaid provision, where, the conduct of the preliminary enquiry itself is impossible in a trap case, as it would defeat the very purpose of the action contemplated. So, the purposive and contextual rules of interpretation would require that involvement of a Government servant in a trap case would come within the ambit of Note (i). O.P(KAT) Nos.331/21 & 93/2022 & O.P(KAT) No.337 of 2021 68 As observed by the Apex Court in Chairman, Board of Mining Examination and Chief Inspector of Mines & Anr. v. Ramjee [(1977) 2 SCC 256], "to be literal in meaning is to see the skin and miss the soul......." . So also, we have to keep in mind the approach made by the Apex Court in Reserve Bank of India v. Peerless General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd. & Ors. [(1987) 1 SCC 424] that the interpretation must depend on the text and the context and that if the text is the texture then the context is what gives the colour and neither can be ignored and both are important. So also, it has been held by the Apex Court in Dhairyawan v. Mohan Balakrishna Lulla [(2016) 3 SCC 619] that the principle of "purposive interpretation" or "purposive construction" is based on the understanding that the court is supposed to attach that meaning to the provisions which subserve the "purpose" behind such a provision and the basic approach should be for what purpose the norm has been designed to accomplish and the interpretative process of the court is supposed to realise the goal that the legal text is designed to realise.

46. Keeping in view the object that the norm is designed to realise, we have no hesitation to hold that the adverse provisions contained in Note (i) supra would also apply in a case where the Government servant is O.P(KAT) Nos.331/21 & 93/2022 & O.P(KAT) No.337 of 2021 69 arrayed as an accused in a trap case registered as per the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Therein, there may not be much dispute in a case where the accused government servant is the alleged direct bribe receiver as per the FIR. But in the instant case, the applicant (A1) is not alleged to be the direct bribe receiver even as per the case of the vigilance investigation. But that the demand for bribe was made by her, to be paid not directly to her, but to be paid by the complainant to another accused Government servant (A3). Keeping in view these norms of interpretation, we are also of the view that the provisions of Note (i) supra would apply, even as against such an accused Government servant, who is not the alleged bribe receiver in the trap case, provided the materials disclose a cognizable offence to the satisfaction of the vigilance police officer recording the register in the FIR/vigilance crime. In the light of these aspects, we are constrained to reject the contentions of the applicant that the provisions contained in Note (i) cannot be made applicable to an accused Government servant like her.

47. The upshot of the above discussion is that though the original applicant (A1) is not the direct recipient of the bribe money, going by the case of the investigation agency, still the original applicant, who is alleged to be the demander of the abovesaid bribe money of Rs.70,000/- given by the complainant directly to A3, could be subjected to the detrimental effects of Note (i) of Rule O.P(KAT) Nos.331/21 & 93/2022 & O.P(KAT) No.337 of 2021 70 28(b)(i)(7) of KS&SSR Part-II. These crucial aspects of the matters have not been considered by the Tribunal in the rendering of the impugned verdict in this case. So, the matter would require interdiction. The impugned final order dated 10.11.2021 of the Tribunal in O.A(Ekm) No.1869/2021 is to be set aside.

48. We are told that, pursuant to the interim orders passed by this Court, the first six incumbents, Sl.Nos. 1 to 6 of Annexure A-8 select list, 2021, have already been regularly promoted. But in view of the said interim orders, Annexure A-8 select list, 2021 viz. contesting respondent No.7 in O.P(KAT) No.331/2021 (Smt.Anisha Siddique), has not been promoted so far.

49. Consequently, it is also ordered that the competent authority of the State Government may also pass orders granting promotion to R7 in the above O.P viz., Sl.No.7 of Annexure A-8 select list, 2021, as Asst. Conservator of Forest, based on his inclusion as Sl.No.7 of the said select list, without any further delay, as envisaged in the provisions contained in Rule 28 of Part-II KS&SSR. However, the abovesaid exclusion and supersession of the original applicant from Annexure A-8 select list, 2021, in pursuance of Annexure R1(a), on the basis of Note (i) to Rule 28(b)(i)(7) of KS&SSR Part-II, will be subject to the outcome of the abovesaid vigilance proceedings. So also, the O.P(KAT) Nos.331/21 & 93/2022 & O.P(KAT) No.337 of 2021 71 rankings of Sl.Nos.(2) to (6) of Annexure A-8 vis-a-vis the applicant and the inclusion of Sl. No.7 of Annexure A-8, will be subject to the outcome of the proceedings and subject to the relevant provisions of Rule 28 (b) of KS&SSR Part-II.

50. Further, in the interest of justice, it is also ordered that the respondent-Vigilance authorities will ensure the completion of the investigation in Annexure A-2 vigilance crime, without much delay and within a reasonable and expeditious time limit. It is made clear that in case, if there is any undue and prolonged delay in the completion of the abovesaid vigilance investigation, then the applicant will be at liberty to seek appropriate remedy, in the manner known to law in that regard.

With these observations and directions, the above O.Ps will stand disposed of. O.P(KAT) No.337/2021 This O.P arises out of the impugned verdict of the Tribunal rendered on 10.11.2021 in O.A No.1970/2021 filed by these original petitioners, whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the above O.A, as unnecessary in the light of the final order in O.A No.1869/2021. The prayers in the instant original application are as follows :

"1. Call for the records to leading to the non-issuance of promotion orders in the existing vacancies for the (sic) of Assistant Conservator of Forests from Annexure A3 list. O.P(KAT) Nos.331/21 & 93/2022 & O.P(KAT) No.337 of 2021 72

2. To declare that applicants are eligible for promotion orders in the existing vacancies for the (sic) of Assistant Conservator of Forests from Annexure A3 list as per Rules and based on the dictum laid down by the High Court and Supreme Court of India in a catena of decisions.

3. Order or Direction may kindly issued to the 1 st respondent to issue promotion orders to the applicants in the existing vacancies for the of Assistant Conservator of Forests from Annexure A3 list.

4. Any other further relief or order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper to meet the ends of justice.

5. Award the cost of these proceedings."

The petitioners herein are the contesting respondents in O.A No.1869/2021. The directions and orders passed in the common judgment in O.P(KAT) No.331/2021 & O.P(KAT) No.93/2022, both arising out of O.A No.1869/2021, will apply in this case as well. Consequently, it is ordered that the verdict of the Tribunal dismissing O.A No.1970/2021, will stand set aside. No other orders and directions are necessary.

With these observations and directions, the above O.P will also stand disposed of.

Sd/-

ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE Sd/-

VIJU ABRAHAM, JUDGE vgd O.P(KAT) Nos.331/21 & 93/2022 & O.P(KAT) No.337 of 2021 APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 331/2021 PETITIONER EXHIBITS/ANNEXURES EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.1869/2021 DATED 04.10.2021 FILED BEFORE THE KERALA ADM. TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.D1-85293/2019 DATED 03.11.2020 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO.01/2021 REGISTERED BY THE VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU (VACB) SOUTHERN RANGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.AFT-5/2021 DATED 22.06.2021 ISSUED BY THE APPLICANT TO THE ABOVE CONTRACTOR.

ANNEXURE A4          TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
                     PLANTATION JOURNAL IN RESPECT OF KARIYAVATTOM
                     AFFORESTATION PLANTATION.
ANNEXURE A5          TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.SFI-2728/2021
                     DATED   17.08.2021 OF THE DEPUTY  FOREST
                     CONSERVATOR.
ANNEXURE A6          TRUE   COPY  OF   THE  REPRESENTATION  DATED
                     30.09.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT BEFORE
                     THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE A7          TRUE   COPY  OF   THE  REPRESENTATION  DATED
                     30.09.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT BEFORE
                     THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2           TRUE COPY OF THE MA NO.2060 OF 2021 IN OA
                     NO.1869 OF 2021 DATED 21.10.2021 FILED BEFORE
                     THE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
ANNEXURE A8          TRUE COPY OF THE GO(P) NO.33/2021/F & WLD
                     DATED 13.10.2021 OF GOVERNMENT OF KERALA.
 O.P(KAT) Nos.331/21 & 93/2022
             &
O.P(KAT) No.337 of 2021


EXHIBIT P3             TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 21.10.2021
                       IN OA NO.1869/2021 OF THE EKRALA ADMINISTRATIVE
                       TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXHIBIT P4             TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE
                       1ST RESPONDENT IN OA 1869 OF 2021 DATED
                       23.10.2021       BEFORE     THE      TRIBUNAL,
                       THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
ANNEXURE R1A           TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE
                       DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE (HIGHER) HELD AT 3 P.M.
                       ON 28.09.2021 FOR PREPARATION OF SELECT LIST OF
                       ELIGIBLE RANGE FOREST OFFICERS FOR PROMOTION TO
                       THE CADRE OF ASSISTANT CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS IN
                       THE FOREST AND WILD LIFE DEPARTMENT FOR THE YEAR
                       2020 AND 2021.
EXHIBIT P5             TRUE COPY OF THE MA NO.2088 OF 2021 IN OA
                       NO.1869 OF 2021 DATED 25.10.2021 FILED BEFORE
                       THE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXHIBIT P6             TRUE COPY OF THE QUESTION AND ANSWER GIVEN IN
                       THE   15TH  KERALA   LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY, 3RD
                       MEETING DATED 09.11.2021.
EXHIBIT P7             TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL ORDER IN OA NO.1869/2021
                       DATED 10.11.2021 OF THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE
                       TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
 O.P(KAT) Nos.331/21 & 93/2022
             &
O.P(KAT) No.337 of 2021



                         APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 93/2022

PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1             A TRUE COPY OF THE O.A NO.1869/2021 ALONG WITH
                       ANNEXURES
EXHIBIT P2             TRUE COPY OF THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FOR
                       ACCEPTING ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS ON 21.10.2021
                       ALONG WITH ANNEXURE.
EXHIBIT P3             TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT FILED BY THE FIRST
                       PETITIONER ON 25.10.2021 ALONG WITH ANNEXURE.
EXHIBIT P4             TRUE COPY OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE

KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL DATED 10.11.2021.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 01.12.2021 IN OP(KAT) NO.331/2021.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(RT)NO.410/2021/FWLD DATED 14.12.2021.

 O.P(KAT) Nos.331/21 & 93/2022
             &
O.P(KAT) No.337 of 2021




                        APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 337/2021


PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS/ANNEXURES
EXHIBIT P1             TRUE   COPY    OF   THE   ORIGINAL    APPLICATION
                       NO.1970/2021 DATED 4/10/2021 FILED BEFORE THE
                       KERALA ADM.TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
ANNEXURE A1            TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF PROVISIONAL
                       SENIORITY LIST OF RANGE FOREST OFFICERS AS ON
                       01/01/2019 BY 2ND RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE A2            TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION F NO.17013/14/2020-
                       IFS-II DATED 30-09-2021 BY UNDER SECRETARY TO
                       GOVERNMENT OF INDIA.
ANNEXURE A3            TRUE COPY OF THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION OF G.O (P)
                       NO.33/2021/F & WLD DATED 13-10-2021
ANNEXURE A4            TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
                       IN O.A NO.1869/2021 DATED 21-10-2021
EXHIBIT P2             TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL ORDER IN O.A NO.1970/2021
                       DATED 10-11-2021 OF THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE
                       TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court