Bangalore District Court
C.Ramachandraiah S/O Late Chikka vs The Principal on 12 January, 2017
1 M.A.(EAT) No.5/2010
BEFORE THE EDUCATIONAL APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
AND THE III ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU CITY (CCH.25).
Dated: This the 12th day of January 2017
Present: Sri.Ron Vasudev, B.Com. LL.B, (Spl),
III Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
M.A. (EAT) No:5/2010
Appellant C.Ramachandraiah S/o Late Chikka
Gangaiah, Aged about 50 years, Working
as Office Superintendent, Establishment
Branch, Dr.Ambedkar Institute of
Technology, Near Jnanabharathi Campus,
BDA Outer Ring Road, Bangalore-560 056
and residing at No.56, 6th Cross,
Balajinagar, Malathihalli, Bangalore-560
056.
(By Sri.S, Advocate.)
Vs
Respondents: 1. The Principal, Dr.Ambedkar
Institute of Technology, Near
Jnanabharathi Campus, BDA Outer
Ring Road, Bangalore-560 056.
2. Panchajanya Vidya Peetha Welfare
Trust, 1st M Block, Rajajinagar,
Bangalore-560 010, Represented
by the Managing
Trustee/Secretary.
3. The Director of Technical
Education, Palace Road,
Bangalore-560 001.
2 M.A.(EAT) No.5/2010
(R1 & R3 - Exparte)
(R2 by Sri.HVH,, Advocate)
Date of Institution 16.7.2010
Nature of suit Appeal Under Education Act
Date of commencement of 28.1.2011
evidence
Date on which the judgment was 12.1.2017
pronounced.
Total Duration: Years Month Days
6 5 26
(RON VASUDEV),
III Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT
This is an appeal filed U/Sec.94(1) of The Karnataka Education Act, 1983 (hereinafter referred in short as "Act").
2. The contents of the appeal memo in brief are that; the appellant was appointed as FDA by respondent no.2 vide order dt.1.4.1992 and on account of his unblemished service and hard work he was promoted as Office Superintendent w.e.f. 23.7.2005. That one K.V.Krishna Prasad was working in the said institution as an Assistant Instructor in the Department of Medical Electronics on a temporary basis and pursuant to the employment notification dated 11.6.2008 for the post of Foreman he applied in prescribed form and as it 3 M.A.(EAT) No.5/2010 was clearly mentioned in the said employment notification that a candidate who applies for that post has to possess minimum of two years of experience besides required educational qualification, though he stated that he possessed eight years of experience, he did not enclose supporting document. The appellant, who was entrusted with scrutinizing the applications and to prepare consolidated statement, noticed that the said K.V.Krishna Prasad has not produced supporting document in proof of his experience and qualification, therefore while preparing the consolidated list of candidates with their particulars, he prepared the list as per the documents made available by the said K.V. Krishna Prasad and left the column meant for experience blank and that consolidated list was signed by all selection committee members. The said selection committee consisted of several members including one Shivashankar, the Assistant Professor. The said selection committee conducted interview on 28.9.2008 and selected said K.V.Krishna Prasad to the said post and he also joined services on 22.12.2008 as a Foreman, but after lapse of five months of his interview he filed a complaint on 4.2.2009 to the managing committee stating that this appellant had demanded Rs.30,000/- from him to get the order of appointment and out of that amount Rs.20,000/- is already paid by him and this appellant is demanding the balance amount of Rs.10,000/- and threatening him. It was also complained that this appellant received Rs.2,000/- to issue Diploma Certificate to him. Like 4 M.A.(EAT) No.5/2010 the said person the said Shivashankar also filed complaint on the same day alleging that this appellant demanded Rs.500/- from K.V.Krishna Prasad to issue interview letter and also regarding the alleged demand of Rs.30,000/- to secure the job and payment of Rs.20,000/- and demanding of balance amount of Rs.10,000/-. Further the said Shivashankar had complained that on 15.12.2008 at 9 p.m. this appellant called him over phone and threatened him to trouble in the event balance amount is not collected from K.V.Krishna Prasad and paid to him. Based on the said complaints a preliminary investigation was conducted by the Head of the Department of Civil Engineering and appellant submitted his statement before the said authority on 11.2.2009. But without considering his statement based on vague and belated complaints Dr. Nanjunda Swamy, HOD of Civil Engineering sent his preliminary report to the Managing Committee and it decided to hold enquiry and issued charge sheet and kept this appellant under suspension w.e.f. 14.2.2009. It is not known whether the consent of the respondent no.3 was obtained before suspending this appellant. However the said order was recalled on 9.7.2009 and he was reinstated to the duties and was placed in- charge of Admission Section. In the meanwhile the respondent no.2 appointed an enquiry officer and called upon the appellant to submit his say to the charge sheet. The appellant gave his detailed reply to it, but as usual without considering the same the enquiry was scheduled and 5 M.A.(EAT) No.5/2010 enquiry officer after completion of his enquiry submitted his report on 19.2.2009 holding that out of two charges one charge is proved. Based on the said report again explanation of the appellant was sought. Being surprised and shocked by the said enquiry report, the copy of which was also made available to the appellant, he submitted his detailed explanation on 12.5.2010, however without considering the same, the Managing Committee decided to impose punishment of reverting the appellant to the post of FDA vide order dt.18.6.2010 and through another order dt.24.6.2010 his salary was ordered to be re-fixed at the scale of FDA w.e.f. 22.7.2005.That the impugned orders dt.18.6.2010 and 24.6.2010 are illegal, perverse and are biased one, so the appellant questions them on the following grounds;
that the enquiry conducted against the appellant was wholly in violation of principles of natural justice; that charge sheet furnished to him did not contain the documents and more particularly the CD which was allegedly containing the conversation between the appellant and Shivashankar over mobile phone; that the charges were totally vague in as much as they did not contain the particulars like the date and time of alleged demand of bribery from K.V.Krishna Prasad and payment of Rs.20,000/- by him; likewise the allegations of acceptance of Rs.2,000/- to issue Diploma Certificate also the date and time of alleged commission were not stated; in the preliminary enquiry report the CD 6 M.A.(EAT) No.5/2010 was referred, but in the chargesheet there was no reference to it, but in the enquiry though the appellant disputed it's genunity, without obtaining the report from the expert it was received in evidence and enquiry officer proceeded to record his findings on the charges based on his presumptions and assumptions. When it was specifically alleged that this appellant demanded Rs.30,000/- in order to pay to the Secretary of the respondent no.2, the said Secretary was not examined by the management. The still more surprising fact is that when said Shivashankar was himself was one of the selection committee member, which selected the said K.V.Krishna Prasad, a strange allegation was made against this appellant that he demanded Rs.30,000/- to issue appointment order. That during the enquiry except the said K.V.Krishna Prasad and Shivashankar no other independent witness was examined to prove the alleged charges, wherefore contending that appeal filed by him is well in time, the appellant seeks to set aside the orders dt.18.6.2010 and 24.6.2010 and to restore his Superintendent Post with all consequential benefits.
3. The respondent no.1 and 3 are placed exparte.
4. The respondent no.2 appeared and filed his objection statement admitting that the appellant was appointed as FDA and later he was promoted as Office Superintendent and he was incharge of preparing the list of candidates who had applied for Foreman post and 7 M.A.(EAT) No.5/2010 K.V.Krishna Prasad was one of the candidate and selection committee selected him and he was appointed to that post. However it is denied that complaints filed by said K.V.Krishna Prasad and Shivashankar regarding payment of bribery of Rs.20,000/- to the appellant and the demand made by this appellant for the balance amount of Rs.10,000/- are false and bogus allegations in order to harm the reputation of appellant. It is admitted that after getting preliminary enquiry report from Dr.Nanjuandaswamy charges were framed, appellant was called upon to submit on them, on receiving his explanation as it was not satisfactory enquiry officer was appointed to look into the charges and on receiving the report from him and on receiving the explanation of the appellant, the impugned orders were passed. It is specifically contended that before inflicting impugned punishments to the appellant fair enquiry was conducted by following all the procedural requirements and because of the conduct of the appellant the image of the institution was lowered. Regarding the CD it is submitted that since the enquiry officer did not feel that it was required to be sent to the experts, opinion of the expert was not obtained. At any rate the evidence of K.V.Krishna Prasad was corroborated by Shivashankar, the finding arrived by the enquiry officer cannot be found fault with and though it had decided to dismiss the appellant from service, on account of his further explanation the quantum of punishment was 8 M.A.(EAT) No.5/2010 reduced and he was only demoted by re-fixing his salary. Thus it has prayed to dismiss the appeal with costs.
5. Based on the said pleadings my predecessor in office has framed the following issues:
ISSUES
1. Whether the enquiry proceedings initiated/conducted by the respondent against the appellant were not as per Rules approved under the Karnataka Education Act 1983?
2. Whether the demotion order dt.18.6.2010 against the appellant by the respondent is in accordance with law?
3. Whether the appellant is entitled for reinstatement for the earlier post with all benefits of regular service?
4. To what order the parties are entitled?
6. In support of his appeal, appellant examined himself as PW1 and got marked 18 documents. On the other hand the respondent no.2 examined one Shivarajaiah, then Incharge Superintendent as RW1 and since that witness did not turn up it examined the Superintendent of Establishment by name Doddaswamy as RW2. In all 53 documents are marked on it's behalf. I have heard the arguments of Sri.AHR, Advocate for the appellant and Sri.BRH, Advocate 9 M.A.(EAT) No.5/2010 for respondent no.2. Perused the written arguments of appellant and the decisions relied by him.
7. My finding on the above issues are as under:
Issue No.1 - In the negative Issue No.2 - In the affirmative Issue No.3 - In the negative Issue No.4 - As per final order, for the following:
REASONS Issue No.1:
8. This issue deals with the fairness of the enquiry conducted by Retired District Judge/Sri.Eshwar Bhat. While answering this issue I need not go into the assessment of evidence or appreciation of it by the enquiry officer since it is a different realm as it varies from person to person. The only requirement of this issue is whether the enquiry conducted by the enquiry officer was fair and proper and was it in accordance with the provisions of the Act. I think to answer this question one need not go here and there. As per the contents of the appeal memo itself before the Articles of Charges were came to be issued with list of witnesses and documents a preliminary investigation was held under the supervision of HOD of Civil Engineering viz; Dr.Nanjunda Swamy and during that time the appellant gave his statement along with the said complainants K.V.Krishna Prasad and Shivashankar and based on the said statements, the said Dr.Nanjunda Swamy reported that there is a prima 10 M.A.(EAT) No.5/2010 facie evidence against the appellant, pursuant to it the Articles of Charges were issued and appellant was called upon to submit his say. Using that opportunity, as pleaded by the appellant, he submitted his detailed explanation and on considering the same the respondent no.2 appointed the enquiry officer to look into the charges. Regarding the procedures followed at the enquiry cross-examination of this appellant/PW1 recorded on page no.7 and 8 is more than enough. There it was elicited that after verifying the explanation offered to the Articles of Charges, the enquiry officer was appointed and the said enquiry officer permitted him to engage an advocate by name K.Nagabhushan on his behalf and dates of enquiry were used to be communicated to him well in advance and on every date of hearing the proceedings recorded by the enquiry officer were initialed by this appellant and the Presenting Officer. The appellant also admitted that the enquiry officer permitted him to cross- examine the management witnesses and to adduce his oral and documentary evidence and he had knowledge of documents at Ex.P1 to P5 even before enquiry was commenced. He also admitted that enquiry officer gave enough time to submit the arguments and on the basis of the written arguments filed by them, he gave his report and copy of the same was made available to him. According to me these admissions are more than enough to show that there was no breach of procedure and this appellant had 11 M.A.(EAT) No.5/2010 enough opportunity to cross-examine the management witnesses and to place his own evidence.
9. Regarding the contention of appellant that CD was exhibited during enquiry and it's availability was not made known to him through the Articles of Charges, in one sentence I would like to say that out of two charges leveled against the appellant only charge no.2 referred to the said CD and use of said CD was very much known to the appellant at the stage of preliminary investigation only. Even otherwise the production of CD and non-examining of expert to prove its genuinity what I would like to say is that the enquiry officer himself recorded that the said charge No.2 is not proved by the management. When the enquiry officer held that charge no.2 is not proved and moreover when the respondent no.2 did not produce CD in the case in hand before this Tribunal in order to prove that charge atleast through trial in this case, the appellant need not make mountain out of moul by urging too much on the said CD. The way the respondent adduced his evidence in this appeal by examining RW2 and cross-examining the appellant would show that it has also no seriousness in proving the charge no.2, which dealt with the complaint of Shivashankar. In other words respondent No.2 gave go-by to the said charge No.2 and it concentrated on charge no.1 only, which is based on the complaint of K.V.Krishna Prasad. Therefore having convinced that required procedure was followed and there was no breach in the procedure or that enquiry officer fully 12 M.A.(EAT) No.5/2010 adopted procedure meant for natural justice in holding that enquiry, I answer this issue in the negative.
Issue no.2 and 3:
10. For the sake of convenience I have taken these two issues simultaneously.
11. According to me these two issues require bit detailed discussion as this Tribunal has to re-appreciate the evidence and find out whether the conclusion arrived by the enquiry officer on charge No.1 is just and proper further this Tribunal has to examine whether the quantum of punishment inflicted on this appellant is disproportionate to the alleged charge No.1. Here one thing I would like to say without any hesitation that, no person, who makes an illegal demand of bribe, would like to do it openly so as to make the other persons to come to know the same. As much as possible he would try to leave no trial of his illegal act, in such a case it is meaningless to expect an "eye witness" to such an act other than the complainant. If these basic things are borne in mind I think there will be no problem in deciding cases like this. Hence, instead of going wayward I would straightaway examine whether is there any error on the part of enquiry officer in holding that charge no.1 is proved against this appellant.
12. For the sake of convenience I refer to the said charge briefly. The contents of the said charge show that 13 M.A.(EAT) No.5/2010 this appellant being the Office Superintendent, when he was discharging his duty in that capacity and when the K.V.Krishna Prasad was selected by the selection committee for the post of Foremen, while issuing the order of appointment to him demanded Rs.30,000/- as bribe and out of it he received Rs.20,000/- and gave that appointment order and when balance amount of Rs.10,000/- was not paid over considerable period of time, he threatened and persistently followed him to pay the balance amount otherwise he will put him in trouble. There is one more allegation of demanding of Rs.2,000/- for returning of Diploma certificate of said K.V.Krishna Prasad. As can be seen from the enquiry report produced at Ex.R45 during the enquiry respondent no.2 examined both K.V.Krishna Prasadas well as Shivashankar as PW1 and PW2 and in contrast to the same appellant examined himself as DW1 and he got marked his own documents. Since as noted earlier enquiry officer himself held that charge no.2 is not proved against this appellant and there is also no effort on the part of respondent no.2 to prove the said charge in the trial before this tribunal, leaving aside the evidence pertaining to the said charge no.2 I would confine my discussion to the charge no.1 only.
13. In support of the complaint filed by them which are marked as Ex.R4 and R5 (marked as Ex.P3 and P4 during enquiry) both PWs.1 and 2 viz; K.V.Krishna Prasad and Shivashankar deposed before the enquiry officer regarding 14 M.A.(EAT) No.5/2010 the manner in which and the place where the appellant received Rs.20,000/- stated that insisting for payment of balance Rs.10,000/- appellant was not only troubling PW1, even he threatened PW2 over phone and mobile. In their cross-examination appellant has denied their allegation and also tried to expose the inconsistency in their versions and their fallibility. However the crucial point that requires the close attention is that during his examination chief this appellant himself produced the copy of the application submitted by said K.V.Krishna Prasad and got it marked as Ex.R31 (marked as Ex.D1 during enquiry). The said application shows that while submitting his application on 24.6.2008 in column no.8A regarding the teaching experience K.V.Krishna Prasad stated that he is presently working in that very Dr.Ambedkar Institute of Technology for the last eight years and even as on the date of application he is working there. The grievance of the appellant is that in order to prove his experience the said K.V.Krishna Prasad did not enclose experience certificate. Regarding receipt of the said application on 24.6.2008 round seal of the college with it's date as well as initial of the official who received it on that day can be seen on page no.1 of Ex.R31. It does away any kind of ambiguity in arriving the conclusion that K.V.Krishna Prasad submitted application for the post of Foreman on 24.6.2008 and not on any other day. But it is quite surprising that after submitting his application for the said post K.V.Krishna Prasad applied for experience 15 M.A.(EAT) No.5/2010 certificate and it was issued to him on 25.6.2008. It is marked as Ex.R23 (during enquiry as Ex.D3).
14. In his evidence before the enquiry appellant deposed in his chief itself that since K.V.Krishna Prasad did not enclose the experience certificate, in the consolidated list prepared by him, which is marked as Ex.R18 (Ex.D2 during enquiry) at sl.no.6 he left column no.4, 5 and 6 with respect to experience columns blank. In so far as preparing of that Ex.R18 is concerned the appellant has no grievance. He admits that he was entrusted with preparing the consolidated statement and he prepared it in his own hand writing and it was signed by the members of selection committee. If one examines Ex.R18 the evidence of appellant cannot be gain said that he had left the columns meant for experience blank. But surprising thing is that on 25.6.2008 experience certificate was came to be issued to the K.V.Krishna Prasad stating that he is working as Assistant Instructor in Medical Electronics Engineering Department from 22.12.2000 till date and it is marked as Ex.R23 (Ex.D3 during enquiry). If the said document is carefully gone through in the light of evidence of appellant before enquiry, as stated by him he himself initiated the said experience certificate on 25.6.2008 i.e. one day after submission of application of K.V.Krishna Prasad, but he do not know how the said certificate was got inserted in the office file. According to me here lies the crux of the matter. If at all the appellant was honestly and sincerely was discharging his 16 M.A.(EAT) No.5/2010 duties, K.V.Krishna Prasad could not have realized that experience certificate is also required to enclose with his application and if he was aware of it, he could not have submitted his application in-complete on 24.6.2008. As can be seen from the employment notification issued by the college, produced at Ex.R32 last date for submitting application was 25.6.2008. The fact that Ex.R18 was prepared by appellant on 28.9.2008 i.e. considerably after issuing of Ex.R23, would reveal that if the said experience certificate had somehow sneaked into the file, he ought not to have left the columns of Ex.R18, meant for experience, blank. In order to cover up the illegalities committed by him during his cross-examination the appellant tried to explain that though that Ex.R18 is dt.28.9.2008 he had prepared it well in advance. So what it shows is that by dilly dallying he was negotiating with K.V.Krishna Prasad in order to enrich at his cost illegally.
15. It is not uncommon that unemployed youth or a person, who is under temporary employment would go any extent to seek appointment in reputed institutions and exploiting such situation, persons who are in the helm affairs and administration of such institution make merry of those things. Perhaps the K.V.Krishna Prasad was found handy to the appellant to tackle him and make bounty at his cost and consequence.
17 M.A.(EAT) No.5/201016. The evidence of K.V.Krishna Prasad and Shivashankar shows that as they knew each other very well appellant received Rs.20,000/- from K.V.Krishna Prasad in presence of Shivashankar and that is why he was following up Shivashankar for balance amount and was torturing him. In the written arguments as well as in his appeal memo appellant contended that since both K.V.Krishna Prasad and Shivashankar are interested witnesses their evidence requires to be corroborated by an independent eye witness and in the absence of such witness their evidence cannot be considered. Anticipating this submission at the very beginning I observed that no dishonest official would indulge in taking the bribe or giving it in the office hours or in the office premises, rather he selects an aloof or new place and engage in such dealings. Therefore there is no substance in his claim that examination of an independent witness is required to prove that charge.
17. Regarding the CD and it's non-production I have already stated that non-production of the same has nothing to do with the case in hand. It was also contended by the appellant that when Shivashankar himself was one of the member of the selection committee it is too strange to believe that he was insisting K.V.Krishna Prasad to pay bribe to him. It is true that selection committee consisting of Shivashankar and others selected K.V.Krishna Prasad, but when question of issuing appointment order is concerned, it is the office establishment or this appellant, who was 18 M.A.(EAT) No.5/2010 discharging as Office Superintendent was responsible for issuing the same and using his said power he squeezed K.V.Krishna Prasad and received Rs.20,000/- and insisted him to pay balance Rs.10,000/-.
18. The appellant has also questioned the sustainability and charge no.1 on the reason that there is substantial delay of five months in filing the complaint. It is true that complaint was filed by K.V.Krishna Prasad on 11.2.2009 i.e. almost after two months of joining the service. As can be seen from Ex.R17 (marked as Ex.D4 during enquiry) on 23.10.2008 K.V.Krishna Prasad was asked to report to the duty as a Foreman, but on the ground that there is a delay in filing complaint one cannot straightaway ignore to consider the grievance of such person. First of all the proceedings before the enquiry officer are not strictly governed by The Evidence Act. Regarding which I refer to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported at (2008)1 SCC 514 (D) (Naresh Govind Vaze Vs Government of Maharashtra and others). In that case at Head Note-D, Hon'ble Court held that in a departmental enquiry Evidence Act is not applicable, therefore the contents like delay or non-examination of Secretary of the Sangha cannot be viewed with seriousness. Normally a person who pays bribe will not suddenly come out and say that he is also guilty of misconduct. He never openly alleges that he has paid bribe and succeeded in getting employment. In as much as he try to hush up the things to save his own skin, but in the case in 19 M.A.(EAT) No.5/2010 hand when K.V.Krishna Prasad and Shivashankar both felt that they have become scapegoat in the trap laid by appellant they were compelled to open their mouth and report it to the management at late hours. So on that count alone Tribunal cannot ignore it's responsibility to dispose of the matter on it's merits. So delay has no impact in the case in hand.
19. Now corruption has become order of the day and every one wants to become rich in overnight let what may come, so lot of responsibility lies on the shoulder of the tribunal to weigh such freak evidence carefully. In the decision reported at AIR 2012 SC 3157 (Rai Sandeep alias Deepu Vs State of NCT of Delhi) Hon'ble Supreme Court held that witness should be of high quality and calibre when guilt of an accused is going to be determined based on the evidence of such witness alone. In the decision reported at (2009) 12 SCC 78 (Union of India and others Vs Gyan Chand Chattar) at Head Note(B), Hon'ble Court held that when a serious charge of bribe is alleged guilt of an accused cannot be arrived on mere probability and hearsay evidence. It is also held that such charges should be specific, definite and detailed. In another decision reported at (2009)2 SCC 570 (E) (Roop singh Negi Vs Punjab National Bank and others) it was held that order passed by disciplinary authority and appellate authority must be based on recorded reasons and at Head Note-G it was held that while appreciating the 20 M.A.(EAT) No.5/2010 evidence conclusion has to be based on evidence and not on conjunctures and surmises.
20. In the background of said decisions and the direct evidence of K.V.Krishna Prasad and Shivashankar that this appellant received Rs.20,000/- from K.V.Krishna Prasad in the presence of Shivashankar that too in the absence of any strong motive on their behalf to implicate this appellant alone coupled with his act of preparing the consolidated statement of candidates and ignoring the experience certificate, which K.V.Krishna Prasad got on the next day of submitting his application and the selection of K.V.Krishna Prasad in preference to other candidates are more than enough to show that though the appellant was not the part of the selection committee, for the sake of bribe he manipulated the things and abused his office. In a given situation it would be incorrect on the part of this Tribunal to interfere in the punishment imposed by the management, otherwise it amounts to showering unwarranted sympathy on him as held in the decisions reported at CDJ 2000 Kar 329 (Divisional Controller, NWKRTC, Bagalkot Vs Raghavendra Madhava Katti) and 2010(5) SCC 775 (Administrator, Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli Vs Gulabhia M. Lad), I conclude that it is not a fit case where Tribunal can either interfere in the findings on the enquiry officer on charge no.1 or the quantum of punishment inflicted on the appellant. Hence I answer issue no.2 in the affirmative and issue no.3 in the negative.
21 M.A.(EAT) No.5/2010Issue No.4:
21. In the result, I proceed to make the following:
.
ORDER Appeal is dismissed.
No costs.
Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcription computerized, then corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 12th day of January 2017) (RON VASUDEV), III Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of witness examined for the appellant side:
PW1 C.Ramachandraiah List of documents exhibited for the appellant side:
Ex.P1 memo dt.18.6.2010
Ex.P2 Copy of application
Ex.P3 Copy of list of candidates
Ex.P4 Copy of selection committee proceeding
Ex.P5 Order copy of appointment
Ex.P6 Suspension order
Ex.P7 Charge sheet
Ex.P8 Order of Revocation of suspension
Ex.P9 Show-cause-notice
Ex.P10 Copy of complaint
Ex.P11 Copy of complaint
Ex.P12 Statement
22 M.A.(EAT) No.5/2010
Ex.P13 Copy of preliminary report
Ex.P14 Copy of enquiry report
Ex.P15 Notice of enquiry officer
Ex.P16 Copy of written arguments
Ex.P17 Order passed by Principal
Ex.P18 Reply to show-cause-notice
List of witness examined for the respondents side:
RW1 Shivarajaiah RW2 Doddaswamy
List of documents exhibited for the respondents side:
Ex.R1 Authorization letter Ex.R2 Letter Ex.R3 Representation Ex.R4 Representation Ex.R5 Complaint Ex.R6 Complaint Ex.R7 Suspension order Ex.R8 Reply to charge Ex.R9 Charge list Ex.R10 Enquiry notice Ex.R11 Representation Ex.R12 Enquiry statement Ex.R13 to 15 Letters Ex.R16 Notice to witness Ex.R17 Appointment order Ex.R18 List of candidates Ex.R19 List of candidates for interview Ex.R20 Form No.D
Ex.R21 to 30 Copies of marks card and Provisional certificate Ex.R31 Copy of application Ex.R32 Paper advertisement Ex.R33 Requisition of defence Ex.R34 Examination of chief Ex.R35 Further chief of examination Ex.R36 Cross-exam Ex.R37 Examination of chief Ex.R38 & 39 Cross exam Ex.R40 Examination chief Ex.R41 Written brief enquiry authority 23 M.A.(EAT) No.5/2010 Ex.R42 Written arguments Ex.R43 Show-cause-notice Ex.R44 Reply Ex.R45 Enquiry report Ex.R46 to 55 Order sheets of enquiry (RON VASUDEV), III Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.