Kerala High Court
Dr.Rajashree Ajith vs The Principal Secretary on 9 July, 2024
W.P.(C)No.1107of2020 1
CR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM
TUESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JULY 2024 / 18TH ASHADHA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 1107 OF 2020
PETITIONER:
DR.RAJASHREE AJITH
DIRECTOR, KERALA INSTITUTE OF TOURISM AND TRAVEL
STUDIES, RESIDENCY COMPOUND, THYCAUD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014.
BY ADVS.
P.K.VIJAYAMOHANAN
SMT. AISWARYA V.S.
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
TRANSPORT (A) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2 THE KERALA TRANSPORT DEVELOPMENT
FINANCE CORPORATION LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR, TRANS TOWERS, VAZHUTHACAUD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014.
BY ADVS.
SRI.T.P.SAJAN, SC, KTDFC
DEEPU THANKAN
DEEPU THANKAN
UMMUL FIDA(K/954/2013)
LAKSHMI SREEDHAR(K/946/2016)
VINEETHA BOSE(K/001438/2023)
CINDIA S.(K/1915/2021)
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.BIMAL K NATH-SR.GP
W.P.(C)No.1107of2020 2
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
03.07.2024, THE COURT ON 9/7/2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C)No.1107of2020 3
CR
M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM J.
---------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.1107 of 2020
--------------------------------
Dated this the 9th day of July 2024
JUDGMENT
1. The petitioner was the Managing Director of the second respondent company for the period from 1/1/1997 to 24/10/2007. The petitioner filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P13 Government Order dated 28/12/2019 by which the first respondent/Disciplinary Authority imposed a penalty of barring of two annual increments without cumulative effect and a recovery of Rs.2,83,870/- paid towards Verification Charges and Rs.1,43,409/- paid towards Canvassing Commission to two Direct Marketing Agencies ('DMAs' in short) by the petitioner in the capacity of Managing Director of the second respondent company.
2. The case of the petitioner is that as per Ext.P1 Resolution of the Board of Directors of the second respondent dated 23/3/2005, the Managing W.P.(C)No.1107of2020 4 Director of the second respondent is authorized to invite a panel of specialized agencies for obtaining their services for canvassing and verification work of KTDFC Finance Scheme, to shortlist them for selection and to fix the charges payable to such specialized agencies; that Ext.P2 Advertisement inviting DMAs was made in the dailies - Hindu, Indian Express, Mathrubhumi, Kerala Kaumudi and Deshabimani; that in response to Ext.P2 Advertisement 14 establishments submitted their offers; that as per Ext.P3 Resolution of the Board of Directors of the second respondent dated 30/8/2005 specific authorization was given to the Managing Director to appoint two DMAs - Ms.H.Worknet and M/s.Powerlink for the KTDFC Housing Loans Scheme; that several complaints were filed against the petitioner before various authorities including 16 private complaints before the Court of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram and the same was referred for enquiry to the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau which held an enquiry and submitted Ext.P4 Report dated 18/11/2016 recommending departmental action and recovery of the amounts paid as commission and verification fee alleging that the appointment and payment were made without the permission of the Board; that after more than a decade from the above transactions, petitioner was served with Ext.P5 Memo of Charges and Statement of Allegations dated 24/10/2017; that the petitioner submitted Ext.P6 Statement of Defense dated 05/12/2017; that the first W.P.(C)No.1107of2020 5 respondent initially appointed the Managing Director of the second respondent company as the Enquiry Officer to conduct enquiry against the petitioner under Rule 15 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1960; that thereafter as per Ext.P7 dated 27/04/2018, Additional Secretary in the Transport Department was appointed as Enquiry Officer; that without following Rule 15 of the KCS (CCA Rules) for imposition of major penalty, the Enquiry Officer proceeded with the enquiry and the petitioner was allowed to submit only a Written Statement; that the petitioner submitted Ext.P9 Written Statement dated 12/09/2018 before the Enquiry Officer; that the Enquiry Officer submitted Ext.P10 Enquiry Report dated Nil even recommending the punishments to be imposed; that the petitioner was served with copy of Ext.P10 Enquiry Report along with Ext.P7 Show Cause notice; that the petitioner submitted Ext.P12 Explanation dated 28/01/2019 to the Show Cause Notice and thereafter the first respondent/ disciplinary authority illegally passed the impugned Ext.P13 order without considering any of the contentions of the petitioner.
3. The first respondent filed a Statement dated 17/02/2020 supporting the reasons in Ext.P10 Enquiry Report and Ext.P13 Order.
4. The second respondent filed a Counter Affidavit dated 28/02/2020 contending, inter alia, that the allegation in the writ petition that the W.P.(C)No.1107of2020 6 departmental action was initiated by the first respondent against the petitioner on the basis of Ext.P4 Vigilance Enquiry Report is not a complete version of the facts; that actually it was the Audit Officer who had made several adverse observations during their audit regarding the appointment of two related and interested firms as DMAs; that consequent to the observations in Ext.R2(a), (b) & (c) Reports of the Controller and Auditor General of India, the Committee on the Public Undertakings(2011-
14) of the 13th Kerala Legislative Assembly examined the audit paragraph and made observations in Ext.R2(d) relating to the appointment of DMAs in the KTDFC finding that there are lot of irregularities and lack of transparency in the appointment of DMAs; that the committee suspects ulterior motives behind the appointment of unqualified and inexperienced firms managed by persons closely related to each other as direct marketing agents and verification agents; that there is impropriety in rescheduling of loans and defaults in loan repayment and also in issuing soft loans under Housing Loan category to the builders when 16.5% interest was charging against them in the money market; that the committee feels clear evidence of manipulation and impropriety in the functioning of the company; that considering the importance of the case, the committee recommends that the matter should be included in the ongoing vigilance enquiry and responsibility for irregularities be fixed and the losses be recovered from the concerned; that the Vigilance Enquiry W.P.(C)No.1107of2020 7 mentioned in the writ petition was on the basis of recommendation in Ext.R2(d) Report; that there occurred arbitrary fixation of verification charges and commission payable to the selected DMAs without permission or ratification of the Board of Directors; that the Directors and Managing Partner of the DMAs availed housing loans from the KTDFC; that Ext.R2(e) Vigilance Enquiry report as well as Ext.P13 order issued by the Government are legally and factually sustainable and that the writ petition is not maintainable.
5. I heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri.Vijaya Mohan.P.K and the learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent Sri.Deepu Thankan, and the learned Government Pleader for the first respondent Sri. K.B.Sony.
6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that as the Managing Director of the second respondent, the second respondent is bound to implement all the decisions of the Board of Directors and the decision to appoint DMAs and the selection of the above two DMAs are taken by the Board of Director of the second respondent as per Ext.P1 and P3 resolutions. The petitioner was only implementing Exts.P1 and P3 resolutions by appointing the aforesaid two DMAs. He contended that Ext.P5 Memo of Charges was issued merely on the basis of Ext.P4 W.P.(C)No.1107of2020 8 Vigilance Enquiry Report by extracting the very same allegations in Ext.P4; that Ext.P5 was issued with respect to the transaction which took place about a decade back. He contended that though the disciplinary action, as contemplated under Rule 15 of the KCS (CC&A) Rules was initiated, the disciplinary proceedings were completed not in compliance with the said Rule and as such the petitioner was greatly prejudiced on this account. He contended that the Enquiry Officer made recommendation for the penalties which is totally unauthorized under law. There is no finding with respect to the loss and liability of the petitioner in Ext.P10 Enquiry Report. The Enquiry Report merely relied on Ext.P4 Vigilance Enquiry Report. Though the petitioner submitted Ext.P12 Reply to Ext.P11 Show Cause Notice, the impugned order was passed without considering any of the contentions raised in Ext.P12 reply.
7. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the second respondent submitted that there are clear documentary evidences to prove the Memo of Charges against the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer as well as the Disciplinary Authority considered the matter in detail and thereafter found that the petitioner has committed the charges alleged against her and imposed the penalty and recovery. He argued that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted in full compliance of the principles of natural justice and no prejudice is caused to the petitioner. Though the disciplinary W.P.(C)No.1107of2020 9 proceedings, as contemplated under Rule 15 of the KCS (CC&A) Rules were initiated since the penalty imposed is only a minor penalty, the petitioner cannot insist that proceedings for major penalty are to be completed and no prejudice is caused to the petitioner in this regard.
8. The learned Counsel for the petitioner cited the decisions in Raveendranathan v. District Collector, Palghat, (1984 KLT 564), Vaijayanthi v. State of Keala [2003 (3) KLT 1055], State of Uttaranchal and others V. Kharak Singh [(2008) 8 SCC 236], Harikumar T.S.v Travancore Devaswom Board, Tvm and others [2014 (1) KLT 1027] and the Single Bench judgment of this court dated 20/11/2008 in O.P.No.38489 of 2002 in support of his contentions.
9. In Raveendranathan (supra), the Division Bench of this Court held that after having initiated proceedings for imposition of a major penalty and having reached half way, the disciplinary authority cannot make a short cut by not following the procedure prescribed under Rule 15 of KCS (CC&A) Rules for infliction of the major penalty and choosing to inflict a minor penalty without properly completing the enquiry following the procedure prescribed in that behalf. It is useful to extract Paragraph Nos.7 and 8 of the said decision:
" 7. The Government Pleader brought to our notice the decision of this W.P.(C)No.1107of2020 10 Court in Enos Jeevakumar v. State of Kerala (1977 KLT 733). In that decision Gopalan Nambiar, Ag. C. J., as he then was, observed as:
"The disciplinary proceedings started with a proposal to impose any of the major penalties under sub clauses (v) to (ix) of R.11. Therefore the procedure under R.15 was followed and the Tribunal for disciplinary proceedings sent its enquiry report. On receipt of the report and after consideration of the same it was ultimately decided to impose only one of the minor penalties under sub clauses (i) to (iv) of R.11 and this was done by Ext. P1 order. The procedure is in strict conformity with R.15 sub-r.(13) of the Rules. In the instant case the procedure in R.15 was followed, and only a minor penalty was inflicted in strict conformity with the provisions of sub-r.13 of R.15. There is no violation of the statutory rule or the principles of natural justice."
It is significant to note that in the case cited and relied on, it is after following the procedure under R.15 a minor penalty was imposed instead of a major penalty. If the imposition of a minor penalty in the present case was after holding an enquiry under R.15, and the charge having been found proved as in that case, there could have been no ground for feeling aggrieved so far as the petitioner was concerned. The distinction here is, if we may say so, after having initiated proceedings for imposition of a major W.P.(C)No.1107of2020 11 penalty, and having reached half way, the disciplinary authority made a short cut by not following the procedure prescribed under R.15 of the Rule for the infliction of the major penalty, and choosing to inflict a minor penalty without properly completing the enquiry following the procedure prescribed in that behalf, and bearing in mind the spirit of the direction given by this Court in the judgment dated 29-6-1983. The position would have been quite different had it been that after completion of the enquiry in accordance with R.15 of the Rules the disciplinary authority chose to inflict only a minor punishment. Therefore, the decision of this Court in Enos Jeevakumar v. State of Kerala (1977 KLT 733) does not in any way advance the case of the State.
8. If we give our seal of approval to the procedure adopted by the District Collector in this case, it would mean that we accept a procedure by which the disciplinary authority could inflict the punishment (may be only a minor penalty) in a case where the charge memo is one for the infliction of a major penalty as and when that authority finds it inconvenient to. proceed with the enquiry or to prove the charge according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf."
10. The Counsel for the petitioner cited the decision in Vaijayanthi (supra) in which the learned Single Judge of this Court followed the aforesaid decision of the Division Bench in Raveendranathan (supra). The relevant W.P.(C)No.1107of2020 12 portion of the said decision in Paragraph No.10 is extracted hereunder.
" When the allegations contained in the statement of allegations and the charges were denied by the petitioner in her written statement of defence submitted under R.15(2) of the KCS (CC and A) Rules, the Government had only two options before it. The first option was to accept the explanation of the petitioner and to drop further action against her. The second option was to order a formal enquiry into the conduct of the petitioner so that the petitioner would have got an opportunity to disprove the allegations against her and to prove her defence. The Government was not entitled to avoid a formal enquiry and to resort to a convenient method of considering the statement of defence submitted in response to the memo of charges and holding her guilty of the charges levelled against her and imposing a minor penalty and to take the stand that for the purpose of inflicting a minor penalty no formal enquiry is necessary. In Narayanan Nair v. State of Kerala & Anr., 1970 KLT 1069, a learned Single Judge of this Court has held that the provisions contained in the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules clearly contemplate that the disciplinary authority should make up its mind at the initial stage itself whether it would adopt the procedure for the imposition of a major penalty laid down in R.15 or whether in the circumstances of the case only the comparatively summary procedure for the imposition of minor penalty contained in R.16 need be followed. It has been further held that it is not W.P.(C)No.1107of2020 13 permissible for the disciplinary authority to shift over from one procedure to the other at the stage of passing final order so as to deprive the Government servant concerned of an effective opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken against him."
11. The decision in Harikumar T.S.(supra) cited by the counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the case on hand as in the said decision this Court set aside the order of punishment of reduction of rank on the ground that the same was imposed without following the procedures prescribed under Rule 15 of KCS (CC&A) Rules for imposing major penalty.
12. The Counsel for the petitioner cited the decision in Kharak Singh (supra) to support his contention that it is for the disciplinary authority to impose appropriate punishment and the enquiry officer has no role in awarding the punishment. Paragraph Nos. 10 and 13 of the said decision are extricated below;
" 10) In regard to the question whether an enquiry officer can indicate the proposed punishment in his report, this Court, in a series of decisions has pointed out that it is for the punishing/disciplinary authority to impose appropriate punishment and enquiry officer has no role in awarding punishment. It is useful to refer to the decision of this Court in A. N. D'Silva v. Union of India, 1962 Supp (1) SCR 968 wherein it was held: W.P.(C)No.1107of2020 14
"In the communication addressed by the Enquiry Officer the punishment proposed to be imposed upon the appellant if he was found guilty of the charges could not properly be set out. The question of imposing punishment can only arise after enquiry is made and the report of the Enquiry Officer is received. It is for the punishing authority to propose the punishment and not for the enquiring authority."
...............................................
13) Another infirmity in the report of the enquiry officer is that he concluded the enquiry holding that all the charges have been proved and he recommended for dismissal of the delinquent from service. The last paragraph of his report dated 16.11.1985 reads as under:-
"During the course of above inquiry, such facts have come into light from which it is proved that the employee who has doubtful character and does not obey the order, does not have the right to continue in the government service and it is recommended to dismiss him from the service with immediate effect."
(emphasis supplied) Though there is no specific bar in offering views by the enquiry officer, in the case on hand, the enquiry officer exceeded his limit by saying that the officer has no right to continue in the government service and he has to be dismissed from service with immediate effect. As pointed out above, W.P.(C)No.1107of2020 15 awarding appropriate punishment is the exclusive jurisdiction of the punishing / disciplinary authority and it depends upon the nature and gravity of the proved charge / charges and other attended circumstances. It is clear from the materials, the officer, who inspected and noted the short fall of trees, himself conducted the enquiry, arrived at a conclusion holding the charges proved and also strongly recommended severe punishment of dismissal from service. The entire action and the course adopted by the enquiry officer cannot be accepted and is contrary to the well known principles enunciated by this Court."
13. The Counsel for the petitioner cited the judgment dated 20/11/2008 in O.P.No.38489/2002 to substantiate his contention that the disciplinary proceedings shall not be on the sole basis of a Vigilance Enquiry Report. In the said case, this Court quashed the impugned orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority finding that the demand from the petitioners to make good the loss is made solely on the Report of the Vigilance and Ante Corruption Bureau.
14. After hearing the Counsels on either sides, I find from Ext.P5 Memo of Charges and Ext.P7 Order appointing Enquiry Officer that the second respondent initiated disciplinary proceedings as contemplated under Rule 15 of the KCS(CC&A) Rules. It is well settled by the aforesaid decisions cited by the Counsel for the petitioner in Raveendranathan and Vaijayanthi W.P.(C)No.1107of2020 16 (supra) that after initiating proceedings for imposition of a major penalty, the disciplinary authority cannot take short cut by not following the procedure prescribed under Rule 15 for infliction of the major penalty and choose to inflict a minor penalty without properly completing the enquiry following the procedure prescribed in that behalf. Even though the Counsel for the second respondent contended that there is no prejudice caused to the petitioner on account of the fact that only a minor penalty imposed on her, in view of the aforesaid settled law, imposition of a minor penalty after choosing to initiate proceeding for imposition of major penalty and without following and completing the procedure for the same is illegal and unsustainable.
15. I find from Ext.P5 Memo of Charges and the Statement of Allegations that the same are prepared solely on the basis of Ext.P4 Report of the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau. It is only a repetition of Ext.P4 Vigilance Enquiry Report. Memo Charges issued by the Disciplinary Authority without any proper and independent application of mind and solely relying on Vigilance Enquiry Report is unsustainable.
16. In Ext.P10 Enquiry Report, the specific finding of the Enquiry Officer is that the case was examined in detail based on the available facts in the Vigilance Enquiry report. In Ext.P13 Order also, the specific finding is that the findings of the Vigilance against the petitioner are proved to be correct. It is clear from Ext.P10 Enquiry Report and Ext.P13 Order that the penalty and recovery are made solely relying on Ext.P4 Vigilance Report. Neither the W.P.(C)No.1107of2020 17 Enquiry Officer nor the Disciplinary Authority has conducted any independent enquiry in the matter. Exts.P10 and P13 are unsustainable on this ground. Enquiry Report and the Penalty Order of the Disciplinary Authority solely relying on Vigilance Enquiry Report without any proper and independent application of mind are unsustainable.
17. The specific allegations in Ext.P5 Memo of Charges are that the petitioner appointed the two DMAs and arbitrarily fixed verification charges without the permission or ratification of the Board of Directors. In Ext.P10 Enquiry Report, the finding of the Enquiry Officer is that even though the Board of Directors had authorized to appoint DMAs, it is seen that the petitioner had exceeded the power given by the Board of Directors. It is clear from the said finding that the Enquiry Officer has also accepted the contention of the petitioner that the appointment of the DMAs and fixation of their charges were done as authorized by the Board of Directors. It is seen from Ext.P1 and P3 Resolutions that the petitioner has acted only in accordance with the resolutions passed by the Board of Directors of the second respondent and in such case the petitioner could not be blamed. Disciplinary proceedings cannot be initiated against the officers of a company for an action done in full compliance with the resolutions of the Board of Directors of the said company.
18. Even though the Enquiry Officer has entered a finding that the petitioner had exceeded the power given by the Board of Directors, the Enquiry Report W.P.(C)No.1107of2020 18 is silent as to how the power is exceeded by the petitioner. The finding that she had not exercised proper caution is also not supported by any reason.
19. It is settled law that the Enquiry Officer has no right or authority to recommend the nature of punishment to be imposed on the delinquent employee. In Ext.P10, the Enquiry officer has recommended to finalize the disciplinary action against the petitioner barring two increments without cumulative effect and to recover the verification charge of Rs.2,83,870/- paid as verification charges and Rs.1,43,409/- paid as canvassing commission.
20. Though the counsel for the second respondent tried to substantiate Ext.P10 Enquiry Report and Ext.P13 Order of the Disciplinary Authority by referring to various documents produced along with the Counter Affidavit of the second respondent, I do not propose to go into those contentions since none of them does find a place either in Ext.P10 Enquiry Report or in Ext.P13 Order of the Disciplinary Authority. Reasons cannot be supplemented by filing Counter Affidavit and producing documents which are absent in the impugned orders. It is a classic case to apply the said principle.
21. Though the petitioner submitted Ext.P6 Statement of defense, Ext.P9 Written Statement and Ext.P12 Explanation extensively raising her contentions with reference to the law on the point including citations, none of these received a proper consideration. In Ext.P13 order, the only finding is that the Government has considered the explanation made available by the W.P.(C)No.1107of2020 19 petitioner in detail and found that the conclusions arrived at by the Vigilance are correct, without referring to any of the contentions of the petitioner.
22. Even though the transactions were of the year 2005, the second respondent chose to issue Ext.P5 Memo of Charges and Statement of Allegations only on 24/10/2017 i.e.after Ext.P4 Vigilance Enquiry Report dated 18/11/2016. There is unexplained delay in initiating the disciplinary proceedings especially when the petitioner had severed her employment with the second respondent on 24/10/2007.
23. In view of the aforesaid proposition of law and discussion, I allow this writ petition setting aside Ext.P10 Enquiry Report and Ext.P13 Government Order passed by the first respondent.
Sd/-
M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM JUDGE dpk W.P.(C)No.1107of2020 20 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1107/2020 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE AGENDA NOTES AND RESOLUTIONS OF ITEM NO.1380 AT THE 76TH MEETING OF THE BOARD DATED 23.3.2005.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ADVERTISEMENT APPEARED IN THE NEWESPAPERS.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE AGENDA NOTES AND RESOLUTIONS OF ITEM NO.1433 AT THE 78TH MEETING OF THE BOARD DATED 30.8.2005.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE VIGILANCE ENQUIRY REPORT NO.E15(VE 1/15/SIU-1/KTDFC) 43882/2014 DATED 18.11.2016.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES AND STATEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS NO.TRANS-A1/93/2017-TRANS DATED 24.10.2017.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF DEFENCE DATED 5.12.2017 OF THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(MS.)NO.190/2018/TRANSPORT DATED 27.4.2018.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.TRANS-A1/93/2017-TRANS DATED 1.9.2018 FROM THE ENQUIRY OFFICER TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT DATED 12.9.2018 OF THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT NO. NIL DATED NIL OF THE ENQUIRY OFFICER.
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE NO.TRANS-
A1/93/2017-TRANS DATED 17.12.2018.
EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION DATED 28.1.2019 OF THE PETITIONER TO THE NOTICE.
EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT.)NO.567/2019/TRANS DATED 28.12.2019.
EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE CONSOLIDATED PROFIT/LOSS STATEMENT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT COMPANY FOR 2003-2004 TO 2007
- 2008.
W.P.(C)No.1107of2020 21
EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 22.11.2007
ISSUED BY SHRI AJOY CHAWDHARY, ADDITIONAL
CHIEF SECRETARY & CHAIRMAN, KTDFC.
EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 30.6.2008 ISSUED
BY SHRI JIJI THOMSON, PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT, TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT.
EXHIBIT R2a COPY OF THE (1) EXTRACT OF THE FINAL INSPECTION
REPORT DATED 20/1/2009 OF ACCOUNTANT GENERAL IN PART 11A, PARA III EXHIBIT R2b COPY STATEMENT OF FACTS ON 'WASTEFUL EXPENDITURE ON COMMISSION TO MARKETING AGENTS' RECEIVED FROM THE OFFICE OF ACCOUNTANT GENERAL VIDE LETTER DATED 22/6/2009 EXHIBIT R2c TRUE EXTRACT OF THE REPORT OF THE COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR GENERAL OF INDIA FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31ST MARCH 2009(COMMERCIAL VIDE PARA 4,9(2) AND (3) EXHIBIT R2d TRUE EXTRACT OF THE 37TH REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC UNDERTAKINGS (2011-14) OF THE THIRTEENTH KERALA LEGISLATAIVE ASSEMBLY EXHIBIT R2e COPY OF THE VIGILANCE ENQUIRY REPORT NO. VE-
01/2015/SIU-1 DATED 1/9/2016 EXHIBIT R2f COPY OF THE AGENDA ITEM NO.1433 PLACED BEFORE THE 78TH BOARD MEETING.
EXHIBIT R2g COPY OF THE PARTNERSHIP DEED DATED 15/12/2000 FURNISHED BY M/S.H-WORKNET EXHIBIT R2h COPIES OF LETTER DATED 1/9/2005 ISSUED BY KTDFC TO M/S. H WORKNET EXHIBIT R2i TRUE COPY OF THE SAID GO(RT) NO.173/2017 TRANS DATED 6/4/2017