A. G. Suresh v. State of Kerala and others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN** **FRIDAY, THE 7[TH] DAY OF JULY 2023 / 16TH ASHADHA, 1945 OP(KAT) NO.284 OF 2023** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENTOA (EKM) 1455/2019 OF KERALA** **ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM** ## **PETITIONER/APPLICANT IN O.A:** **A.G.SURESH AGED 57 YEARS** **S/O.ARJUNAN.K, SUPERINTENDENT (RETIRED), HIGH SECURITY PRISON, VIYYUR, THRISSUR, KERALA PIN - 680010. RESIDING AT C.V.HOUSE, SIVANKOVIL ROAD, BALARAMAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695501,** **BY ADVS. BRIJESH MOHAN RESMI G. NAIR** ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN O.A:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME (B) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, STATUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM , KERALA, PIN - 695001** - **2 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PRISONS AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES,** - **PRISONS, HEAD QUARTERS, POOJAPPURA.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM , KERALA, PIN - 695012** - **3 THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF PRISONS NORTH ZONE, O/O.THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF PRISONS, KOZHIKODE , KERALA, PIN - 673004** ## **SRI. B UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL-SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER** **THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.07.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **(C.R)** ALEXANDER THOMAS & C. JAYACHANDRAN, JJ. ============================================= O. P. (KAT) No. 284 of 2023 _(arising out of the impugned final order dated 7.11.2022 in O.A.(Ekm) No. 1455/2019 on the file of the KAT, Tvm Bench)_ ============================================== Dated this the 7[th] day of July, 2023 ## J U D G M E N T ## ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. The afore captioned Original Petition, instituted under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the impugned final verdict dated 07.11.2022 at Ext.P-4 rendered by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram Bench, in O.A.(Ekm) No. 1455/2019. The sole petitioner herein is the sole applicant in the O.A. and the respondents herein are the respondents in the O.A. 2. The prayers in the instant Ext.P-1 – O.A.(Ekm) No. 1455/2019 are as follows: - _“A Call for records connecting to Annexures A1, A9, A11, A13(a), A15 and A18 and to quash the same._ - _B To direct the respondents to regularize the period of suspension as duty for all purpose and to give the eligible monetary benefits &_ - _C Such other reliefs this Honourable Tribunal deems fit and proper.”_ O. P. (KAT) No. 284/2023 ..2.. 3. The matter under challenge in the above O.A. is Anx.A-18 penalty order imposed as per G.O.(Rt.) No. 1521/2019/Home dated 13.6.2019 issued by the competent authority of the respondent State Government in the Home Department, whereby it has been ordered that, the petitioner has to suffer a penalty of bar of 2 increments with cumulative effect as part of the finalization of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner, in pursuance of Anx.A-11 Memo of Charges dated 28.6.2017 and Anx.A-13(a) Enquiry Report, etc. 4. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides, has rendered the impugned Ext.P-4 final order on 7.11.2022, disposing of O.A.(Ekm) No.1455/2019 with the finding that the impugned decision making process of the 1[st] respondent, in imposing the impugned punishment of penalty of 'bar of 2 increments with cumulative effect', is vitiated inasmuch as it was in substantial variance with the provisional action proposed by the 1[st] respondent as per Anx.A-15 Show Cause Notice dated 29.9.2018, in pursuance of Anx.A-13(a) Enquiry Report, wherein it has been held that the stand of the respondent Government is that they are provisionally inclined to propose that a penalty of bar of O. P. (KAT) No. 284/2023 ..3.. only the next one increment for 2 years with cumulative effect is to be imposed, etc. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal, as per Ext.P-4 verdict, has interdicted with the impugned disciplinary action, by remitting the matter to the 1[st] respondent disciplinary authority to re-do the action from the stage of show cause notice in pursuance of Anx.A-13(a) Enquiry Report, to decide only on the issue of penalty. 5. The main plea made by the counsel for the petitioner is that, the petitioner is aggrieved not only on the issue of the quantum of penalty but, more basically, on the issue of the 'finding of guilt' arrived by the disciplinary authority, which, according to him, was without giving a reasonable opportunity to defend against the 'finding of guilt', recorded in Anx.A-13(a) Enquiry Report and such opportunity to defend against the 'finding of guilt' has not been offered to him in Anx.A-15 Show Cause Notice, issued in pursuance of Anx.A-13(a) Enquiry Report. 6. Various factual aspects of the matter have been canvassed before us. We need not get into the nitty-gritty of those factual details as we are mainly in the realm of judicial review, which is mainly against the decision making process and not at the O. P. (KAT) No. 284/2023 ..4.. decision _per se_ . The main legal plea put up by the counsel for the petitioner is that, the abovesaid approach made by the 1[st] respondent, in issuing Anx.A-15 Show Cause Notice, by limiting the opportunity to the delinquent only to defend against the proposed quantum of penalty and not on the main issue of the 'finding of guilt' arrived at in Anx.A-13(a) Enquiry Report, would go against the jurisprudential perspective and the legal dictum laid down by the Constitution Bench of Five Judges of the Apex Court in the celebrated case in _**Managing Director (MD), Electronic Corporation of India Ltd. (ECIL) v. B.Karunakar** [(1993) 4 SCC 727]_ , etc. 7. The learned Senior Government Pleader would submit, on behalf of the respondents, that the impugned action of the respondents in issuing Anx.A-15 Show Cause Notice cannot be legally faulted with, as it is in compliance with the requirements of Rule 15(12)(i)(b), etc., of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1960 _(hereinafter referred for short as “The KCS(CCA) Rules” or “The CCA Rules”)_ . In that view of the matter, the learned Senior Government Pleader would submit that there are no serious grounds for interfering with the verdict of the O. P. (KAT) No. 284/2023 ..5.. Tribunal. 8. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival pleas and have also considered the pleadings and materials on record. 9. It is by now well-settled, by a series of rulings of the Apex Court and various High Courts, including this Court, that, after the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment), made effective from 3.1.1977, the proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India has been amended, whereby it has been stipulated that, where it is proposed after such inquiry, to impose upon the delinquent any penalty, such penalty may be imposed on the basis of evidence adduced during the inquiry and it shall not be necessary to give such person any opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed. Article 311(2), as it stands after the Constitution (Fifteenth Amendment), made effective from 5.10.1963, reads as follows: _“_ _**311. Dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of persons employed in civil capacities under the Union or a State** (1) …..........xxxx..............xxxx.........................._ _(2) No such person as aforesaid shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank except after an inquiry in which he has been informed of the charges against him and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges:”_ O. P. (KAT) No. 284/2023 ..6.. The proviso to Article 311(2), as it stands after the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) made effective from 3.1.1977, reads as follows: _“PROVIDED that where it is proposed after such inquiry, to impose upon him any such penalty, such penalty may be imposed on the basis of the evidence adduced during such inquiry and it shall not be necessary to give such person any opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed:_ _PROVIDED FURTHER that this clause shall not apply-_ - _(a) where a person is dismissed or removed or reduced in rank on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge; or_ - _(b) where the authority empowered to dismiss or remove a person or to reduce him in rank is satisfied that for some reason, to be recorded by that authority in writing, it is not reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry; or_ - _(c) where the President or the Governor, as the case may be, is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the State, it is not expedient to hold such inquiry.”_ 10. The core of the matter is that, prior to the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment), Article 311(2) mandated that after the disciplinary inquiry, the disciplinary authority was bound to afford an opportunity of hearing to the delinquent even on the question of penalty but based on the evidence adduced in the inquiry. This is the requirement that was amended as per the Constitution (Fortysecond Amendment) made effective from 3.1.1977. The effect of the said Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) was that, where the disciplinary authority and inquiry authority are distinct O. P. (KAT) No. 284/2023 ..7.. functionaries, the inquiry authority will have to conduct inquiry by affording reasonable opportunity to the delinquent and should finalize the inquiry proceedings by giving him/her the inquiry report. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority will have to take a decision for finalizing the disciplinary action in pursuance of the inquiry report and in such a case, the opportunity again provided by the disciplinary authority, where he is different from the inquiry authority, has to be seen as a second opportunity, then it was not necessary any longer to give a second opportunity on the question of penalty. 11. Disputes arose as to the impact of the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) of Article 311(2). In many cases, disciplinary authorities have taken up a stand that, in view of the Amendment as per the proviso to Article 311(2), as per the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment), there was no requirement for the second opportunity at all where the disciplinary authority is distinct from the inquiry authority. The law was ultimately settled by holding that where the disciplinary authority is different from the inquiry authority and the disciplinary authority gets the copy of the inquiry report, then what O. P. (KAT) No. 284/2023 ..8.. is taken away by the amended provision, as per the proviso to Article 311(2), is only the second opportunity on the question of penalty and not the second opportunity that is to be provided by the disciplinary authority on the question of guilt. 12. It has been held by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court, in the celebrated decision in _**MD, ECIL v. B. Karunakar**_ supra, that where the disciplinary authority and the inquiry authority are two distinct functionaries, the inquiry authority will have to comply with the principles of natural justice to provide reasonable opportunity to the delinquent to complete the inquiry process and then to submit the inquiry report and thereafter, after the receipt of the inquiry report by the disciplinary authority, it is the disciplinary authority who is the actual decision maker on the question of guilt and consequently, on the question of penalty. In such a case, where the disciplinary authority is the actual decision maker, such decision maker should also comply with the principles of natural justice in granting reasonable opportunity to the delinquent to decide on the correctness or otherwise of the question of guilt arrived at by the inquiry officer/inquiry authority in the inquiry report. Therefore, it was held that, merely because O. P. (KAT) No. 284/2023 ..9.. the second opportunity on the question of penalty has been taken away by the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment), it will not lead to a situation where the disciplinary authority has no obligation to give a reasonable opportunity to the delinquent on the basic issue regarding the correctness of the 'finding of guilt' entered into in the inquiry report. 13. In the instant case, the disciplinary action has been set in motion against the petitioner on the basis of Anx.A-11 Memo of Charges dated 28.6.2017 issued by the 1[st] respondent. The inquiry officer who was appointed in the case was distinct from the disciplinary authority. The inquiry officer, after completing the inquiry, had submitted Anx.A-13(a) Enquiry Report. According to the petitioner, the inquiry officer has stated in Anx.A-13(a) Report that Charge No.1 of Anx.A-11 Memo of Charges stands proved. Further, the petitioner would contend that, a reading of Anx.A-13(a) Enquiry Report would show that the other 3 charges, out of the total 4 charges, are not found to be proved, etc. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority has issued Anx.A-15 Show Cause Notice dated 29.9.2018 adverting to the factual aspects contained in Anx.A-13(a) Enquiry Report and calling upon the O. P. (KAT) No. 284/2023 ..10.. petitioner to show cause as to why the proposed penalty of 'bar of one increment for 2 years with cumulative effect' shall not be imposed on the petitioner. It is thereafter that the petitioner had submitted Anx.A-16 reply to Anx.A-15 Show Cause Notice and thereafter, the disciplinary authority has issued Anx.A-18 penalty order dated 13.6.2019, imposing the penalty of barring of 2 increments with cumulative effect. 14. Anx.A-15 Show Cause Notice dated 29.9.2018, issued by the 1[st] respondent, reads as follows: _“_ ശ�� _._ എ _._ ജ� _._ സ�ര�ഷ� എന ത�ങൾ ച�ര�ന� ത�റന ജയ�ൽ സ�ശ�ണ�യ���ക� ര�ലധ�ക���കള�ക"രയ� വക�പദ&കന�കറരയ� അന��ത�യ�ല�കത കചറ�വത�ർ രറ�ടറ� കബ�ൽ ന�ന� _8_ ക�ളൻ ����കളയ�1 കർണ�"കയ�ൽ ന�ന�1 ക��ദ�ഗ �ദത� ശ�ക��1 _2_ ����കളയ�1 അന��ത�യ�ല�കത സ5�ക����കയ�1 "� രവളയ�ൽ ��ജ ന"ത� �രതത���ല&ങൾ�� വ�ഘ�ത1 സ8ഷ�ചത�1 ക��ണങള�ൽ സ�ചന _(2)_ ശ�ക��1 സർവ�സ�ൽ ന�ന�1 ത�ങകള സസ�ക�ൻഡ� കചയ>���ന� _._ അച"� ന"�"�കള�ക" ഭ�ഗ��യ� നൽക�യ ക�റ�ര���ണ ക�രA�യ � ത�ങൾ നൽക�യ �റ��"� ത8പ>�ക��ല�തത�ന�ൽ ത�ങൾക�ത�� ഉനയ�ച���ന ആര���ണങൾ അരന5ഷ���നത�ന� സ�ചന _(5)_ ശ�ക��1 ച��തലകപ"�ത�യ���ന ഉത� ര�ഖല ഡ� _._ ഐ _._ ജ� _._ സ�ർപ�ച റ�രപ�ർട�ൽ ത�ങൾ കചറ�വത�ർ രറ�ടറ� കബ�ൽ ന�ന�1 ����കള വ�ങ�നത�രന� ക��ദ�ഗ രശ��ജകH�ൽ ന�ന�1 ����കള വ�ങ�നത�രന� അധ�ക���കള�ക" അന��ത� വ�ങ�യ���ന�ല�കയന� റ�രപ�ർട� കചയ>���ന� _._ ഇത� ത�ങള�ക" ഭ�ഗത�ന�ന�ള ക�റക���യ വ�ഴKയ�ണ� _._ ഒ�� സർ��ർ ഉരദ&�ഗസൻ എന ന�ലയ�ൽ ര�ലധ�ക���കള�ക" അന��ത� വ�ങ�കത ത�ങൾ ശ�വർത�ചത�ന� അച"���ഹ�ത&��യ� കണ����ന� _._ അച"�1 കർ�ന��യ� ��ല�ര�ണ ജയ�ൽ ര��ല�ളള സ��നത�ൽ ചടങൾ ��ല���കതയ�1 ര�ല�രദ&�ഗസ��ക" അന��ത� വ�ങ�കതയ�1 തന�ഷ ശ�ക��1 ശ�വർത�ച ത�ങൾക�ത�ക� _1960-_ കല _KCS (CCA) Rules_ ശ�ക��1 ��ക� ന"�"�യ�യ� അ"�ത ലഭ���വ�ന�ളള വ�ർഷ�ക രവത വർദനവ� സഞ�ത ഫലരത�ക" �ണ� വർഷരതയ � ത"ഞ�വച�കക�ണ� ��ക ന"പ�ല���വ�ൻ ത�ത�ക�ല�ക��യ ത�����ന�ച�����ന� _._ ത�ങൾക�ത�ക� കകക��ണ�ട�ളള "� ത�ത�ക�ല�ക ത�����ന1 സ��കപ"�ത�ത�����നത�ന� ത�ങൾ�� എകSങ�ല�1 �ത�യ�യ ക��ണ1 രT�ധ�പ���വ�ന�കണങ�ൽ ആയത� ഈ രന�ട�സ� കകപറ� _15_ ദ�വസത�നക1 സർ����ന� സ�ർപ�ര�ണത�ണ� _._ ന�ശ�ത സ�യ���ധ��ക1 �റ��"�കയ�ന�1 ലഭ�ച�ല�കയങ�ൽ ത�ങൾ�� ഈ വ�ഷയത�ൽ യ�കത�ന�1 രT�ധ�പ���ന�കലന ന�ഗ�നത�ൽ ത�ത�ക�ല�ക ത�����ന1 സ���ക��ച� ഉത�വ� ��റകപ"�വ���നത�ണ� _.”_ O. P. (KAT) No. 284/2023 ..11.. 15. A reading of Anx.A-15 Show Cause Notice would clearly indicate that the 1[st] respondent disciplinary authority has given opportunity to the petitioner to show cause only on the limited issue as to why the proposed penalty of 'bar of one increment with cumulative effect for 2 years' shall not be imposed on him. It is on this premise, adopted in Anx.A-15, that the disciplinary authority has ultimately issued Anx.A-18 penalty order and the actual penalty order appears to be in variance to the penalty that has been proposed in Anx.A-15. 16. Rule 15(12)(i)(b) of the KCS (CCA) Rules provides as follows: ## _“_ _**15. Procedure for imposing major penalties._**_ _(1) ..........xxxx.................xxxx......................... ..........xxxx.................xxxx......................... ..........xxxx.................xxxx........................._ _(12) (i) If the Disciplinary Authority, having regard to the findings on the charges, is of the opinion that any of the penalties specified in items (v) to (ix) of rule 11 (1) should be imposed, it shall,__ _(a) ..........xxxx.................xxxx........................._ _(b) give him a notice stating the action proposed to be taken in regard to him and calling upon him to submit within a specified time which may not generally exceed one month such represenation as he may wish to make against the proposed action: Provided that such representation shall be based only on the evidence adduced during the inquiry.”_ O. P. (KAT) No. 284/2023 ..12.. 17. A reading of Clause 'b' of Rule 15(12)(i) of the KCS (CCA) Rules and its proviso would indicate that, after the submission of the inquiry report, in a case where the inquiry officer is an officer other than the disciplinary authority, the disciplinary authority will have to issue a notice, stating the action proposed to be taken in regard to the delinquent and calling upon him to submit such representation, as he may wish to make against the proposed action. The proviso to Clause 'b' supra would stipulate that such representation shall be based only on the evidence adduced on the inquiry, etc. So, a reading of Clause 'b' of Rule 15(12)(i) of the KCS (CCA) Rules would clearly indicate that, in such a scenario, after the submission of the inquiry report, the disciplinary authority is under the mandatory obligation to give a notice to the delinquent, proposing the action taken in regard to him and calling upon him to submit such representation, as he may wish to make against the proposed action, within such specified time and such representation shall be based only on the evidence adduced in the inquiry, etc. Therefore, the requirement of Clause 'b' 0f Rule 15(12)(i) is to give a notice and an opportunity to the delinquent on the action proposed to be taken on the O. P. (KAT) No. 284/2023 ..13.. delinquent on the basis of the inquiry report. Therefore, the Rule does not exempt, in any manner, the obligation of the disciplinary authority, as per the general law, to provide reasonable opportunity on the basic issue of 'finding of guilt'. Where the enquiry officer is distinct from the disciplinary authority, then the so called first opportunity envisaged is the opportunity in the inquiry proceedings before the inquiry officer. The second opportunity is the one that is provided by the disciplinary authority (who is distinct from the inquiry officer), who is the actual decision maker. The general law laid down by the Apex Court clearly mandates that, even at that stage of the so called second opportunity, the disciplinary authority is under the obligation to provide opportunity to the delinquent on the issue of correctness or otherwise of the factual finding of guilt recorded in the inquiry report. True, the constitutional obligation under Article 311(2), to give second opportunity even on the question of penalty, has been taken away by the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment). But, if the rule so insists or if the disciplinary authority wants to give such a second opportunity, not only on the question of guilt but even on the question of the proposed penalty, then such approach cannot O. P. (KAT) No. 284/2023 ..14.. be said to be illegal or improper, inasmuch as it is the stand of the disciplinary authority in granting more reasonable opportunity to the delinquent, _i.e._ not only on the question of guilt but even on the question of the proposed penalty. But, the basic obligation of the disciplinary authority, to give reasonable opportunity to the delinquent at that stage even on the question of correctness or otherwise of the factual finding of guilt arrived at in the inquiry report, is not, in any manner, taken away but that shall be the primary obligation of the disciplinary authority. That position of the law has been declared, in no uncertain terms, by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the celebrated case in _**MD, ECIL v. B. Karunakar**_ supra. In the instant case, the disciplinary authority has not given such opportunity to the delinquent to enable him to give his version as to why the factual finding of guilt arrived at the inquiry report is not correct. 18. The counsel for the petitioner has also raised a contention that the inquiry officer has violated the principles of natural justice in the conduct of the inquiry, inasmuch as the petitioner was not permitted by the inquiry officer to crossexamine any of the witnesses cited in the detailed Rule 15 CCA O. P. (KAT) No. 284/2023 ..15.. Inquiry and this aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the Tribunal, etc. 19. The petitioner is not challenging the directions issued by the Tribunal in remitting the matter on the issue of the question of penalty, in view of the reasons stated by the Tribunal in the impugned verdict. The main reasoning in that regard given by the Tribunal is that, the penalty proposed in Anx.A-15 Show Cause Notice was the proposed penalty of 'bar of one increment with cumulative effect for 2 years' whereas the actual penalty imposed, as per Anx.A-18, is 'bar of 2 increments with cumulative effect'. We are not interfering with the said findings of the Tribunal. As of now, the Tribunal has already remitted the matter to re-do the aspects from the stage of issuance of show cause notice. But a reading of the Tribunal's verdict may give an impression as if the remit is solely confined to the issue of quantum of proposed penalty and not on the 'finding of guilt'. 20. Therefore, it is ordered, in modification of the verdict of the Tribunal, that the remit would not only be on the issues of both the correctness or otherwise of the 'finding of guilt' arrived at in the inquiry report but the legality and propriety in the conduct O. P. (KAT) No. 284/2023 ..16.. of the inquiry process, especially in the light of the allegations of the petitioner that he was not given permission to cross examine any of the witnesses, etc., and also, on the issue regarding the proposed penalty, as already ordered by the Tribunal. Accordingly, for the purpose of clarity, it is ordered that, Anx.A-15 Show Cause Notice dated 29.9.2018 and Anx.A-18 penalty order dated 13.6.2019 will stand set aside and quashed. The matter will stand remitted to the 1[st] respondent-disciplinary authority to re-do the aspects from the stage of receipt of Anx.A-13(a) Enquiry Report. The 1[st] respondent will issue a proper show cause notice, calling upon the petitioner to show cause, as to why they shall not accept the 'finding of guilt' arrived at by the inquiry officer at Anx.A-13(a) Enquiry Report and also, on the issue of the proposed penalty, etc. 21. After the receipt of the show cause notice, the petitioner will give his representation thereto and he will be at liberty to raise all issues regarding the correctness or otherwise of the 'finding of guilt' arrived at in Anx.A-13(a) Enquiry Report and also, regarding the issue of violation of the principles of natural justice regarding his allegation that the enquiry officer had not permitted him to cross examine any of the witnesses, etc., and also, O. P. (KAT) No. 284/2023 ..17.. on the question of the proposed penalty, etc. 22. Thereafter, the 1[st] respondent disciplinary authority will afford reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and thereafter, could advert to all relevant aspects of the matter and then may decide as to whether there has been any violation of the principles of natural justice in the conduct of inquiry process, especially as to whether the petitioner was denied opportunity and permission to cross examine, etc., and also, to decide on the issue regarding the correctness or otherwise of the 'finding of guilt' arrived at in Anx.A-13(a) Enquiry Report and also, if necessary, to decide on the issue of penalty, etc. Action in this regard shall be duly completed by the 1[st] respondent without much delay, preferably within a period of 2 months, at any rate, within an outer time limit of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 23. The Tribunal has also ordered that the aspect that the petitioner has already retired from service on 31.5.2022 should also be duly considered by and adverted to by the disciplinary authority in pursuance of the remit. It is made clear that the said aspect of the matter should also be considered by the O. P. (KAT) No. 284/2023 ..18.. 1[st] respondent while finalizing the disciplinary action, as above. The impugned verdict of the Tribunal at Ext.P-4 will stand modified, as above. With these observations and directions, the above Original Petition will stand disposed of. Sd/ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE Sd/C. JAYACHANDRAN, JUDGE sdk+ MMG O. P. (KAT) No. 284/2023 ..19.. ## **APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 284/2023** |**PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES**|**PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES**| |---|---| |**ANNEXURE A1**|**TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO BEARING NO. E2-**| ||**2437/17 DATED 10-02-2017**| |**ANNEXURE A2**|**TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION DATED 23-**| ||**02-2017 SUBMITTED BY APPLICANT TO THE**| ||**2ND RESPONDENT**| |**ANNEXURE A3**|**TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT ENTRY IN THE**| ||**VISITORS DIARY DATED 27-12-2016**| |**ANNEXURE A4**|**THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE COW RECEIVING**| ||**CEREMONY DATED 05-01-2017 BY THE DGP**| |**ANNEXURE A5**|**TRUE COPY OF THE NOTE SUBMITTED BEFORE**| ||**THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON HIS VISIT ON 05-**| ||**01-2017**| |**ANNEXURE A6**|**TRUE COPY OF THE NOTE SUBMITTED BEFORE**| ||**THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON HIS VISIT ON 30-**| ||**01-2017**| |**ANNEXURE A7**|**TRUE COPY OF THE PRELIMINARY ENQUIRY**| ||**REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE NORTH ZONE DIG**| ||**DATED 06-02-2017**| |**ANNEXURE A8**|**TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED**| ||**BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST**| ||**RESPONDENT BEARING NO. E2-2487/17**| ||**DATED 27-02-2017**| |**ANNEXURE A9**|**TRUE COPY OF GO (RT) NO. 635/2017/HOME**| ||**DATED 20-03-2017**| |**ANNEXURE A10**|**TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 14-06-**| ||**2017 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST**| ||**RESPONDENT**| |**ANNEXURE A11**|**TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE MEMO AND**| ||**STATEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS BEARING NO.**| ||**19489/B3/2017/HOME DATED 28-06-2017**| ||**ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT**| |**ANNEXURE A12**|**TRUE COPY OF THE DEFENSE STATEMENT**| ||**DATED**<br>**21-07-2017**<br>**SUBMITTED**<br>**BY**| ||**APPLICANT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT**| |**ANNEXURE A13**|**TRUE COPY OF GO(RT)NO.3253/2017 HOME**| ||**DATED 05-12-2017**| |**ANNEXURE A13(A)**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT**| ||**SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT (DATED**| ||**NIL)**| O. P. (KAT) No. 284/2023 ..20.. |**ANNEXURE A14**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE**| |---|---| ||**HONOURABLE TRIBUNAL IN OA NOS. 907 AND**| ||**909/2018 DATED 9-07-2018**| |**ANNEXURE A15**|**TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE**| ||**BEARING NO.B3/103/2017/HOME DATED 29-**| ||**09-2018**| |**ANNEXURE A16**|**TRUE COPY OF REPLY TO SHOW CAUSE**| ||**NOTICE DATED 21-10-2018**| |**ANNEXURE A17**|**TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.10 DATED**| ||**06.02.2017**| |**ANNEXURE A18**|**TRUE COPY OF GO(RT) NO.1521/2019 HOME**| ||**DATED 13.06.2019**| |**ANNEXURE A19**|**TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION TO THE SELECT**| ||**LIST SUBMITTED BY APPLICANT DATED**| ||**30.09.2019**| |**ANNEXURE A19(A)**|**TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT DATED**| ||**01.10.2019 ADDRESSED TO THE 1ST**| ||**RESPONDENT**| |**EXHIBIT P1**|**TRUE COPY OF OA(EKM)NO.1455/2019 ALONG**| ||**WITH ANNEXURES A1 TO A18**| |**EXHIBIT P2**|**TRUE COPY OF M.A.NO.1871/2019 IN**| ||**OA(EKM) NO.1455/2019 ALONG WITH**| ||**ANNEXURES A19 AND A19(A)**| |**EXHIBIT P3**|**TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED**| ||**BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN OA (EKM)**| ||**NO.1455/2019**| |**EXHIBIT P4**|**TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 07.11.2022 OF**| ||**THE HON'BLE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE**| ||**TRIBUNAL THIRUVANANTHAPURAM IN OA**| ||**(EKM) NO.1455/2019**|