Anoop P Paulose v. State Mission Director, National Health Mission & Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ## PRESENT ## THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 22ND CHAITHRA, 1946 ## WP(C) NO. 39612 OF 2022 ## PETITIONER/S: ANOOP P PAULOSE AGED 35 YEARS S/O P.V.PAULOSE, RESIDING AT PARNAYIL HOUSE, PATTIKKAD POST, MANJAKKUNNU, THRISSUR - 680 652. BY ADVS. T.C.SURESH MENON B.DEEPAK ## RESPONDENT/S: STATE MISSION DIRECTOR, - 1 NATIONAL HEALTH MISSION, GENERAL HOSPITAL JUNCTION, THIRUVANATHAPURAM-695 035. - DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER (HEALTH), - 2 CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF DISTRICT HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE SOCIETY, AROGYAKERALAM, THRISSUR-680 001. DISTRICT PROGRAMME MANAGER, - 3 NATIONAL HEALTH MISSION, AROGYAKERALAM, OLD DISTRICT HOSPITAL COMPOUND, ROUND EAST, THRISSUR 680 001. BY ADV M.AJAY ## OTHER PRESENT: ## GP SRI. TONY AUGUSTINE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC 39612/2022 ## JUDGMENT (Dated this the 11[th] day of April 2024) The petitioner while working as District Urban Health Coordinator under the Arogyakeralam (Natinal Health Mission), Thrissur, issued with Ext.P8, alleging that the a few face masks were found in the office premises and was directed to offer an explanation. The petitioner replied through Ext.P9. Thereafter, the petitioner was served with a notice, asking him to attend an enquiry on 18.01.2022. He made a request on 18.01.2022, asking for three days time to attend the enquiry and to adjourn the enquiry proceedings. On the very same day, an E-mail was also sent raising his objection before the 3[rd] respondent against the manner in which the enquiry was conducted. By Ext.P13 show cause notice, the 3[rd ] respondent, WPC 39612/2022 -3- sought an explanation from the petitioner as to why disciplinary proceedings should not be initiated against him. Ext.P14 is the reply given to the show cause notice in Ext.P13, in which it is highlighted that the 3[rd] respondent was never made available any material he relied upon, and the enquiry was not conducted in a fair manner. A representation was also filed before the 1st respondent pointing out these aspects. On 21.03.2022, Ext.P16 order was passed by the 3[rd] respondent, terminating the petitioner invoking clause 9 of the agreement. The petitioner challenges the termination before this Court in W.P.(C) No.10871/2022, and this Court by Ext.P20 judgment dated 08.08.2022, disposed of the writ petition as follows: “7. Having considered the contentions advanced on either side, I notice that the petitioner has been dismissed from WPC 39612/2022 -4- service on a finding that he was guilty of misconduct. Though it is true that the appointment of the petitioner was on temporary basis and on a contract, it is trite law that when a stigmatic order of non renewal of contract or termination of contract is issued to an employee on grounds of misconduct, proper procedure is to be followed before such an order can be rendered. I am fortified in my view by the decisions of the Apex Court in Pavanendra Narayan Verma vs Sanjay Gandhi P.G.I. Of Medical Sciences and others [2002 (1) SCC 520], K.C. Joshi vs Union Of India and others [1985 (3) SCC 153] and Vijayakumaran C.P. vs Central University Of Kerala [2020 (12) SCC 426]. In the instant case also, it is the specific case of the petitioner that the details of the allegations against him were not made available to him and a proper opportunity to state his case was not given before the decision was taken by the Committee. The petitioner was also not given any opportunity to peruse the statements of the witnesses against him or to cross-examine the witnesses. 8. Having considered the contentions advanced and in view of the fact that the petitioner has approached the 1st respondent with Ext.P16 representation pointing out these facts, I am of the opinion that these issues require a consideration at the hands of the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent shall take up Ext.P16 representation preferred by the petitioner and consider and pass orders on the same, taking note of the specific contentions raised by the WPC 39612/2022 -5- petitioner with regard to the lack of a proper opportunity to defend his case since Ext.P17 is clearly an order of dismissal from service and is definitely stigmatic in nature. Appropriate orders shall be passed, taking note of the contentions of the petitioner that his dismissal, being stigmatic, could not have been rendered without a full opportunity being given to him to defend his case. Orders shall be passed, with notice to the petitioner and after hearing him, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The interim order granted by this Court shall remain in force till then. All other issues are left open and the contentions of the petitioner shall be considered untrammelled by Ext.P17 and anything stated therein.” In compliance with the directions issued by this Court in Ext.P20, Ext.P21 order No.NHM/264/ADMN 1/2022/SPMSU dated 29.11.2022 was passed by the 1[st] respondent. 2. The petitioner has filed this Writ petition impugning Ext.P21 and to quash the same. A further direction in the nature of writ of mandamus is also sought directing the WPC 39612/2022 -6- respondents to conduct a performance appraisal of the petitioner and renew the contract on the basis of the same. 3. A counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of the 3[rd] respondent, in which it is stated that the petitioner was engaged as Data Entry Operator cum Accountant by NHM, Thrissur from 07.08.2012. The contract was for a period of 364 days. While re-engaging the petitioner at District Health and Urban Co-ordinator, there has been a break on the first day of April of every year on which date the NHM, Kerala does not engage any contractual employee and it is not a continuation of the earlier engagement. While working on contract as Data Entry Operator cum Accountant, he appeared for the written test and interview was conducted for engagement on contract of Public Relations Officers (PROs) WPC 39612/2022 -7- and he was selected. By Ext.P1 order, the petitioner was engaged as PRO in the District Hospital, Vadakkancherry on contract basis, initially for a period of three months, which may be extended on the basis of the performance of the individual and purely on temporary basis, without any right for absorption or employment under the Government. The petitioner entered into a contract of engagement as DUHC for the period from 12.06.2015 to 31.03.2016 with the DPM of the NHM, Thrissur. His engagement on contract basis was extended year to year with break. The engagement was to expire on 31.03.2021. But it was extended till 31.05.2021 as on account of the code of conduct in place for the Assembly Elections and in order not to adversely affect Covid surveillance activities. Thereafter, the petitioner was given a WPC 39612/2022 -8- fresh engagement on contract from 02.06.2021 to 31.03.2022 evidenced by Ext.R3(a). 4. On the basis of a news in the print and visual media on 12.01.2022, involving the petitioner in marketing masks abusing his position as an employee of the NHM, Thrissur, a surprise check was done, and it was found that considerable number of masks manufactured by Andriya Traders were found stocked in a room on the ground floor of the building, and few masks were also found on the desk of Soorya Ramakrishnan, District Quality Assurance Officer, National Urban Health Coordinator. The inspection was carried out even before the office opened for work at 10 a.m and after inspection, the respondent proceeded to Thrissur and while returning made enquiries about the masks kept in the store WPC 39612/2022 -9- but, the same was removed by unknown persons. On inspection conducted at the Urban Public Health Centre (UPHC) Gosaikunnu, Breathsure masks were found stored in a pharmacy store. However, these masks were not seen to have been received through the software under which the masks are supplied to the Public Health facilities by the Kerala Medical Services Corporation Limited. Thereafter, two member enquriy team conducted an enquiry on the issue and submitted a report, and the petitioner was temporarily stopped from handling purchase related activities until further orders. 5. On 14.01.2022, Ext.P8 notice was issued to the petitioner to show cause how the face masks manufactured by Andriya Traders were kept in a room possessed by the NHM, Thrissur. In reply, he denied any connection direct or indirect WPC 39612/2022 -10- with the Breathsure maks alleged to be stored under a plastic sheet in the room possessed by NHM, Thrissur, in which the Coordinator of the State Health Agency was permitted to sit and function. On 14.01.2022, a show cause notice was issued to Soorya Ramakrishnan also, to explain the circumstances how the Breathsure masks were found on her desk. On 15.01.2022, she submitted a reply to the show cause notice stating that the boxes containing Breathsure masks were seen in the desk is not true. An enquiry constituted by the 1st respondent on 15.01.2022 visited the premises on 18.01.2022 to conduct the enquiry. On the day of enquiry, the petitioner filed Ext.P11 reply seeking three days time to attend the enquiry. He attended the enquiry on 18.01.2022 and answered the questionnaire given to him by the enquiry committee. WPC 39612/2022 Ext.P8 show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and the petitioner submitted Ext.P9 reply. An online meeting of the Executive Committee of the NHM, Thrissur was held on 16.02.2022 which considered the issue of the petitioner and the committee unanimously agreed that the petitioner had misused his position as the UHC under the NHM for trading face masks of Andriya Traders. Thereafter, show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and after obtaining his reply, he was terminated as per Ext.P16. 6. He challenged the order of termination before this Court and the learned Single Judge of this Court has passed Ext.P20 judgment directing the 1[st] respondent to take up the representation and pass orders since the order of termination is stigmatic. After obtaining the judgment from this Court, WPC 39612/2022 -12- notice was issued to the petitioner and he was heard in detail. The contract of engagement was for a period from 02.06.2021 to 31.03.2022, and it was stated in the contract itself that contract can be ended by giving the other side a 15 days notice, and if the notice could not be given, proportionate salary should be provided in lieu of the notice. The SDM had noted that the allegations raised against the petitioner were found prima facie established in the preliminary enquiry, which has been considered elaborately, at various stages and finally by the Executive Committee of NHM, Thrissur, headed by the District Collector and the Executive Committee has unanimously recommended putting an end to the engagement of petitioner. Taking note of the judgment of this Court that the termination was Ext.P21 was in stigmatic, passed WPC 39612/2022 -13- compliance to the direction of this Court, terminating the petitioner under Clauses (10) and (12) of the contract by giving 15 days salary. Therefore, prayed for the dismissal of writ petition. 7. A counter-affidavit is filed by the 2[nd] respondent also in which it was contended that ample opportunity was given to the petitioner before discontinuing his service and the state level enquiry committee was constituted into the allegations raised against the petitioner and on the basis of the enquiry conducted, the petitioner was removed. 8. Heard Sri.T.C. Suresh Menon, the counsel for the petitioner, Sri.M.Ajay, the Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 3, and Sri.Tony Augustine, the Government Pleader for the 2[nd] respondent. WPC 39612/2022 -14- 9. The Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 3 submitted that since the petitioner’s engagement was on a contract basis for a period from 02.06.2021 to 31.03.2022, he cannot aspire for another engagement from 02.04.2022 to 31.03.2023 as he has already terminated from service. This Court has only directed the 1[st] respondent to consider the representation filed by the petitioner and taking note of the fact that Ext.P17 was a stigmatic order. The 1[st] respondent has rightly considered the representation and has passed Ext.P21 strictly following the directions invoking Clause 10 of R3(a) without any stigma attached to him. But further orders could not be passed as he has approached this Court and obtained an interim stay. Ext.P21 is a recent order and passed terminating the petitioner without any stigma invoking WPC 39612/2022 -15- Clause 10 and 12 and granting 15 days salary in lieu of notice. As a contract employee whose term is come to an end on 31.03.2023, the petitioner cannot invoke the jurisdiction of this Court to give a direction for extension. 10. This Court, by Ext.P20 judgment, came to a definite finding that Ext.P16 termination order dated 21.03.2022 is stigmatic. Since a representation was pending before the 1[st] respondent against the termination, this Court directed the 1[st] respondent to take up the representation and to pass appropriate orders, taking note of the contentions of the petitioner that this dismissal being stigmatic could not have been rendered without a full opportunity of being given to him to defend his case. Orders were directed to be passed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy WPC 39612/2022 -16- of this judgment. It was also made clear that, all the issues were left open and the consideration was to be untrammeled by Ext.P17 and anything stated therein. 11. Ext.P21 is the order dated 29.11.2022 passed in compliance with the judgment of this Court in W.P.(C). No.10871/2022. For a proper understanding of Ext.P21, the last paragraph of the said order is extracted below: “ I have carefully considered the submission made on both sides and the documents on file. I note that the engagement of Sri. Anoop Paulose with the DHFWS was only one under contract which could be terminated by either side after giving 15 days notice or pay in lieu of notice. In this case, the DHFWS had terminated the service of Sri. Anoop Paulose citing reasons which were found by the Hon. High Court to be stigmatic and which called for a full-fledged enquiry after following proper procedure. The Hon. High Court has quoted the judgments in Pavendra Narayan Vas v. Sanjay Gandhi P.G.I. of Medical Science and others (2002) 1 SCC 520, K.C. Joshi v. Union of India and others 1985(3) SCC 153 and Vijayakumaran C.P. v. Central University of Kerala (2020) 12 SCC 426as authorities in support. As stated by the DPM, WPC 39612/2022 -17- Thrissur, the NHM does not have any Service Rules or procedure established for making a detailed enquiry and that no further enquiry other than what has been done in the case of Sri. Anoop Paulose can be done by the DHFWS. The DPM has also stated that the conduct of Sri. Anoop Paulose if not illegal is highly inappropriate considering the objectives and purposes for which the DHFWS has been constituted. It has cast the DHFWS in a bad light and has been stigmatic to its impeccable reputation. The contract of Sri. Anoop Paulose has come to an end on 31.3.22 dehors the order of termination referred as item (3) above. Without a positive performance appraisal, he could not have been offered a fresh contract of engagement from 2.4.22 to 31.3.23. In these circumstances the submissions made by the Counsel for Sri. Anoop Paulose to consider him as on contract from 22.3.22 to 31.3.22 and further to offer him a fresh engagement on contract from 2.4.22 to 31.3.23 cannot be accepted. Since the services of Sri. Anoop Paulose has been discontinued w.e.f. 21.3.22, he is entitled to notice pay of 15 days salary as provided in Clause 12 of the contract of engagement referred as Item (1) above. I direct the DPM, Thrissur to make the said payment forthwith and issue a separate order, without referring to this order, in affirmation of the discontinuation of the engagement of Sri. Anoop Paulose as Urban Health Coordinator under the DHFWS, Thrissur w.e.f. 21.3.22, to prevent any stigma being attached to the said termination order. WPC 39612/2022 The judgment of the Hon. High Court in WP[C] 10781/22 is hereby complied with.” 12. When this Court has specifically noted that the termination of the petitioner as per Ext.P16 is stigmatic and on the ground of misconduct, relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in Pavanendra Narayan Verma v. Sanjay Gandhi P.G.I. Of Medical Sciences and others [2002 (1) SCC 520], K.C. Joshi v. Union Of India and others [1985 (3) SCC 153] and Vijayakumaran C.P. v. Central University Of Kerala [2020 (12) SCC 426] had specifically held that even if it is non-renewal of contract on termination of a contract on the ground of misconduct, proper procedure is to be followed before such order had been rendered. The learned Single Judge also found that the petitioner was not given an opportunity to peruse the statement of the witnesses against him or to cross examine the WPC 39612/2022 -19- witnesses, and it is taking into consideration the said grounds, the 1[st] respondent was directed to take up his representation and to pass orders taking specifically the contention of the petitioner that the dismissal being stigmatic could not have been rendered without a full opportunity be given to defend his case. Ext.P21 though reiterates the entire proceedings initiated against the petitioner right from the issuance of show cause notice till the termination of the contract, does not take into consideration the contention of the petitioner regarding the grant of full opportunity to defend the allegation raised against him, and the findings. By Ext.P21, the 1[st] respondent has simply held that since the term of contract expired on 31.03.2022, he cannot be given a fresh engagement from 02.04.2022 to 31.03.2023 and the termination has been based WPC 39612/2022 -20- on clauses (10) and (12) of Ext.R3(a). Clause 10 of Ext.R3(a) reads as follows: “Notwithstanding anything contained hereinabove, the Society also reserves the right to terminate this Agreement without assigning any reasons. In such cases, a written notice of fifteen working days will be given to the employee.” ## Clause 12 reads as follows: “The Society, in lieu of written notice, may give the employee an amount equal to that of his consolidated e-moluments of fifteen working days and for a shorter notice than fifteen working days, an amount equal to that for the period of which such notice falls short fifteen working days. 13. It is to be noted that as per Ext.P21, the discontinuation is not because of the fact that the term ended on 31.03.2022, but the discontinuation is to be taken effect from 21.03.2022, which is prior to the date of termination of the contract. The date 21.03.2022 is treated as the WPC 39612/2022 -21- discontinuation date, and it is definitely a termination invoking the Clauses in Ext.R3(a). Ext.P16 termination was based on clause 9. When this Court has entered into a finding that the said termination was passed without giving an opportunity to the petitioner to defend the allegations raised against him, and directed consideration by the 1[st] respondent, regarding the said contention, definitely the 1[st] respondent ought to have re-considered the issue, as directed by this Court in Ext.P20 judgment, instead he had just invoked Clause 10 instead of Clause 9 which was invoked earlier for passing Ext.P16. Passing of Ext.P21 is not strictly in accordance with the directions issued by this Court. The 1[st] respondent has not applied his mind and not properly understood the spirit of judgment of this Court in Ext.P20. WPC 39612/2022 -22- Therefore, I have no hesitation to hold that Ext.P21 is passed not in compliance with the judgment of this Court and therefore, Ext.P21 stands quashed. Sd/- BASANT BALAJI JUDGE JS WPC 39612/2022 -23- ## APPENDIX OF WP(C) 39612/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF APPOINTMENT EXHIBIT P1 NO.3571/12/AROGYAKERALAM/DPMSU THRISSUR PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT, DATED 7.11.2014. TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION AROGYAKERALAM NO.456/14 EXHIBIT P2 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT, DATED 22.5.2015. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.456/14/AROGYAKERALAM/DPMSU EXHIBIT P3 THRISSUR PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT, DATED 6.6.2015. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.DPMSU, THRISSUR/2021 PASSED EXHIBIT P4 BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT, DATED 31.5.2021. TRUE COPY OF TOKEN OF APPRECIATION FOR THE BEST EXHIBIT P5 DISTRICT COORDINATOR UNDER NUHM, DATED -NIL. TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH EVIDENCING THE RECEIPT OF TOKEN OF APPRECIATION BY THE PETITIONER FROM NUHM, EXHIBIT P6 THRISSUR FOR THE OUTSTANDING PERFORMANCE ON 20TH JUNE, 2022. TRUE COPY OF THE MEMENTO ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P7 DATED -NIL. TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO AROGYAKERALAM NO.128/2022 EXHIBIT P8 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT, DATED 14.1.2022. TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO EXHIBIT P9 EXT.P8, DATED 15.1.2022. EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, DATED 20.1.2022. TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST MADE BY THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P11 BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT, DATED 18.1.2022. TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE PETITIONER BY EXHIBIT P12 E-MAIL BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT, DATED 18.1.2022. TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.TSR/128/OS/2022/DPMSU ISSUED EXHIBIT P13 BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT, DATED 21.2.2022. TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P14 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO EXT.P12, DATED 26.2.2022. WPC 39612/2022 -24- TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILED REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY - EXHIBIT P15 THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT, DATED 15.3.2022. - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.DPMSU TSR/128/OS/2022/DPMSU - EXHIBIT P16 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT, DATED 21.3.2022. - EXHIBIT P17 - EXHIBIT P18 - TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.593/05/2022 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT, DATED 24.4.2022. - TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER I.A.NO.3/2022 IN W.P.(C) NO. 10871/2022, DATED 6.5.2022. - TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO. - EXHIBIT P19 NHM/785/ADMINI/2022/SPMSU ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT DATED 9.3.2022. - EXHIBIT P20 - EXHIBIT P21 - TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC NO. 10871/2022 ON THE FILE OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT, DATED 8.8.2022. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. NHM/264/ADMINI/2022/SPMSU ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT, DATED 29.11.2022. - TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.593/OS/2022 ISSUED BY - EXHIBIT P22 THE 3RD RESPONDENT, DATED 14.12.2022. ## RESPONDENT EXHIBITS A TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BY THE EXHIBIT R3(A) PETITIONER WITH THE NHM, THRISSUR FOR THE PERIOD 2.6.21 TO 31.3.22 EXHIBIT R3 (B)[A TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. NHM/264/ADMIN/1/2022/SPMSU ] ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 14.1.22 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. EXHIBIT R3(C) NHM/264/ADMIN/1/2022/SPMSU ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 15.1.22 - A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION, NHM/128/22 SEND BY EXHIBIT R3(D) THE THIRD RESPONDENT TO THE DIRECTOR, INSTITUTE OF PALLIATIVE CARE, THRISSUR DATED 18.1.22 EXHIBIT R3(E)[A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION SENT BY THE THIRD ] RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 17.1.22 WPC 39612/2022 -25- - EXHIBIT R3(F)[A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION SENT BY THE THIRD ] RESPONDENT TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 28.1.22 - EXHIBIT R3(G)[A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OF THE FIRST ] RESPONDENT DATED 4.2.22 - EXHIBIT R3(H)[A TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE ] EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE NHM, THRISSUR DATED 16.2.22 - EXHIBIT R3(I)[A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE ] PETITIONER DATED 22.2.22. - EXHIBIT R3(J)[A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT ] DATED 8.3.22. - EXHIBIT R3(K)[A TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE EXECUTIVE ] COMMITTEE MEETING OF THE NHM DATED 10.3.22 - EXHIBIT- R1 (A)[A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SENT BY THE THIRD ] RESPONDENT TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT ON 12.1.22 - EXHIBIT R1 (B)[A TRUE COPY OF REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE THIRD ] RESPONDENT BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 13.1.22 - EXHIBIT R1 (C)[A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE ENQUIRY ] COMMITTEE BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 24.1.22 - EXHIBIT R1 (D)[A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION SENT BY THE FIRST ] RESPONDENT TO THE THIRD RESPONDENT DATED 4.2.22 EXHIBIT R2 (A)[TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DTD 26.02.2022 OF ALL REFERENCE] DOCUMENTS