Benny Mathew v. Kerala Tourism Development Corporation Ltd.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA** **THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 29TH PHALGUNA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No.16227 OF 2017(C)** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **BENNY MATHEW AGED 53 YEARS THONAKKARA HOUSE, NO.70-A, MOSQUE LANE,KESAVADASAPURAM, PATTOM PALACE PO,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.695004.** **BY ADVS. SRI.K.B.SOUNDER RAJAN SRI.PREMCHAND R.NAIR** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **1 THE KERALA TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN,CORPORATE OFFICE, MASCOT SQUARE,P.B. NO.5424, THIRUVANATHAPURAM. 695033. 2 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR THE KERALA TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD,CORPORATE OFFICE, MASCOT SQUARE,P.B.NO. 5424, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 695033.** **BY ADV. SRI.P.A.AHAMMED BY ADV. SRI.THOUFEEK AHAMED BY SRI.P.A.AHAMED, SC, KTDC LTD.** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 2802-2020, THE COURT ON 19-03-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **P.V.ASHA, J.** _**--------------------------**_ **W.P.(C) No.16227 of 2017 --------------------------Dated this the 19[th] day of March, 2020** ## **JUDGMENT** **.** Ext.P22 order terminating the services of the petitioner from Kerala Tourism Development Corporation (KTDC) and P26 order affirming the same in appeal are under challenge in this Writ Petition. 2. Petitioner is having Masters Degree in Commerce, Masters Degree in Business Administration and Bachelor Degree in Law; Fellow Membership in the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (FCA) and Associate Membership in the Institute of Company Secretaries of India (ACS). He was appointed as Secretary and Finance Controller (SFC) in KTDC as per Ext.P1 order dated 20.06.2012, on being successful in a process of selection. He joined the post of SFC on 26.06.2012. In Ext.P1 it was ordered that he would be on probation for a period of one year from the date of joining and would be absorbed in the regular service of the Corporation on satisfactory completion of probation and that the appointment would be governed by the rules and regulations of the approved Standing Orders and W.P.(C) No.16227/2017 :3: Service Rules of the Corporation which are in force. It is stated that he is the officer immediately below the Managing Director of the Corporation i.e 2[nd] in the hierarchy of posts and that in the absence of the Managing Director the Company Secretary is given charge. 3. It is stated that Managing Director had proceeded on paternity leave from 10.12.2012 giving charge to the petitioner as per Ext.P4 note dated 10.12.2012. According to the petitioner based on a telephonic communication from the Government he forwarded a copy of the resolution of the board in its 271[st] meeting dated 17.08.2012 for sanction for conversion of one post of Overseer(Civil) to Overseer (Electrical) Gr.II, which was referred to in Ext.P3 letter dated 17.11.2012 of the Managing Director; he thereupon issued Ext.P5 letter dated 10.12.2012 to Government, furnishing all the details, as all the necessary particulars were not available in Ext.P3 letter, for consideration by Government; but he omitted to prefix the term “in charge” to the term Managing Director. He received Ext.P6 memo dated 09.04.2013 alleging that petitioner had sent the letter to the Government fraudulently, affixing his signature as that of Managing Director with ulterior motive in pursuing the case of Mahesh, who had requested for promotion as Overseer (Electrical) Gr.II. It was W.P.(C) No.16227/2017 **==> picture [19 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** alleged that the role of the petitioner in pursuing the case of Sri.Mahesh, which was not routed to him, was highly suspicious. It was also alleged that the concerned file was kept away from the 2[nd] respondent since 22.11.2012, deliberately. Petitioner was directed to submit his explanation. 4. Petitioner submitted Ext.P7 explanation pointing out the circumstances under which he sent the letter on 10.12.2012, on telephonic instructions received from government, when he was given charge of the Managing Director and that his letter was not fraudulent and was in tune with the resolution already passed by the Board of Directors. He stated that it was an accidental omission to affix the letter “f” before the Designation of Managing Director. Dissatisfied with the reply, the 2[nd] respondent issued Ext.P8 memo dated 24.04.2013 placing him under suspension. In Ext.P8 order, in addition to Ext.P6 memo and its explanation, another memo issued on 05.04.2013, the preliminary report received from the Resources centre for Cyber Forensics and a Government letter dated 15.04.2013 were also referred to. It was alleged that petitioner sent the originally rejected draft to the Government after fraudulently putting his signature as “Managing Director” and fraudulently affixing the date as 10.12.2012, whereas W.P.(C) No.16227/2017 :5: there was no action in the file on that day as per the note sheet. It was also alleged that S&FC was not authorized to write to the Government without getting permission or sanction for the same. It was stated that the Government had called for an explanation from the KTDC on the misleading letter sent to the Government terming it as a “willful act to misrepresent the Government”. It was alleged that the acts of the petitioner amounted to grave misconduct as per service rules of the Corporation. 5. The Memo under reference no.2 of Ext.P8 was issued alleging that petitioner was misusing his office and official computer for private business for which he was utilizing the service of employees and resources of the Corporation and that he was functioning as the Director of various other Companies/Boards without permission. It was further stated that the official computer of petitioner was seized on 27.03.2013 and that the Resource Centre for Cyber Forensics, CDAC retrieved several documents and files from the hard disc of the computers used by petitioner, relating to the Companies mentioned by them and as per their report those documents were seen accessed from it and that share transfers were also found during this period. It was therefore alleged that he accessed the files while in office and hence committed grave misconduct. W.P.(C) No.16227/2017 **==> picture [19 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** Alleging that the gravity of misconduct committed by petitioner who was under probation was serious in nature, he was placed under suspension. Thereafter Ext.P9 memo of charges was issued on 10.05.2013 alleging that petitioner had issued a note dated 28.02.2013 directing that all payments should get counter signed by him before releasing the payment. It was stated that his note was against the spirit of the orders issued by the 2[nd] respondent on 08.08.2007 and 01.09.2007, delegating various financial and administrative powers on the Accounts Officer. It was alleged that the interference with the powers delegated by the 2[nd] respondent amounted to insubordination and serious misconduct under clause 76(a)(g)&(k) of the Service Rules of the Corporation. 6. Thereafter Ext.P10 memo dated 06.06.2013 was issued forwarding the statement of allegations, in furtherance of a memo of charges issued on 08.05.2013, enclosing the documents requested by the petitioner in order to enable him to file his explanation. Petitioner submitted Ext.P11 explanation in answer to the memo dated 08.04.2013, the memo of charges dated 10.05.2013 and the memo and statement of allegations dt.05.06.2013, etc. 7. In Ext.P11 explanation, Petitioner submitted that the charges leveled against him in the memo of charges W.P.(C) No.16227/2017 :7: dated 10.05.2013 were vague and hence he was unable to submit an effective written statement and that the memo of charges along with statement of allegations would not make out any irregularities. 8. In respect of the delegation of powers to the Accounts Officer, petitioner stated that the orders of the 2[nd] respondent were not available in the website of KTDC; he stated that he issued the note dt.28.02.2013 seeing that there were various irregularities in passing the bills relating to medical reimbursement; diversion of plan fund for non plan purposes which is against government guidelines and he thought it fit to monitor such transactions as he was the Head of the Finance Department in the best interest of KTDC. It was also stated that there was already a direction in the order dated 08.08.2007 of the 2[nd] respondent in Clause 10 that AO will route the files through CAO and SFC, for all policy matters and that CAO and SFC can call for any files as and when necessary. He stated that the Accounts Officer did not bring to his notice, any of the previous orders in the matter. He stated that there was no interference or insubordination or misconduct. He stated that plan fund allotted for certain projects in 2012-13 were withdrawn from the treasury and deposited in the current account of the KTDC with SBI and W.P.(C) No.16227/2017 :8: that it was not brought to his notice. 9. Petitioner submitted another detailed explanation Ext.P12 on 21.06.2013 referring to all the memos, charges, etc. He reiterated his stand that the actual date of the letter he had sent to government was on 10.12.2012, on receipt of telephonic instruction from Government in Tourism Department to forward a copy of the Board resolution referred to in the letter dated 17.11.2012 of the 2[nd] respondent pointing out the urgency. He stated that he had omitted to indicate that he was signing 'for' the Managing Director. It was pointed out that the note files received from the Government Secretariat would show that the letter was received in Government on 03.01.2013.He stated that he was not interested in pursuing the case of Mahesh and that Board had already resolved to get Government sanction for conversion of the post and for his promotion as Overseer (Electrical). He also stated that he was not the custodian of files and therefore he cannot be accused of keeping away the files from the 2[nd] respondent. He also stated that the Board Note was not prepared by him and that he was not aware of the rules if any that SFC is not authorised to write to the Government in respect of routine matters. It is stated that the allegations against him were vague and he requested to exonerate him from the W.P.(C) No.16227/2017 :9: charges. 10. Thereafter an enquiry was conducted in which both sides examined witnesses and marked documents. It is seen from Ext.P14 that three witnesses were examined on behalf of the management; three witnesses on behalf of the petitioner. M1 to M20 were marked on behalf of the management whereas D1 to D62 were marked on behalf of the petitioner. 11. In Ext P14 report the the enquiry officer found that there was no difficulty to arrive at the conclusion that the letter dt.10.12.12 (M12) forwarded to the Government is the replica of the rejected letter dated 08.11.2012 and the signature of the SFC in the place of the Managing Director made confusion in Government and therefore Government instructed the KTDC to take action against the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer stated that none among the 62 documents produced by the petitioner was relevant and none of it had any evidentiary value. The enquiry Officer found that petitioner had got constant contact with the business materials or documents of about 6 other private companies by making use of the office computer. The records like minutes, MOA, Bank accounts, etc of those companies were found in his computer. At the same time allegation of the use of office staff was ruled W.P.(C) No.16227/2017 :10: out. 12. On the allegation that petitioner issued a note insisting his counter signature for releasing payments is contrary to the orders issued by the 2[nd] respondent in 2007, delegating powers on the Accounts Officer, without entering on the question whether those orders were brought to the notice of the petitioner before the Accounts Officer directly preferred complaint before the 2[nd] respondent, the enquiry officer found that “anyhow the SFC issued direction to the Accounts Officer in supervening the persisting order issued by the MD regarding independent powers of the Accounts Officer” and hence the 2[nd] allegation was also stated to be found proved. 13. The 3[rd] allegation considered was relating to the letter dt.10.12.2012 he had issued to the Government on the promotion matter of Sri.P.Mahesh, Electrician as Overseer. The Enquiry Officer found that the Board had passed M13 resolution dated 17.08.2012 regarding conversion of the post of civil overseer to that of Electrical Overseer on the basis of the request of one Mahesh, an Electrician with Diploma in Electrical Engineering. It is stated that after a query was put by the 2[nd] respondent on the draft proposal dated 08.11.2012, KTDC had issued a letter dated 17.11.2012 regarding conversion of the post of Overseer signed by the W.P.(C) No.16227/2017 **==> picture [25 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** Managing Director and sent to Government on 23.11.2012. The allegation raised against the petitioner was that a replica of the disapproved draft letter dated 08.11.2012 was sent to Government during the leave period of 2[nd] respondent. Enquiry Officer found the allegation of the 2[nd] respondent proved ie. it was not necessary for the petitioner to send a letter again to Government when the 2[nd] respondent had already sent a letter on 17.11.2012 and that it was not a routine matter for which alone, petitioner was given charge and he had sent the letter without prefix of 'for' while signing as Managing Director. It is stated that there was no office copy of the letter and note file leading to the letter dated 10.12.2012 and on coming to know about the letter, Government had as per letter dated 25.04.2013 to take action against the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer found that the letter dated 10.12.2012 is the replica of the draft letter dated 8.11.2012 and the same was sent to Government by the petitioner without the pre-fix of 'for'. The enquiry officer concluded finding the petitioner guilty of the charges. 14. On receipt of copy of the enquiry report petitioner submitted Ext.P16 representation stating that the Enquiry Officer did not appreciate the evidence on record and did not consider the evidence produced by him. He pointed out W.P.(C) No.16227/2017 **==> picture [25 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** the relevance of the documents he produced. It was also stated that no adverse aspect would be attributed on the letter dt.10.12.2012 addressed to the Government. 15. The petitioner points out that the respondents had preferred a complaint against him before the Directorate of Discipline, the Institute of Company Secretaries of India on 09.09.2013 alleging that he undertook private work using the IT facilities of the Corporation without prior permission from KTDC and that he continued his consultation while in employment in KTDC. KTDC requested to take appropriate action against the petitioner who was placed under suspension. It was much after that the enquiry was conducted and the enquiry officer submitted his report Ext.P14 on 26.06.2014. 16. Based on the enquiry report Ext.P17 show cause notice was issued to him thereafter proposing to terminate the services of petitioner who was still on probation. The petitioner submitted Ext.P18 explanation requesting to defer the decision till the disciplinary committee of the Institute of Company Secretaries takes a decision. It is stated that on the basis of the complaint submitted by the 2[nd] respondent against him, the disciplinary committee of the Institute of Company Secretaries issued Ext.P19 order removing the name of the petitioner for a period of 30 days W.P.(C) No.16227/2017 **==> picture [25 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** and imposing a fine of Rs.20,000/-. But as per Ext P21 order dated 01.08.2016 the appellate authority constituted under the Company Secretaries Act, 1980 set aside that order with cost to the petitioner. 17. Thereafter personal hearing was granted to petitioner. As per Ext.P22 order dt.19.01.2015 the 2[nd] respondent affirmed the proposal in the show cause notice and terminated the services of the petitioner. Even though petitioner submitted Ext.P23 Appeal the same was rejected as per Ext.P26 letter dt.07.01.2017 on the basis of the note annexed to it. The petitioner challenges the orders Exts.P24 and P27. 18. The respondents filed a counter affidavit pointing out the allegations against the petitioner and the findings in the enquiry. It was stated that petitioner was continuing on probation when memo of charge was issued and the respondents were within their right to terminate his services during the said period. It is stated that petitioner had been misusing official computer provided for his official work; it was seized on 27.03.2013 and have been forwarded to Resource Center for Cyber Forensics, CDAC for verification. The report confirmed the presence of various files pertaining to various companies in his computer and the same were accessed during office time. It W.P.(C) No.16227/2017 **==> picture [25 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** is stated that the petitioner had been in constant touch with the private companies mentioned therein. He forwarded a letter to the Government with respect to the promotion of Sri.Mahesh, Electrician; he fraudulently issued letters in the name of the Managing Director. Apart from that he issued an order on 28.02.2013 in effect taking way the independent financial powers allocated to the Accounts Officer directing that his counter signature. It is stated that petitioner was placed under suspension pending domestic enquiry. Respondents have reiterated the allegations in the memo of charges and stated that petitioner has ulterior motive in the issue of promotion of Sri.Mahesh. It is further stated that the petitioner participated in the enquiry. In the enquiry all the charges were found proved against him. A copy of the enquiry report was furnished to the petitioner and he submitted a representation. Show cause notice was issued thereafter and punishment was awarded terminating his services as it was found that petitioner committed gross misconduct during the probation period. The appellate authority rejected his appeal after considering the same in detail as the termination was found necessitated considering the misconduct committed by the petitioner. 19. The petitioner filed a reply affidavit alleging W.P.(C) No.16227/2017 **==> picture [25 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** that respondents managed to have an enquiry report prepared in tune with his designs. His services were terminated on account of a conspiracy hatched by the then Managing Director who could prevail over the Board of Directors. It is asserted that the Board of Directors were of the opinion that there was a conspiracy against the petitioner to terminate the services of the petitioner with the intention of spoiling his career on personal revenge. Petitioner pointed out that the order terminating his services has caused serious damages to his reputation as the news came in the dailies. He alleged that there is no evidence in support of the charges. 20. According to the petitioner the enquiry officer submitted a report in tune with the demand of the respondents, finding him guilty even in the absence of any materials. The petitioner points out that the the Chairman of the Corporation did not agree with the decision to terminate the services of the petitioner. According to him signing as Managing Director with an inadvertent omission to prefix 'for' cannot be said to be a serious misconduct. It is also his case that issuing directions to the Accounts officer relating to cash bills is also not illegal when the Finance Controller is already in office. It was also alleged that the appeal filed by him was not considered in W.P.(C) No.16227/2017 **==> picture [25 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** accordance with law. The petitioner also alleged that there is no provision in the Service Rules of the Corporation to place an employee under suspension. At the same time it was included as a penalty. Referring to regulation 77(g) it is pointed out that only a deemed suspension is provided that too when there is a a criminal case and there is no other suspension. Petitioner also claimed that the suspension as a punishment has already been deleted from the penalties enumerated in rule 77. However the learned Standing Counsel submitted that suspension continues to be a penalty. According to the petitioner, he was entitled to issue directions to the Accounts Officer who is an officer subordinate to him. Therefore, the direction issued to the Accounts Officer insisting counter signature for all transactions did not suffer from any illegality. Similarly in the case of alleged misuse of computer his case is that the availability of the transactions in the hard disc does not mean that petitioner was having any business relationship or employer employee relationship with the respective private companies mentioned in the memo of charges. The contention of the petitioner is that the findings of the enquiry officer are not based on evidence. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that there is no provision enabling the respondents to place an employee W.P.(C) No.16227/2017 **==> picture [25 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** under suspension pending or contemplating disciplinary action. Judgment in _**L.K.Verma vs. HMT Ltd. and another : (2006) 2 SCC 269**_ was relied on in support of is contention. It was also argued that the suspension is no more a punishment consequent to orders issued in 2013. However the learned Standing Counsel pointed out that there has not been an amendment to the enumerated penalties. The judgment in _**Moni Shankar vs. Union of India and another : (2008) 3 SCC 484**_ was also relied on in support of the contention that the punishment of dismissal is disproportionate and the same is liable to be interfered with. 21. I have considered the contentions on both sides. It is seen that several memos were issued to the petitioner on some or other reasons. The show cause notices and memo of charges are issued to petitioner when the petitioner is on probation. These memos relate to certain incidents alleged to have occurred during the course of employment of petitioner under the respondents. There cannot be any doubt over the authority of respondent to initiate and conduct departmental action against an employee under them. But it is seen that the respondents preferred Ext P13 complaint before the Institute of Chartered Accountants as well as before the Institute of Company Secretaries on 09.09.2013 based on which Ext P16 order was issued on 20.11.2014 by W.P.(C) No.16227/2017 :18: the disciplinary committee of Institute of Company Secretaries finding the petitioner guilty of professional misconduct and thereafter in Ext P19 order imposing a penalty of removal of his name from register of company secretaries for one month with a penalty of Rs.20000. However that was reversed by the appellate authority in Ext P21 order dated 01.08.2016, with cost to petitioner. 22. It is relevant to note that the respondents filed the complaint before these forums like Institute of the Chartered Accountants and Institute of Company Secretaries even before the enquiry against him was concluded. It is seen that Ext P14 enquiry report was submitted only on 26.06.2014. This approach would indicate the vindictive approach of the respondents towards the petitioner. Though the respondents are free to take action against an employee under it in accordance with the rules/standing orders under it, in the event of any irregularities being found, reporting the matter to these Institutes, that too even before respondents found him guilty of the charges relating to the use of official computer would show that there was a calculated move against him not only to send him away from the KTDC but also to see that he is not allowed to carry on any avocation based on his membership in those institutes. Therefore I find force in the contention of the petitioner W.P.(C) No.16227/2017 :19: that there is malice behind the entire action. 23. The main charge against the petitioner is that he sent a letter to the Government without pre-fix of 'For” to Managing Director. The enquiry officer has not stated anything about the contents of the letter. At the same time even according to the respondents there was a resolution for conversion of the post of Overseer Civil to Overseer Electrical and a letter was also sent to Government on 17.11.2012 regarding that. The letter dated 10.12.2012 is stated to be another letter relating to the very same issue. Yet another charge is that he used his official computer for the purpose of other companies. Though the time of access to their files are not found it is found that there had been access to the files/documents of other companies from his computer. The further allegation is as against the note issued by petitioner to the Accounts Officer on the ground that it supervenes the order issued by 2[nd] respondent in 2007. Discarding the contention of the petitioner that he was not aware of the orders issued by 2[nd] respondent or that he is an officer superior to the Accounts Officer the enquiry officer has found the petitioner guilty of all the charges stating that documents prove the same. 24. In this case it is seen that the petitioner has W.P.(C) No.16227/2017 :20: participated in the enquiry without any demur. The only allegation of the petitioner is that the enquiry officer acted in tune with the requirement of the respondents; findings arrived at in the enquiry report are to favour the respondents. Petitioner does not also have any case that there was any violation of principles of natural justice or violation of procedural formalities in conducting the enquiry. As far as the charges alleged and found against the petitioner are concerned this court would not be justified in interfering with the proceedings initiated against him unless there is any procedural violation in the enquiry; unless it is a case of no evidence; unless the order is passed without authority or else if the punishment is shocking the conscience of the court. Before coming to a conclusion on the question of evidence and the disproportionality of punishment it is necessary to consider whether the appellate authority has considered these aspects. It is also relevant to note that though petitioner was a probationer the termination is by way of dismissal and was on the ground that he committed misconduct. A stigma is cast on him, which could have been avoided if he was simply discharged from service. The appellate authority has not considered whether a punishment of dismissal from service was necessary in the case and if W.P.(C) No.16227/2017 **==> picture [25 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** at all he was found not worthy to be retained or if at all found guilty of the charges, was it necessary to award such extreme punishment to him. Therefore I am of the view that at this stage this court need not go consider whether the dismissal from service is one shocking the conscience of the court in the light of the dicta laid down by the apex court in _**B.C.Chaduvedi vs. Union of India**_ . 25. At any rate the overall circumstances of the case which started from an anonymous complaint against the petitioner, the complaint preferred by the respondents before the Institutes of Company Secretaries and that of Chartered Accountants, the allegations raised against the petitioner would show that the punishment of dismissal has cast a stigma on the service career of petitioner. The appellate authority has not considered any of these aspects. It should have considered whether a discharge from service was not sufficient in the circumstances of the case. In the circumstances of the case the order Ext P27 passed in the appeal is set aside. The appellate authority shall reconsider Ext P23 appeal of the petitioner and pass orders on it after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in the light of the aforesaid observations, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a W.P.(C) No.16227/2017 **==> picture [25 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** copy of the judgment. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. **Sd/-** **P.V.ASHA** rkc **JUDGE** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS ORDER NO. KTDC/PA6/SFC/2012 DATED 20.6.2012 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBI P2 TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE 271TH MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS DATED 17.8.2012 SINGED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 31.10.2012. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. KTDC/PAI/92/2012 DATED 17.11.2012 ISSUED TO THE GOVERNMENT. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 10.12.2012 SIGNED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AND ADDRESSED TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.KTDC/PAI/92/2012 DATED 10.12.2012 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO NO.KTDC/PAI/92/2013 DATED 9.4.2013 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 16.4.2013 EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF MEMO NOS.1 &2, KTDC/PAI/92/2013, DATED 24.4.2013 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF MEMO OF CHARGES NO.KTDC/PAI/92/2013 DATED 10.5.2013 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF MEMO NO.KTDC/PAI/92/2013, DATED 6.6.2013 WITH STATEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 20.6.2013 TO EXT.P9 BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 21.6.2013 TO EXT.P10 BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 9.9.2013 BY THE RESPONDENTS TO THE INSTITUTE OF COMPANY SECRETARIES OF INDIA. EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE DOMESTIC ENQUIRY REPORT DATED 26.6.2014. EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 3.8.2014 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.11.2014 PASSED BY THE INSTITUTE OF COMPANY SECRETRIES OF INDIA. EXHIBTI P17 TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CUASE NOTICE NO.KTDC/PAI/92/2015 DATED 18.2.2015 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENTS TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P18 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 25.2.2015 TO EXT.P17 BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P19 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 9.6.2015 PASSED BY THE DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF THE ICSI. EXHIBIT P20 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 8.12.2015 IN WP(C) NO. 6862 OF 2015. EXHIBIT P21 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL ORDER DATED 1ST AUGUST, 2016 OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY. EXHIBIT P22 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.1.2016. EXHIBIT P23 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 5.2.2016 (WITHOUT ANNEXURES) EXHIBIT P24 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 8.8.2016. EXHIBIT P25 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER TO THE PETITIONER DATED 21.2.2017. EXHIBIT P26 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 7.1.2017 PASSED BY THE APPELALTE AUTHORITY RECEIVED ON 11.2.2017 . EXHIBIT P27 TRUE COPY OF THE AGENDA NOTE AND RESOLUTION AS OBTAINED THROUGH RTI DATED NIL. EXHIBIT P28 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 21.8.2012. EXHIBIT P29 TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM PUBLISHED IN** **TIMES OF INDIA ON 02.04.2013** **EXHIBIT P30 TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM PUBLISHED IN KERALA KAUMUDI DAILY ON 10.04.2013 EXHIBIT P31 TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM PUBLISHED IN MATRUBHUMI DAILY ON 11.04.2013 EXHIBIT P32 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 05.04.2013 EXT.P33 TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER DT.9.4.13 EXHIBITP34 TRUE COPY OF THE DO LETTER DATED 06.04.2013 ISSUED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF KTDC** **EXHIBIT P35 TRUE COPY O THE MEMO NO.01/92/2013 DATED 05.04.2013 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P36 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 08.04.2013 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P37 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT GIVEN BY SHRI MADHUSOODANAN PILLAI (DW3 IN THE DOMESTIC ENUIRY PROCEEDINGS BY THE DTDC) DATED 08.03.2014.** - **EXHIBIT P38 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE OFFICE NOTE DATED 17.11.2012** - **EXHIBIT P39 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BEFORE ICAI BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 24.06.2013** ## **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS** **EXT.R2A: TRUE COPY OF THE CYBER FORENSIC ANALYSIS REPORT OF C- DAC DT.17.4.13**