Benny Mathew v. Kerala Tourism Development Corporation Ltd.

# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN`** ``` TUESDAY, THE 10[TH] DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 20TH POUSHA, 1944 ``` ## **`WP(C) NO. 19573 OF 2021`** ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` BENNY MATHEW AGED 60 YEARS S/O. MATHAI MATHEW, THONAKKARA HOUSE, NO.70-A, MOSQUE LANE, KESAVADASAPURAM, PATTOM PALACE P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695004. ``` - **`BY ADVS. K.B.SOUNDER RAJAN V.P.PRASANTH PREEJA V.P.`** ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - **`1 THE KERALA TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, CORPORATE OFFICE, MACOT SQUARE, P.B. NO. 5424, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695033.`** - **`2 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, THE KERALA TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD, CORPORATE OFFICE, MASCOT SQUARE, P.B. NO. 5424, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695033.`** - **`BY ADVS.`** - **`P.A.AHAMMED THOUFEEK AHAMED`** ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON ``` ``` 18.11.2022, THE COURT ON 10.01.2023 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 19573 OF 2021 ``` ``` 2 ``` ## **ANU SIVARAMAN, J** **= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.19573 of 2021** **= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 10[th] day of January, 2023** ## **JUDGMENT** This writ petition is filed seeking several reliefs, but the substantial relief sought is for quashing Ext.P3 appellate order passed by the KTDC in appeal after reconsidering the appeal as directed by this Court in Ext.P1 judgment. The petitioner is appointed as Company Secretary in Financial Controller in the KTDC in the year 2012 and was on probation for a year. While so, the petitioner was under on placed suspension pending disciplinary proceedings 24.04.2013. An enquiry proceedings was initiated against the petitioner and by Ext.P5 order dated 19.01.2015, the services of the petitioner were terminated. The petitioner submitted Ext.P6 appeal under Rule 80 of the Service Rules of the KTDC against the order terminating his services. The same was dismissed by order dated 07.01.2017. The petitioner challenged the order of termination as well as the appellate order before this Court and Ext.P1 judgment was ``` WP(C) NO. 19573 OF 2021 ``` ``` 3 ``` rendered on 19.03.2020. The appellate order was set aside and this Court directed the consideration of the appeal on merits afresh in the light of the observations contained in the judgment. The said judgment became final. The KTDC proceeded to consider the appeal afresh and rejected the same again by Ext.P3 order, which is under challenge herein. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the observations in the judgment, which are evident from paragraph No.21 onwards, have not been considered even while passing Ext.P3 order and therefore Ext.P3 is bad in law and is liable to be set aside. It is contended that since the respondents have not taken any steps to consider the contentions of the petitioner and to pass a reasoned order, the petitioner is entitled to a declaration that his termination from service was vindictive and untenable and that he is entitled to compensation for the wrongful dismissal from service by awarding monetary compensation equivalent to the salary that he would have drawn had he continued in service. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the decisions of the Apex Court in **Management of Ritz Theatre (P) Vet vs** ``` WP(C) NO. 19573 OF 2021 ``` ``` 4 ``` **workmen** [(1963) 3 SCR 461], **Gujarat Mineral Dev. Corpn. vs PH Brambhan** [(1974) 3 SCC 601], **UOI vs Ashok Kumar Aggarwal** [(2013) 16 SCC 147], **Ranjit Thakur vs UOI** [(1987) 4 SCC 611], **T.Sham Bhatt vs Union of India** [1994 (Supp) 3 SCC 340], **S.Ramachandra Raju vs State of Orissa** [1994 (Supp) 3 SCC 424], **J.N.Bhanavalikar v Municipal Corpn of Delhi** [1995 (Supp) 4 SCC 89], **State of Punjab vs Gurdial Singh** [1980 (2) SCC 471], **State of Bihar vs PP Sharma** [1992 (Supp) 1 SCC 222] and **L.K. Verma vs HMT Ltd** [(2006) 2 SCC 269]. These decisions are relied on to contend that an order passed in disciplinary proceedings has to be rendered after considering the relevant aspects and if the conclusions in the departmental enquiry are perverse, then, the order of . termination would also be vitiated as being vindictive and _mala fide_ On a consideration of the factual aspects, if it is found that an order of termination is not one of discharge simpliciter, but is punitive or _mala fide_ or is made to victimize the workman, then the entire action is open to challenge. The learned counsel would also contend that even in cases where the power is available to a designated authority to ``` WP(C) NO. 19573 OF 2021 ``` ``` 5 ``` terminate the services of an employee, if the power is exercised _mala fide_ , the entire proceedings would stand vitiated. It is further contended that abuse of power vitiates the entire proceedings and that inherent power cannot be so exercised as to deny a proper opportunity to the employee to raise his contentions and be properly heard before an order of termination is issued. 3. A detailed counter affidavit has been placed on record by the respondents pointing out that all the factual contentions had been appropriately considered by the Appellate Authority while passing Ext.P3 order as is evident from a reading of Ext.P3 itself. It is contended that the petitioner was only a probationer and that the termination of his probation did not require any speaking order at all. It is submitted that all the charges raised against the petitioner have been found proved in a properly conducted enquiry and that therefore there was no reason for the favourable consideration of the petitioner’s appeal. Reliance is placed on a decision of the Apex Court in **Rajasthan High Court v. Ved Priya and another** [AIR 2020 SC 2811] to contend that a case of termination of probation of a ``` WP(C) NO. 19573 OF 2021 ``` ``` 6 ``` probationer does not require the following of due procedure as provided under Article 311 of the Constitution. It is further contended that an earlier judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) No.6862 of 2015 has been suppressed by the petitioner while filing the writ petition. 4. I have considered the contentions raised on either side. The contention raised by the respondents that the petitioner has suppressed the filing of an earlier writ petition, that is, W.P.(C) No.6862 of 2015 and the disposal of the same cannot be accepted in view of the fact that the petitioner has specifically referred to the filing of the said writ petition in the instant writ petition itself. In the earlier writ petition, it appears that the petitioner had raised a contention that the disciplinary proceedings as well as the proceedings instituted by the Institute of Company Secretaries are being carried on as parallel proceedings and that the enquiry initiated by the respondent-Corporation should await the final decision in the enquiry instituted by the Institute of Company Secretaries. This Court disposed of the writ petition directing the respondent Corporation to proceed against the petitioner on the basis of the findings in the enquiry report on the finding that the ``` WP(C) NO. 19573 OF 2021 ``` ``` 7 ``` proceedings are different and separate. It is thereafter that the order of penalty was inflicted on the petitioner. Therefore, the contention that the said judgment was suppressed by the petitioner has no merit. 5. The judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the respondent was with specific regard to the judicial review of a decision taken by the Full Court of the Rajasthan High Court on the administrative side. Paragraph Nos.18 and 19 of the said judgment would make it clear that the question considered there was with regard to the sustainability of an order passed terminating the probation of a Civil Judge, which was specifically an order of termination of probation simpliciter. The said judgment can, by no stretch of imagination, have any application in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 6. This Court in Ext.P1 judgment specifically referred to the contentions of the petitioner and found that the proceedings of the Institute of Company Secretaries finding the petitioner guilty of misconduct had been reversed in appeal by the Appellate Authority by order dated 01.08.2016 with costs to the petitioner. It was further ``` WP(C) NO. 19573 OF 2021 ``` ``` 8 ``` found that the contention of the petitioner that there was malice in the entire action against the petitioner cannot be disregarded. This Court, as a matter of fact, found force in the said contention of the petitioner. In view of the fact that the petitioner had not raised any specific contentions with regard to the procedure for the conduct of the enquiry, this Court found that the question with regard to the findings in the enquiry are matters for the Appellate Authority to consider on its merits. It is relevant to note that this Court had specifically held that the termination of the petitioner was punitive and stigmatic and that it was not a case of termination of probation simpliciter. It was in the above factual circumstances that this Court directed the consideration of the appeal afresh on a specific finding that the contentions of the petitioner had not been considered by the Appellate Authority. The question, therefore, would only be whether the findings of this Court as contained in paragraph Nos.21 to 25 of the judgment had been considered by the Appellate Authority while passing the order. 7. The Appellate Authority considered the appeal and passed ``` WP(C) NO. 19573 OF 2021 ``` ``` 9 ``` Ext.P3 order. The finding in Ext.P3 is simply that the petitioner had been given an opportunity to participate in the disciplinary proceedings and that the findings in the enquiry were proper. The specific matters which were directed to be considered by this Court do not find any mention in Ext.P3 order. Moreover, since this Court had specifically directed the consideration of the issue whether the ultimate penalty of removal need have been enforced against the petitioner in the light of the findings in the enquiry also is not addressed in Ext.P3. The respondents seem to have labored under the impression that this Court had upheld the entire disciplinary proceedings because there was no challenge to the procedure adopted in the enquiry. This is evidently not so. This Court found that there were no sufficient grounds raised by the petitioner against the procedure adopted in the conduct of the enquiry. In the absence of allegations of procedural violation, this Court found that it would be impermissible for this Court, exercising the power of judicial review, to interfere with the proceedings initiated against the petitioner. This Court therefore had directed the Appellate Authority to consider the ``` WP(C) NO. 19573 OF 2021 ``` ``` 10 ``` contentions of the petitioner on merits with regard to the findings in the enquiry. The finding of this Court was that though this Court may not be justified in considering those contentions in a writ petition, the Appellate Authority which is specifically empowered to consider those issues had not, as a matter of fact, considered them and therefore the appellate order was bad in law. It was on this finding that this Court had set aside the appellate order and directed a reconsideration of the matter by the Appellate Authority on merits. 8. On a reading of Ext.P3 order, I find that the said exercise as directed by this Court in the light of the findings of this Court has not even been attempted by the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority appears to have proceeded on the absolute misconception that what is required to be done by the Appellate Authority is a judicial review of the proceedings which is not the function of the Appellate Authority. The fact that this Court did not enter into the realm of facts and evidence does not mean that the Appellate Authority can proceed on the very same parameters while considering an appeal. An appeal being a continuation of the original proceedings, ``` WP(C) NO. 19573 OF 2021 ``` ``` 11 ``` the Appellate Authority is duty bound to look into the contentions raised by the petitioner, specifically with regard to the findings of this Court in Ext.P1 judgment. Ext.P3 order, which does not disclose any such application of mind to the facts of the case or the aspects which have been directed to be considered by this Court in Ext.P1 judgment, is an affront to the orders in authority of this Court. The exercise is absolutely vitiated and is liable to be set aside. 9. Ext.P3 order is therefore set aside. There will be a direction to the respondents to reconsider the appeal specifically taking note of the findings of this Court in Ext.P1 judgment as contained in paragraph Nos.21 to 25 thereof. The Appellate Authority shall not labor under any impression that it is conducting any judicial review of the orders of the disciplinary authority. The Appellate Authority has to consider each and every contention of the petitioner on the merits and specifically in accordance with the findings of this Court in Ext.P1 judgment. The Appellate Authority shall also consider whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, all that was required was a termination of the probation of the petitioner simpliciter without ``` WP(C) NO. 19573 OF 2021 ``` ``` 12 ``` casting any stigma on the petitioner. Appropriate orders shall be passed after considering the contentions of the petitioner, taking specific note of Ext.P10 order and after hearing the contentions of the petitioner as against the enquiry report and the order imposing penalty on its merits. Orders shall be passed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. This writ petition ordered accordingly. Sd/- **ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE** NP ``` WP(C) NO. 19573 OF 2021 ``` ``` 13 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 19573/2021`** |**`PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS`**|| |---|---| |**`Exhibit P1`**|**`A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT PASSED IN WP(C)`**| ||**`NO. 16272 OF 2017 ON 19.03.2020.`**| |**`Exhibit P2`**|**`A TRUE COPY OF THE HEARING NOTE DATED`**| ||**`12.03.2021.`**| |**`Exhibit P3`**|**`A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. KTDC/PA1/92/2021`**| ||**`DATED ON 07.06.2021 OF THE APPELLATE`**| ||**`AUTHORITY WHILE REJECTING THE APPEAL`**| ||**`PETITION.`**| |**`Exhibit P4`**|**`A TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER NO.`**| ||**`KTDC/PA6/SFC/2012 DATED 20.06.2012.`**| |**`Exhibit P5`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF TERMINATION ORDER`**| ||**`NO. KTDC. PA1/92/ 2015/ DATED 19.01.2015`**| ||**`ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.`**| |**`Exhibit P5(A)`**|**`A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.`**| ||**`KTDC/PA1/91/2016/DATED 30.01.2016 ISSUED BY`**| ||**`THE RESPONDENT CORPORATION.`**| |**`Exhibit P5(B)`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE RECTIFICATION ORDER`**| ||**`NO.KTDC/PA1/92/2016/DATED 29.03.2016 ISSUED`**| ||**`BY THE RESPONDENT CORPORATION.`**| |**`Exhibit P6`**|**`A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL PETITION DATED`**| ||**`08.02.2016.`**| |**`Exhibit P7`**|**`THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINTS FILED BY THE`**| ||**`RESPONDENTS WITH ICSI ON 22.06.2013.`**| |**`Exhibit P8`**|**`A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED WITH ICAI`**| ||**`ON 24.06.2013.`**| |**`Exhibit P9`**|**`A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DISCIPLINARY`**| ||**`COMMITTEE OF ICSI DATED 09.06.2015.`**| |**`Exhibit P10`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF APPELLATE`**| ||**`AUTHORITY OF ICSI IN APPEAL NO. 10/ICSI/2015`**| ||**`DATED 1ST AUGUST 2016.`**| |**`Exhibit P11`**|**`A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE`**| ||**`MINUTES OF THE 288TH BOARD MEETING HELD ON`**| ||**`19.01.2016.`**| |**`Exhibit P12`**|**`A TRUE COPY OF THE SUPPLEMENTARY APPEAL`**| ||**`PETITION DATED 04.08.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE`**| ||**`PETITIONER.`**| |**`Exhibit P13`**|**`A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER KTDC/PA1/92/2013`**| ||**`DATED 24.04.2013 OF SUSPENSION ISSUED BY THE`**| ||**`2ND RESPONDENT.`**| |**`Exhibit P14`**|**`A TRUE COPY OF THE SAID APPEAL DATED`**| ||**`10.07.2013.`**| ``` WP(C) NO. 19573 OF 2021 ``` ``` 14 ``` ``` Exhibit P15A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. KTDC/PA1/92/2013 DATED 29/10/2013. Exhibit P16A TRUE COPY OF THE SAID CIRCULAR NO. 4135/ADV.C2/94/P& ARD DATED 23.05.1994. Exhibit P17A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO. KTDC/PA(3)/314/12 DATED 21/08/2012 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P18A TRUE COPY OF THE LEGAL OPINION DATED 18.10.2013 ISSUED BY THE STANDING COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS OBTAINED THROUGH RTI. Exhibit P19A TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO NO. KTDC/PA1/92/2013 DATED 05.04.2013 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P20A TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO NO.KTDC/PA1/92/13 DATED 20.06.2013 ALONG WITH THE STATEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS. Exhibit P21A TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT DATED 26.07.2013 FILED BY THE PETITIONER. Exhibit P22THE TRUE COPY OF THE CONCLUSION ARRIVED BY CDAC DATED NIL. Exhibit P23A TRUE COPY OF THE SAID CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY MCA, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AFTER CHANGING THE NAME DATED 17.05.2013. Exhibit P24A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 3.08.2012 ISSUED BY ICAI CONFIRMING THE SURRENDER OF CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY ICAI. Exhibit P25A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 29.12.2013, RECEIVED FROM BENNY & CO, LSG (INDIA) PVT LTD Exhibit P25(A)A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 10.09.2014, RECEIVED FROM BENNY & CO. LSG (INDIA) PVT LTD Exhibit P25(B)A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 12.09.2014, RECEIVED FROM KOCHERIES LEGAL CONSULTANTS LLP Exhibit P25(C)A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 15.09.2014, RECEIVED FROM EMERIZZ SOLUTIONS PVT LTD. Exhibit P25(D)A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 17.09.2014, RECEIVED FROM M/S. DOLPHIN WIRES PVT LTD. Exhibit P25(E)A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 19.09.2014, RECEIVED FROM CHOICE TRADING CORPORATION PVT.LTD. Exhibit P26A TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO NO.KTDC/PA1/92/2013 DATED 8.4.2013. Exhibit P27A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20.06.2013 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P28A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER KTDC/MD/111/2007 DT. 08.08.2007 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 19573 OF 2021 ``` ``` 15 ``` |**`Exhibit P29`**|**`TRUE EXTRACT OF THE RESOLUTION PASSED AT THE`**| |---|---| ||**`271ST MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS HELD`**| ||**`ON 17.08.2012 VIDE RESOLUTION NO. 5684,`**| ||**`SIGNED BY THE PETITIONER ON 31.10.2012 IN HIS`**| ||**`CAPACITY AS SFC.`**| |**`Exhibit P30`**|**`A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 2ND`**| ||**`RESPONDENT TO THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,`**| ||**`TOURISM DEPARTMENT DATED 17.11.2012.`**| |**`Exhibit P31`**|**`A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTE SHEET DATED`**| ||**`26.03.2013 HAVING THE RECORDING OF THE`**| ||**`CONCERNED DEALING HAND, MR. PRATHAPAN -`**| ||**`DEPUTY PERSONAL MANAGER, MR. DANIEL VS-`**| ||**`PERSONAL MANAGER, SFC, CHIEF ENGINEER, AND`**| ||**`THE APPROVAL OF MANAGING DIRECTOR.`**| |**`Exhibit P32`**|**`A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTE DATED 10.12.2012 DULY`**| ||**`SIGNED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AND ADDRESSED TO`**| ||**`THE PETITIONER WITH COPY TO ALL DEPARTMENTAL`**| ||**`HEADS IN THE HEAD OFFICE AS ALSO TO THE`**| ||**`ACCOUNTS OFFICER, FOR INFORMATION.`**| |**`Exhibit P33`**|**`A TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT LETTER DATED`**| ||**`13.12.2012 TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT REQUESTING`**| ||**`THE COPY OF THE BOARD RESOLUTION AS MENTIONED`**| ||**`ABOVE WAS OBTAINED THROUGH RTI.`**| |**`Exhibit P34`**|**`A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SENT ON 10.12.2012`**| ||**`TOT HE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT BY THE`**| ||**`PETITIONER WHILE HOLDING THE CHARGE OF THE`**| ||**`2ND RESPONDENT.`**| |**`Exhibit P35`**|**`A TRUE COPY OF AN EXTRACT OF THE INWARD`**| ||**`REGISTER DATED 10.12.2012 OBTAINED THROUGH`**| ||**`RTI.`**| |**`Exhibit P36`**|**`A TRUE COPY OF THE SAID MEMO NO.`**| ||**`KTDC/PA1/92/2013 DATED 09.04.2013 ISSUED BY`**| ||**`THE 2ND RESPONDENT.`**| |**`Exhibit P37`**|**`A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 16.04.2013`**| ||**`SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND`**| ||**`RESPONDENT.`**| |**`Exhibit P38`**|**`A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.`**| ||**`KTDC/PA1/92/2012 DATED 08.11.2012 ALONG WITH`**| ||**`THE ENDORSEMENT.`**| |**`Exhibit P39`**|**`A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. 93009/B1/12/TSM`**| ||**`DATED 15.04.2013 ISSUED FROM THE SECRETARY TO`**| ||**`GOVERNMENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT..`**| |**`Exhibit P40`**|**`A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. AIII(I)`**| ||**`1959/11/C2 DATED 10.02.2012 ISSUED BY THE`**| ||**`SECRETARY TO KPSC TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.`**| ``` WP(C) NO. 19573 OF 2021 ``` ``` 16 ``` ``` Exhibit P41A TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES NO. KTDC/PA1/92/2013 DATED 08.05.2013 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. Exhibit P42A TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO NO, KTDC/PA1/92/13 ALONG WITH THE STATEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS DATED 06.06.2013. Exhibit P43A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 21.06.2013 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P44A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE DEPOSITIONS MADE BY CHIEF ENGINEER WHICH IS CONSPICUOUSLY MISSING IN THE ENQUIRY REPORT. Exhibit P45A TRUE COPY OF THE DOMESTIC ENQUIRY REPORT DATED 26.06.2014 BY THE DOMESTIC ENQUIRY OFFICER. Exhibit P46A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY TO THE ENQUIRY REPORT DATED 26.07.2014 BY THE PETITIONER. Exhibit P47A TRUE COPY OF THE SAID SHOW CAUSE NOTICE NO.KTDC/PA1/92/2015 DATED 18.02.2015 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P48A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 25.02.2015 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P49TRUE COPY OF THE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THE PETITIONER PUBLISHED IN THE PRINT MEDIA MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DATED 30.04.2013. Exhibit P49(A)TRUE COPY OF THE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THE PETITIONER PUBLISHED IN THE PRINT MEDIA INDIAN EXPRESS DAILY DATED 07.04.2013. Exhibit P49(B)TRUE COPY OF THE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THE PETITIONER PUBLISHED IN THE PRINT MEDIA KERALA KAUMUDI DATED 07.04.2013. Exhibit P50A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.KTDC/PA1/92/2016 PASSED BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY OF KTDC DATED 07.01.2017. RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS Exhibit R2(A)TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF 316TH MEETING HELD ON 5-3-2021. Exhibit R2(B)TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF SERVICE RULES OF KTDC. Exhibit R2(C)TRUE COPY OF THE CYBER FORENSIC ANALYSIS REPORT. Exhibit R2(D)TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.KTDC/PA1/92/2012 DATED 10-12-2012. ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 19573 OF 2021 ``` ``` 17 ``` ``` Exhibit R2(E)TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.KTDC/MD/111/2007 DATED 8-8-2007 Exhibit R2(f)TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE SERVICE RULES OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit R2(g)TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 15-04-2013 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit R2(h)TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION DATED 20/04/2013 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT. Exhibit R2(I)TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 25-04-2013 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit R2(j)TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE PETITIONER DATED 20/06/2012. ```