High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeWrit petition partly allowed; directed reconsid...
Dr. C.P.V Vijayakumaran v. Central University of Kerala
Case / Petition Number:WP(C) No. 2052 of 2021
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- Devan Ramachandran
- Judgment Date
- 2022-07-14
- Court Decision / Holding
- Writ petition partly allowed; directed the competent Disciplinary Authority to reconsider Ext.P56, after affording a hearing to the petitioner, and to pass a fresh order expeditiously within three months; retirement benefits to be modulated according to the fresh order.
- Final Disposition
- Writ petition partly allowed; directed reconsideration of Ext.P56 by the Disciplinary Authority with hearing and a fresh order within three months; retirement benefits to be modulated accordingly.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- Dr. C.P.V Vijayakumaran
Respondents
- Central University of Kerala, represented by its Registrar
- The Executive Council, represented by its President, Central University of Kerala
- The Vice Chancellor, Central University of Kerala
- Internal Complaints Committee, represented by its Chairperson, Central University of Kerala
- Dr. Sudha Balakrishnan, Professor, Department of Hindi, Central University of Kerala
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • Rekha Vasudevan
- • SMT. V. Dee pa
- • SMT. Elizabeth V. Joseph
Counsels for Respondents
- • K. Ramakumar (Sr.)
- • Shri. S. Radhakrishnan
- • Shri. S. Rajmohan
- • SMT. R. Anjali
Case Synopsis & Summary
This writ petition (Civil) concerns Dr. C.P.V. Vijayakumaran, a former associate professor at the Central University of Kerala, who was found guilty of misbehavior by an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) and subsequently subjected to disciplinary action culminating in dismissal from service (Ext.P56). The ICC’s findings, based on complaints by students, were initially reviewed after the Supreme Court’s directive; a fresh inquiry (Enquiry Committee) examined additional witnesses and documents, ultimately recording that the petitioner had engaged in inappropriate conduct with some students. The petitioner challenged Ext.P53, the Enquiry Committee’s report, contending that the punishment (Ext.P56) was excessive and that the case largely rested on ICC findings. The respondents argued that Ext.P53 was grounded not only on ICC findings but on evidence and documents produced during the new inquiry, including testimonies from PW4 and PW5. The court acknowledged that while the ICC had found guilt on various charges, the punishment imposed appeared disproportionate given the ICC’s limited remedy (not to teach or evaluate in two semesters). Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Vijayakumaran C.P.V. v. Central University of Kerala, the court held that guilt must be established in a properly constituted enquiry and directed the disciplinary authority to reconsider Ext.P56 with due procedure, providing hearing, and to issue a fresh order expeditiously within three months. Retirement benefits would be modulated accordingly.
Provisions of Law Cited
Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013Central Universities Act, 2009
Legal Doctrines & Maxims
- Guilt to be established in a properly constituted enquiry after ICC findings (as laid down by the Supreme Court in Vijayakumaran C.P.V. v. Central University of Kerala)
- Proportionality of punishment in disciplinary action; caution against excessive penalties when ICC recommendations are more limited
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
Petitioner submits Ext.P53 is untenable as it relies on the ICC report alone; the punishment of dismissal is disproportionate to the ICC’s limited remedy, and the petitioner, who has superannuated, seeks restoration of benefits and quashing Ext.P56. The challenge proceeds on the premise that guilt can only be established through a properly constituted enquiry and that the later proceedings have not justified the heavy penalty.
Contentions of Respondents
Respondents contend that Ext.P53 is grounded on more than the ICC report, including evidence and documents examined in the subsequent enquiry, with witnesses PW4 and PW5 contributing to the findings; the punishment of dismissal is warranted in light of the conduct established and the record in the second inquiry.
Cited Precedents (1)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vijayakumaran C.P.V. v. Central University of Kerala | 2020 (2) KLJ 39 | Positive | The judgment sets out the principle that guilt must be established in a properly constituted enquiry after ICC findings, which the Kerala High Court applies to re-evaluate the punishment here. |
Diagnostic Tool
Does this judgment govern your specific facts?
Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Dr. C.P.V Vijayakumaran v. Central University of Kerala and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.
# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`**
# **`PRESENT`**
```
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 14[TH] DAY OF JULY 2022 / 23RD ASHADHA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 2052 OF 2021
```
## **`PETITIONER:`**
```
DR.C.P.V VIJAYAKUMARAN, AGED 64 YEARS
SON OF THE LATE P.ACHUTHAN NAIR, ASSOCIATE
PROFESSOR (REMOVED FROM SERVICE), DEPARTMENT
OF HINDU, CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF KERALA,
TEJASWANI HILLS, PERIYA P.O.KASARAGOD-671 316,
RESIDING AT KARTHIYAYANI AMMA SMARAKA BHAWANAM,
KANHANGAD SOUTH P.O.KASARGOD-671 531.
```
```
BY ADVS.
REKHA VASUDEVAN
SMT.V.DEEPA
SMT.ELIZABETH V.JOSEPH
```
## **`RESPONDENTS:`**
- `1 CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, TEJASWANI HILLS, PERIYA P.O. KASARGOD-671 316.`
- `2 THE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, TEJASWANI HILLS, PERIYA P.O.KASARGOD-671 316.`
- `3 THE VICE CHANCELLOR, CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, TEJASWANI HILLS, PERIYA P.O.KASARGOD-671 316.`
- `4 INTERNAL COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRPERSON, CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, TEJASWANI HILLS, PERIYA P.O.KASARGOD-671 316.`
- `5 DR. SUDHA BALAKRISHNAN, PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF HINDI, CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, TEJASWANI HILLS, PERIYA P.O.KASARGOD-671 316.`
```
BY ADVS.
K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.)
SHRI.S.RADHAKRISHNAN
SHRI.S.RAJMOHAN
SMT.R.ANJALI
```
WPC 2052/21
2
```
SRI.ADITYA THEJUS KRISHNAN
SMT.BENITA ALPHONSA BASIL
T.RAMPRASAD UNNI, SC
S.M.PRASANTH
SRI SAJITHKUMAR V-SC
```
```
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 14.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
```
WPC 2052/21
3
## **`JUDGMENT`**
The law relating to sexual harassment at workplace was considered by the Honourable Supreme Court in Vijayakumaran C.P.V. v. Central University of Kerala [2020 (2) KLJ 39].
2. Compendiously, the declaration of law therein is that, notwithstanding the report of the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) constituted under the provisions of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, the guilt of the accused will have to be established in a properly constituted enquiry thereafter.
3. Interestingly, the very same person who obtained the above cited judgment is the petitioner in this case and the controversy also is same as was projected before the Honourable . Supreme Court
4. The petitioner – Dr.C.P.V.Vijayakumaran, was alleged to have misbehaved with some of his girl students and an ICC constituted by the College in which he was working, ended up in Ext.P27 report. The said report found Dr.C.P.V.Vijayakumaran
WPC 2052/21
4
guilty and recommended that he should not be allowed to take classes and evaluation duties for the current semester or that of the third semester of the Hindi Department, since it included the students who had made complaints against him. He was, on the basis of the said report, initially sought to be terminated from service, which was challenged by him before this Court, finally culminating in the aforementioned judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court.
5. Consequently, the University constituted an enquiry in obedience to the directions of the Honourable Supreme Court and Ext.P53 order was settled, finding Dr.C.P.V.Vijayakumaran guilty
and then again imposing the punishment of dismissal from service.
6. Ext.P53 as Dr.C.P.V.Vijayakumaran impugns being illegal and unlawful and based solely on the findings of the ICC, which is in conflict with the declarations of law in the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court mentioned supra.
7. I have heard Smt.Rekha Vasudevan – learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri.S.M.Prasanth – learned counsel appearing
WPC 2052/21
5
for the Central University and Sri.S.Radhakrishnan – learned counsel for the 5th respondent.
8. Smt.Rekha Vasudevan argued on behalf of Dr.C.P.V.Vijayakumaran, asserting that Ext.P53 is untenable since it proceeded to find guilt on her client exclusively edificed on the earlier findings of the ICC. She argued that, in any event, even if this could have been done – without admitting it – the punishment imposed is grossly disproportionate because the ICC only recommended that Dr.C.P.V.Vijayakumaran be not allowed to take classes for the semesters in which the students, who had made complaints against him, were studying. She thus pleaded that Ext.P53 be set aside and her client be afforded all eligible benefits because, prior to the filing of this Writ Petition, he superannuated from service.
9. Sri.S.M.Prasanth – learned counsel appearing for the Central University, on the other hand, submitted that Ext.P53 order is not based on the report of the ICC alone, but that it was settled after recording the evidence of several persons whose
names and designations are mentioned therein and after
WPC 2052/21
6
examining the documents marked. He argued that since at least two of the students who had made complaints against Dr.C.P.V.Vijayakumaran were examined, the allegation of Smt.Rekha Vasudevan, that the enquiry report is based solely on the report of the ICC, is without legs to stand on. He thus prayed that this Writ Petition be dismissed.
10. Sri.S.Radhakrishnan – learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent, submitted that his client has been unnecessarily arrayed in this Writ Petition because she had no role to play in the enquiry or the punishment conducted and imposed against the petitioner. He contended that the allegations of malafides impelled against his client by the petitioner are extremely confutative and that it has been done solely to find an escape route from the grievous charges imputed against him. He, therefore, prayed that this Writ Petition be dismissed as against his client.
11. I have evaluated the afore submissions on the touchstone of the various materials available on record.
12. As rightly argued by Smt.Rekha Vasudevan, the report
WPC 2052/21
7
of the ICC – namely Ext.P27, after having found Dr.C.P.V.Vijayakumaran guilty of all the charges made against him, only recommended that he be not allowed to engage in classes or evaluation duties for the first and third semesters, in which the students who had made complaints against him were studying. Initially he was sought to be terminated on this basis by the college, but after the Honourable Supreme Court delivered judgment, they constituted another enquiry in which the Chairperson of the earlier ICC and two students, among others, were examined as witnesses. The documents, including the complaints of various students, were marked through the first witness, who was the Chairperson of the ICC; and the Committee
then proceeded to find all allegations against Dr.C.P.V.Vijayakumaran to be proved. The Disciplinary Authority, thereafter, imposed a punishment of dismissal from services, as is evident from Ext.P56.
13. The petitioner says that the applicable Regulations and Statutes do not provide for any appellate remedy against Ext.P56 and that he has been constrained to approach this Court directly.
WPC 2052/21
8
This explication is not opposed by Sri.S.M.Prasanth.
14. When I examine Ext.P53, which is the report of the Enquiry Committee, it is evident that two among the various students who had made complaints against Dr.C.P.V.Vijayakumaran, had been examined as PW4 and PW5 respectively.
15. Interestingly, PW4 unequivocally admitted that she had not suffered any sexual harassment from Dr.C.P.V.Vijayakumaran, but that she was speaking on behalf of another classmate, who had made an individual complaint against him. Her deposition is to the effect that she was told by the aforementioned classmate that ‘he was scanning her body inappropriately and that it was extremely upsetting for her’. She went on to say that she stands by the collective complaint made by her and various other students, which has been marked as Ext.P6 in the said enquiry.
16. Thereafter, PW5 - another student, was examined, who testified unambiguously that she did not feel any obscenity in the manner in which Dr.C.P.V.Vijayakumaran looked at her
and that she had not suffered any experience of sexual
WPC 2052/21
9
harassment from him. She, however, went on to clarify that even though she had no such experience, she knows that certain others had.
17. Indubitably, going by the afore statements of the students, they did not have any direct experience qua the but were allegations against Dr.C.P.V.Vijayakumaran, only speaking on the basis of the information they had collated from their classmates. Pertinently, they testified without leaving any room for doubt that they did not encounter any sexual harassment from him; but that since some of their classmates did, they joined the mass complaints preferred against him.
18. I have recorded the afore, not with an intent to exonerate Dr.C.P.V.Vijayakumaran, but to edifice the course that I propose in this judgment.
19. Since the prime witnesses in the enquiry deposed to the afore effect and since the petitioner has now retired from service, I am of the firm view that this Court will be justified in ordering that Ext.P6 order be reviewed, with specific respect to the punishment imposed therein, particularly in view of the fact
WPC 2052/21
10
that the ICC had only recommended that he be not allowed to take classes.
20. I am persuaded to the afore because, the report of the ICC and Ext.P53 report of the Enquiry Committee, have found the petitioner guilty of all the articles of charges which, at the best, can only mean that he had looked at certain students inappropriately and had misbehaved with them on a few occasions. Even assuming all of them to be true - which I propose to do without disturbing any of such findings - this Court is firm that the punishment imposed upon the petitioner is,
prima facie, disproportionate. When the ICC had only recommended that he be not allowed to take classes and evaluation duties, nothing is discernible from Ext.P56 as to why the Disciplinary Authority found it necessary to impose on him the maximum punishment of termination from service. I am certain that this requires to be re-looked and reviewed.
Resultantly, I order this Writ Petition to the limited extent of directing the competent Disciplinary Authority to reconsider Ext.P56 order to the extent of the punishment imposed therein,
WPC 2052/21
11
after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner; as thus culminating in an appropriate fresh order in that regard, expeditiously as is possible but not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Needless to say, the claim for retirement benefits by the petitioner shall be modulated by the decision to be taken by the Disciplinary Committee in terms of the afore directions.
```
Sd/-
```
```
RR
```
```
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
```
WPC 2052/21
12
## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2052/2021`**
|`PETITIONER EXHIBITS`||
|---|---|
|`EXHIBIT P1`|`TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE`|
||`LIST CANDIDATES CALLED FOR INTERVIEW`|
||`ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT`|
|`EXHIBIT P2`|`TRUE COPY OF THE RESULTS OF THE`|
||`INTERVIEW DATED 2.3.2017 ISSUED BY THE`|
||`1ST RESPONDENT`|
|`EXHIBIT P3`|`TRUE COPY OF THE IS NO 8962/2017 DATED`|
||`13.6.2017 IN WPC 7456/2017 FILED BY THE`|
||`PETITIONER`|
|`EXHIBIT P4`|`TRUE COPY OF THE JOINING REPORT DATED`|
||`19.6.2017 OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT`|
|`EXHIBIT P4 (A)`|`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO CUK/ACA/72/12`|
||`DATED 3.7.2017 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT`|
||`REGISTRAR OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT`|
|`EXHIBIT P5`|`TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED`|
||`13.7.2017 ALONG WITH THE COPY OF`|
||`TRANSLATION SUBMITTED BY A 2ND YEAR MA`|
||`STUDENT OF HINDI DEPARTMENT`|
|`EXHIBIT P6`|`TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINTS DATED`|
||`14.7.2017 ALONG WITH THE COPY OF`|
||`TRANSLATION SUBMITTED BY 16 SECOND YEAR`|
||`MA STUDENTS OF HINDI DEPARTMENT`|
|`EXHIBIT P7`|`TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE FIRST`|
||`MEETING OF ICC DATED NIL HELD BY 1ST`|
||`RESPONDENT`|
|`EXHIBIT P8`|`TRUE COPY OF THE NEWSPAPER REPORT DATED`|
||`26.7.2017 PUBLISHED IN NEW INDIAN`|
||`EXPRESS`|
|`EXHIBIT P9`|`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO`|
||`CUK/ADM/SH/AR/15 DATED 31.7.2017 ISSUED`|
||`BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT`|
|`EXHIBIT P10`|`TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE SECOND`|
||`MEETING OF ICC DATED 2.8.2017 CONDUCTED`|
||`BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT`|
|`EXHIBIT P11`|`TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED`|
||`4.8.2017 FROM THE STUDENTS OF 2ND YEAR`|
||`MA HINDI AND COMPARATIVE LITERATURE`|
||`SUBMITTED TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT`|
|`EXHIBIT P12`|`TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED 14.8.2017`|
||`SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT`|
|`EXHIBIT P13`|`TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED`|
||`13.8.2017 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO`|
||`THE 4TH RESPONDENT`|
WPC 2052/21
13
|`EXHIBIT P14`||`TRUE COPY OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE DATED`|
|---|---|---|
|||`16.8.2017 SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH`|
|||`RESPONDENT`|
|`EXHIBIT P14`|`(A)`|`TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 22.8.2017`|
|||`SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 4TH`|
|||`RESPONDENT`|
|`EXHIBIT P15`||`TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED`|
|||`18.8.2017 ALONG WITH THE COPY OF`|
|||`TRANSLATION SUBMITTED TO THE WOMEN CELL`|
|||`OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT`|
|`EXHIBIT P16`||`TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED 13.9.2017`|
|||`ALONG WITH THE REPLY OF THE 4TH`|
|||`RESPONDENT SUBMITTED TO THE PETITIONER`|
|`EXHIBIT P17`||`TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING`|
|||`OF ICC HELD ON 14.9.2017`|
|`EXHIBIT P18`||`TRUE COPY OF THE CONDENSED FROM OF`|
|||`ALLEGATIONS DATED 14.9.2017 ISSUED BY`|
|||`THE 4TH RESPONDENT`|
|`EXHIBIT P19`||`TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN SUBMITTED DATED`|
|||`18.9.2017 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO`|
|||`THE 4TH RESPONDENT`|
|`EXHIBIT P20`||`TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED`|
|||`119.9.2017 ALONG WITH THE COPY OF`|
|||`TRANSLATION SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST YEAR MA`|
|||`STUDENTS TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT`|
|`EXHIBIT P21`||`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO CUK/CC`|
|||`REPORT/2017 DATED 19.9.2017 ISSUED BY`|
|||`THE 3RD RESPONDENT`|
|`EXHIBIT P22`||`TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED 26.9.2017`|
|||`SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER TO THE DEAN OF`|
|||`SLCL`|
|`EXHIBIT P23`||`TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE ENQUIRY`|
|||`DATED 28.9.2017 SUBMITTED BY THE DEAN OF`|
|||`SLCL TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT`|
|`EXHIBIT P24`||`TRUE COPY OF THE MAIL DATED 20.10.2017`|
|||`SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 4TH`|
|||`RESPONDENT`|
|`EXHIBIT P25`||`TRUE COPY OF THE MAIL DATED 24.10.2017`|
|||`SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE`|
|||`PETITIONER`|
|`EXHIBIT P26`||`TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED`|
|||`1.11.2017 ALONG WITH TRANSLATION`|
|||`SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND YEAR MA STUDENTS TO`|
|||`THE 3RD RESPONDENT`|
|`EXHIBIT P27`||`TRUE COPY OF THE INVESTIGATION REPORT`|
|||`DATED NIL SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH`|
|||`RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT`|
WPC 2052/21
14
|`EXHIBIT P28`||`TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 20.11.2017`|
|---|---|---|
|||`SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST`|
|||`RESPONDENT`|
|`EXHIBIT P29`||`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO CUK/ET/PF-`|
|||`152/CPV/2017/071 DATED 30.11.2017 ISSUED`|
|||`BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT`|
|`EXHIBIT P30`||`TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED`|
|||`30.1.2018 IN WPC 39013 OF 2017 OF THIS`|
|||`HONOURABLE COURT`|
|`EXHIBIT P31`||`TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED`|
|||`20.2.2018 IN WA NO 444 OF 2018 OF THIS`|
|||`HONOURABLE COURT A DOWNLOADED FROM THE`|
|||`WEBSITE OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA`|
|`EXHIBIT P32`||`TRUE COPY OF THE REPORTED JUDGMENT DATED`|
|||`28.1.2020 IN CIVIL APPEAL 777 OF 2020`|
|||`(ARISING OUT OF S.L.P (CIVIL) NO 28507`|
|||`OF 2018) OF THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT`|
|||`(AS REPORTED IN 2020 (1) KHC 982)`|
|`EXHIBIT P33`||`NIL`|
|`EXHIBIT P33`|`(a)`|`TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED`|
|||`10.2.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO`|
|||`THE 1ST RESPONDENT`|
|`EXHIBIT P33`|`(B)`|`TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED`|
|||`27.2.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO`|
|||`THE 1ST RESPONDENT`|
|`EXHIBIT P34`||`TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF THE`|
|||`MINUTES OF THE 45TH MEETING OF THE 2ND`|
|||`RESPONDENT HELD ON 20.2.2020`|
|`EXHIBIT P35`||`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO CUK/ET/PF-`|
|||`152/CPV/2017 DATED 5.3.2020 ISSUED BY`|
|||`THE 3RD RESPONDENT`|
|`EXHIBIT P36`||`NIL`|
|`EXHIBIT P36`|`(A)`|`TRUE COPY OF THE JOINING ORDER ON`|
|||`6.3.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO`|
|||`THE 3RD RESPONDENT T`|
|`EXHIBIT P36`|`(B)`|`TRUE COPY OF THE JOINTING ORDER ON`|
|||`9.3.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO`|
|||`THE 3RD RESPONDENT`|
|`EXHIBIT P37`||`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO CUK/ET/PF-`|
|||`152/CPV/2017/F 7397 DATED 9.3.2020`|
|||`ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT`|
|`EXHIBIT P38`||`TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE MEMO NO`|
|||`CUK/ET/PF-152/CPV/2017 DATED 10.3.2020`|
|||`ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 3RD`|
|||`RESPONDENT`|
|`EXHIBIT P38`|`(A)`|`TRUE COPY OF THE CORRIGENDUM NO`|
|||`CUK/RULE-14/INQUIRY CPV/2020 DATED`|
WPC 2052/21
15
||`2.7.2020 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE`|
|---|---|
||`3RD RESPONDENT`|
|`EXHIBIT P39`|`TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF DEFENSE`|
||`DATED 5.4.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE`|
||`PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT`|
|`EXHIBIT P40`|`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO CUK/ET/PF-`|
||`152/CPV/2017/G-417 DATED 5.6.2020 ISSUED`|
||`BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT`|
|`EXHIBIT P41`|`TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED`|
||`14.7.2020 IN WPC 11147 OF 2020 OF THIS`|
||`HON'BLE COURT`|
|`EXHIBIT P42`|`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO`|
||`CUK/RULE-14/INQUIRY CPV/2020 DATED`|
||`18.8.2020 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT`|
||`TO THE PRESIDING OFFICER OF THE 4TH`|
||`RESPONDENT`|
|`EXHIBIT P43`|`TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED 24.8.2020`|
||`ALONG WITH TRACK CONSIGNMENT REPORT SENT`|
||`BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER`|
|`EXHIBIT P44`|`TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF THE`|
||`MINUTES OF THE 4TH MEETING OF THE 2ND`|
||`RESPONDENT HELD ON 25.9.2020`|
|`EXHIBIT P45`|`TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED`|
||`20.10.2020 IN WPC 20657/2020 OF THIS`|
||`HONOURABLE COURT`|
|`EXHIBIT P46`|`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO`|
||`CUK.RULE-14/INQUIRY CPV/2020 DATED`|
||`22.10.2020 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT`|
|`EXHIBIT P47`|`TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO CUK/ET/PF-`|
||`152/CPV/2017 DATED 6.11.2020 ALONG WITH`|
||`THE STATEMENT OF FACTS ISSUED BY THE 1ST`|
||`RESPONDENT`|
|`EXHIBIT P48`|`TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED`|
||`3.12.2020 IN WPC 24288 OF 2020 OF THIS`|
||`HONOURABLE COURT`|
|`EXHIBIT P49`|`TRUE COPY OF THE RULE 14 INQUIRY`|
||`PROCEEDINGS DURING THE PERIOD FROM`|
||`12.11.2020 TO 24.11.2020`|
|`EXHIBIT P50`|`TRUE COPY OF SET OF DEPOSITIONS OF`|
||`FACILITIES AND STUDENTS RECORDED DURING`|
||`THE PERIOD FROM 20.11.2020 TO 24.11.2020`|
|`EXHIBIT P51`|`TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED 1.12.2020`|
||`ALONG WITH WRITTEN BRIEF SUBMITTED BY`|
||`THE PETITIONER TO SMT SUDHA KAPPALLI`|
|`EXHIBIT P52`|`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO`|
||`CUK/RULE-14/INQUIRY CPV/2020 DATED`|
||`3.12.2020 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT`|
WPC 2052/21
16
|`EXHIBIT P53`|`TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE INQUIRY`|
|---|---|
||`AUTHORITY DATED 3.12.2020 SUBMITTED BY`|
||`SUDHA KAPPALLI.`|
|`EXHIBIT P54`|`TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN BRIEF DATED`|
||`27.11.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PRESENTING`|
||`OFFICER.`|
|`EXHIBIT P55`|`TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED 9.12.2020`|
||`ALONG WITH THE WRITTEN REPRESENTATION`|
||`SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD`|
||`RESPONDENT`|
|`EXHIBIT P56`|`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO CUK/ET/PF-`|
||`152/CPV/2017 DATED 14.12.2020 ISSUED BY`|
||`THE 3RD RESPONDENT`|
|`EXHIBIT P57`|`TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED`|
||`11.1.2021 IN WPC NO 28985 OF 2020 OF`|
||`THIS HONOURABLE COURT (AS DOWNLOADED`|
||`FROM THE WEBSITE OF HIGH COURT OF`|
||`KERALA)`|
|`EXHIBIT P58`|`TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED`|
||`20.5.2009 OF THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT`|
||`OF DELHI IN WPC N0 8226 OF 2009(AS`|
||`DOWNLOADED FROM THE WEBSITE OF INDIAN`|
||`KANOON)`|
|`EXHIBIT P59`|`TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED`|
||`31.5.2019 IN WPC NO 6538 OF 2019 OF THE`|
||`HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI`|
|`EXHIBIT P60`|`TRUE COPY OF THE CENTRAL UNIVERSITIES`|
||`ACT, 2009 (ACT NO.25 OF 2009) ISSUED BY`|
||`THE MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE.`|
|`Exhibit P61`|`TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED`|
||`10.8.2021 IN WA 569/ 2021 OF THIS`|
||`HONOURABLE COURT`|