Dr. Tara L. v. State of Kerala & Others

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN** **MONDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 3RD PHALGUNA, 1942** ## **WP(C).No.20394 OF 2020(Y)** ## **PETITIONER :-** **DR.TARA L., AGED 58 YEARS, W/O.K.G.SREEKUMAR, PRINCIPAL, SHREE VIDYADHIRAJA HOMOEOPATHIC MEDICAL COLLEGE, NEMOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 020, RESIDING AT THUNDATHIL, TC 37/1639, KOTHALAM ROAD, FORT P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 023.** **BY ADVS.** **SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. SRI.K.R.GANESH SMT.T.S.LIKHITHA** ## **RESPONDENTS :-** - **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,** - **HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.** - **2 THE PRINCIPAL AND CONTROLLING OFFICER, GOVERNMENT HOMOEOPATHIC MEDICAL COLLEGE, IRANIMUTTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 010.** - **3 SHREE VIDYADHIRAJA HOMOEPATHIC MEDICAL COLLEGE, NEMOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 020, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.** - **4 DR. R. AJAYKUMAR MD DM, SECRETARY, SREE VIDYADHIRA VIDYA SAMAJAM, ASWATHY, HINDU MISSION ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 1, KERALA, AND MANAGER, SHREE VIDYADHIRAJA HOMOEOPATHIC MEDICAL COLLEGE, NEMOM P.O.THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 20.** - **5 THE KERALA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., THRISSUR – 680 596, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.** **BY ADV. SRI.P.M.SANEER** **BY SRI.P.SREEKUMAR, SC, KERALA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21-01-2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).28675/2020(H), THE COURT ON 22-022021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WP(C).Nos.20394/2020 & 28675/2020 -: 2 :- ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN** **MONDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 3RD PHALGUNA, 1942** ## **WP(C).No.28675 OF 2020(H)** **PETITIONER :- DR.TARA L., AGED 58 YEARS W/O.K.G.SREEKUMAR, PRINCIPAL, SHREE VIDHYADHIRAJA HOMOEOPATHIC MEDICAL COLLEGE, NEMOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 020, RESIDING AT THUNDATHIL, TC 37/1639, KOTHALAM ROAD, FORT P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 023.** **BY ADVS.SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. SRI.K.R.GANESH SMT.KAIMAL PRIYA PADMANABHA SMT.GOURI BALAGOPAL** ## **RESPONDENTS :-** |**1**|**STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,**| |---|---| ||**HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT,**| ||**GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 001.**| |**2**|**THE PRINCIPAL AND CONTROLLING OFFICER,**| ||**GOVERNMENT HOMOEOPATHIC MEDICAL COLLEGE, IRANIMUTTOM,**| ||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 010.**| |**3**|**SHREE VIDHYADHIRAJA HOMOEOPATHIC MEDICAL COLLEGE**| ||**NEMOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 020,**| ||**REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.**| |**4**|**SECRETARY**| ||**SREE VIDHYADHIRAJA VIDYA SAMAJAM, ASWATHY,**| ||**HINDU MISSION ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 1, KERALA, AND**| ||**MANAGER, SHREE VIDYADHIRAJA HOMOEOPATHIC MEDICAL**| ||**COLLEGE, NEMOM P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 20.**| |**5**|**THE KERALA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCINECES,**| ||**MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O, THRISSUR – 680 596,**| ||**REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.**| ||**BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.)**| ||**BY ADV. SRI.P.M.SANEER**| ||**BY SRI.P.SREEKUMAR, SC, KUHS**| **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21-012021, ALONG WITH WP(C).20394/2020(Y), THE COURT ON 22-02-2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WP(C).Nos.20394/2020 & 28675/2020 -: 3 :- ## **JUDGMENT** **[WP(C).Nos.20394/2020 & 28675/2020]** **Dated this the 22nd day of February, 2021** Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 and 4 and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 5[th] respondent. 2. The challenge in W.P.(C) No.20394/2020 is against Ext.P23 show cause notice issued to the petitioner on 23.9.2020. While, the challenge in W.P.(C) No.28675/2020 is against Ext.P27 charge memo, Ext.P27(a) statement of allegations and Ext.P27(b) forwarding letter. 3. The petitioner in these writ petitions was working as Principal of the 3[rd] respondent Homeopathic Medical College. By Ext.P20 order dated 29.5.2020, the petitioner was sought to be relieved from the post of Principal and appointed as Academic Advisor to the Principal, on the ground that she is not medically fit to continue. The petitioner challenged the said proceedings. Though Ext.P21 interim order was passed, the same was not complied with and a contempt of court case is also came to be filed. Thereafter, by Ext.P22 judgment, W.P.(C) No.11114/2020 was allowed and the petitioner continued as Principal. It is stated that WP(C).Nos.20394/2020 & 28675/2020 -: 4 :- a writ appeal has been preferred against the judgment, which had been admitted, but, no stay was granted. 4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was initially appointed as Junior Medical Officer in Shree Vidyadhiraja Homeopathic Hospital on 1.2.1991. Her probation was declared on 16.2.1993. After the Shree Vidyadhiraja Homeopathic Medical College was reopened as a degree college in 2001 and after direct payment system was introduced in the college, the petitioner was appointed as Tutor in the college with effect from 5.6.2002. It is stated that the petitioner's appointment as Tutor and thereafter as Lecturer, Reader, Professor and Principal had been duly approved by the University and the petitioner had been drawing salary in all the above mentioned posts. It is contended that with a specific intention of getting back at the petitioner for a refusal to endorse the appointment of nonteaching staff, who were appointed only in the year 2018 with retrospective effect, as also due to the animosity generated by the petitioner having approached this Court as against Ext.P20 and obtained favourable orders from this Court, the respondent has now issued Ext.P23 proceedings against her. 5. W.P.(C) No.20394/2020 came up for consideration on 30.9.2020 and on the same day, this Court ordered that no orders WP(C).Nos.20394/2020 & 28675/2020 -: 5 :- terminating the petitioner from service shall be issued pursuant to Ext.P23, but, the petitioner will be at liberty to submit her explanation to the same. While so, a memorandum of charges with a statement of allegations was issued to the petitioner along with a covering letter dated 17.12.2020, which are produced as Exts.P27 to P27(b) in W.P.(C) No.28675/2020. The charges against the petitioner are as follows :- No.SVVS/81/2020 Date : 17-12-2020 ## **ചചരരര മമമമച** ഡ�� എല ത�ര, പ��ന��പല പ�� വ�ദ��ധ�ര�ജ ഡ��മ�ഡ��പത�ക മമ��കല ഡ��ളജ ഡ�മ , ത�ര!വ�ന�!ര - 20 ന എത�മര�!ള ച�രജ 1. ഡ�� എല ത�രമ�ന ത�ങള പ�� വ�ദ��ധ�ര�ജ ഡ��മ�ഡ��പത�ക മമ��കല ഡ��ളജ�ഡ��ട�!ബന�ച.ള പ�� വ�ദ��ധ�ര�ജ ഡ��മ�ഡ��പത�ക ആ�!�പത���ല ജ0���ര/�����ര മമ��കല ഓഫ��റ��� ഡജ�ല� ഡ��ക� . വരഡവ ത�മ5 �റ�!ന �!റങള മചയത! - (i) പ�� വ�ദ��ധ�ര�ജ ഡ��മ�ഡ��പത�ക മമ��കല ഡ��ളജ�മന ���മ��ധ���ര���� ഡ��ളജ മ�ഡ�ജര!മട ���മ��!�സത ���മ� ഉതരവ�ലല�മത ���മ�തട�പ. �ടത� മമ��കല . - ഡ��ളജ�ല അ�ധ��സതമ��� ��റ�ക0ട� - (ii) ഇലല�ത ���മ� ഉതരവ�മന ഡ�ര�ല അ�ര�മ�� സ��ങള �രസമ�ക� �രക�ര ഖജ��വ�ന ഡ��ട��ള.മട . - �ഷDമ!ണ�ക� - (iii) ���മ�രമ�� ���മ� ഉതരഡവ�, ഡജ����� ഗ റ�ഡപ�രഡട� ഇലല�മത മമ��കല ഡ��ഡളജ�ല ���മ� ലഭ�ച. എന വ��ജ പ�ചരണ �ടത��! ച�ല തല�ര �ക��ള.മ��� ഡചരനD �!റ�രമ�� ഗ0ഢ�ഡല�ച� �ടത��! അധ���ര��മള . - മതറ�ദര�പ�ച. അ�ര�മ�� ��മത�� ഡ�ടമ!ണ�ക� - (iv) ���മ� ലഭ�ക�ത തസത����ല ���മ� ലഭ�ച. എനD . - മതറ�ദ�രണ �രത!നത�ന വ��ജഡരഖ ചമച. - (v) ഡജ�ല���ല ��ന! വ�രമ�ഡകണ ദ�വ� �5�ഞ�ട. വ��ജഡരഖ�ള.മട മറവ�ല �രര���ല ത!ടരനD ദ�ലകങള . - അ�ധ��സതമ��� ക��റ� മ��ത!ഖജ��വ ഡച�രത!ന! WP(C).Nos.20394/2020 & 28675/2020 -: 6 :- (vi) ഡജ�ല���ല ��ന! വ�രമ�ഡകണ പ��� �5�ഞ ��ര� മ���ല�ക�ത�ര�ക!നത�ന ��ങള.മട �രര�സ �!സത� . തപന�0രര ക�വ�മപട!ത� �0ഴത�വച�ര�ക!ന! (vii) ആത!ര ഡ�വ� ര ഗതD ഡ�വ� �ടഡതണ ഭ�വ� ഡ��കടരമ�മര വ�രമതട!ഡകണ മമ��കല ഡ��ളജ ഡ��ല!ള സ���ത�ല അ�ധ��സതമ��! ���മ��!�സത ഡ��ഗ�ത�ള�ലല�മത�! ��ട മ�രരങള�ലക0മട ��റ�ക0ട� മത�5�ല�രമ�� മര��ദ�! . � സക�രവ! ��ങള ല ഘ�ച�ര�ക!ന! 2. ��ങളമകത�മര 1960-മല ഡ�രള ��വ�ല �രര��!�ള (തര ത�ര�കല! ���പനണവ! , അപ�ല! ) ചടങളകD ��5�ല ഉഡV��കമപട�ട.ള പ���രമ!ള ��കണ �ട�ട��ള എട!ക�ത�ര�ക�ന ��രണമ!മണങ�ല അത! ��ണ�ക�ന ��ങഡള�ട ആവ��മപട!ന!. ��ങളകD പ�ത�വ�ദ �പത�� 15 ദ�വ� �ല�!നത����� ഈ വ�വര ലഭ�ച ത��ത� മ!തല അ�!വദ�ക!ന!. ��രഡV��ച �മ�ത��!ള�ല ��ങള.മട �പത�� ലഭ�ക!ന�മലലങ�ല ��ങളകD ��മത�ര! വ��ദ��രണവ! �ല�!വ���മലലന . അ�!മ��ത�ല �ട�ട��ള ത!ടര!നത�ണ ��ങമള ഡ�ര�ടD ഡ�ളക�ന ആപഗ��ക!ഡന� എനത�ന �0ട� മറ!�ട� അറ���ക!വ�ന ��ങഡള�ട . ആവ��മപട!ന! ആഡര��ണ � ബന�ച ഡZറDമമന�ല �റഞ�ട.ള പ��ക ഡരഖ�ള ��ങളകD ഡ��ക�വ!നത�ണ. അപ���ര ആപഗ��ക!ന!മണങ�ല ��ങള.മട അഡ�ക��ഡ\ല മ!ന�0ട� ��ശ��ച ഏമതങ�ല! ദ�വ� പ�ത�വ�ദത��!ള ��ങള.മട �പത�� �മരപ�ഡകണ അവ��� ത��ത�ക! മ!ന�!ള ഏമതങ�ല! ദ�വ� ഡ��ഡളജ�മല കവസ പ��ന��പല/ജ0���ര �0പ�ണD എന�വര!മട ��ന�ദ�ത�ല ��ങളകD ഡരഖ�ള ഡ��ക�വ!നത! അവ��ല ��ന! ഉദ�രണങള എ5!ത� . എട!ക�വ!നത!മ�ണ The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the charges against the petitioner are prima facie unsustainable. It is stated that the petitioner had been appointed as teaching staff in the Medical College and had been continuously working as such for the past nearly 20 years. It is contended that the appointment of the petitioner having been made by the 3[rd] respondent had been duly approved by all authorities and the contention now raised with regard to the non-availability of an order of appointment is clearly misconceived and is evidently vitiated by mala fide and extraneous WP(C).Nos.20394/2020 & 28675/2020 -: 7 :- considerations. It is, therefore, contended that this is a fit case, where the disciplinary proceedings are liable to be interdicted at the initial stage itself since there is absolutely no bona fides in the action of the respondents. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the decisions of the Apex Court in **State of Punjab** v. **V. K. Khanna and others** [2001 (2) SCC 330], **Union of India and another** v. **Kunisetty Satyanarayana** [2006 (12) SCC 28], **Union of India** v. **Rajesh Kachhap** [2011 (4) KHC 273] and **Amrutha M. George** v. **Spices Board, Cochin and others** [ILR 2016 (1) Kerala 934]. 7. A detailed counter affidavit has been placed on record by respondents 3 and 4. It is contended that Ext.P3 order states that the petitioner had entered into service as Junior Medical Officer and ex-officio Junior Lecturer with effect from 6.2.1991 and the probation is seen declared satisfactory on the very same day, that is, 6.2.1991. It is stated that even if Ext.P29 order, which is produced by the petitioner along with the reply affidavit is taken into consideration, the petitioner would have crossed the maximum age limit for appointment as Junior Lecturer as on 5.6.2002 and she could not have been appointed as such on the said date. It is submitted that the staff list included the staff who were working in both the Medical College and the Hospital and that the name of the WP(C).Nos.20394/2020 & 28675/2020 -: 8 :- petitioner was included in the list of medical staff as Junior Medical Officer from 6.2.1991 and Senior Medical Officer from 1.3.2002. It is submitted that the petitioner had deliberately manipulated the documents and secured the benefits which she was not entitled to. The veracity of Ext.P29 document is also called to question by the respondents. 8. The learned counsel for the Manager has relied on the decisions reported in **Union of India and another** v. **Kunisetty Satyanarayana** [2006 (12) SCC 28] in support of the contention that a writ petition is not maintainable against a charge memo. The decisions reported in **Secretary, Min. of Defence and others** v. **Prabhash Chandra Mirdha** [2012 (11) SCC 565], **Sunil N. V.** v. **Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd., Tvm and others** [2017 (4) KLT 1088], **Union of India and others** v. **Upendra Singh** [1994 (3) SCC 357] are also relied on. The provisions of the Central Council of Homeopathy Regulations, 1983 and the Central Council of Homeopathy Regulations, 2002 are also relied on in support of the contention. 9. I have considered the contentions advanced. The petitioner has specifically raised a contention that the proceedings initiated against the petitioner are clearly vitiated by mala fide. The petitioner was admittedly appointed as Junior Medical Officer WP(C).Nos.20394/2020 & 28675/2020 -: 9 :- in the Shree Vidyadhiraja Homeopathic Hospital in the year 1991. Her probation was declared and she was promoted as Senior Medical Officer. While so, direct payment system was introduced in the Homeopathic Medical College on specific conditions. Ext.P5 agreement was also entered into on 21.6.2001. The Medical College was re-opened as a degree college in the year 2001. It became an aided institution in the year 2002. From that year onwards, the petitioner's name had been included in the staff list of the Homeopathic Medical College and she had been treated as a teaching staff therein as evident from Exts.P9 and P10. The petitioner had been appointed as Lecturer, Reader, Professor, Head of the Department and Principal by competent orders issued by the Manager, which were approved by the University and payment of salary through the direct payment system had been authorised and disbursed to the petitioner. Exts.P11 to P17 are orders issued by the Manager. The charge raised against the petitioner now is that she had “usurped the post of teaching staff in the college by manipulating records”. The petitioner clearly contends that this contention raised after about 20 years by the Manager himself is clearly vitiated by mala fide and that no meaningful purpose will be served by permitting the proceedings to go on. I notice that the principal allegation raised against the petitioner, both in Exts.P23 WP(C).Nos.20394/2020 & 28675/2020 -: 10 :- and in P27, is to the effect that the petitioner has usurped an appointment as a teaching staff without a proper order of appointment. If that be so, it cannot be the fault of the petitioner alone since the Manager, who had treated the petitioner as a teaching staff and had sent up proposals for approval of such appointments is equally at fault, if not more so, for the omissions, if any, that have occurred. 10. In **State of Punjab** v. **V. K. Khanna and others' case** cited supra the issue of interference in a disciplinary proceedings at the stage of issuance of the charge sheet was considered and it was held that bias negates fairness and reasonableness. The expression 'mala fide' has a definite significance in the legal phraseology and the same and the same cannot possibly emanate out fanciful imagination or even apprehension but there must be existing definite evidence of bias and actions which cannot be attributed to be otherwise bona fide – actions not otherwise bona fide, however, by themselves would not amount to be mala fide unless the same is in accompaniment with some other factors which would depict a bad motive or intent on the part of the doer of the act. It was further held that mala fide intent or biased attitude cannot be put in a strait-jacket formula but depends upon WP(C).Nos.20394/2020 & 28675/2020 -: 11 :- facts and circumstances of each case and in that perspective judicial precedents would not be of any assistance. 11. In **Union of India and another** v. **Kunisetty Satyanarayana's case,** the Apex Court held that ordinarily no writ lies against a charge sheet or a show cause notice. However, it was held that in exceptional cases, the High Court would be justified in quashing a charge sheet if it is found to be wholly without jurisdiction or if it is wholly illegal. The facts in that case were with regard to an allegation that the petitioner had wrongly availed the benefit of reservation by production of an incorrect caste certificate. 12. A Division Bench of this Court in **Rajesh Kachhap's case** supra held that interference is possible at the stage of issuance of a charge sheet only if the allegation do not make out a case for initiation of the proceedings. 13. A learned Single Judge of this Court in **Amrutha M. George** v. **Spices Board, Cochin and others' case** held that a challenge against a charge memo is maintainable in a case where proceedings are so biased that enquiry would be a mere farcical show and conclusions are well known. 14. In **Secretary, Min. of Defence and others** v. **Prabhash Chandra Mirdha's case** , the Apex Court had held that a charge WP(C).Nos.20394/2020 & 28675/2020 -: 12 :- sheet cannot generally be the subject matter of challenge in a writ petition even if there is delay in initiating the proceedings unless the delay creates prejudice to the delinquent employee. 15. In **Sunil N. V.** v. **Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd., Tvm and others'** supra, this Court held that where disciplinary proceedings are initiated on the ground of causing loss to the employer, this Court would not be justified in interfering at the initial stage since the factual aspects of the matter can be brought to light only in a duly constituted enquiry. 16. In **Union of India and others** v. **Upendra Singh's case** also, the Apex Court held that the Tribunal constituted under the Administrative Tribunals Act would not be justified in looking into the truth of the charges or into the correctness of the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority. 17. The instant case is one where the petitioner has been included in the approved staff list as a teaching faculty in the college since 2002 and there has been no objection raised from any quarters with regard to the age or other eligibility for her holding the posts in the college. Appointments to successive posts have been duly approved and the petitioner was functioning as Principal of the college. I fail to see any reason except clear malice in raking up the legality of her appointment at this distance in time. This WP(C).Nos.20394/2020 & 28675/2020 -: 13 :- case specifically falls within the exemptions to the general rule that a show cause notice or a charge memo is not to be interfered with by this Court. In a case where this Court is convinced of the existence of mala fides on the part of the respondents in issuing such show cause notices, this Court is not powerless to intervene. The decisions relied on by the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents are also authority on the point that in exceptional situations, this Court would be justified in interfering with show cause notices and charge memos as well. 18. In the instant case, the long delay in initiating the disciplinary proceedings is also an another vitiating factor. This Court as well as the Apex Court has repeatedly considered the issue and have found that in cases where the unduly long delay in initiating proceedings stand unexplained, such initiation would be illegal and unsustainable in law. The decisions of the Apex Court in **State of M.P.** v. **Bani Singh and another** [1990 KHC 678], **State of A.P.** v. **N. Radhakishan** [(1998) 4 SCC 154], **State of Punjab** v. **V. K. Khanna and others** [(2001) 2 SCC 330], **P. V. Mahadevan** v. **MD, T. N. Housing Board** [2005 KHC 1300] and of this Court in **Vilasanadas Daniel** v. **District Collector** [2001 KHC 837] are some of such decisions. In the nature of the charges raised against the petitioner, I find that the contention of mala fides and bias WP(C).Nos.20394/2020 & 28675/2020 -: 14 :- raised by the petitioner stand substantiated by the action and the conduct of the respondents. After having appointed the petitioner in a teaching post and having granted her due promotions over two decades, the attempt to state that the petitioner had created documents to usurp the post can only be said to be a mala fide exercise of power. In the above view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the impugned notices and orders are completely unsustainable and are vitiated by clear malice in law. The impugned notices and orders in these writ petitions are, therefore, set aside. There will be a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue as Principal in the college. These writ petitions are ordered accordingly. **Sd/ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE** Jvt/2.2.2021 WP(C).Nos.20394/2020 & 28675/2020 -: 15 :- ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 20394/2020** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER GO (MS) NO 241/86/H & FWD 2.12.1986 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT** - **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO SVRHMC EST/12/91/T DATED 1.2.1991 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT APPOINTING THE PETITIONER AS JUNIOR MEDICAL OFFICER** - **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16.2.1993 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DECLARING THE PROBATION OF THE PETITIONER** - **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER GO (MS) NO 511/95/H&FWD DATED 10.11.1995 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT** - **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 21.6.2001 EXECUTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT WITH THE GOVERNMENT** - **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO SVRHMC/P14/02 T DATED 1.3.2002 BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT PROMOTING THE PETITIONER AS SENIOR MEDICAL OFFICER** **EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER GO(MS) NO 184/2003/H&FWD DATED 3.9.2003 INTRODUCING DIRECT PAYMENT SYSTEM IN THE COLLEGE WITH EFFECT FROM 1.9.2002** **EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER GO(MS) NO 203/2006/H&FWD DATED 22.9.2006 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT** - **EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER GO(MS) NO 346/2008/H&FWD DATED 9.7.2000 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT** **EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT GO(MS) NO 376/2009/H&FWD DATED 30.10.2009 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT REGULARISING THE DATES OF APPOINTMENT OF THE TEACHING STAFF IN THE SVRHMC** - **EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO SVVS/55/18 DATED 2.6.2018 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT APPOINTING THE PETITIONER AS TUTOR IN THE DEPARTMENT OF PRACTICE OF MEDICINE** **EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO SVVS/56/18 DATED 2.6.2018 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT PROMOTING THE PETITIONER AS LECTURER, DEPARTMENT OF PRACTICE OF MEDICINE, SVHMC** WP(C).Nos.20394/2020 & 28675/2020 -: 16 :- - **EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO SVVS/57/18 DATED 2.6.2018 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT PROMOTING THE PETITIONER AS HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT,DEPARTMENT OF PRACTICE OF MEDICINE, SVHMC** - **EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO SVVS/58/18 DATED 2.6.2018 PROMOTING THE PETITIONER AS READER AND HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PRACTICE OF MEDICINE, SVHMC** - **EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO SVVS/59/18 DATED 2.6.2018 PROMOTING THE PETITIONER AS PROFESSOR AND HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT, DEPARTMENT OF PRACTICE OF MEDICINE, SVHMC** - **EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO SVVS/64/17 DATED 23.4.2017 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT PROMOTING THE PETITIONER AS PRINCIPAL** - **EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO SVRHMC//2017/157 (A) DATED 30.4.2017 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT** - **EXHIBIT P18 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO 13496/19/ACI/AYUSH/A3/KUHS DATED 5.9.2019 APPROVING THE APPOINTMENT OF THE PETITIONER BY THE KERALA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES** - **EXHIBIT P19 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO 146/A1/2020/SVRHMC DATED 5.5.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT** - **EXHIBIT P20 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO SVVS/72/20 DATED 29.5.2020 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT REMOVING THE PETITIONER FROM THE POST OF PRINCIPAL OF SVHMC** - **EXHIBIT P21 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 8.6.2020 IN WPC NO 11114/2020 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT** - **EXHIBIT P22 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 26.6.2020 IN WPC NO 11114/2020 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT** - **EXHIBIT P23 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO SVVS/81/2020 DATED 23.9.2020 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE** **ANNEXURE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PRINTOUT SHOWING THAT SOFT COPY OF WRIT PETITION HAS BEEN SERVED TO RESPONDENTS 3 & 4.** ## **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT R3A : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER No.AC.B1/31650/2001 DATED 11.02.2005 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA.** WP(C).Nos.20394/2020 & 28675/2020 -: 17 :- **EXHIBIT R3B : TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BETWEEN 1ST RESPONDENT & 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 21.6.2003.** **EXHIBIT R3C : TRUE COPY OF THE SERVICE DETAILS OF STAFFS AS ON 1/9/2002 PREPARED BY THE PRINCIPAL, SVHMC.** **EXHIBIT R3D : TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 13.03.2015 IN WP(C)No.18669/2006 AND CONNECTED CASES OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.** **EXHIBIT R3E : A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 11/8/2015 IN W.A.No.1546/2015 AND JUDGMENT DTD 1/3/2016 IN W.A.No.2498/2015 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.** **EXHIBIT R3F : TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT ADDRESSED TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT REGISTRAR, KUHS, GIVEN BY MR.R.K.NANDAGOPAN AND COPY TO 3RD RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT R3G : TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 05.07.2020 ADDRESSED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT GIVEN BY MR.R.K.NANDAGOPAN WITH COPY SENT TO 3RD RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT R3H : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER No.SVVS/81/2020 DATED 27.07.2020 ISSUED BY THIS RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT R3I : TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED 02.08.2020 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT R3J : TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 05.10.2020 TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE.** **EXHIBIT R3K : A TRUE COPY OF THE PROPOSAL SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD 20/8/2007 TO THE GOVERNMENT.** WP(C).Nos.20394/2020 & 28675/2020 -: 18 :- ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C)28675/2020** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER G.O(MS) NO.241/86/H AND FWD DATED 02.12.1986 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. SVRHMC EST/12/91/T DATED 01.02.1991 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT APPOINTING THE PETITIONER AS JUNIOR MEDICAL OFFICER.** **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16.02.1993 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DECLARING THE PROBATION OF THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER GO(MS) NO.511/95/H AND FWD DATED 10.11.1995 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 21.06.2001 EXECUTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT WITH THE GOVERNMENT. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.SVRHMC/P14/02 T DATED 01.03.2002 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT PROMOTING THE PETITIONER AS SENIOR MEDICAL OFFICER. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER GO(MS) NO.184/2003/H AND FWD DATED 03.09.2003 INTRODUCING DIRECT PAYMENT SYSTEM IN THE COLLEGE. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER GO(MS)NO.203/2006/H AND FWD DATED 22.09.2006 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O(M.S) NO.346/2008/H AND FWD DATED 09.07.2000 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O(MS) NO. 376/2009/F AND FWD DATED 30.10.2009 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT REGULARISING THE DATES OF APPOINTMENT OF THE TEACHING STAFF IN THE SVRHMC. EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. SVVS/55/18 DATED 02.06.2018 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT APPOINTING THE PETITIONER AS TUTOR IN THE DEPARTMENT OF PRACTICE OF MEDICINE. EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. SVVS/56/18 DATED 02.06.2018 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT PROMOTING** WP(C).Nos.20394/2020 & 28675/2020 -: 19 :- **THE PETITIONER AS LECTURER, DEPARTMENT OF PRACTICE OF MEDICINE, SVHMC.** **EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. SVVS/57/18 DATED 02.06.2018 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT APPOINTING THE PETITIONER AS HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT,DEPARTMENT OF PRACTICE OF MEDICINE, SVHMC. EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. SVVS/58/18 DATED 02.06.2018 PROMOTING THE PETITIONER AS READER AND HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PRACTICE OF MEDICINE, SVHMC. EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. SVVS/59/18 DATED 02.06.2018 PROMOTING THE PETITIONER AS PROFESSOR AND HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT, DEPARTMENT OF PRACTICE OF MEDICINE, SVHMC. EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. SVVS/64/2017 DATED 23.04.2017 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT PROMOTING THE PETITIONER AS PRINCIPAL. EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO. SVRHMC/2017/157(A) DATED 30.04.2017 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P18 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 13496/2019/AC1/AYUSH/A3/KUHS DATED 05.09.2019 APPROVING THE APPOINTMENT OF THE PETITIONER BY THE KERALA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES. EXHIBIT P19 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. 146/A1/2020/SVRHMC DATED 05.05.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P20 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. SVVS/72/20 DATED 29.05.2020 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT REMOVING THE PETITIONER FROM THE POST OF THE PRINCIPAL OF SVHMC. EXHIBIT P21 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 08.06.2020 IN WP(C) NO.11114/2020 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXHIBIT P22 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 26.06.2020 IN WP(C) NO.11114/2020 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXHIBIT P23 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 06.10.2020 IN W.A NO.960/2020 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.** WP(C).Nos.20394/2020 & 28675/2020 -: 20 :- |**EXHIBIT P24**|**TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO. SVVS/81/2020**| |---|---| ||**DATED 23.09.2020 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO**| ||**THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE.**| |**EXHIBIT P25**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.09.2020 ISSUED BY**| ||**THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP(C) NO.20394/2020.**| |**EXHIBIT P26**|**TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 28.10.2020**| ||**PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP(C) NO.**| ||**20394/2020.**| |**EXHIBIT P27**|**TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF CHARGES NO.**| ||**SVVS/81/2020 DATED 17.12.2020 ISSUED BY THE 4TH**| ||**RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.**| |**EXHIBIT P27(a)**|**TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS**| ||**ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.**| |**EXHIBIT P27(b)**|**TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER NO. SVVS/81/2020**| ||**DATED 17.12.2020.**| |**EXHIBIT P28**|**TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO. SVRHMC/145/2015**| ||**DATED 22.05.2015 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO**| ||**THE PRINCIPAL AND CONTROLLING OFFICER, GOVERNMENT**| ||**HOMOEOPATHIC COLLEGE.**| |**EXHIBIT P29**|**TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO S.V.V.S.A. 53/02**| ||**DATED 05.06.2002 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY SHREE**| ||**VIDYADHIRAJA VIDYA SAMAJAM, THIRUVANATHPURAM**| |**EXHIBIT P30**|**TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO**| ||**1921/SVRHMC/2010 DATED 09.01.2010 ISSUED BY THE**| ||**4TH RESPONDNET TO THE REGISTRAR**| |**EXHIBIT P31**|**TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE P[ROCEEDINGS NO SVVS/1/2015**| ||**DATED 05.01.2015**| |**EXHIBIT P32**|**TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE AUDIT ENQUIRY REPORT NOAMG**| ||**III-1-12-46/2020-21/92 TOGETHER WITH THE COVERING**| ||**LETTER DATED 06.01.2021 ISSUED BY THE SENIOR AUDIT**| ||**OFFICER TO THE PRINCIPAL**| ## **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT R3A : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER No.AC.B1/31650/2001 DATED 11.02.2005 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA.** **EXHIBIT R3B : TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BETWEEN 1ST RESPONDENT & 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 21.6.2003.** WP(C).Nos.20394/2020 & 28675/2020 -: 21 :- **EXHIBIT R3C : TRUE COPY OF THE SERVICE DETAILS OF STAFFS AS ON 1/9/2002 PREPARED BY THE PRINCIPAL, SVHMC.** **EXHIBIT R3D : TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 13.03.2015 IN WP(C)No.18669/2006 & 9 OTHER CONNECTED CASES OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.** **EXHIBIT R3E : A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 11/8/2015 IN W.A.No.1546/2015 AND JUDGMENT DTD 1/3/2016 IN W.A.No.2498/2015 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.** **EXHIBIT R3F : TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT ADDRESSED TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT REGISTRAR, KUHS, GIVEN BY MR.R.K.NANDAGOPAN AND COPY TO 3RD RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT R3G : TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 05.07.2020 ADDRESSED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT GIVEN BY MR.R.K.NANDAGOPAN WITH COPY SENT TO 3RD RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT R3H : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER No.SVVS/81/2020 DATED 27.07.2020 ISSUED BY THIS RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT R3I : TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED 02.08.2020 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT R3J : TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 05.10.2020 TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WITH COVERING LETTER No.244/A1/2020/SVRHMC SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT R3K : A TRUE COPY OF THE PROPOSAL SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD 20/8/2007 TO THE GOVERNMENT.** **EXHIBIT R3L : A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD 19/11/2020 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT ALONG WITH COMMUNICATION OF THE AYUSH DEPARTMENT.** **EXHIBIT R3M : A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD 19/12/2020 ISSUED BY THE MANAGER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE