K. Unnikrishnan Nair v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Ernakulam and Others

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.`** ``` TUESDAY, THE 26[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 6TH CHAITHRA, 1946 ``` ## **`WP(C) NO. 1942 OF 2012`** ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` K.UNNIKRISHNAN NAIR, AGED 52 YEARS, THEKKEDATH HOUSE, AYYARKULANGARA, VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, KERALA-686 142, NOW RESIDING AT 'LEKSHMI', PARAVUTHARA VILLAGE, PUTHAYILPALAM, NORTH PARAVOOR.P.O., ERNAKULAM-683 513. ``` ## **`BY ADV P.P.JACOB`** ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - **`1 CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF LABOUR & EMPLOYMENT, 38/377, A2, KARTHIKA LANE, KARSHAKA ROAD, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY - 682 016.`** - **`2 INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, CENTRAL OFFICE ANNASALAI, CHENNAI, P.B.NO.3765, REP.BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, PIN-600 002.`** - **`3 THE CHIEF REGIONAL MANAGER, INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, REGIONAL OFFICE, JOSE JUNCTION, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM-682 016.`** - **`4 THE CHIEF OFFICER (DA), REGIONAL OFFICE, I.O.B, JOSE JUNCTION, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM-682 016.`** - **`5 THE SENIOR MANAGER, INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, KUMBANAD BRANCH, PATHANAMTHITTA (DT) - 689 547.`** - **`6 THE ASST.LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL), MINSITRY OF LABOUR & EMPLOYMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.`** ``` BY ADVS. SRI.LEO GEORGE SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEWS ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` WP(C) NO. 1942 OF 2012 -2- ## JUDGMENT The petitioner was joined the service of the Indian Overseas Bank as a Junior Clerk on 18-03-1982. While working at Kochi by proceedings dated 02-08-2005 the petitioner was transferred to Kumbanad branch which is stated to be about 130 Kms away from Kochi. According to the petitioner this transfer was malafide as the petitioner had complained against the Manager under whom he was working. After joining at Kumbanad the petitioner applied for sick leave from 07-09-2005 to 13-09-2005. According to the petitioner since 14-09-2005 and 15-09-2005 were holidays for the bank owing to Onam, the petitioner rejoined service on 16-09-2005 together with fitness certificate and leave application. The petitioner again applied for sick leave from 26-09-2005 to 28-09-2005. According to the petitioner on 29-09-2005 there was an All India strike of bank employees, therefore he rejoined duty on 30-09-2005 with fitness certificate and leave application. The petitioner again proceeded on sick leave from 03-10-2005 to 28-11-2005. According to the petitioner he rejoined duty on 29-11-2005 along with fitness certificate and leave application. It is the specific case of the petitioner that when sick leave is availed, the leave application need be given only after rejoining duty WP(C) NO. 1942 OF 2012 -3- along with fitness certificate. 2. The petitioner was issued with Ext.P17 Memo of Charges containing allegations relating to unauthorised absence and also excessive borrowings from outside sources. According to Ext.P17 the petitioner committed acts prejudicial to the interest of the bank. There were also allegations that the petitioner had remained unauthorisedly absent continuously for a period exceeding 30 days; that he has been unpunctual and irregular in attendance; that he has remained absent without leave and without sufficient grounds; that he has disobeyed reasonable orders of the management to attend duty; that his acts have tarnished the image of the bank and that he has resorted to excessive outside borrowings. A reading of Ext.P17 will also show that the allegations against the petitioner allegedly constituted gross misconduct under Clauses 5(d), 5(e), 5(j) and 5 (p) and minor misconduct under Clauses 7 (a), 7 (b) and 7 (l) of Ext.P2 Bipartite Settlement between the bank and its employees. 3. An enquiry was conducted against the petitioner. Exhibit P22 is the proceedings of enquiry held against the petitioner. Exhibit P24 is the report of enquiry. Thereafter the petitioner was issued with Ext.P24 (a) show cause notice calling upon the petitioner to show WP(C) NO. 1942 OF 2012 -4- cause as to why the punishment of dismissal should not be imposed upon him. By Ext.P26 order dated 06-11-2006, the punishment of 'Discharge from service with superannuation benefits without disqualification from future employment' under Clause 6 (d) of Ext.P2 Bipartite Settlement was imposed on the petitioner. The petitioner filed an appeal to the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority by Ext.P32 order rejected the appeal. 4. The petitioner thereupon sought a reference of dispute to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ernakulam (in short the CGIT-cum-Labour Court) by Ext.P39 award found by of preliminary order (Ext.P38) that the enquiry was not conducted in a proper manner. It was found that the Enquiry Officer had not even followed the elementary rule of procedure in conduct of the enquiry. It was found as follows:- “11. The disciplinary authority before accepting the findings of Enquiry Officer did not call for remarks of charge sheeted employee regarding the findings of Enquiry Officer. Without providing such an opportunity the disciplinary authority straight away issued a show-cause notice regarding proposed punishment of dismissal from service and the workman was asked to appear for personal hearing. But the workman sought time for personal hearing which was granted. Despite that the workman did WP(C) NO. 1942 OF 2012 -5- not appear and hence the punishment of discharge from service was imposed. But before findings were confirmed it was necessary for the Disciplinary Authority to have called for the representation of the workman regarding findings of Enquiry Officer. Document No.25 is the order of the disciplinary authority dated 08.04.2006. It is a one page order stating that a copy of enquiry report was being enclosed, that the findings of Enquiry Officer was that the workman had admitted all the charges, and that since the charges were serious in nature punishment of dismissal without notice was being proposed. The workman was therefore asked to show-cause why the proposed penalty should not be imposed. It is while imposing the punishment as per order dated 06.11.2006 (document No.35 in M1 (a)) that the disciplinary authority stated that he had gone through the records of enquiry and he was in full agreement with the findings of Enquiry Officer. Though the misconduct was serious in nature, taking a lenient view penalty of discharge from service was being imposed. Thus before proposing the punishment the workman was not heard regarding the findings of Enquiry Officer. 12. Both Enquiry Officer and Disciplinary Authority has stated that the workman had admitted the charges. But such an admission is not seen made by CSE during enquiry. What the defence representative was submitting to the Enquiry Officer was that he was accepting the documents produced by the management witness. The documents were leave letters, the re-call notice, previous charge sheet, the prior order of punishment, court WP(C) NO. 1942 OF 2012 -6- attachment orders and a letter of Vijaya Bank regarding loan availed by the workman. The fact that these documents were accepted by the workman does not mean that he had admitted the charges. Without reading out charges to the workman and asking him whether he was admitting or denying the charges, it cannot be presumed from the conduct of the workman in the enquiry that he was admitting the charges. He has denied the charges in the explanation. 13. Thus the Enquiry Officer had not followed the elementary rule of procedure in an enquiry. Even if he was not aware of the enquiry procedure he should have acted as a man of ordinary prudence or he should have gathered information from other officers who have experience. So far as the workman is concerned due to the findings in the enquiry he is out of service and hence it is important that he should have been given full and fair opportunity to defend. The Enquiry Officer has failed to do so and the resultant position is that there is flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice. Consequently the enquiry is unsustainable and is found invalid.” On the basis of the findings in Ext.P38, both the petitioner and the respondent Bank were permitted to lead evidence before the CGITcum-Labour Court. It is after affording such opportunity that the CGIT- cum-Labour Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner was guilty of gross misconduct under Clauses 5(e) and 5(j) and minor WP(C) NO. 1942 OF 2012 -7- misconduct under Clauses 7(a), 7(b) and 7(l) of the bipartite settlement dated 10.04.2002 (Ext.P2). The CGIT-cum-Labour Court also found that the punishment imposed on the petitioner was not grossly disproportionate to the charges leveled against him. It is challenging the Ext.39 order of the CGIT-cum-Labour Court that the petitioner is before this Court by filing the above writ petition. 5. Sri. P.P. Jacob, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has referred to the facts of the case. He has taken me through Ext.P17 charge memo, Ext.P22 enquiry proceedings, Ext.P24 report of the enquiry, Ext.P24(a) show cause notice and Ext.P32 Appellate Order to contend that the enquiry was held in gross violation of known procedure and in violation of principles of natural justice. Firstly, it is submitted that the charges were absolutely vague. It is submitted that when charges are vague, the conclusion of disciplinary proceedings on the basis of such charges cannot be sustained in law. He placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Anil Gilurker v. Bilaspur Raipur Kshetria Gramin Bank and Another [2011 KHC 4854] in support of his contention. He states that the Labour Court also expanded the scope of its enquiry and came to the conclusion that charges, which are not even alleged, stand proved WP(C) NO. 1942 OF 2012 -8- against the petitioner. It is submitted that such finding is grossly illegal and contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Oshiar Prasad and Others v. Employers in relation to Management of Sudamdih Coal Washery of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Dhanbad, Jharkhand [(2015)4 SCC 71]. It is, therefore, submitted that the Ext.P39 order of the CGIT-cum-Labour Court is liable to be set aside and the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner, which culminated in Ext.P26 order, the order of the Appellate Authority (Ext.P32) and the order of the Labour Court are liable to be set aside and the petitioner is to be held entitled to all benefits arising out of the setting aside of Exts.P26, P32 and Ext.P39 award of the CGIT-cum-Labour Court. 6. Sri. V. Philip Mathews, the learned counsel appearing for the Indian Overseas Bank would vehemently oppose the grant of any relief to the petitioner. The primary submission of the learned counsel is that the petitioner cannot now complain of violation of principles of natural justice or any other defect in the enquiry as the enquiry proceedings had been set aside by the Labour Court through Ext.P38 order and thereafter the petitioner and the Bank were permitted to lead evidence before the Tribunal. He places reliance on the judgment WP(C) NO. 1942 OF 2012 -9of this Court in High Range Estate Employees’ Association (CITU) and Another v. Industrial Tribunal and Another [2008(1) KHC 431] to contend that mere procedural violations or short comings is no ground to interfere with the enquiry proceedings. He places reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union Bank of India v. Vishwa Mohan [AIR 1998 SC 2311] to contend that unless prejudice was caused by the alleged violations of procedure and or natural justice, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. He places reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in State Bank of India v. A.G.D.Reddy [2023 KHC 6803] to contend that the scope of interference by this Court is limited. Specific reference is made to paragraphs 36 to 40 of the said judgment to substantiate his contention. The learned counsel also places reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Indian Overseas Bank and Others v. Om Prakash Lal Srivastava [2022 LiveLaw (SC) 66] to drive home the point that the standard of proof in departmental proceedings is based on preponderance of probability and is lower than the standard of proof in criminal proceedings. It is pointed out with reference to the terms of the bipartite settlement and the allegations raised against the petitioner that the Labour Court had rightly found that the petitioner had committed gross misconduct as WP(C) NO. 1942 OF 2012 -10- defined in Clauses 5(e) and 5(j) as also minor misconduct under Clauses 7(a), 7(b) and 7(l) of the bipartite settlement dated 10.04.2002. It is submitted that in such circumstances and considering the fact that the scope of interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in an award in the nature of Ext.P39 is limited, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in the writ petition. Lastly, it is contended with reference to the provisions of Section 10 (1) (b) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 that the petitioner could not have been imposed with any lower penalty than what was imposed on him considering the fact that the petitioner had entered into a compromise or had compounded a case with his creditors. It is submitted with reference to the document referred to as document No.M16(order in Crl.R.P.No.2987/2005) that the petitioner had clearly compounded a case with his creditor and therefore, such a person cannot be continued in employment in the light of the provisions contained in Section 10(1)(b) of the Banking Regulation Act. The learned counsel for the Bank also pointed out that all the benefits payable to the petitioner have been paid to him as is clear from the affidavit filed by the Bank before this Court [affidavit dated 11.02.2015]. WP(C) NO. 1942 OF 2012 -11- 7. Sri.P.P. Jacob, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, in reply, would contend that even if this Court were to hold that the contentions raised against the enquiry proceedings are no longer available to the petitioner on account of the fact that the enquiry proceedings had been set aside by the CGIT-cum-Labour Court, the petitioner is entitled to contend that the CGIT-cum-Labour Court failed to appreciate contentions taken by the petitioner in a proper manner. It is submitted that the finding of the Labour Court that gross misconduct as defined in Clauses 5(e) and 5(j) of Ext.P2 bipartite settlement had been committed by the petitioner cannot be sustained in law. It is submitted that there is no willful insubordination or disobedience of any lawful or reasonable order of the management or of a superior to attract gross misconduct under Clause 5 (e) of Ext.P2 bipartite settlement. It is submitted that even going by Ext.P17, the gross misconduct under Clause 5(j) of Ext.P2 bipartite settlement would be attracted only if the petitioner does any act prejudicial to the Bank or commits gross negligence or negligence involving or likely to involve in the Bank in serious loss. It is submitted that there is not even an allegation that the acts of the petitioner had caused any loss to the respondent Bank. It is also submitted that the WP(C) NO. 1942 OF 2012 -12- question as to whether the punishment imposed on the petitioner was commensurate with the allegations raised against the petitioner and the question as to whether the charges raised against the petitioner were vague were not considered by the Tribunal in the proper perspective. It is submitted that even if the entire allegations against the petitioner in Ext.P17 are accepted to be true, the petitioner cannot be proceeded against on the basis that he had committed any gross misconduct and if at all, the petitioner can be proceeded against only for having committed minor misconduct in terms of Clause 7 of Ext.P2 bipartite settlement. 8. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank, I am of the view that the contentions taken by the petitioner against the conduct of the enquiry and the findings of the enquiry officer and the order of the Appellate Authority need not be considered by this Court as those proceedings were set aside by the CGIT-cum-Labour Court through Ext.P38 order. I am clear in my mind that those proceedings were held completely contrary to settled procedure and even an opportunity to show cause against the findings in the enquiry report was not given to the petitioner. It is clear from the judgment of WP(C) NO. 1942 OF 2012 -13- the constitution bench of the Supreme Court in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad v. B.Karunakar [AIR 1994 SC 1074] that the conclusion of enquiry proceedings, where the disciplinary authority and the enquiry officer are different, the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings without giving an opportunity to show cause against the findings in the enquiry report vitiates the enquiry. As already noted, the enquiry proceedings were set aside and the petitioner as well as the Bank were allowed to adduce evidence before the CGIT-cum-Labour Court to prove / disprove the charges leveled against the petitioner. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner is right in contending that the Labour Court has not properly considered the contentions raised by the petitioner that he has not committed any gross misconduct under Clauses 5(e) and 5(j) under Ext.P2 bipartite settlement has not been properly considered by the Tribunal. The further question as to whether the provisions of Clause 9 of Ext.P2 bipartite settlement would apply to the facts of the case has also not been considered by the Tribunal. The question as to whether any lesser punishment could have been imposed on the petitioner should also have been reconsidered by the CGIT-cum-Labour Court. Therefore I am inclined to take this view as the findings of the Labour Court in WP(C) NO. 1942 OF 2012 -14- ## Ext.P39 on the aforesaid issues are as follows:- “26. Now it is to be considered whether the conduct of the worker in absenting himself from duty without submitting proper leave applications in time amounts to gross or minor misconduct inviting imposition of penalty as per the terms of the memorandum of settlement dated 10.04.2002, copy of the relevant portion of which was marked as Ext.M3. There are acts of gross misconduct and minor misconduct which are made punishable. Clause-5 in Ext.M3 deals with gross misconduct and Clause 7 deals with minor misconduct. In Ext.M-33 charge sheet gross misconduct is stated to have been committed under Clause-5(d) (e) (j) and (p) and minor misconduct under Clause7 (a) (b) and (l). In the written statement it is stated to be under Clause-5(j) and 7(a) (b) (c) and (l). At the time of argument learned counsel for the management has submitted it to be under Clause 5 (d) (e) (j) (p), 7 (a) (b)and (l). Provisions dealing with unauthorized absence are 5(p) and 7(a). Remaining unauthorisedly absent without intimation continuously for a period exceeding 30 days amounts to gross misconduct as per Clause 5(p). Clause 5(p) in the strict sense is not attracted since it cannot be held that he was absenting himself without intimation continuously for a period exceeding 30 days. Though it is pointed out that gross misconduct was committed under Clause 5 (d) (e) (f) (g) and (j) except as to Clause (e) and (j) evidence is lacking to hold that the worker committed gross misconduct defined in the other clauses. Clause (e) states that willful insubordination or disobedience of of any lawful or reasonable order of the management or of a superior amount to gross misconduct and Clause (j) provides that doing any act prejudicial to the interest of the bank or gross negligence or negligence involving or likely to involve the bank in serious loss amount to a gross misconduct. There is evidence to prove that there was willful insubordination and disobedience of lawful WP(C) NO. 1942 OF 2012 -15- order of the management by the worker. It can also be held that certain acts of the worker were prejudicial to the interest of the bank. Clause 7(a) provides that absence without leave or overstaying sanctioned leave without sufficient ground is a minor misconduct. Clause 7(b) provides unpunctual or irregular attendance. It can very well be held that there was such minor misconduct coming under those two clauses. Clause 7(l) deals with excessive borrowings. Incurring of debts to an extent being considered by the management as excessive amounts to a minor misconduct under that provision. Without any hesitation it can be held that the worker committed such a minor misconduct inviting penalty. Hence the worker is found to be guilty of gross misconduct under Clause 5(e) (j) and minor misconduct under Clause 7 (a), (b) and (l) of the Bipartite Settlement dated 10.04.2002. 27. Point No.6:The worker was imposed with the penalty under Clause 6(d) contained in that memorandum of settlement dated 10.04.2002 by the disciplinary authority. Clause 6(d) reads as follows: “6. An employee found guilty of gross misconduct may: (a)………………………... (b)………………………... (c)………………………... (d) be discharged from service with superannuation benefits i.e. Pension and/or Provident Fund and Gratuity as would be due otherwise under the Rules or Regulations prevailing at the relevant time and without disqualification from future employment. ………………………………………………………………………………………..” The commission of gross misconduct through the acts of WP(C) NO. 1942 OF 2012 -16- insubordination causing administrative inconvenience and also by the acts prejudicial to the interest of the bank call for the imposition of major penalty on the worker. In the decision reported in Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial Bank and Others vs. P.C.Kakkar (2003) 4 Supreme Court Cases 364 it was held: “Every officer/employee of the bank is required to take all possible steps to protect the interest of the bank and to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and to do nothing which is unbecoming of a bank officer. Good Conduct and discipline are inseparable from the functioning of every officer/employee of the bank.” ## Further it was held: “Unless the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscious of the court/tribunal, there is no scope for interference. Further to shorten litigation it may, in exceptional and rare cases, impose the appropriate punishment by recording cogent reasons in support thereof”. On a consideration of the proved gross misconduct and minor misconduct of the workman it cannot be said that the punishment imposed by the management is shockingly disproportionate. Hence he is imposed with the penalty of discharging him from service with superannuation benefits and without disqualification from future employment under Clause 6(d) of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 10.04.2002. So the management is justified in imposing such a penalty on him. WP(C) NO. 1942 OF 2012 -17- The award will come into force one month after its publication in the official gazette.” Of course, the question as to whether the provisions of the Banking Regulation Act referred to above, would also apply in the facts of this case is also a matter to be considered by the Labour Court. In the light of the above findings, Ext.P39 order of the Labour Court is set aside. However, it is made clear that the setting aside of Ext.P39 will not amount to a re-opening of the enquiry proceedings. The Labour Court is required to only consider the question as to whether, on the basis of the evidence available, it could be said that the petitioner has committed any gross misconduct as defined in Ext.P2 bipartite settlement and also the question as to whether the punishment imposed on the petitioner is grossly disproportionate to the charges leveled against him. Obviously, the question of considering the issue as to whether the punishment was grossly disproportionate will arise only if the Tribunal were to come to the conclusion that there was material to show that the petitioner had committed the gross misconduct as alleged against him. I make it clear that I have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claims raised by either side and the observations in this judgment are only for the purpose of WP(C) NO. 1942 OF 2012 -18- deciding the issue raised before this Court. The Labour Court shall endeavour to dispose of the matter afresh within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/GOPINATH P. JUDGE AMG/DK WP(C) NO. 1942 OF 2012 -19- ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1942/2012`** - **`PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 13/03/1982 ISSUED BY INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK CHENNEERKARA BRANCH.`** - **`Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SEVENTH BIPARTITE SETTLEMENT DATED 27/3/2000 AND MEMORANDUM OF SETTLEMENT DATED 10/4/2002`** - **`Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE SENIOR MANAGER, COCHIN BRANCH.`** - **`Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE SENIOR MANAGER, COCHIN BRANCH`** - **`Exhibit P3 B TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE SENIOR MANAGER, COCHIN BRANCH`** - **`Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 3/4/1998 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER`** - **`Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 22/10/1998 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.`** - **`Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO 4TH RESPONDENT THROUGH 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 10/3/2005`** - **`Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 24/3/2005`** - **`Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER/COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 22/8/2005`** - **`Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED NOTICE DATED 31/10/2005 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER`** - **`Exhibit P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ATTENDANCE REGISTER FOR THE MONTH OF SEPTEMBER 2005`** - **`Exhibit P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE LEAVE LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ON 16/09/2005`** - **`Exhibit P10 B TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ON 13/09/2005`** WP(C) NO. 1942 OF 2012 -20- - **`Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE LEAVE LETTER DATED 30/9/2005 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ON 30/9/2005`** - **`Exhibit P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DATED 29/9/2005 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ON 30/9/2005`** - **`Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE DATED 3/10/2005 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT`** - **`Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 17/10/2005 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO 5TH RESPONDENT.`** - **`Exhibit P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DATED 3/10/2005 ISSUED BY THE MEDICAL OFFICER, GOVT. AYURVEDA HOSPITAL, KADUTHURUTHY`** - **`Exhibit P13 B TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED A/D CARD AND RECEIPT`** - **`Exhibit P14 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 17/10/2005 BY THE PETITIONER`** - **`Exhibit P15 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER ON 3/11/2005 TO 5TH RESPONDENT.`** - **`Exhibit P16 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER REQUESTING DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST THE PETITIONER DATED 7/10/2005`** - **`Exhibit P16 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER REQUESTING DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST THE PETITIONER DATED 7/11/2005`** - **`Exhibit P17 TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET DATED 5/12/2005 ISSUED BY THE 3RD AND 4TH RESPONDENTS TO THE PETITIONER`** - **`Exhibit P18 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 15/12/2005 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO 4TH RESPONDENT`** - **`Exhibit P19 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 23/12/2005 RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER ON 5/1/2006 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER`** - **`Exhibit P20 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 21/1/2006 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT`** - **`Exhibit P21 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED LETTER DATED 1/2/2006 AND THE POSTAL RECEIPTS`** WP(C) NO. 1942 OF 2012 -21- - **`Exhibit P21 A TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT. Exhibit P21 B TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT. Exhibit P22 TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY PROCEEDINGS CONDUCTED ON 9/2/2006 BY THE ENQUIRY OFFICE.`** - **`Exhibit P23 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER WRITTEN BY THE PETITIONER TO 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 9/2/2006`** - **`Exhibit P24 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE ENQUIRY PROCEEDINGS IN RESPECT OF THE CHARGE SHEET DATED 5/12/2005`** - **`Exhibit P24 A TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 8/4/2006 ISSUED BY 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER`** - **`Exhibit P25 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 02/07/2006 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT`** - **`Exhibit P25 A TRUE COPY OF THE COURIER RECEIPT. Exhibit P25 B TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE SHOWING TREATMENT FROM 4/7/2006 TO 10/7/2006`** - **`Exhibit P26 TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL ORDER DATED 6/11/2006 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER`** - **`Exhibit P27 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 27/11/2006 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO 4TH RESPONDENT`** - **`Exhibit P27 A TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT. Exhibit P27 B TRUE COPY OF THE COURIER RECEIPT. Exhibit P27 C TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT Exhibit P28 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 11/11/2006 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER TO 5TH RESPONDENT`** - **`Exhibit P29 TRUE COPY OF THE ATTENDANCE REGISTER FOR THE MONTH OF NOVEMBER 2005, DECEMBER 2005, 2006`** - **`Exhibit P29 A TRUE COPY OF THE ATTENDANCE REGISTER FOR THE MONTH OF NOVEMBER 2006`** - **`Exhibit P30 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 15/12/2006 ISSUED TO 4TH RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER`** - **`Exhibit P31 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 19/12/2006 ISSUED TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER`** - **`Exhibit P32 TRUE COPY OF THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED`** WP(C) NO. 1942 OF 2012 -22- ``` 1/2/2007 PASSED BY 2ND RESPONDENT REJECTING THE APPEAL SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ``` ``` Exhibit P33TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10/5/2007 PASSED BY 2ND RESPONDENT ``` ``` Exhibit P34TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25/06/2007 Exhibit P34 ATRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT TO 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit P35TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER & FEE RECEIPT DATED 19/11/2007 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, I.O.B., CHENNAI-2 Exhibit P36TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER DATED 10/12/2007 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER Exhibit P37TRUE COPY OF THE CLAIM STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 30/6/2008 Exhibit P38TRUE COPY OF THE PRELIMINARY ORDER PASSED BY 1ST RESPONDENT IN I.D 31/07 FILED BY THE PETITIONER Exhibit P39TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL AWARD PASSED BY 1ST RESPONDENT IN I.D 31/2007 DATED 7/6/2011 Exhibit P40TRUE COPY OF THE LAST PAY CERTIFICATE DATED 29/7/2005 Exhibit P41TRUE COPY OF THE FITNESS CERTIFICATE DATED 29/11/2008 ISSUED BY THE MEDICAL OFFICER Exhibit P42TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER REGARDING THE SUBMISSION OF MEDICAL AND FITNESS CERTIFICATES Exhibit P43TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET DATED 29/12/1999 Exhibit P44TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET DATED 7/2/2000 Exhibit P45TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE BANK REGARDING UNAUTHORIZED ABSENCE DATED 11/8/2009 Exhibit P46TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET DATED 29/11/2003 Exhibit P47TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET DATED 5/12/2005 Exhibit P48TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET DATED ``` WP(C) NO. 1942 OF 2012 -23- ``` 14/3/2006 Exhibit P49TRUE COPY OF CHARGE SHEET IN THE NAME OF EMPLOYEE T.S.MAHADEVAN DATED 23/3/2000 Exhibit P50TRUE COPY OF THE ANOTHER CHARGE SHEET DATED 26/6/2000 Exhibit P51TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET DATED 9/5/2001 Exhibit P52TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET DATED 12/4/2004 Exhibit P53TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET DATED 12/4/2005 Exhibit P54TRUE COPY OF REQUEST DATED 22/2/2013 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER Exhibit P55TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT DATED 22/2/2013 Exhibit P56TRUE COPY OF D.P OF RS.310/- ISSUED BY THE UNION BANK, NORTH PARAVOOR BRANCH DATED 22/2/2013 Exhibit P57A TRUE COPY OF LETTERS DATED 23/1/2012, 13/7/2012, 20/9/2012, 20/10/2012 Exhibit P58A TRUE COPY OF REQUEST LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 19/9/2012 Exhibit P59A COPY OF DEMAND DRAFT DATED 22/02/2013 IN FAVOUR OF THE CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION; INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK Exhibit P60A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OF THE BANK TO THE PETITIONER DATED 18/03/2013 ```