K. Vidhu v State of Kerala & Others

## `IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM` ## `PRESENT` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. ``` ``` TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF MAY 2024 / 7TH JYAISHTA, 1946 ``` ## `WP(C) NO. 41569 OF 2023` ## `PETITIONER/S:` ``` K. VIDHU,AGED 54 YEARS S/O. M.K. KARTHIKEYAN, PRINCIPAL & NON- VOCATIONAL TEACHER (CHEMISTRY), EDAMON VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, EDAMON -P.O. 691 307, KOLLAM DISTRICT AND RESIDING AT ANANDAMANGALAM, KARUVATTA, ADOOR-P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN – 691532 ``` ## `BY ADV N.UNNIKRISHNAN` ## `RESPONDENT/S:` - `1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT,GENERAL EDUCATION (SC) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001` - `2 THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, HOUSING BOARD COMPLEX, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001` - `3 THE SECRETARY,BOARD VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY EXAMINATION, 5TH FLOOR, HOUSING BOARD COMPLEX, SHANGTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001` - `4 THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR REGIONAL OFFICE, VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, KADAPPAKKADA, KOLLAM, PIN - 691008` - `5 THE SENIOR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, HOUSING BOARD BUILDING SANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001` - `6 THE MANAGER, EDAMON VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, EDAMON-P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691307` - `7 SMT. H. BANEESA BEEVI NON-VOCATIONAL TEACHER IN COMMERCE, EDAMON VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, EDAMON-P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT-, PIN - 691307 BY ADVS. FOR R6 BY Dr.GEORGE ABRAHAM FOR R1 TO R5 BY ADV. PREMCHAND R. NAIR` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23.05.2024, THE COURT ON 28.05.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` WP(C) No.41569 OF 2023 2 ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner submitted this writ petition being aggrieved by the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him by the respondents, which ultimately culminated in Exhibit P16 order by which, the petitioner was imposed with a penalty of reversion from the post of Principal. The prayers sought in the writ petition are as follows: - i) call for the records leading to Exhibits P1,P2,P12,P15,P16,P17 and P18; - ii) Declare that Exhibits P1,P2,P12,P15,P16,P17 and P18 are unsustainable in the eye of law; - iii) Issue a writ of Certiorari or appropriate writ or order or direction quashing Exhibits P1,P2,P12,P15,P16,P17 and P18; - iv) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents 2 to 6 to restore the position of the petitioner as Principal in the school, prior to issue of Exhibit-P1 and other impugned orders within a reasonable time; - v) Issue such other or further appropriate writ, order, or direction to the respondent as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and necessary in the interest of justice to the petitioner including the cost of the writ petition; - vi) Petitioner also prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to dispense with the translation of the documents produced in the vernacular language. WP(C) No.41569 OF 2023 3 2. The facts which led to the filing of this Writ Petition, in brief, are as follows: The petitioner was appointed as the Principal of the Edamon Vocational High Secondary School managed by the 6[th] respondent, as he was the senior-most teacher in the said school. Being the head of the Institution, the petitioner was appointed as the Chief Superintendent of Examination and Sri. Rahim H., the non vocational teacher V.H.S.S., Thadicadu was appointed as the Deputy Chief Superintendent of Examination for the conduct of examination for the year 2022-2023. 3. One of the examinations was conducted on 10.03.2023 for 1[st] year VHSC. However, when the petitioner distributed the question papers for that date of examination, instead of the subject of the examination for the said day, the subject of “Entrepreneurship and Development” meant for class XI which examination was supposed to take place on 30.03.2023 was opened and distributed to the Invigilators of Exam in the examination hall. The said mistake was noticed after its distribution to the students. Immediately, the same were taken WP(C) No.41569 OF 2023 4 back and the correct question papers were supplied to the students concerned and the examination was, thus, conducted. The said incident snow balled into a controversy and a preliminary inquiry was conducted by the authorities concerned, which ultimately recommended for initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and the said Rahim, the Deputy Chief Superintendent of Examination. 4. Accordingly, the petitioner was suspended with effect from 15.03.2023 and the same was ratified by the educational authorities as well. The initial period of suspension of 15 days was later extended for a period of six months. Thereafter, Exhibit P9 Memo of charges along with Ext.P10 statement of allegations were served upon the petitioner by the 6[th] respondent. The petitioner submitted Ext.P11 written statement to the same. 5. Thereafter, on the basis of the same, the Senior Administrative Officer attached to the 2[nd] respondent was entrusted with the task of conducting an inquiry and as part of the same, a notice was issued by the said officer to the Principal of the School, intimating that, as part of the inquiry, he will be conducting a sitting on 20.06.2023 in the school at 11 a.m. On WP(C) No.41569 OF 2023 5 that day, an inquiry was conducted but the petitioner was not present and he submitted a communication to the Principal in charge, conveying his inability to appear on the said day as he was advised to take bed rest, consequent to an injury sustained to his ligament of the left leg. A medical certificate was also forwarded along with the said communication. On that day, eight witnesses were present and the inquiry officer read out to them, the statements already given by the said witnesses before the Examination Secretary and the Assistant Director while they have conducted a preliminary inquiry in the matter. Thereupon, all the said witnesses have stated that, they stand by the said statements. Thereafter, the petitioner was given a further opportunity for being heard on 26.7.2023. On that day, he appeared before the inquiry officer, the 5[th] respondent herein, and highlighted his objections. It is to be noted that, in the meantime, the suspension of the petitioner was revoked on the basis of Ext.P6 judgment passed by this Court holding that, a continuation of suspension was illegal. 6. Thereafter, the 5[th] respondent concluded the inquiry and Ext. P12 report was submitted, holding the petitioner guilty of the WP(C) No.41569 OF 2023 6 charges and recommending to recover the loss sustained to the Government due to the lapses on the part of the petitioner and Sri. Rahim. It was also recommended that, as the petitioner carried out the responsibilities to conduct the examination very casually and submitted written statement justifying the said lapses, the punishment was to be imposed. 7. On the basis of Ext.P12 inquiry report, the 6[th] respondent Manager issued Ext.P1, as a preliminary order, proposing to impose a penalty of Reversion of the petitioner from the post of Principal, upon the petitioner by relying upon the stipulations contained in Chapter XIV-A Rule 75 of KER. Exhibit P1 was communicated to the petitioner along with Ext.P2 in which the petitioner was asked to submit his objections if any, to the proposed punishment within a time frame. Even though an objection was submitted to the same, the 6[th] respondent as per Ext.P16 passed an order dated 13.11.2023 confirming the punishment of reversion as proposed in Ext.P1. Consequently, Ext.P17 was issued appointing the 7[th] respondent as the Principal. This writ Petition was submitted in such circumstances with the prayers mentioned above. WP(C) No.41569 OF 2023 7 8. The Government as well as the 6[th] respondent filed detailed counter affidavits along with documents supporting their respective contentions justifying the impugned orders. The petitioner submitted a reply affidavit to the both the counter affidavits filed. 9. Heard Sri. N. Unnikrishnan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Premchand R. Nair, the learned Govt. Pleader and Sri. Dr.George Abraham, the learned counsel appearing for the 6[th] respondent. 10. A very detailed arguments were placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contending that while conducting the inquiry, the 5[th] and 6[th] respondents have not followed the procedure as contemplated under Rule 75 of Chapter XIV-A of KER. He also contends that the procedure adopted was in violation of principles of natural justice. He relies on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise Gauhati and Others [2015 (8) SCC 519].** 11. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader as well as the learned counsel for the 6[th] respondent, opposed the WP(C) No.41569 OF 2023 8 said contentions. 12. The first and foremost contention raised by the learned counsel was that, while conducting inquiry, the statements of the witnesses were recorded not in the manner as contemplated under Rule 75 of Chapter XIV-A of KER. The specific case of the petitioner is that, first of all, no statements of the witnesses have been recorded and instead, the 5[th] respondent simply read out, the statements already given by the said witnesses during the preliminary inquiry conducted by another authority, to them and obtained affirmation of the same from the respective witnesses. Moreover, the said exercise was conducted in the absence of the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner was denied the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. In response to the said contentions, the learned counsel for the 6[th] respondent pointed out that, in fact the petitioner never asked an opportunity to crossexamine the witnesses and such a request was conspicuously absent when he appeared before the 5[th] respondent/inquiry officer on 26.7.2023 even though, the statements of the witnesses were recorded on 20.6.2023 i.e prior to the date of hearing of the petitioner. Moreover, the learned counsel for the petitioner also WP(C) No.41569 OF 2023 9 placed reliance upon Ext.P4 reply given by the petitioner to the Assistant Director, VHSE, Kollam, as an explanation, during the course of preliminary inquiry. The said communication was dated 14.3.2023. 13. On carefully examining the contentions raised in this regard from either side, I find some force in the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is to be noted that, Rule 75 of Chapter XIV-A of KER, specifically deals with the procedure to be followed for imposing major penalties. Sub Rule 6 of Rule 75 specifically authorizes the inquiry authority to take oral evidence as part of the inquiry. However, it is specifically stipulated in the provision that the teacher against whom the proceedings are initiated shall be entitled to cross-examine the witnesses in support of the charges. More pertinently, in the Note to sub-rule 6, it is specifically contemplated that, if the inquiry authority proposes to rely on the oral evidence of any witness, the authority should examine said witnesses in the presence of the teacher and give an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. Thus, it is seen that, there is a mandatory requirement contemplated under the said provision to record the statements of witnesses in the WP(C) No.41569 OF 2023 10 presence of the teacher concerned and also to give an opportunity to cross-examine the said witnesses. In this case, when going to the Ext.P12 inquiry report wherein the procedure adopted by the 5[th] respondent while conducting inquiry has been enumerated in detail, it can be seen that, no statements of the witnesses were infact recorded, but instead, the statements already given by them before the other authorities concerned were read over to them and obtained the affirmation. Moreover, it is an undisputed fact that such recording of statements of witnesses took place in the absence of the petitioner. It is to be noted in this regard that, admittedly, when the 5[th] respondent reached the school for conducting inquiry on 20.6.2023, they have already received a communication from the petitioner conveying his inability to attend the proceedings due to medical reasons. The respondents do not have a case that, there was any lack of bonafides on the part of the petitioner in submitting such communication or that he wanted to prolong the matter. Thus, it is evident that, the statements of the witnesses were recorded in the absence of the petitioner without recording any specific reasons for the same. Thus, such a procedure clearly violates the statutory stipulations contained in WP(C) No.41569 OF 2023 11 sub-rule 6 of Rule 7 of Chapter XIV-A of KER and the Note to the said provision. To be precise, Ext.P12 would indicate that, not only that the statements of the witnesses were recorded in the absence of the petitioner and he was denied the opportunity for crossexamine the said witnesses as well. 14. Of course it is true that, as contended by the learned counsel for the 6[th] respondent, there is nothing on record to show that, the petitioner had insisted for opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses when he appeared before the 5[th] respondent on 26.07.2023. However, I am of the view that, the same cannot be a reason to deny a statutory stipulation specifically contemplated under the rules. The requirement for recording the statements of the witnesses in the presence of the teacher and to provide opportunity to cross-examine the said witnesses are mandatory requirements for a legally sustainable disciplinary proceeding and such an opportunity should have been granted to the petitioner even in the absence of any specific request in this regard. In other words, without providing such an opportunity, the inquiry conducted by the respondents 5 and 6 cannot be treated as complete. This is particularly because, Note to sub rule 6 of Rule WP(C) No.41569 OF 2023 12 75 of Chapter XIV-A of KER, starts with the words “if the inquiry authority proposes to rely on the oral evidence of any witness......” Therefore, unless the said opportunity is not provided to the teacher concerned, the inquiry authority cannot rely on such evidence. Here in this case, it is evident from Ext.P12 that, the finding of the inquiry authority holding the petitioner guilty of the charges is mainly based on the statement of witnesses. Therefore, I find that, there are serious procedural lapses which vitiate the finding in Ext.P12 inquiry report and the imposition of penalty upon the petitioner. 15. Yet another controversy arises in this writ petition pertains to the charges framed against the petitioner. Even though the basic allegation against the petitioner was that, he handled the responsibility to distribute the question papers in a casual and careless manner, the learned counsel for the 6[th] respondent raised a further contention that, the petitioner purposefully suppressed the fact of wrongful distribution of question papers from the authorities concerned. The matter came to light only when the said fact was reported by some other persons and it became a serious issue. The learned counsel for the 6[th] respondent further WP(C) No.41569 OF 2023 13 contended that, as per Ext.P4, the petitioner had admitted that he did not furnish the information immediately after the incident. Therefore, it was pointed out that, the suppression of the information escalates the gravity of the offence committed by the petitioner and therefore, no interference needs to be made. 16. Of course it is true that, in Ext.P4, it is admitted that, he did not inform the matter to the authority concerned and his explanation in this regard was that, it was due to a bonafide mistake. However, the crucial aspect to be noticed is that, in Ext.P9 charge memo and the statement of allegations as evidenced in Ext.P10, the charges framed against the petitioner are confined to the distribution of wrong question papers for the examination conducted on 10.03.2023. There is no charge with respect to the suppression of information to the authorities concerned. On going through the scheme of Rule 75 of Chapter XIV-A of KER, it has to be held that, the person who is proceeded against, is to be informed of each and every charges against him specifically and he should be given opportunity to defend the said specific charges. Moreover, the punishment can be imposed upon him, on the basis of the specific charges put to him in the WP(C) No.41569 OF 2023 14 memorandum of charges which were established during the course of the inquiry. Sub rule 8 of Rule 75 of KER specifically contemplates that, at the conclusion of the inquiry, the inquiry authority shall prepare a report of the inquiry, recording its finding on each of the charges together with the reasons thereof. The said provision further contemplates that, if in the opinion of such authority, the proceedings of inquiry establish charges different from those originally framed, it may record its finding on such charges provided that findings on such charges shall not be recorded unless the teacher has admitted the facts constituting them or has had opportunity to defending himself against them. Here in this case, as far as the suppression of information is concerned, no specific charge was framed, no evidence was adduced and no finding was entered into by the inquiry authority. Merely because, there is an admission in Ext.P4 as to the non furnishing of information (Even if it is assumed that Ext.P4 amounts to admission), in the absence of any specific charge being framed, giving opportunity to the petitioner to defend the same, adducing evidence to establish the said charge, no finding can be entered into with respect to the same. In this case, even in WP(C) No.41569 OF 2023 15 Ext.P12 inquiry report, there is no finding on that issue as well. Therefore, the contention raised by the 6[th] respondent is not all material at all. Yet another aspect is that, Ext.P4 as such cannot be relied on by the 6[th] respondent at this stage, as the same does not form part of the records of inquiry and the same was not referred to in the order nor was it relied on to impose the penalty upon the petitioner. 17. The learned counsel for the petitioner raised various other contentions highlighting the lapses on the part of the 5[th] and 6[th] respondents in conducting the disciplinary proceedings and also challenged the competence of the 5[th] respondent to conduct such an inquiry. However, I am of the view that, since I had already found that, the procedure adopted by the 5[th] and 6[th] respondents and the order issued on the basis of the same, are vitiated due to the reasons mentioned above, it is not necessary to go into the same. 18. The learned counsel for the 6[th] respondent placed reliance upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Union of India & Others v. Managobinda Samantaray [2022 Live Law (SC) 244), State Bank of India and Others v.** WP(C) No.41569 OF 2023 16 **Samarendra Kishore Endow and Another [(1994) 2 SCC 537] and Union of India and Ors. v. Const Sunil Kumar [2023 LiveLaw (SC) 49]** . However, the principles laid down in the said decisions pertain to the circumstances under which the penalty imposed upon the person concerned can be interfered with by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, on the question of proportionality of punishment. Since I have found that the procedure adopted by the disciplinary authority was not proper, I do not find it relevant to consider the said question, as the matter has to be reconsidered by the authorities concerned, if they so chooses. 19. Another grievance highlighted by the petitioner is with respect to the revision of seniority of the petitioner as evidenced by Ext.P18. Consequent to the imposition of penalty as per Ext.P16 order, the seniority of the petitioner was refixed as per Ext.P18 and he was placed as serial No.6 in the seniority list as on 13.11.2023, despite the fact that, the petitioner was the senior most on the basis of the date of appointment of the petitioner. Of course, it is true that, as per Ext.P16 order, the petitioner was imposed with the penalty of reversion from the post of Principal. WP(C) No.41569 OF 2023 17 However, the same will not affect the seniority of the petitioner for other purposes as the same is based on the date of appointment of the petitioner. Therefore, Ext.P18 seniority list placing the petitioner as serial No.6 therein was not proper. Therefore, Ext.P18 is hereby set aside to that extent. 20. Thus, in the light of the reasons mentioned above, I hold that, the inquiry conducted by the 5[th] and 6[th] respondents which ultimately resulted in issuance of Ext.P16 order reverting the petitioner from the post of Principal is vitiated, on account of the violation of the statutory procedure contemplated under Rule 75 of Chapter XIV-A of KER, which also amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, Exhibits P1, P2, P12, P15, P16 and P18 are hereby quashed with a direction to the respondents 1 to 6 to ensure that, the petitioner is re-instated as the Principal of the Edamon Vocational High Secondary School forthwith, without prejudice to the right of the 6[th] respondent to conduct a fresh inquiry, if so advised. It is further directed that, a fresh seniority list shall be published by the 6[th] respondent giving due consideration to the date of appointment of the petitioner. Appropriate orders in this regard shall be passed and implemented WP(C) No.41569 OF 2023 18 forthwith. This writ petition is disposed of, with the above directions. Sd/- **ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.** **JUDGE** pkk WP(C) No.41569 OF 2023 19 ## `APPENDIX OF WP(C) 41569/2023` |`PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS`|| |---|---| |`EXHIBIT P1`|`A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.35/2023 DATED`| ||`20.10.2023 ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT`| |`EXHIBIT P2`|`A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20.10.2023`| ||`ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT`| |`EXHIBIT P3`|`A TRUE COPY OF THE APPROVAL ORDER`| ||`NO.E3/4344/2020 DATED 23.12.2020 ISSUED BY`| ||`THE 2ND RESPONDENT`| |`EXHIBIT P4`|`A TRUE COPY OF STATEMENT DATED 14.03.2023`| ||`SUBMITTED TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT`| |`EXHIBIT P5`|`A TRUE COPY OF SUSPENSION ORDER NO. 25/2023`| ||`DATED`<br>`15.03.2023 ISSUED BY THE 6TH`| ||`RESPONDENT`| |`EXHIBIT P6`|`A TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 12.07.2023 IN`| ||`W.P (C) NO. 12212/2023`| |`EXHIBIT P7`|`A TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 02.08.2023 IN`| ||`R.P. NO. 756/2023 IN W.P.(C) NO.12212/2023`| |`EXHIBIT P8`|`A TRUE COPY OF STATEMENT DATED 19.06.2023`| ||`ALONG WITH FOUR DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED TO THE`| ||`6TH RESPONDENT`| |`EXHIBIT P9`|`A TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS`| ||`NO.30/2023 DATED 18.04.2023 TO THE`| ||`PETITIONER`| |`EXHIBIT P10`|`A TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES NO.`| ||`31/2023 DATED 18.04.2023`| |`EXHIBIT P11`|`A TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILED WRITTEN`| ||`STATEMENT DATED 28.04.2023 SUBMITTED BY THE`| ||`PETITIONER`| |`EXHIBIT P12`|`A TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.E3/2001/2023 DATED`| ||`20.09.2023 AND REPORT DATED NIL ISSUED BY`| ||`THE 5TH RESPONDENT`| |`EXHIBIT P13`|`A TRUE COPY OF APPEAL DATED 01.11.2023 FILED`| ||`BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT`| |`EXHIBIT P14`|`A TRUE COPY OF EXPLANATION DATED 29.10.2023`| ||`SUBMITTED TO THE 6TH RESPONDENT`| |`EXHIBIT P15`|`A TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO. NIL DATED`| ||`07.11.2023 REJECTING EXHIBIT-P4 ISSUED BY`| ||`6TH RESPONDENT`| |`EXHIBIT P16`|`A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.56/2023 DATED`| ||`13.11.2023 ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT`| |`EXHIBIT P17`|`A TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.62/2023 DATED`| WP(C) No.41569 OF 2023 20 ``` 13.11.2023 "PROMOTING" THE 7TH RESPONDENT AS PRINCIPAL EXHIBIT P18A TRUE COPY OF THE SENIORITY LIST AS ON 13.11.2023 OF EDAMON V.H.S.S., EDAMON ISSUED BY 6TH RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P19A TRUE COPY OF G.O.(MS)NO.18/2012/G.EDN DATED 19.01.2012 EXHIBIT P20A TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. E3/2209/2023 DATED 22.12.2023 ``` ``` RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS EXHIBIT R6(A)A COPY OF THE SUSPENSION ORDER DATED 15-3- 2023 EXHIBIT R6(B)A COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.E3/2001/2023 DATED 25/5/2023 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION ``` ``` EXHIBIT R6(C)A COPY OF THE RATIFICATION ORDER NO.E3/2001/2023 DATED 23/3/2023 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR EXHIBIT R6(D)A COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.28/2023 DATED 27/3/2023 OF THE MANAGER EXTENDING THE SUSPENSION PERIOD OF THE WRIT PETITIONER EXHIBIT R6(E)A COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.E3/2001/2023 DATED 3/4/2023 OF THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION ``` ``` EXHIBIT R6(F)A COPY OF THE ORDER NO.45/2023 DATED 2/8/2023 ISSUED BY THE MANAGER EXHIBIT R6(G)A COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.33/2023 DATED 26/5/2023 EXHIBIT R6(H)A COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.E3/2001/2023 DATED 15.5.2023 ALONG WITH THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 15.3.2023 OF THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, KOLLAM. EXHIBIT R6(I)A COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.E3/2001/2023 DATED 13/8/2023 EXHIBIT R6(J)A COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.E3/2001/2023 DATED 12/7/2023 EXHIBIT R6(K)A COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.37/2023 DATED 20/10/2023 EXHIBIT R6(L)A COPY OF THE ORDER NO.35/2023 DATED 20/10/2023 EXHIBIT R6(M)A COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.E3/2001/2023 DATED 7/11/2023 ``` WP(C) No.41569 OF 2023 21 ``` EXHIBIT R6(N)A COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.E3/2001/2023 DATED 22/1/2024 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION EXHIBIT R2(A)TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS OF THE CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT, VHSE PUBLIC EXAMINATION, MARCH 2023 EXHIBIT R2(B)TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT DATED. 25.3.23 EXHIBIT R2(C)TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE MANAGER DATED. 16.3.23 TO THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, VHSE EXHIBIT R2(D)TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.E3/2001/2023 DATED 23.3.23 ISSUED BY THE DGE, TVM EXHIBIT R2(E)TRUE COPY OF THE TIME TABLE EXHIBIT R2(F)TRUECOPYOFTHEFINDINGSAND RECOMMENDATIONS DATED 15.3.23. ```