Mohamed Sajid T v. The Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department, Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Secretary, Finance Department (Expenditure), University of Calicut, and State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL** **THURSDAY, THE 2[ND] DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943** ## **WP(C) NO. 10366 OF 2021** ## **PETITIONER:** MOHAMED SAJID T, AGED 39 YEARS S/O. ABOOBACKER T., ‘ECSTASY’, THEKKEDATH HOUSE, KADANNAMANNA P.O., MANKADA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 679 324. BY ADVS. GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.) SRI.C.R.SYAMKUMAR SHRI.ABDUL RASAK A. SHRI.MUNAS K.P shri.MUHAMMED JANAISE V. SHRI.ASWIN KUMAR M J SMT.HELEN P.A. SHRI.ARUN ROY SRI.SHAHIR SHOWKATH ALI ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001. 2 ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001. 3 SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT (EXPENDITURE), SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001. 4 UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 673 635, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. **WP(C) NO. 10366 OF 2021** **2** 5 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001. BY ADV SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, CALICUT UNIVERSITY GP SRI JIMMY GEORGE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.12.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **WP(C) NO. 10366 OF 2021** **3** ## **JUDGMENT** The prayer has been made for quashing of Ext.P17 recommendation and report of the 3[rd] respondent ie., Secretary, Finance Department (Expenditure) Thiruvananthapuram, dated 08.06.2020 and communication dated 30.06.2020 and suspension order dated 11.09.2020 Ext.P18. Petitioner, since 2013 has been working as an Instrumentation Engineer in the University of Calicut. In 2013, a tender notice on behalf of the purchase department was issued for supply of Local Area Network goods and labour charges. In response to the aforementioned tender notice four bids were submitted and sent for technical verification. Petitioner being a technical hand verified its technicality whereby the purchase department allotted the work to one M/s.Avika Technologies Private Limited vide communication dated 29.12.2014 Ext.P7. The aforementioned letter was signed by the Assistant Registrar for the Registrar of the University and a formal agreement was entered into between the University/Purchasing Officer and the Contractor. Though the work was to be finished in the year 2015, however, Vice- **WP(C) NO. 10366 OF 2021** **4** Chancellor vide order dated 06.01.2016 extended the contract from 29.12.2015 till the finalization of the fresh contract vide Ext.P11. As per the provisions of Section 69 of the Calicut University Act Government had the control over certain acts of the University and in response thereto, order of Comptroller & Auditor General inspected the record of the University and vide communication dated 08.11.2019 submitted the inspection report dated 2017-2018. As per the report Ext.P12, it was found that network installation was executed with rate contractor after finalizing the rate contract for network components and labour charges. The execution work was entrusted with the Instrumentation Engineer. In the absence of the measurement book the bills were presented for obtaining sanction which was done through an electronic measuring. The reply submitted by the officers was not accepted and it was held that the University did not obtain administrative and technical sanction. 2. Sri.George Poonthottam assisted by Sri.Navaneeth submitted that petitioner had submitted a detailed reply on 28.12.2019 and finding the aforementioned reply to be not satisfactory, vide communication dated 30.06.2020 report of the **WP(C) NO. 10366 OF 2021** **5** inspection conducted by the Finance inspection wing of the Calicut University indicted the petitioner. Though the pith and substance of the report directly attributed to the allocation of work to purchase division of the University, in fact, it was the entire role of the purchase division as evident from the intimation received under the RTI. The queries raised in the application under RTI and answer there to Exts.P42 and P42(a). On perusal of the reply dated 30.07.2021 Ext.P42(a) it was the purchase related activities carried on by the purchase division manned by the Deputy Registrar, Section officer, Office Superintendent, Office Assistant and Office Attendant. The orders after negotiation with lowest quote bidder the entire tender was finalized by the purchase division and some purchases of the academic department were done by the heads of the department. 3. Even from the perusal of file notes, the recommendation of the inspection are not based upon the file notes pertaining to the contract where the administrative approval was also sought much less the technical and as a result of the recommendation, petitioner vide impugned order dated 11.09.2020 was placed under suspension. The suspension order **WP(C) NO. 10366 OF 2021** **6** is still continuing whereas as per the settled law suspension order cannot continue at the best beyond three months. Memo of charges in the aforementioned case was served on 17.11.2020. Petitioner had sought for production of documents and vide communication dated 01.03.2021 three days’ time was given to submit written statement which was submitted on 23.03.2021. The Enquiry Officer has only been appointed on 08.07.2021 and only two hearings have been conducted so far. Government did not have the power to conduct the inspection and audit the business of tender conducted by the University. The entire recommendation report suggests of recovery of the payment not done as per the purchase manual whereas the other members of the Purchase Committee has gone scot-free for the reasons best known. The aforementioned recommendation would have a deep pervasive and influencing effect upon the enquiry. Thus the holding of the enquiry would only be a farcical exercise as it is being done with a predetermined mind. 4. Learned Government Pleader submitted that as per the orders of 84, 92, 98 as well as the provisions of Section 69 of the Calicut University Act, Government is not denuded from **WP(C) NO. 10366 OF 2021** **7** exercising the power of inspection and audit of the expenses incurred by the University. As far as the other offices are concerned, the audit wing is undertaking exercise to find out the involvement of the officers as per the information under the RTI involved in assigning the rate contract. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has alternative/efficacious remedy of appeal. Maintaining the suspension order would help the Enquiry Officer in conducting the enquiry in unbiased and impartial manner. Petitioner has been dilly-dallying with the matter as the information documents sought by the first communication dated 05.01.2021 necessary documents was supplied on 01.02.2021 and was directed to file a reply but adopted a dilatory technique by submitting another application for production which was rejected on 23.03.2021, but did not deny the appointment of the Enquiry Officer on 08.07.2021 and holding of two proceedings. 5. In rebuttal Sri.George Poonthottam submits that besides the application dated 01.03.2021 four other applications were submitted requesting various documents but the same has not been supplied. Thus the principles of _audi alteram partem_ are **WP(C) NO. 10366 OF 2021** **8** being flouted with impunity. The entire enquiry is vitiated in law and cannot continue in the absence of fixing the responsibilities on the officers of the purchase division. In fact, the entire exercise has to be re-done and by attributing the alleged misconduct _de novo_ memo of charges much less enquiry, if any, can be done. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book. 7. Discharging of duties of Instrumentation Engineer with effect from 2013, in the concerned department of University of Calicut is not in dispute. It is a matter of record that for installation of Local Area Network (LAN) tenders were invited from the purchase wing and the specification of the bidders regarding the quality after having been verified and approved as evident from the file notes on record the work was allotted to M/s.Avika Technologies Pvt. Ltd. The file notes reveal that not only the administrative approval but the technical sanction was also granted. 8. The information sought by the petitioner under the RTI was on following points, which reads thus: **WP(C) NO. 10366 OF 2021** **9** ## **Ext.P42** “From Faisal S.P, Parayil House, Katambazhipuram, Palakkad-678633 To The Public Information Officer, Office of the Registrar, University of Calicut Sir, **Sub** : Information under RTI Act – 2005. 1. Is there a department/ branch/ section functioning in the Calicut University for purchase related activities and its coordination. If yes, what is the name of the department/ branch/section? Who are the officers? 2. Is there compliance with purchase regulations under Kerala Stores Purchase Manual and Kerala Financial Code, regarding procurement system in the university? 3. The ascertainment of factual aspects in the tender/ quotation, pre-bid meeting organisation, negotiation with the lowest quote bidder, supply order granting, are done by which department/ branch/ section in the university? Fees of Rs.10/- has been paid and the receipt of Challan (Challan No.211494200, Date 11.07.2021) is enclosed herewith.” Yours faithfully Sd/Faisal Reply reads thus: **Ext.P42(a)** From **WP(C) NO. 10366 OF 2021** **10** Public Information Officer To Sri.Faisal. S.P, Parayil House, Kadambazhipuram, Palakkad-678633 **Sub** :RTI Act, 2005, Furnishing reply-reg. **Ref** :Your request dated 11.07.2021 under the RTI Act Your attention is drawn to the reference above. The following replies are furnished to your queries: 1. Purchase related activities in Calicut University are carried out by the Purchase Division. The posts in the said division are Deputy Registrar, Section Officer, Office Superintendent, Assistant and Office Attendant. 2. Purchases in the university are done as per regulations in the Store Purchase Manual. 3. Ascertaining facts and details of the tender/ quotation notice, pre-bid meeting organisation, negotiation with the lowest quote bidder, giving of supply order, are done by the purchase division. However, some purchases of academic departments in the university are done by the Heads of the Departments. Yours faithfully Suresh V.B Deputy Registrar For Public Information Officer” 9. Finance department in the report dated 18.06.2020 in so many words found that there was _pima facie_ non-adherence to certain paras of Store Purchase Manual and in the entire findings, purchase division was attributed the responsibility. For the sake **WP(C) NO. 10366 OF 2021** **11** ## of brevity the operative part of the report reads thus: ## **OTHER FINDINGS** 1. The defect in following the rate contract method. The contract entered to supply the materials on the agreed price/rate during the contract period is called the Rate Contract. The details and the rules regarding the rate contract is specified in detail in Kerala Financial Code Volume 1 (Article 141), Store Purchase Manual 2013 (revised as per G.O (p) No.3/2013/SPD dated 21.06.2013 Chapter 13. As per Para 13.5 of the Store Purchase Manual when it is not able to calculate the materials needed for a short period of time, the method of rate contract followed. After going through the files it was seen for the installation of LAN networking from the year of 2009, rate contract and quotation method is used. But, after selecting the contractor on the very next day itself there were requests from the various departments to install the LAN network. Hence, it is evident that the purchase division has not taken any steps to determine the demand for the same. In this regard the reply given by the purchase division is that from the year 2009, for the installation of the LAN networking rate contact method was followed and when the computers were used in the beginning there were requests to computerise the departments and on that basis the method of rate contract was adopted to install the LAN network. Following this, for installing the LAN network also the rate contract method was adopted. Hence it is evident from the reply that the rate contract method which was adopted in the beginning of the computerisation is being followed till date without any **WP(C) NO. 10366 OF 2021** **12** ## change. For installing the LAN networking in the 32 departments, charge for the material (Rs. 25,89,001), service charge (Rs. 5,43,615) and a total of Rs. 31,32,616 was allotted to the Netlinks Company and for installing the LAN networking in the 31 departments an amount of Rs 81,03,627 ( Material Charge - 60,72,614.12, service charge - 20,31.013.31) was allotted to Avika Limited Chennai. As per the Para 7.11, 7.13 of the Store Purchase Manual for estimate amount above 10 lakhs, open tender method has to be adopted and wide publication need to be given for the same. And the purchase division without determining the demand adopted the rate contract method instead of open tender. Flouting all these provisions the Vice Chancellor approved the same and the actions of the Purchase division and the Vice Chancellor cannot be justified. All the purchases outside the power and authority of the department has to be referred to the departmental purchase committee as per the Kerala Financial Code Volume 1 Article 125. If the price of the materials is above than that of the financial limit allotted to the purchase office then the tender along with the necessary documents and references t need to be send to the superior officer or the government as per the Kerala Financial Code Volume 1 Article 138. The financial limit of the Vice Chancellor and the Department head is Rs. 2.5 lakh and Rs.2000, respectively and in order to overcome this procedural impediment the purchases were divided and the rate contract method was adopted. This is in blatant violation of the Para 2.3 of Store Purchase Manual which stipulates that demand should not be divided to overcome the necessity to get the approval from the superior officers. By the above mentioned activities of the officers, the demand was divided without **WP(C) NO. 10366 OF 2021** **13** giving value to the demand the advantage of the competent price was also removed and the transparency of the entire process was affected. And the concluding part reads thus: ## **G.CONCLUSION** The basic principle of the public procurement is that while procuring materials and services it is imperative to maintain fair, transparent and competent price. In order to achieve this goal rules and regulations have been laid down by the Government and this has to be strictly followed by the Officials. To augment and improve the educational facilities of the students in the Calicut University was installed and the officials has flouted all the provisions of the law in the procurement and execution of this work as evidenced though the inspection conducted by the Finance wing. An amount of 30.60.438/-was additionally spent on the expenses under Part D5 materials for the cable and its laying and by allowing this amount to the contractor, the fund of the university has been misappropriated by the officials. Moreover, the University Instrumentation Engineer Muhammed Sajid was delegated with the duty of overseeing the tender and specifications in the contract and also inspecting the bills and other activities in relation to this, hence he is responsible for the misappropriation of the funds. 10. On perusal of the conclusion part read with the other findings apparently this Court is not able to form a concrete opinion as to how and in what manner the other officers of the **WP(C) NO. 10366 OF 2021** **14** purchase division have been kept at bay or not indicted in as much as that it is only on the petitioner, who has been served with the memo of charges in November, 2020 and also suspended resulting into a consequential order of suspension. Disciplinary action was suggested against the petitioner under the Kerala Service Rules 1960. The report further submits that the liability has to be determined by the University internal audit department and be made available to the inspection wing so that the amount can be recovered from the officer responsible for the same. Thus the apprehension of the petitioner that entire amount would be recovered from the petitioner is not justified. For the sake of brevity, clause B of the recommendation reads thus: “3. No amount under the head of tax and KCWWF was deducted from the bills and as a result the government has incurred heavy losses and this loss has to determined by the University Internal Audit Department and this report has to be immediately made available to the inspection wing and this amount has to be recovered from the officials responsible for the same.” 11. On cumulative reading of the information and the recommendation of the inspection wing no doubt for the time **WP(C) NO. 10366 OF 2021** **15** being it is the petitioner who is facing the wrath of disciplinary proceedings under the Kerala Service Rules and placed under suspension viz. other officials, University has been directed to conduct the internal audit for holding the other officers responsible for recovery of the amount. Be that as it may. No provisions of Rules, University Act or Statutes framed thereunder have been cited to establish that the gazetted officer in the rank of Instrumentation Engineer can remain suspended for infinite period. The suspension cannot continue for infinite period particularly when the enquiry officer was only appointed on 07.07.2021. One matter pertaining to suspension reached Supreme Court in civil appeal No.1912/2015 _**Ajay Kumar Choudhary**_ v. _**Union of India Through its Secretary & Others**_ [2015 (7) SCC 291] in paragraph 8, 9 and 14, it was held hereunder: “8. Suspension, specially preceding the formulation of charges, is essentially transitory or temporary in nature, and must perforce be of short duration. If it is for an indeterminate period or if its renewal is not based on sound reasoning contemporaneously available on the record, this would render it punitive in nature. Departmental/disciplinary proceedings invariably commence with delay, are plagued with procrastination prior and post the drawing up of the Memorandum of Charges, and eventually culminate after **WP(C) NO. 10366 OF 2021** **16** ## even longer delay. 9. Protracted periods of suspension, repeated renewal thereof, have regrettably become the norm and not the exception that they ought to be. The suspended person suffering the ignominy of insinuations, the scorn of society and the derision of his Department, has to endure this excruciation even before he is formally charged with some misdemeanour, indiscretion or offence. His torment is his knowledge that if and when charged, it will inexorably take an inordinate time for the inquisition or inquiry to come to its culmination, that is to determine his innocence or iniquity. Much too often this has now become an accompaniment to retirement. Indubitably the sophist will nimbly counter that our Constitution does not explicitly guarantee either the right to a speedy trial even to the incarcerated, or assume the presumption of innocence to the accused. But we must remember that both these factors are legal ground norms, are inextricable tenets of common law jurisprudence, antedating even the Magna Carta of 1215, which assures that - "We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either justice or right." In similar vein the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America guarantees that in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial. Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 assures that - "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks". More recently, the European Convention on Human Rights in Article 6(1) promises that "in the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time...." and in its second sub article that "everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed **WP(C) NO. 10366 OF 2021** **17** innocent until proved guilty according to law". 14. We, therefore, direct that the currency of a Suspension Order should not extend beyond three months if within this period the Memorandum of Charges/Chargesheet is not served on the delinquent officer/employee; if the Memorandum of Charges/Chargesheet is served a reasoned order must be passed for the extension of the suspension. As in the case in hand, the Government is free to transfer the concerned person to any Department in any of its offices within or outside the State so as to sever any local or personal contact that he may have and which he may misuse for obstructing the investigation against him. The Government may also prohibit him from contacting any person, or handling records and documents till the stage of his having to prepare his defence. We think this will adequately safeguard the universally recognized principle of human dignity and the right to a speedy trial and shall also preserve the interest of the Government in the prosecution. We recognize that previous Constitution Benches have been reluctant to quash proceedings on the grounds of delay, and to set time limits to their duration. However, the imposition of a limit on the period of suspension has not been discussed in prior case law, and would not be contrary to the interests of justice. Furthermore, the direction of the Central Vigilance Commission that pending a criminal investigation departmental proceedings are to be held in abeyance stands superseded in view of the stand adopted by us. 12. Employees cannot remain suspended for a period of more than three months. Since the suspension order is still continuing, I am of the view that it cannot continue for a period **WP(C) NO. 10366 OF 2021** **18** of three months though the petitioner has been paid subsistence allowance. Since the suspension order has extended for a period of more than one year and there has been no review or modification of the order in view of the material on record, I am of the view it is fit case where the suspension order is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the suspension order is hereby set aside, petitioner is ordered to be reinstated with a condition that he will not tamper with the departmental witnesses or the documents or try to influence the witnesses of the management/department and in case is found to be indulging, liberty is granted to the department to move an appropriate application for modification or recalling of the order. 13. As far as the pending enquiry is concerned, this Court would not be in a position to quash the same as it would be a matter of evidence and the entire material which has been referred to in the present writ petition can be relied upon in support of the defence over and above the other documents which the petitioner may rely upon in accordance with law. 14. This Court is also sanguine of the fact that the University internal audit wing would hold an enquiry and find and **WP(C) NO. 10366 OF 2021** **19** hold the officer responsible in conducting the tender as per para 3 of the recommendation report extracted above and submit the report to the Government for appropriate action. This writ petition disposed of with the aforementioned direction. **Sd/-** **AMIT RAWAL JUDGE** nak **WP(C) NO. 10366 OF 2021** **20** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10366/2021** |PETITIONER EXHIBITS|| |---|---| |EXHIBIT P1|THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED| ||19.02.2008.| |EXHIBIT P2|THE TRUE COPY OF THE FORWARDING LETTER| ||ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNOR| ||DATED 27.12.2011.| |EXHIBIT P3|THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY| ||THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR PURCHASE| ||DEPARTMENT, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT DATED| ||17.07.2013.| |EXHIBIT P4|THE TRUE COPY OF THE TENDER NOTICES| ||DATED 08.08.2014.| |EXHIBIT P5|THE TRUE COPY OF THE RE TENDER NOTICE| ||DATED 19.09.2014.| |EXHIBIT P6|THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY| ||THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF THE 4TH| ||RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY.| |EXHIBIT P7|THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY| ||THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, PURCHASE| ||DEPARTMENT OF CALICUT UNIVERSITY DATED| ||29.12.2014.| |EXHIBIT P8|THE TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED| ||03.02.2015.| |EXHIBIT P9|THE TRUE COPY OF THE BILL DATED| ||09.02.2015.| |EXHIBIT P10|THE TRUE COPY OF THE BILL DATED| ||24.09.2013.| |EXHIBIT P11|THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY| ||THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 06.01.2016.| |EXHIBIT P12|THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY| ||THE FINANCE OFFICER ALONG WITH THE| ||REPORT DATED 08.11.2019.| |EXHIBIT P13|THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED| ||03.12.2019.| |EXHIBIT P14|THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY| ||THE PETITIONER ON 28.12.2019.| |EXHIBIT P15|G.O.(P) NO. 506/92/FIN DATED| ||20.08.1992.| |EXHIBIT P16|G.O.(P) NO. 59/2020/FIN DATED| ||14.05.2020.| |EXHIBIT P17|THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED| **WP(C) NO. 10366 OF 2021** **21** 30.06.2020. ||30.06.2020.| |---|---| |EXHIBIT P18|THE TRUE COPY OF THE SUSPENSION ORDER| ||DATED 11.09.2020.| |EXHIBIT P19|THE TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST GIVEN BY| ||THE PETITIONER DATED 11.09.2020.| |EXHIBIT P20|THE TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGE| ||DATED 17.11.2020.| |EXHIBIT P21|TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF| ||ALLEGATION DATED 17.11.2020.| |EXHIBIT P22|THE TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST MADE BY| ||THE PETITIONER DATED 25.11.2020.| |EXHIBIT P23|THE TRUE COPY OF THE REMINDER LETTER| ||DATED 28.12.2020.| |EXHIBIT P24|THE TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO ISSUED BY THE| ||DEPUTY REGISTRAR DATED 24.12.2020.| |EXHIBIT P25|THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY| ||THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 05.01.2021.| |EXHIBIT P26|THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER GIVEN BY| ||THE PETITIONER DATED 05.01.2021.| |EXHIBIT P27|THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT GIVEN BY| ||THE PETITIONER DATED 06.01.2021.| |EXHIBIT P28|THE TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO DATED| ||1.02.2021.| |EXHIBIT P29|TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER BY THE| ||PETITIONER DATED 12.2.2021.| |EXHIBIT P30|THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY| ||THE AUDIT OFFICER DATED 15.05.2020.| |EXHIBIT P31|THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY| ||THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 29.07.2020.| |EXHIBIT P32|THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY| ||THE AUDIT OFFICER DATED 22.10.2020.| |EXHIBIT P33|THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER REGULARIZING| ||SRI. ANOOP KUMAR B.K.,| |EXHIBIT P34|THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY| ||THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 26.11.2016.| |EXHIBIT P35|THE TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO ISSUED TO THE| ||PETITIONER DATED 10.03.2021.| |EXHIBIT P36|THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE| ||PETITIONER DATED 20.03.2021.| |EXHIBIT P37|THE TRUE COY OF THE NOTE TO THE| ||SYNDICATE DATED 12.04.2021.| |EXHIBIT P38|THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF THE| ||SYNDICATE MEETING DATED 30.04.2021.| **WP(C) NO. 10366 OF 2021** **22** |EXHIBIT P39|TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING| |---|---| ||U.O.NO.6004/2021/ADMN DATED 08.06.2021| ||ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT| |EXHIBIT P40|TRUE COPY OF THE NOTE TO THE SYNDICATE| ||NO.144560/AD-LEG-SO/2020 ADMN DATED| ||21.06.2021| |EXHIBIT P42|TRUE COPY OF THE RTI APPLICATION| ||SUBMITTED BY ONE FAISAL S.P. DATED| ||11.07.2021 WITH ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION| |EXHIBIT P41|TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTIONS| ||MINUTES OF THE SYNDICATE MEETING HELD| ||ON 09.09.2020 AND PUBLISHED ON| ||18.09.2020 ALONG WITH DISSENT NOTE| |EXHIBIT P42(A)|TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY TO RTI| ||APPLICATION,ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY| ||DATED 30.07.2021 WITH ITS ENGLISH| ||TRANSLATION| |EXHIBIT P43|TRUE COPY OF THE ENTIRE FILED NOTES| |EXHIBIT P44|TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER U.O.NO.6840/2021| ||ADMN 09.07.2021 PASSED BY THE| ||RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY| |EXHIBIT P45|TRUE COPY OF THE E-MAIL COMMUNICATION| ||DATED 05.09.2021 SENT BY THE PETITIONER| ||TO THE REGISTRAR OF THE RESPONDENT| ||UNIVERSITY| |EXHIBIT P46|TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE ENQUIRY| ||COMMITTEE DATED 06.09.2021 ALONG WITH| ||MEMO OF CHARGES AGAINST THE PETITIONER| |EXHIBIT P47|TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL COMMUNICATION| ||DATED 15.09.2021 ISSUED BY THE| ||UNIVERSITY TO THE PETITIONER| |RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS|| |EXHIBIT R4(A)|TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED| ||24/122020| |EXHIBIT R4(B)|TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE MINUTES| ||OF THE MEETING OF THE SYNDICATE HELD ON| ||22/06/2021.|