Mohanan K.P. v. State of Kerala and Others

**'C.R'** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN** ## **WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 19TH PHALGUNA, 1942** ## **WP(C).No.30911 OF 2015(L)** **PETITIONER/S: MOHANAN.K.P, AGED 57 YEARS S/O.K.K.KUNHIRAMAN, RETIRED DEO, SREYAS, KOYYAM P.O., KANNUR-670142.** **BY ADVS. SRI.K.R.AVINASH (KUNNATH) SRI.ABDUL RAOOF PALLIPATH** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM-695 001. 2 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, TRIVANDRUM-695 001.** - **3 THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS TRIVANDRUM-695001.** - **4 SASIDHARAN K.N., S/O.NARAYANAN KOCHUPARACKAL, RETIRED ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT, MANAKKAD, P.O., THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI-685 608.** - **5 ISMAIL P.H.,S/O.HASSAN, RETIRED SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT, PODIPPARAYIL HOUSE, NEYYASSERI P.O., KARIMANNOOR, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI-685 581.** **R4-5 BY ADV. SRI.T.B.HOOD R4-5 BY ADV. SMT.M.ISHA R4-5 BY ADV. SRI.ABDULLA ZIYAD** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **R1-3 BY ADV.JESTIN MATHEW G.P** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03-032021, THE COURT ON 10-03-2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).No.30911 OF 2015(L) ..2 ..** ## **'C.R.'** ## **JUDGMENT** Dated this the 10[th] day of March, 2021 The petitioner is a retired District Educational Officer. The petitioner's wife Smt. E.P. Pushpalatha was working as Head Mistress in Kunjithanni Government High School in Idukki District. She took charge as Head Mistress in the said school on 23.07.2014. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that on 06.03.2015, the 4[th] and 5[th] respondents who are the officials from the office of the Deputy Director of Education, Idukki went to the Kunjithanni Government High School under the guise of inspection and found that one clerk, namely, Anakha was continuously on leave. The 4[th] and 5[th] **WP(C).No.30911 OF 2015(L) ..3 ..** respondents demanded a statement in writing from the petitioner's wife regarding the absence of the said clerk and the salary collected by her. Petitioner's wife was not willing to give such statement forthwith in writing because she was busy with the SSLC examination to be held in couple of days. Petitioner's wife was threatened by the 4[th] respondent stating that she would face severe consequences if such a statement is not given. The 4[th] respondent was very aggressive and shouted and told that she would be put in jail etc; and the chair in that office was pushed away with force creating a scene in the office. She was also told that unless a statement is submitted by next day she would face severe consequences. Again in the evening, the 4[th] respondent **WP(C).No.30911 OF 2015(L) ..4 ..** telephoned the petitioner's wife and repeated the threat. 3. According to the petitioner, after the said incident, his wife was mentally stressed and on the next day, when she went to the school, she was nervous due to the threat caused by respondents 4 and 5 and could not concentrate on her duties. She went home little early and by about 7 'O' clock in the evening, she fell unconscious and was taken to Kolenchery Medical College Hospital and she was admitted therein due to sudden stroke in the brain. At the hospital, she had undergone major operation and other treatment. However, she died in the hospital on 11.03.2015. According to the petitioner, the threat of the respondents 4 and 5 and the resultant stroke led to her unfortunate ## **WP(C).No.30911 OF 2015(L) ..5 ..** demise. 4. Though a complaint was submitted by petitioner's relative before the Vellathooval Pollice Station, no case was registered by the Police. 5. The District Educational Officer, Thodupuzha, on 11.03.2015 conducted an enquiry in connection with the death of the petitioner's wife and submitted Ext.P3 report along with statements of four persons stated to be present at the time of the visit of the respondents 4 and 5 to the school. 6. The Additional Director of Public Instructions (Academics) conducted another enquiry based on the instructions of the Director of Public Instructions and filed Ext.P4 report wherein it was reported that the death of the Head Mistress might be due to the stress and strain caused on account **WP(C).No.30911 OF 2015(L) ..6 ..** of the threat of respondents 4 and 5 and recommended appropriate action against them. 7. Ext. P5 is the report of the Deputy Director of Education, Idukki, narrating other incidents of insubordination and misbehavior of the 4[th] respondent and recommending strict action against respondents 4 and 5. 8. Based on Exts.P3 and P5 reports, as well as the complaint filed by the mother of the deceased, the Director of Public Instructions vide Ext.P6 proceedings suspended the 5[th] respondent who was the Senior Superintendent in the office of the Deputy Director of Education, Idukki and recommended the Government to suspend the 4[th] respondent, the Administrative Assistant. **WP(C).No.30911 OF 2015(L) ..7 ..** 9. The Government decided to conduct a hearing in the matter of disciplinary proceedings against the respondents 4 and 5 in relation to the incident leading to the demise of the petitioner's wife based on petitions preferred by respondents 4 and 5. The Director of Public Instructions submitted Ext.P7 report to the Government wherein, referring to Exts.P3 to P5 reports, the DPI reported that the said reports point to the lapses on the part of the respondents 4 and 5 and disciplinary action shall be initiated against them by placing the 4[th] respondent also under suspension. 10. As directed by the Hon'ble Minister for Education and the Hon'ble Chief Minister, the Principal Secretary to Government, General **WP(C).No.30911 OF 2015(L) ..8 ..** Education Department conducted a hearing on the petitions filed by respondents 4 and 5 and submitted a Note before the Hon'ble Minister for Education and the Hon'ble Chief Minister. The said Note is produced as Ext.P8 in the writ petition. In the said Note, the Principal Secretary recommended disciplinary action against the 4[th] respondent, the Administrative Assistant and to issue warning to the 5[th] respondent, the Senior Superintendent. According to the petitioner it is clearly stated in Ext.P8 Note that the actions of respondents 4 and 5 were unauthorized, illegal and clear case of dereliction of duty and abuse of power and their attitude towards the wife of the petitioner on the date of incident was rude. However, the Chief Minister recommended **WP(C).No.30911 OF 2015(L) ..9 ..** dropping all further action in the matter without any valid or justifiable reason and without hearing the aggrieved parties including the close relatives of late Pushpalatha. This is illegal and arbitrary and sheer abuse of power on political consideration, contends the petitioner. The petitioner has, therefore, prayed for declaring Ext.P8 as illegal, arbitrary and ultra vires and for direction to the Government to take appropriate action against respondents 4 and 5. 11. The respondents 4 and 5 have filed separate counter affidavits. In the counter affidavit filed by the 4[th] respondent he has denied all the allegations raised against him by the writ petitioner and has stated that Exts.P3 to P5 reports were submitted behind his back. According to the 4[th] **WP(C).No.30911 OF 2015(L) ..10 ..** respondent he visited the school for an enquiry to ascertain the correctness of the information received by him that the clerk of the school Smt. Anakha was pursuing regular studies without attending office and was receiving salary. He has denied the allegation that he threatened the wife of the petitioner. He states that the next day of the alleged incident, the petitioner’s wife had gone to the Sub Treasury, Adimaly which is more than 20 km away from the School for encashment of salary bill and the salary of the staff were disbursed and she left the School after office hours at 5.p.m and that there is absolutely nothing on record which may even remotely suggest any linkage between his visit to the school on 06.03.2015 and the death of the Headmistress on 11.03.2015. It is further **WP(C).No.30911 OF 2015(L) ..11 ..** stated in the counter affidavit filed by the 4[th] respondent that he was not suspended from service and no memo of charges was issued to him while he was in service and he retired from service on 31.05.2015 and after the retirement, no can be initiated or disciplinary proceedings continued against him. The 4[th] respondent has also stated that on a complaint filed by the petitioner’s brother-in-law, the Sub Inspector of Police, Vellathooval Police Station conducted an enquiry and further action as there was no dropped material to indicate that the death of Pushpalatha was due to the alleged conduct of respondents 4 and 5. The 4[th] respondent has produced Ext.R4(a) judgment in W.P.(C) No. 11932/2015 filed by the brother-in-law of the petitioner, wherein this Court **WP(C).No.30911 OF 2015(L) ..12 ..** refused to give any direction to the Police in the complaint after considering the entire facts placed before the Court. 12. In the counter affidavit filed by the 5[th] respondent which is almost in line with the counter affidavit of the 4[th] respondent, the 5[th] respondent rebutting the allegations raised against him has further stated that by Ext.R5(a) order dated 12.03.2015 he was suspended from service by the DPI pursuant to Ext.R5(b) complaint filed by the mother-in-law of the petitioner and later he was reinstated in service as per Ext.R5(c) order dated 24.03.2015. It is also stated that a memo of charges dated 30.03.2015 and statement of allegations were issued to him by the DPI. He superannuated from service on 31.03.2015. He **WP(C).No.30911 OF 2015(L) ..13 ..** submitted his explanation to the charges. By Ext.R5(d) order dated 06.08.2015, the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him were dropped by the DPI and the period of suspension was treated as duty and was regularized. 13. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Government supporting the decision to drop the disciplinary proceedings against the respondents 4 and 5 and it is stated that the officers who conducted the enquiry did not take evidence from those who were actually present in the school and no opportunity was given to the accused officers to cross examine the witnesses and that in the case registered by the Police, it was categorically stated that there was no connection with the sad demise of the Headmistress and the **WP(C).No.30911 OF 2015(L) ..14 ..** enquiry conducted in the school by the respondents 4 and 5. It is further stated that there was no room for suspicion regarding the involvement of the respondents 4 and 5 in the incident and over all the respondents were on the verge of superannuation and deserved some humanitarian consideration and the Government found that there was no justification to proceed against them and decided to drop further action in the matter. 14. The writ petitioner has filed reply affidavits to the counter affidavits filed by the respondents. 15. I have heard Sri. Abdul Raoof Pallipath learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Jestin Mathew, the learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 3 and Sri. T.B.Hood, the learned **WP(C).No.30911 OF 2015(L) ..15 ..** Counsel for respondents 4 and 5. 16. What is impugned in the writ petition is Ext.P8 Note submitted by the Principal Secretary to Government, General Education Department to the Hon'ble Chief Minister and the Minister for Education and the decision of the Hon'ble Chief Minister and the Minister for Education endorsed thereon. 17. In Ext.P8 Note, the Principal Secretary to Government has, in short, found that the incident occurred when Smt. as Pushpalatha, Headmistress was under pressure of duties related to the SSLC examination and she shared her worries with the witnesses present at the time and the chances of the 4[th] respondent using harsh language cannot be ruled out and even though the **WP(C).No.30911 OF 2015(L) ..16 ..** 5[th] respondent was associated with the inspection conducted by the 4[th] respondent, no direct involvement of the 5[th] respondent could be established. It is further concluded that it is difficult to establish direct link between the visit of respondents 4 and 5 to school and the death of the Headmistress. Accordingly, the 2[nd] respondent recommended that the 4[th] respondent may be suspended with immediate effect and disciplinary action may be taken for insubordination and unruly behaviour and the 5[th] respondent may be let off with a written warning. The Note also contains the decision of the Hon'ble Chief Minister and the Minister for Education to drop all further action in the matter stating that there is no room for suspicion regarding the involvement of **WP(C).No.30911 OF 2015(L) ..17 ..** respondents 4 and 5 in the incident and over all the respondents were on the verge of superannuation and deserved some humanitarian consideration. 18. No orders pursuant to Ext.P8 Note or any consequential proceedings have been produced before this Court. With regard to the challenge against Ext.P8 Note, it is trite law that notings in a Departmental file do not have the sanction of law v. to be an effective order. In _**Bachhittar Singh State of Punjab and another (AIR 1963 SC 395)** ,_ the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court considered the effect of an order passed by a Minister on a which order was not file communicated to the person concerned. Referring to Article 166(1) of the Constitution, the Court held **WP(C).No.30911 OF 2015(L) ..18 ..** that order of the Minister could not amount to an order by the State Government unless it was expressed in the name of the Rajpramukh, as required by the said Article and was then communicated to the party concerned. The Court observed that business of State is a complicated one and has necessarily to be conducted through the agency of a large number of officials and authorities. Before an action is taken by the authority concerned in the name of the Rajpramukh, which formality is a Constitutional necessity, nothing done would amount to an order creating rights or casting liabilities to third parties. The Court noticed that it is possible that after expressing one opinion about a particular matter at a particular stage, a Minister or the Council of **WP(C).No.30911 OF 2015(L) ..19 ..** Ministers may express quite a different opinion which may be opposed to the earlier opinion. Which of the two opinions can be regarded as the "order" of the State Government? It was held that opinion becomes a decision of the Government only when it is communicated to the person concerned. The said decision was followed in _**Sethi Auto Service Station and Another**_ v. _**Delhi Development Authority and Others [(2009) 1 SCC 180]**_ wherein the Apex Court held that notings in a departmental file do not have the sanction of law to be an effective order and that a noting by an officer is an expression of his viewpoint on the subject. It is no more than an opinion by an officer for internal use and consideration of the other officials of the **WP(C).No.30911 OF 2015(L) ..20 ..** department and for the benefit of the final decision-making authority. The Court observed that internal notings are not meant for outside exposure and notings in the file culminate into an executable order, affecting the rights of the parties, only when it reaches the final decision-making authority in the department, gets his approval and the final order is communicated to the person concerned. The Apex Court also observed that mere favourable recommendations at some level of the decision making process, are of no consequence and shall not confer any right. Following the decision in case _**Bachhittar Singh's**_ (supra), this Court in _**Ramachandran**_ v. _**State of Kerala [2009 (3) KLT 473]**_ has held that the Note whereby the Minister ordered that the petitioner's service as **WP(C).No.30911 OF 2015(L) ..21 ..** Managing Director of a Corporation is terminated without an order of the State Government expressed in the name of the Governor as required by cl. (1) of Art.166 of the Constitution of India cannot be said to be an order passed by the Government and cannot be challenged in a writ petition. Relying on the decisions in _**Bachhittar Singh's case**_ (supra) and _**Shanti Sports Club and another**_ v. _**Union of India [2009 (15) SCC 705]**_ , the Apex Court in _**Ali K.S.B.**_ v. _**State of Andra Pradesh and others [2018 (11) SCC 277]**_ reiterated that notings recorded in official files by officers of the Government at different levels even of Ministers, do not become decisions of the Government unless same are sanctified and acted upon by issuing an order in the name of the **WP(C).No.30911 OF 2015(L) ..22 ..** President or the Governor as the case may be, authenticated in the manner provided in Art.77(2) and Art.166(2) of the Constitution. 19. In view of the principles laid down by the Apex Court and this Court in the above decisions, the challenge to Ext.P8 Note is not sustainable. 20. Though no orders pursuant to Ext.P8 Note or have been any consequential proceedings produced before this Court and challenged, it is not disputed that pursuant to the hearing by the 2[nd] respondent on the petitions submitted by respondents 4 and 5, the Government have decided to drop all disciplinary action against respondents 4 and 5. The second prayer of the Petitioner is to take appropriate action against respondents 4 and 5. **WP(C).No.30911 OF 2015(L) ..23 ..** 21. So far as the 5[th] respondent is concerned, he was placed under suspension by the Director of Public Instructions as per Ext.R5(a) dated 12.03.2015 and was served with a memo of charges and statement of allegations dated 30.03.2015 and the disciplinary proceedings against the 5[th] respondent was dropped vide Ext.R5(d) order of the DPI and the period of suspension was treated as duty and regularised. By Ext.R5(d), the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the 5[th] respondent has come to a logical conclusion. 22. As far as the 4[th] respondent is concerned, the 4[th] respondent was neither placed under suspension nor issued with any memo of charges or statement of allegations in respect of the **WP(C).No.30911 OF 2015(L) ..24 ..** incident leading to the death of petitioner's wife. The incident leading to the death of petitioner's wife _viz_ ; the visit of respondents 4 and 5 to Government School was on Kunjithanni High 06.03.2015. No disciplinary action was initiated against the 4[th] respondent while the 4[th] respondent was in service and he was allowed to retire from service on 31.05.2015. On termination of employment, the employer loses disciplinary control over the employee. However, in relation to employment under the State, the State retains some authority to deal with retired employees. As per the provisions of Rule 3 of Part III of the Kerala Service Rules, the Government reserves the right to withhold the pension of a retired employee under certain contingencies. The said Rules read as ## **WP(C).No.30911 OF 2015(L) ..25 ..** ## follows: "3. The Government reserve to themselves the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or any part of it, whether permanently or for a specified period, and the right of ordering the recovery from a pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to Government, if in a departmental or judicial proceeding, the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his service, including service rendered upon re-employment after retirement: ## Provided that - (a) such departmental proceeding, if instituted while the employee was in service, whether before his retirement or during his reemployment, shall after the final retirement of the employee, be deemed to be a proceeding under this rule and shall be continued and concluded by the authority by which it was commenced in the same manner as if the employee had continued in service; (b) such departmental proceeding, if not instituted while the employee was in service, whether before his retirement or during his reemployment- **WP(C).No.30911 OF 2015(L) ..26 ..** (i) shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the Government; (ii) shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution; and (iii) shall be conducted by such authority and in such place as the Government may direct and in accordance with the procedure applicable to departmental proceedings in which an order of dismissal from service could be made in relation to the employee during his service; (c) no such judicial proceedings, if not instituted while the employee was in service whether before his retirement or during his reemployment, shall be instituted, save with the sanction of the Government, in respect of a cause of action which arose or an event which took place more than four years before such institution; and (d) the Public Service Commission shall be consulted before final orders are passed. Explanation-- For the purpose of this rule - (a) a departmental proceeding shall be deemed to be instituted on the date on which the statement of charges is issued to the employee or pensioner or if the employee has been placed under suspension from an earlier date, on such date; and (b) a judicial proceeding shall be deemed to be ## **WP(C).No.30911 OF 2015(L) ..27 ..** instituted - (i) in the case of a criminal proceeding, on the date on which the complaint or report of police officer on which the Magistrate takes cognizance is made; and (ii) in the case of a civil proceeding, on the date of presentation of the plaint in the Court." 23. The scope of disciplinary proceedings against an employee who has retired from service has been considered by the Division Bench of this Court in _**Ayyappan Pillai**_ v. _**Kerala State Electricity Board and Another [2010 (4) KHC 300 : 2010 (4) KLT SN 77].**_ Paragraph 11 of the said judgment reads: ## xxx “11. We do see force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant. On the termination of employment, the employer loses disciplinary control over the employee. Their legal relationship of employer-employee comes to an end on the termination of the employment. However, in the case of employment under the State, the State by **WP(C).No.30911 OF 2015(L) ..28 ..** appropriate law may retain some authority to deal with its erstwhile employees. Rule 3 of Part III of the Kerala Service Rules is such a law which authorises the State to withhold the pension of a former employee either totally or partially. Such withholding could be either permanent or for a specified period in the contingencies mentioned in the said rule. Such contingencies are (1) the pensioner is found guilty in a departmental proceeding of grave misconduct or negligence during the course of his service or (2) in a judicial proceeding such a finding is recorded. Further it is required under sub-rule (a) of Rule 3 of the Kerala Services Rules that the departmental proceedings referred to under Rule 3 need not have been concluded while the employee was in service. Sub-rule (a) of Rule 3 authorizes the continuation of a pending departmental proceeding even after the retirement of the employee against whom proceedings were initiated. 24. In the case of the 4[th] respondent, no departmental proceedings were initiated while he **WP(C).No.30911 OF 2015(L) ..29 ..** was in service. No disciplinary proceedings can be initiated against the 4[th] respondent after retirement at this distance of time even for the limited purpose provided in Rule 3 of Part III of Kerala Service Rules. I find no reason for this Court to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to initiate any disciplinary proceedings against the respondents 4 and 5. 25. The _locus standi_ of the writ petitioner to challenge the action of the 1[st] respondent to drop the disciplinary proceedings against the respondents 4 and 5 is also a matter to be considered in this writ petition. It is true that the subject matter of the disciplinary proceedings is in relation to the unfortunate incident leading to the sad demise of the petitioner's wife. Nevertheless, **WP(C).No.30911 OF 2015(L) ..30 ..** the petitioner is a stranger in the matter of disciplinary proceedings. Disciplinary proceedings is essentially a matter between the employer and the employee and a stranger cannot be said to have any interest in those proceedings. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in _**Rajnit Prasad**_ v. _**Union of India [2000 (9) SCC 313]**_ considered the scope of _locus standi_ in entertaining a challenge to disciplinary proceedings and held that a person, who is not connected with those proceedings cannot challenge any aspect of such departmental proceedings or action by filing a writ petition. A departmental proceedings is essentially a matter between the employer and the employee and a stranger cannot be said to have any interest in those proceedings. The Court held: **WP(C).No.30911 OF 2015(L) ..31 ..** “8. It is, no doubt, true that the scope of "locus standi" has been widened by this Court through its various decisions and, that too, in the field of Public Interest Litigation where it has been said that Public Interest Litigation can be initiated not only by filing petitions in the High Court or in this Court in a regular manner but also by means of letters and telegrams addressed to the Court. (See : People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India[2] , Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India[3] , State of Himachal Pradesh v. A Parentof a Student of Medical College[4] , Shimla and Bangalore Medical Trust v. B.S. Muddappa[5] . 9. But a mere busy-body who has no interest cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the Court. In respect of departmental proceedings which are initiated or sought to be initiated by the Government against its employees, a person who is not even remotely connected with those proceedings cannot challenge any aspect of the departmental proceedings or action by filing a Writ Petition in the High Court or in this Court. Disciplinary action against an employee is taken by the Government for various reasons principally for "misconduct" on the part of the **WP(C).No.30911 OF 2015(L) ..32 ..** employee. This action is taken after a "domestic" enquiry in which the employee is provided an opportunity of hearing as required by the constitutional mandate. It is essentially a matter between the employer and the employee, and a stranger, much less a practising advocate, cannot be said to have any interest in those proceedings. Public interest of general importance is not involved in disciplinary proceedings. In fact, if such petitions are entertained at the instance of persons who are not connected with those proceedings, it would amount to an abuse of the process of Court”. 26. In _**Dr. Duryodhan Sahu and others**_ v. _**Jitendra Kumar Mishra and others [1998] 7 SCC 273]**_ it was held by the Apex court that in service matters Public Interest Litigation shall not be entertained. The Petitioner in this writ petition is not challenging any action initiated against the petitioner's wife while she was in service or any **WP(C).No.30911 OF 2015(L) ..33 ..** action of the respondents 1 to 3 that would curtail any of the service or terminal benefits of the petitioner's wife. Therefore, the petitioner cannot have any _locus standi_ to challenge the decision of the Government in dropping the disciplinary proceedings against respondents 4 and 5. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- **MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN,** **JUDGE** SB ## **WP(C).No.30911 OF 2015(L) ..34 ..** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT MADE BY PETITIONER'S BROTHER BEFORE THE VELLATHOTHOOVAL POLICE. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM APPEARED IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY AND MATHRU BHUMI DATED 11.3.2015. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER ALONG WITH THE STATEMENT. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE RECOMMENDATION OF 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 16.03.2015 AND THE ENDORSEMENT ON THE SAID STATEMENT. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTE GIVEN BY 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE EDUCATION MINISTER AND CHIEF MINISTER.** ## **RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT R4A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 20-02-2017 IN WRIT PETITION (C) NO.11932/2015. EXHIBIT R5A TRUE COPY OF THE SUSPENSION ORDER DATED 1203-2015. EXHIBIT R5B TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE MOTHER-IN-LAW OF THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT R5C TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24-03-2015 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS. EXHIBIT R5D TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 06-08-2015 CONCLUDING DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.** //true copy //P.A To Judge