M.P. Ramesh v. Cochin Port Trust and Sunil Kumar K.C. v. Cochin Port Trust (WP(C).Nos. 17373/2015 and 28048/2016)

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN** **THURSDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 16TH ASWINA, 1942** ## **WP(C).No.17373 OF 2015(V)** ## **- PETITIONER :** **M.P.RAMESH, AGED 55 YEARS SAFETY INSPECTOR, FIRE SERVICE, CPT STAFF NO.4229, COCHIN PORT TRUST, WILLINGDON ISLAND, COCHIN AND RESIDING AT QUARTER NO.M5/2, SEAGULL STREET, BEHIND CASINO HOTEL, WILLINGDON ISLAND, COCHIN.** **BY ADVS. SRI.RAJESH NAIR SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN** **- RESPONDENTS :** |**1**|**COCHIN PORT TRUST**| |---|---| ||**REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, WILLINGDON ISLAND,**| ||**COCHIN, PIN : 682 009.**| |**2**|**DEPUTY CONSEVATOR**| ||**COCHIN PORT TRUST, COCHIN, PIN : 682 009.**| |**3**|**DEPARTMENTAL PROMOTION COMMITTEE**| ||**COCHIN PORT TRUST, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN,**| ||**COCHIN, PIN: 682 009.**| ||**BY ADV. SRI.K.ANAND (SR.)**| ||**BY ADV. SMT.LATHA ANAND, SC**| **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15-09-2020, ALONG WITH WP(C).28048/2016(E), THE COURT ON 08-10-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WP(C).No.17373 OF 2015(V) -: 2 :- ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN** **THURSDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 16TH ASWINA, 1942** ## **WP(C).No.28048 OF 2016** ## **- PETITIONER :** **SUNIL KUMAR K.C., FIREMAN, STAFF NO.13139, CPTFS, S/O. SRI.K.K. CHANDRAN, MANIMANDIRAM HOUSE, ST.RITA'S ROAD, PONNURUNNI, VYTTILA P.O., PIN - 682 019.** **BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH NAIR** **- RESPONDENTS :** **1 COCHIN PORT TRUST, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, WILLINGDON ISLAND, COCHIN - 2. 2 THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN, COCHIN PORT TRUST, WILLINGDON SILAND, COCHIN, PIN – 682 002. 3 DEPUTY CONSERVATOR, COCHIN PORT TRUST, COCHIN – 682 009. BY ADV. SRI.K.ANAND SR. BY SMT.LATHA ANAND, SC, COCHIN PORT TRUST** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15-09-2020, ALONG WITH WP(C).17373/2015(V), THE COURT ON 08-10-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WP(C).No.17373 OF 2015(V) -: 3 :- ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Dated this the 8th day of October 2020** These writ petitions are filed by two employees of the 1[st] respondent Cochin Port Trust, challenging the orders passed in the disciplinary proceedings against them. 2. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.17373/2015 was working as Safety Inspector in the Fire Department of the 1[st] respondent. It is submitted that he was diagnosed with Carcinoma Thyroid, which is a form of throat cancer, in the year 2012 and was under treatment. It is submitted that he was entitled for promotion to the post of Chief Fire Cum Assistant Safety Pollution Control Officer, which was denied to him due to the ill-will harboured by the previous incumbent in the post, who was his relative. It is submitted that the due promotion was denied to the petitioner on untenable grounds and that when it became clear that the petitioner would be promoted, a complaint was lodged against him and the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.28048/2016, who is his brother-in-law, on the basis of an alleged incident which occurred at the residence of the petitioner on 17.4.2014. 3. It is submitted that Ext.P12 complaint was lodged only on 13.6.2014. A full fledged enquiry was conducted against the petitioners herein. By Ext.P20 enquiry report, the enquiry officer found that there was no material to prove that the incident as alleged WP(C).No.17373 OF 2015(V) -: 4 :- itself had taken place and consequently all the charges were held to be not proved. However, the disciplinary authority did not accept the enquiry report. Ext.P21 order was passed disagreeing with the findings of the enquiry officer and entering tentative findings of guilt as against the petitioners. The petitioner submitted Ext.P23 reply. It is stated that without considering the contentions raised in the reply and without even giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, Ext.P25 order was passed imposing the penalty of withholding of two increments for a period of two years with cumulative effect. The petitioner was given a further chance to make a representation against the penalty imposed. 4. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.28048/2016 was also subjected to the same disciplinary proceedings and Ext.P17 order proposing to impose a penalty of withholding of increments was served on him. He submitted Ext.P20 appeal and Ext.P21 order has been passed remitting the matter to the disciplinary authority to pass final orders in consideration of the enquiry report dated 17.4.2015, after suitably disagreeing with the findings made therein and making its own findings as has already been done. These orders are under challenge on the ground that the charges against the petitioner had been considered in detail in the enquiry and had been found not proved. It is contended that in the absence of any cogent reasons, the decision WP(C).No.17373 OF 2015(V) -: 5 :- of the disciplinary authority in disagreeing with the findings of the enquiry officer was completely untenable. 5. A counter affidavit has been placed on record by the respondents, pointing out that due procedure had been followed while differing with the findings of the enquiry officer and the petitioners had been put on notice. It is stated that though appeal had been preferred by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.28048/2016 against the tentative decision to impose the penalty of bar of two increments with cumulative effect, the appeal had been rejected, after considering all the relevant aspects and the disciplinary authority had been directed to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Reply affidavit has also been placed on record. It is further submitted that pursuant to an interim order issued by this Court in W.P.(C) No.17373/2015, the petitioner in the said writ petition was promoted as Chief Fire Cum Assistant Safety Pollution Control Officer by order dated 29.6.2015 and the adverse remarks in his confidential reports had been admittedly expunged by Ext.R1(a) order. It is therefore contended that the allegations of malafides are absolutely unfounded. 6. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it is stated that the finding of the enquiry officer is not binding upon the disciplinary authority and there is sufficient authority in the disciplinary authority to depart from the findings in the enquiry. It is WP(C).No.17373 OF 2015(V) -: 6 :- stated that the disciplinary authority had differed with the findings of the enquiry officer solely based on the available material on record in the enquiry and that the action had been taken after considering all due procedures in accordance with law. It is contended that the arguments raised by the petitioners are untenable in view of the specific contentions. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the entire proceedings are vitiated by malafide and that it was only to deny the eligible promotion to the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.28048/2016 that the order was passed. It is submitted that after differing with the findings in the enquiry, the petitioner was not given a chance to substantiate his case of innocence or given a chance of personal hearing before the tentative decision to impose punishment had been confirmed by the disciplinary authority. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Cochin Port Trust. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it was only with the specific purpose of denying promotion to the post of Chief Fire Officer that the disciplinary proceedings themselves were initiated against the petitioners herein and that the entire proceedings were the outcome of the animosity and the family rivalry between the petitioners and their cousins, who are also employed WP(C).No.17373 OF 2015(V) -: 7 :- under the respondents. It is further submitted that the very allegation in Ext.12 complaint had nothing to do with the service of the petitioners under the respondent Port Trust and that the disciplinary proceedings initiated on the basis of a complaint which would act best be completely personal in nature itself shows the malafide intentions of the respondents and the attempt to deny due promotions to one of the petitioners. It is submitted that on the basis of interim orders rendered by this Court, the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.17373/2015 had been promoted as Chief Fire Officer. It is further contended that the proper procedure of giving reasons for differing from the findings in the enquiry and affording a personal hearing to the delinquent officers were not adhered to before the impugned orders were rendered. It is, therefore, contended that the orders are illegal and unsustainable. 10. The learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in **A. L. Kalra** v. **The Project and Equipment Corporation of India Ltd.** [1984 KHC 683] to contend that where a particular conduct does not fall within the misconducts enumerated in the conduct rules, the action of the respondents in imposing a penalty on the basis of general misconduct would fall foul of the intentions of the framing of the conduct rules. It was held that if what is alleged as misconduct does not constitute misconduct not by analysis or WP(C).No.17373 OF 2015(V) -: 8 :- appraisal of evidence, but per se under the conduct rules, the respondents would have neither the authority nor the jurisdiction nor the power to impose any penalty for the alleged misconduct. 11. A decision of the Apex Court in **Malhotra S. P.** v. **Punjab National Bank and others** [2013 KHC 4524] is also relied on to contend that a disciplinary authority is bound to record reasons for disagreeing with the finding of the enquiry officer and to supply a copy of such reasons to the delinquent employee. It was held that non-furnishing of the copy of recorded reasons for disagreement from the findings of the enquiry officer would vitiate the order passed on the basis of such disagreement. 12. A decision in **M/s. Glaxo Laboratories (I.) Ltd.** v. **Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Meerut** [1984 KHC 544] is also relied on to contend that a misconduct of a general nature which does not come within the enumerated misconducts cannot be taken cognizance of by the employer, if the said misconduct has no bearing to the employment. It was held by the Apex Court that “the casual connection in order to provide linkage between the alleged act of misconduct and employment must be real and substantial, immediate and proximate and not remote or tenuous.” It was further held that “it cannot be left to the vagaries of management to say ex post facto that some acts of omission or commission nowhere found to be WP(C).No.17373 OF 2015(V) -: 9 :- enumerated in the relevant standing order is nonetheless a misconduct not strictly falling within the enumerated misconduct in the relevant standing order but yet a misconduct for the purpose of imposing a penalty.” 13. A decision in **Rasiklal Vaghajibhai Patel** v. **Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and another** [1985 KHC 565] is also relied on, where, it was held that “unless either in the Certified Standing Order or in the service regulations an act or omission is prescribed as misconduct, it is not open to the employer to fish out some conduct as misconduct and punish the workman even though the alleged misconduct would not be comprehended in any of the enumerated misconduct.” 14. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in **Palghat BPL & PSP Thozhilali Union** v. **BPL India Ltd. and ors.** [(1995) 6 SCC 237]. It was held therein that “drunkenness, riotous or disorderly behaviour during working hours within the premises of the company is misconduct.” The Regulation also provided that any act subversive of discipline committed either within or outside the premises of the company is also misconduct. It was therefore held that what amounts to misconduct is a question of fact and has to be decided with reference to the facts and situation, in which the act was WP(C).No.17373 OF 2015(V) -: 10 :- alleged to have been committed and the attending circumstances leading there. 15. A decision of the Apex Court in **Mulchandani Electrical and Radio Industries Ltd.** v. **The Workmen** [(1975) 4 SCC 731] is also relied on to contend that within the premises or precincts of the establishment refer not to the place where the act which is subversive of discipline or good behaviour is committed but where the consequence of such an act manifests itself. It was held that an act wherever committed, if it has the effect of subverting discipline or good behaviour within the premises of the establishment will amount to misconduct. The decision in **Secretary to Government and others** v. **A.C.J. Britto** [(1997) 3 SCC 387] was also relied on to contend that the Apex Court had considered the decision in **A. L. Kalra's case** cited supra and had held that the said decision did not lay down as a general principle that if an act is not specified by the rules to be misconduct, then it cannot be regarded as such and an employee cannot be punished for committing such an act. 16. I have considered the contentions advanced on either side at considerable length and gone through the orders passed by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority in these cases. The common contention of the petitioners is that the misconduct alleged against them had no direct connection with their employment under WP(C).No.17373 OF 2015(V) -: 11 :- the respondents and that as such, there is no justification in pursuing the disciplinary proceedings as against them. It is stated that the occurrence, if any, on 17.4.2014 was only a result of a personal family dispute and that it had no bearing whatsoever on the employment of the petitioners with the respondents. It is further contended that a full fledged enquiry had been conducted and the enquiry officer had exonerated the petitioners from all the charges. It is therefore contended that the action of the disciplinary authority in disagreeing with the findings of the enquiry officer, without putting the petitioners on notice at that stage, is completely vitiated by malafide exercise of power and is intended only to deny due promotions to one of the petitioners herein. 17. The learned counsel for the respondents contends that the disciplinary authority is not bound by the findings of the enquiry authority and it is perfectly open for the disciplinary authority to differ from such findings. It is stated that after differing from the findings of the enquiry officer, the petitioners had been put on notice and their representations had been considered before the tentative decision to impose the penalty had been affirmed. It is submitted that the contentions raised by the petitioners as to malafides do not stand substantiated and are mere wild allegations made to challenge proper and valid proceedings issued against them. WP(C).No.17373 OF 2015(V) -: 12 :- 18. Ext.P22 in W.P.(C) No.17373/2015 is the Classification, Control and Appeal Regulations applicable to employees of the respondents. Regulation 12 provides for the procedure for imposing major penalties. It is clear from the fact that the procedure followed was the procedure for imposing major penalties. Sub rules (11) and (12) of Regulation 12 read as follows :- “(11) The Disciplinary Authority shall, if it not the Inquiry Authority, consider the record of the inquiry and record of his findings on each charge. (12) If the Disciplinary Authority having regard to its findings on all or any of the articles of charges and on the basis of the evidence adduced during the inquiry, is of the opinion that any of the penalties specified in terms (vi) to (vii) of Regulation 10 should be imposed on the employee, it shall make an order imposing such penalty and it shall not be necessary to give the employee any opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed to be imposed Provided that in every case in which prior approval of the Central Government is necessary, the record of the inquiry shall be forwarded by the Disciplinary Authority to the Central Govt. for passing order.” It is therefore contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that all that is required for the disciplinary authority to enter into findings on each of the charges on the basis of the enquiry report. 19. Having considered the contentions advanced, I find that the enquiry officer had found the petitioners not guilty on all the charges. Therefore, where the disciplinary authority differs from the findings of the enquiry officer, I am of the opinion that it is only WP(C).No.17373 OF 2015(V) -: 13 :- appropriate that the disciplinary authority records its reasons for such disagreement and gives further notice to the delinquent employees to place their objections on record with regard to such disagreement. A full and proper opportunity to defend themselves on the basis of the reasons recorded by the disciplinary authority would also be imperative at this stage. 20. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the refusal on the part of the disciplinary authority to give a proper opportunity to the delinquent officers to state their case including an opportunity of hearing has vitiated the entire proceedings. It is an admitted fact that the disciplinary authority had disagreed completely with the findings recorded in the enquiry report. However, the communication issued by the disciplinary authority after disagreeing with the findings in the enquiry is characterised as tentative findings of the disciplinary authority on the articles of charge framed. Though the disciplinary authority had entered findings of its own, it is an admitted fact that the petitioners were not heard pursuant thereto before the penalty had been imposed. 21. In the above view of the matter, I am of the opinion that it is in the interests of justice that the petitioners who had been found to be absolved of all the charges in the enquiry should have been given a proper opportunity to defend themselves before a penalty was WP(C).No.17373 OF 2015(V) -: 14 :- imposed on them by the disciplinary authority after differing with the findings in the enquiry. I am not convinced that the grounds raised against the initiation of the proceedings and the contentions with regard to malafide intentions stand so substantiated as to invalidate the entire proceedings taken against the petitioners on the basis of a complaint submitted by the wife of the fellow employee. In the above view of the matter, the orders imposing penalty and the later orders in W.P.(C) No.28048/2016 are set aside. There will be a direction to the disciplinary authority to grant the petitioners a further opportunity of hearing on the basis of the disagreements recorded by the disciplinary authority as against the enquiry report. The contentions raised by the petitioners in their written objections as also the contentions to be raised in the personal hearing so afforded to the petitioners shall be considered by the disciplinary authority and an appropriate order shall be passed after considering all such contentions. Appropriate orders shall be passed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. These writ petitions are ordered accordingly. Sd/- **ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE** Jvt/28.9.2020 WP(C).No.17373 OF 2015(V) -: 15 :- ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17373/2015** **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** - **EXHIBIT P1 P1: TRUE COPY OF THE DEGREE CERTICATE ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER** - **EXHIBIT P2 P2: TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE NATIONAL FIRE SERVICE COLLEGE, NAGPUR, IN FAVOR OF THE PETITIONER** - **EXHIBIT P3 P3: TRUE COPY OF THE COCHIN PORT TURST EMPLOYEES (RECRUITMENT, SENIORITY AND PROMOTION) REGULATIONS, 2010.** - **EXHIBIT P4 P4: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE (NO.B2/ NOTICE/MPR/2014-D DATED 30TH OF MAY 2014) ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT** - **EXHIBIT P5 P5: TRUE COPY OF THE CONFIDENTIAL REPORT FOR THE PERIOD FROM 1/1/2012 TO 31/12/2012 WITH REFERENCE TO THE PETITIONER** - **EXHIBIT P6 P6: TRUE COPY OF THE CONFIDENTIAL REPORT FOR THE PERIOD FROM 1/1/2013 TO 31/12/2012 WITH REFERENCE TO THE PETITIONER** - **EXHIBIT P7 P7: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON OBJECTION/WRITTEN STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE OFFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 9/6/2014.** - **EXHIBIT P8 P8: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTE (NO.SECY/5/2013/S DATED 20/4/2013) ISSUED BY THE GENERAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT** - **EXHIBIT P9 P9: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.15-C (3) / 68 DATED 17/3/1968 ISSUED BY THE PORTS WING, MINISTRY OF SHIPPING, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA** - **EXHIBIT P10 P10: TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM (NO:E1/DISCI/M.P.R. 2014-D DATED 21/6/2014) CONTAINING THE ARTICLES OF CHARGES** - **EXHIBIT P11 P11: TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT OF DEFENSE DATED 30/6/14.** - **EXHIBIT P12 P12: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAIT DATED 11/6/2014 SUBMITTED BY SMT.NISHA KRISHNAMURARI BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT** WP(C).No.17373 OF 2015(V) -: 16 :- **EXHIBIT P13 P13: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 17/6/2014 SUBMITTED BY SHRI.KRISHNAMURARI BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT** - **EXHIBIT P14 P14.TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.(E1/DISCI/M.P.R & S.K.C./2014-D DATED 02.08.2014) ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P15 P15: TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO EXT.P19.** - **EXHIBIT P16 P16: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER (NO.B2/CR/MRP/2014 DATED 17/9/2014) PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT** - **EXHIBIT P17 P17: TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 12/11/2014 ISSUED BY THE MEDICAL BOARD OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT** - **EXHIBIT P18 P18: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT PASSED IN WRIT PETITION (C) NO.23152 OF 2014 DATED 30/1/2014 BY THE SINGLE BENCH OF THIS HON'BLE COURT** - **EXHIBIT P19 P19: TRUE COPY OF THIS INTIMATION (MEMORANDUM NO.E1/DISCI/M.P.R & S.K.C./2014-D DATED 23/4/2015) ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT** - **EXHIBIT P20 P20: TRUE COPY OF ENQUIRY REPORT DATED 17/4/2015. EXHIBIT P21 P21: TRUE COPY OF THE TENTATIVE FINDINGS REACHED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 23/4/2015.** - **EXHIBIT P22 P22: TRUE COPY OF THE COCHIN PORT TRUST EMPLOYEES (CLASSIFICATION CONTROL AND APPEAL) REGULATIONS** - **EXHIBIT P23 P23: TRUE COPY OF SUBMISSION/REPLY TO EXT.P21 DATED 7/5/2015.** - **EXHIBIT P24 P24: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 22/5/2015 PASSED BY THE LEARNED DIVISION BENCH OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WRIT APEAL NO.500 OF 2015.** - **EXHIBIT P25 P25: TRUE COPY OF ORDER (NO.E/DISC. ACTION MRP/2015-D DATED 30/5/2014) PASSED BY SHRI.PAUL N.JOSEPH, THE 2ND RESPONDENT** - **EXHIBIT P26 P26: TRUE COPY OF THE COCHIN PORT TRUST EMPLOYEES (CONDUCT) REGULATIONS, 1964.** WP(C).No.17373 OF 2015(V) -: 17 :- **EXHIBIT P27 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 10/06/2015 PASSED IN WRIT PETITION (C).NO.17373 OF 2015 BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.** ## **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT R1(a)** TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.A 3/PROMOTION/CHIEF FIRE OFFICER/2015 DATED 29.06.2015. WP(C).No.17373 OF 2015(V) -: 18 :- ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 28048/2016** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** - **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE (NO.B2/NOTICE/MPR/2014-D DATED 30TH OF MAY 2014) ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE CONFIDENTIAL REPORT FOR THE PERIOD FROM 01/01/2012 TO 31/12/2012 OF M.P. RAMESH.** - **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE CONFIDENTIAL REPORT OF M.P. RAMESH FOR THE PERIOD FROM 01/01/2013 TO 31/12/2013.** - **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THIS OBJECTION/WRITTEN STATEMENT DATED 09/06/2014 SUBMITTED BY M.P. RAMESH.** - **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF MEMORANDUM CONTAINING THE ARTICLES OF CHARGES (NO.E1/DISCI/SKC 2014-D DATED 21/06/2014).** - **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT OF DEFENCE SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ON 30/06/2014.** - **EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 11/06/2014 SUBMITTED BY SMT. NISHA KRISHNAMURALI BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 17/06/2014 SUBMITTED BY SRI. KRISHNAMURALI BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF ORDER (NO.B2/CR/MPR/2014 DATED 17/09/2014) PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THIS REPORT DATED 12/11/2014 ISSUED BY THE MEDICAL BOARD OF COCHIN PORT TRUST.** **EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT PASSED IN WRIT PETITION(C) NO.23450/2014 DATED 30/01/2014 BY THE SINGLE BENCH OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA.** - **EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THIS INTIMATION (MEMORANDUM NO.E1/DISCI/M.P.R. AND SKC/2014-D DATED 23/04/2015) ISSUED BY DEPUTY CONSERVATOR.** - **EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF ENQUIRY REPORT DATED 17/04/2015 ISSUED BY SRI.K. RAMESH, INQUIRY OFFICER.** WP(C).No.17373 OF 2015(V) -: 19 :- ## **EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE TENTATIVE FINDINGS REACHED BY THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR ON 23/04/2015.** - **EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THIS SUBMISSION/REPLY TO EXT. P14 DATED 07/05/2015 PRESENTED BY THE PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 22/05/2015 PASSED BY THE LEARNED DIVISION BENCH OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN WA NO.501/2015.** - **EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER (NO. E/DISC. ACTION/MPR/2015D DATED 30/05/2014) PASSED BY THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR.** - **EXHIBIT P18 TRUE COPY OF THIS ORDER DATED 10/06/2015 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN WPC NO.17373/2015.** - **EXHIBIT P19 TRUE COPY OF ORDER (NO.A3/PROMOTION/CHIEF FIRE OFFICER/2015 DATED 29/06/2015) ISSUED BY SECRETARY, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, COCHIN-682009.** - **EXHIBIT P20 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 21/07/2015.** - **EXHIBIT P21 TRUE COPY OF ORDER (NO.P/S/25/2016/S DATED 23/06/2016) ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P22 TRUE COPY OF THIS ORDER (NO. DC/APPEAL/KCSK/2016 DATED 19TH OF JULY 2016) ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P23 TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO. B2/RTI/SKKC/2016-D DATED 17/08/2016 ALONG WITH THE NOTE ADDRESSED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE