OP(KAT) No.291 of 2021

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM THURSDAY, THE 2[ND] DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943 OP(KAT) NO. 291 OF 2021** **AGAINST THE ORDER IN OA NO.1162/2021 DATED 13.08.2021 OF KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM** ## **PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 IN O.A.:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA-695001.** - **2 STATE POLICE CHIEF POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, VAZHUTHACAUD P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURM-695010, KERALA.** ## **BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER** ## **RESPONDENT/APPLICANT IN O.A.:** ## **P.B.PRASOB** **S/O P.A.BALAN, AGED 50 YEARS, ADDITIONAL SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PALAKKAD-678001, RESIDING AT PALLATH HOUSE, VELUPADAM, VARANTHARAPILLY, THRISSUR, KERALA-680303. BY ADV T.R.RAJESH** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **SRI.ANTONY MUKKATH, SR.GOVT.PLEADER** **THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP** **FOR ADMISSION ON 02.12.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** O.P.(KAT) No.291 of 2021 2 ## **ALEXANDER THOMAS & VIJU ABRAHAM, JJ.** ----------------------------------------------------------------- O.P.(KAT) No.291 of 2021 _[arising out of the impugned final order dated 13.08.2021 in O.A. No.1162/2021 of the KAT, Tvm Bench]_ ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 02[nd] day of December, 2021 ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Alexander Thomas , J.** The sole respondent herein has preferred the instant Ext.P1 O.A. No.1162/2021 before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram Bench, with the following prayers:- - _“i) To declare that the pending disciplinary proceeding vide Annexure A4 memo of charge against the applicant need not be taken into consideration for promoting the applicant and the applicant’s case for promotion be considered without reference to and without taking into consideration the pending proceedings against the applicant and appropriate orders be issued to the respondents._ - _ii) To set aside A11 order and direct the 1[st] respondent to revise the select list of Deputy Superintendent of Police fit for promotion to the cadre of Superintendent of Police fit for promotion to the cadre of Superintendent of Police (non IPS) for the year 2017 and thereafter to promote the applicant to the post of Superintendent of Police (non IPS) with retrospective effect._ - _iii) Issue such other directions or orders as this Honourable Tribunal deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.”_ 2. The Tribunal after hearing both sides has rendered the impugned Ext.P3 final order dated 13.08.2021 in the instant O.A. No.1162/2021, finally disposing the said O.A. with the finding that the ground cited by the DPC (Departmental Promotion Committee) O.P.(KAT) No.291 of 2021 3 to reject the request of the applicant, who is holding the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police for promotion to the next higher category post of Superintendent of Police (non IPS), on the ground that the pending Anx.A4 Memo of Charges dated 22.06.2015, is illegal and unreasonable, in view of the long and inordinate delay in not completing disciplinary proceedings and that accordingly an Ad-Hoc DPC should immediately be convened to consider the claim of the applicant for promotion to the post of Superintendent of Police (non IPS), for the select list of 2017, ignoring Anx.A4 Memo of Charges and pass orders in the matter of promotion of the petitioner. It is this final verdict of the Tribunal at Ext.P3, that is under challenge in the instant case. 3. Heard Sri.Antony Mukkath, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners in the O.P./respondents 1 & 2 in the O.A. (State of Kerala & State Police Chief) and Sri.T.R. Rajesh, learned counsel appearing for the sole respondent in the O.P./sole applicant in the O.A., before the Tribunal. 4. The complaint of the respondent herein/original applicant is regarding the alleged illegal rejection of his claim for promotion from the present post of Deputy Superintendent of Police to the next higher category post of Superintendent of Police (non- O.P.(KAT) No.291 of 2021 4 IPS), by the DPC Higher on account of the pendency of Anx.A4 Memo of Charges dated 22.06.2015. 5. Though quite a few of the disciplinary proceedings were also cited in the pleadings of the respondents in the O.A., it is common ground that the sole disciplinary proceedings that is relevant for the present select list year 2017, as far as the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Superintendent of Police (non-IPS), is the one at Anx.A4 Memo of Charges dated 22.06.2015, which has been served on the applicant on 03.09.2015. 6. The Tribunal has found that there has been inordinate delay and laches on the part of the respondents in the O.A. in completing and finalising the disciplinary proceedings in pursuance of Anx.A4 Memo of Charges. Hence, the Tribunal said that the main ground of rejection by the DPC Higher, to reject the claim of the petitioner for promotion, by placing reliance on Anx.A4 Memo of Charges is highly unreasonable and that an Ad-Hoc DPC should be convened to reconsider the claim of the petitioner for the said promotion, by ignoring Anx.A4 Memo of Charges. 7. At the outset it has been noted that there is no specific prayer in the instant Ext.P1 O.A., seeking for quashment of the impugned Anx.A4 Memo of Charges, on the ground that is vitiated by O.P.(KAT) No.291 of 2021 5 inordinate delay, laches, etc. On the other hand the prayer is that the claim of the petitioner for the abovesaid promotion to be reconsidered, notwithstanding the Memo of Charges at Anx.A4. 8. There is no dispute that going by the norms, Memo of Charges issued in the year 2015 would be relevant for the select list year 2017. 9. It is well established that the DPC envisaged by the provisions contained in Rule 28 of KS & SSR (Part-II), is only a creature of the statutory Rules and the said DPC is bound to act within the parameters of the Rules and so long as Anx.A4 Memo of Charges is in currency, the DPC as a statutory creature, cannot ignore the same or take the view that the same is null and void, illegal and unenforceable on account of inordinate delay, etc. Note (i) & Note (iii) of Rule 28(b)(i)(7)of KS & SSR (Part-II) would apply in a case where a memo of charge like in the instant one at Anx.A4, which is relevant for the select list year in question, etc. and in such a situation, the delinquent employee like the applicant should have been considered for promotion by adopting what is otherwise envisaged as the sealed cover procedure as mandated in Note (i) ( _supra_ ). Further the case of the petitioners is that Note (iii) ( _supra_ ) mandates that such an officer shall not be promoted unless he is O.P.(KAT) No.291 of 2021 6 exonerated of the charges in such disciplinary proceedings. The abovesaid cardinal and crucial aspect borne out from the statutory provisions contained in Note (i) & Note (iii) of Rule 28(b)(i)(7), KS & SSR (Part-II) has not been taken into account by the Tribunal while rendering the impugned verdict at Ext.P3. 10. We had querried the learned Senior Government Pleader as to the reasons for the delay in completing the disciplinary proceedings in pursuance of Anx.A4 Memo of Charges, said to have been served on the petitioner on 03.09.2015. We are told that a non-IPS officer of the State Police cadre was appointed as the Enquiry Officer and some of the key witnesses in the said disciplinary proceedings referred to in Anx.A4 were senior Police officers of the rank of Additional Director General of Police, etc. and the Enquiry Officer, who was an officer of subordinate rank, and that too in the State service, has found it difficult to question such superior officers and that appears to be the reason for the delay in completing the disciplinary proceedings. 11. However, we are now told that subsequently the Enquiry Officer who was appointed, has completed the enquiry proceedings in pursuance of Anx.A4 Memo of Charges and drawn up the enquiry report in the matter in Anx.A4 Memo of Charges on O.P.(KAT) No.291 of 2021 7 18.10.2021 and the same has been submitted before the competent authority for further action. Further it is pointed out that the Enquiry Officer has furnished the Enquiry Report holding that the charges against against the applicant delinquent has been proved, etc. Further that, all what remains is that show cause notice along with the Enquiry Report will have to be issued by the competent authority to the applicant and thereafter his reply of the applicant on the said show cause notice and the Enquiry Report will have to be received and thereafter the competent authority will have to afford reasonable opportunity of being heard to the applicant and then take a decision on the matter of finalisation of the disciplinary proceedings in pursuance of Anx.A4 and that it is hoped and expected that the whole process to be completed within about 2 months or so, provided the applicant fully co-operate with the same. 12. Further, it is pointed out by the petitioners that the allegations covered by Anx.A4 Memo of Charges are in relation to the illegal act done at the behest of the applicant, in seizure proceedings in relation to the passport of an individual who challenged the same before this Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.23960 of 2013 and this Court had rendered a judgment thereon deprecating and expressing displeasure in the matter in which the O.P.(KAT) No.291 of 2021 8 seizure was effected. That in the instant case, though the applicant could have taken action against the individual concerned, but he should have immediately thereafter produced the seized passport before the competent criminal court concerned which has been not done and that it is reliably learnt that after rendering of the judgment by this Court in W.P.(C)No.23960 of 2013, he had in fact returned back the passport to the affected individual. Further that, two minor penalties have already been imposed on the applicant subsequently as referred to in paras 7 & 9 of this O.P. and four other memo of charges for major penalty disciplinary proceedings are also pending against the applicant. That the imposition of subsequent penalties as above would be relevant in view of the provisions contained in Note (iii) _[supra]_ of Rule 28(b)(i)(7) of KS & SSR Part II. Further, an Original Suit, O.S. No.1404 of 2002 was instituted before the Additional Munisiff’s Court, Irinjalakkuda, in which the above applicant has been a defendant and the Sate authorities have also been arrayed as defendants therein and the said civil court rendered a judgment and decree dated 31.03.2016 directing the respondents 1 to 5 to pay Rs.32,500/- with 6% interest from 26.08.2005 till the date of realisation and to recover the amount from the defendant concerned, the present applicant, who was then O.P.(KAT) No.291 of 2021 9 Sub Inspector of Police, Irinjalakkuda at the time of inspection. The allegation therein was that the applicant herein was the Sub Inspector of Police at the relevant time had brutally manhandled and assaulted the plaintiff therein. That, an appeal was filed against the abovesaid judgment and decree dated 31.03.2006 in O.S. No.1404 of 2002 and the said appeal was also dismissed by the firsts appellate court and compensation was in fact awarded to the plaintiff in the said suit who was a practicing Advocate. 13. Rule 28(b)(i)(7) Note (i) of KS &SSR (Part-II) provides ## as follows:- _“Note .--(i) Officers under suspension and Officers against whom criminal proceedings are pending in a Sessions Court or in any other higher Court for grave offences like murder, dacoity, etc. and Officers against whom departmental proceedings are taken for the imposition of a major penalty under the disciplinary rules applicable to them should not be included in the select list. But the suitability of such an Officer for promotion should be assessed at the relevant time by the Departmental Promotion Committee and a finding reached whether, if the Officer had not been suspended or the criminal proceedings/departmental proceedings had not been pending against him, he would have been recommended/selected for promotion. Where a select list is prepared the Departmental Promotion Committee shall also make a finding as to what the position of the Officer in that list would have been but for the suspension or the criminal proceedings/departmental proceedings against him. The findings as to the suitability and the place in the select list of the officer should be recorded separately and attached to the proceedings. The proceedings of the Departmental Promotion Committee need only certain a note, “The findings are recorded in the attached sheet of paper. The authority competent to fill the vacancy should be separately advised to fill the vacancy only on a temporary basis. Officers against whom vigilance or departmental proceedings are taken after the charges have prima facie been established in a preliminary enquiry should not be included in the select list. But, the cases of such Officers should also be assessed. The question of including them in the select list shall be considered when the result of the enquiry is known. However Officers against whom departmental proceedings are taken for the imposition of a minor penalty may be included in the select list provisionally if they are found_ O.P.(KAT) No.291 of 2021 10 _suitable but for the pendency of disciplinary proceedings initiated against them.”_ ## Rule 28(b)(i)(7) Note (iii) of KS &SSR (Part-II) provides as follows:- _“Note .--(iii) Officers whose names are included in the select list but who are subsequently placed under suspension or against whom criminal proceedings are taken in a sessions court or in any other higher court for grave offences and officers against whom departmental proceedings are taken for the imposition of a major penalty under the disciplinary rules applicable to them, shall not be promoted on the basis of their inclusion in the select list until they are fully exonerated of the charges against them. If the officer is fully exonerated of the charges, he shall be promoted on the basis of his position in the select list to the post which has been filled on a temporary basis pending disposal of the charges against him. If the Officer is not fully exonerated, the Departmental Promotion Committee may consider each case on its own merit. Officers whose names are included in the select list but against whom departmental proceedings for imposing a minor penalty are initiated subsequently, may be promoted on a temporary basis pending disposal of the proceedings against them. If the Officer is fully exonerated of the charges the temporary promotion shall be treated as regular promotion and if the Officer is not fully exonerated of the charges, his case may be considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee on merits.”_ 14. After hearing both sides, we are of the view that the DPC Higher could not have been faulted for having taken into account Anx.A4 Memo of Charges, which was then pending since 2015 as a relevant aspect for consideration of promotion for the select list year 2017, as that is fully permissible in terms of the provisions contained in Rule 28 of the KS & SSR (Part-II). In that regard it may be pertinent to refer to Rule 28(b)(i)(4) of KS & SSR (Part-II), which reads as follows:- _“ Rule 28(b)(i)(4). The Committee shall meet periodically to prepare select lists, in the order of merit, or the Officers selected for appointment. The Committee may also hold ad hoc meetings for the purpose of making selection to particular vacancies whenever occasion arises. The criterion for assessment of merit shall be the confidential reports of the officers. The confidential reports of the officers for atleast_ O.P.(KAT) No.291 of 2021 11 _the preceding three years shall be made available to the Committee for this purpose. Where remediable adverse remarks recorded in the confidential report of Government Servant are not communicated to the officer concerned, such remarks shall be ignored by the Departmental Promotion Committee while considering his case for promotion. The following procedure shall be adopted by the Departmental Promotion Committee for the preparation of select lists:-_ _xxx xxx xxx.”_ 15. So also, since there was no prayer for quashment of the impugned Memo of Charges at Anx.A4 on the ground that is vitiated by unreasonable delay and laches, etc., without quashment of the Memo of Charges, on the basis of cogent grounds available in public law, the Tribunal should not have directed the reconsideration of the claim of the petitioner, totally ignoring Anx.A4 Memo of Charges. 16. Hence, we are of the view that the impugned verdict of the Tribunal at Ext.P13 would deserve interdiction at the hands of this Court. 17. Sri.T.R. Rajesh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent herein/applicant in the O.A. would contend that a junior of his party one Sri.N.Abdul Rasheed was granted promotion to the post of Superintendent of Police (non-IPS) ignoring the disciplinary proceedings pending against him and that therefore, taking a different stand in the case of the applicant herein would amount to violation of the equality guarantee contained in Articles 14 & 16 of O.P.(KAT) No.291 of 2021 12 the Constitution of India. It is also urged by Sri.T.R. Rajesh, learned counsel appearing for the applicant that in view of the provisions contained in Rule 28(b)(i)(7) as well as Rule 28(b)(i)(13), the cases of evaluation of SC/ST officers for suitability for promotion to selection post, should be on a relaxed standard and not on the basis of a strict standard that is otherwise invoked in the case of officers belonging to other officers. Further it is also argued by him that if the disciplinary proceedings at Anx.A4 Memo of Charges had been finalised well before the meeting of the DPC held in the instant case on 17.01.2017, and even if the disciplinary proceedings are terminated in one of the penalties referred to as Clauses (a) to (j) of Rule 15 of the Kerala Police Departmental Inquiries, Punishment and Appeal Rules and Sec.101(4) of the Kerala Police Act, then suffering of any of the penalties in terms of Clauses (a) to (j) of Sec.101(4) of the Kerala Police Act, shall not, ordinarily, be a bar for promotion in view of the protective mandate made by the legislature for Police officers in terms of Sec.101(6) of the Kerala Police Act. Further that, the said provision in Sec.101(6) was deleted from the statute book only with effect from 08.01.2019 and since the right of the applicant to be considered for promotion is for the select list year 2017, such an incumbent like the applicant would have been O.P.(KAT) No.291 of 2021 13 entitled for said protection and immunity, even if any of the penalties as per Clauses (a) to (j) ( _supra_ ) is being imposed. In that regard, Sri.T.R. Rajesh would place reliance on the common judgment of the Division Bench of this Court rendered on 16.11.2019 in O.P.(KAT) No.324/2019 & connected cases. 18. As regards the first contention now raised regarding the alleged promotion said to have been given to Sri.N.Abdul Rasheed, Sri.Antony Mukkath, learned Senior Government Pleader would submit that he has no factual instructions on the same as the said allegations never form part of the pleadings in the O.A. Further that, at best, the said argument is only one based on enforcement of negative equality, which is prohibited. As regards the second argument based on relaxed standards for evaluating the suitability of SC/ST candidates on the basis of the aforementioned provisions of KS & SSR (Part-II), it is responded by Sri.Antony Mukkath, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners that the relaxed standards are meant only for adjudging or evaluating the suitability of officers belonging to SC/ST and the same cannot be pressed into service for contending that penalties or Memo of Charges, issued during the years relevant for the select list year it should be obliterated or ignored. That, matters of adjudging O.P.(KAT) No.291 of 2021 14 suitability is on the basis of entries in the annual confidential records, etc., like ‘outstanding’, ‘very good’, ‘good’, ‘satisfactory’, etc., as can be seen from the provisions contained in Rule 28(b)(i) (4) of KS &SSR (Part-II), which is mainly within the domain for adjudging merit of suitability of officers for consideration to selection post by the DPC, etc. 19. We are now apprised by the learned Senior Government Pleader that as indicated hereinabove, it appears that now the enquiry report has already been furnished by the Enquiry Officer in the proceedings in pursuance of Anx.A4 Memo of Charges and what now awaits is the issuance of show cause notice along with copy of the enquiry report to the delinquent officer concerned and for consideration of his reply thereon and a personal hearing thereafter to be culminated in the finalisation of the disciplinary proceedings in accordance with law. 20. We had querried to the petitioners as to the minimum time that would be required for completing the abovesaid formalities and the learned Senior Government Pleader would submit on the basis of instructions that the competent authority of the State Government may be given at least 2 months' time. We are afraid that we are not in a position to accede to the said request of O.P.(KAT) No.291 of 2021 15 the Government since Anx.A4 Memo of Charges has been pending since June, 2015. 21. We are prepared to give only 6 weeks' time to the competent authority to finalise the disciplinary proceedings in pursuance of Anx.A4. We specifically querried to Sri.T.R. Rajesh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent herein/applicant was to whether his party would fully co-operate with the early finalisation of the disciplinary proceedings without any further delay. 22. Sri.T.R. Rajesh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent herein/applicant would finally submit on the basis of instructions of his party that the applicant/respondent herein will fully co-operate with the competent authority for the earlier finalisation of the disciplinary proceedings and that if the show cause notice and copy of the enquiry report are furnished to him within a week or so, his party would give response thereto within 2 weeks thereafter and that this Court may direct that thereafter the personal hearing may be conducted by the competent authority immediately and orders may be passed so as to ensure the rendering of final orders in the disciplinary proceedings, etc. 23. Further, Sri.T.R. Rajesh, learned counsel appearing for O.P.(KAT) No.291 of 2021 16 the applicant/respondent herein would also point out that it is well settled by series of rulings of this Court including the one rendered by the Full Bench of this Court which is a celebrated decision in _**Varghese & Ors.** v._ _**State of Kerala & Ors.**_ [1981 KLT 458 (FB)] that conditions for evaluating promotion to the selection post, etc. should be adjudged with reference to the state of affairs which is existent at the time of occurrence of the vacancy. 24. In the light of these aspects we are of the view that the impugned verdict of the Tribunal would deserve interdiction. Accordingly, the following directions and orders are passed. (i) The directions issued by the Tribunal at Ext.P3 that the case of the original applicant for promotion to the post of Superintendent of Police (non-IPS) should be re-considered by the Ad-hoc DPC by ignoring Anx.A4 Memo of Charges, etc. , will stand set aside. (ii) The competent authority among the petitioners will immediately issue show cause notice and copy of the enquiry report in respect of the disciplinary proceedings in Anx.A4 Memo of Charges. This shall be done within 10 days. (iii) Thereafter, the applicant/respondent herein may give his written reply thereto, on the show cause notice as well as on the matters in the enquiry report, within 2 weeks O.P.(KAT) No.291 of 2021 17 thereafter. Immediately thereafter, the competent authority among the petitioners herein will issue notice of personal hearing to the petitioner and afford reasonable opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner either in person or through authorised representative or authorised counsel of his choice and thereafter final orders should be passed in the disciplinary proceedings in pursuance of Anx.A4 within 4 weeks thereafter. The copy of the final order passed by the competent authority finalising the disciplinary proceedings in pursuance of Anx.A4 shall be immediately communicated to the petitioner as well as to the Chairman and Convenor of the DPC. (iv) Thereafter, the review/Ad-hoc DPC Higher may convene and reconsider the case of the applicant for promotion to the post of Superintendent of Police (non-IPS) for the select list year 2017 and shall take just and fair decision, in accordance with law, within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the final orders in the disciplinary proceedings as above. It shall be ensured that the review/Ad-hoc DPC Higher shall be convened immediately. The competent authority of the Government will thereafter issue proper proceedings in the matter, consequent to the decision of the review/Ad-hoc Higher DPC, as above. Copy of the minutes of the DPC and copy of the proceedings issued by the competent authority, etc. shall be immediately communicated by registered speed post with acknowledgment due to the petitioner. O.P.(KAT) No.291 of 2021 18 (v) The contentions of the petitioner based on Sec.101(6) of Kerala Police Act should also be duly adverted to by the DPC authorities, if the occasion arises. So also, it shall be borne in mind by the DPC that needless to say that the eligibility conditions for promotion in a case like this should be those for the select list year 2017. 25. The directions and orders of the Tribunal as per the impugned Ext.P3 final order dated 13.08.2021 in O.A. No.1161/2018 will stand modified and substituted as above. With these observations and findings, the above original petition will stand finally disposed of. Sd/- **ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE** Sd/- **VIJU ABRAHAM, JUDGE** Skk//21122021 O.P.(KAT) No.291 of 2021 19 ## **APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 291/2021** ## **PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:-** **Exhibit P1** **Exhibit P1 A PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.1162/2021 ALONG WITH ANNEXURES. Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE DEPARTMENT PROMOTION COMMITTEE HIGHER HELD ON 17.01.2017 FOR THE PREPARATION OF THE SELECT LIST OF DYSPS FIT FOR PROMOTION TO THE CADRE OF SP (NON IPS) FOR THE YEAR 2017 (FOR THE VACANCIES IN 2017).** - **Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICATION TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 06.07.2017.** **Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT) NO.743/2014/HOME, DATED 04.03.2014 THROUGH WHICH THE ENQUIRY OFFICER WAS APPOINTED.** - **Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER WITH NO.G5/112902/13 DATED 19.08.2015 REGARDING THE FORWARDING OF MEO OF CHARGES ALONG WITH THE COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES ALLEGING MISBEHAVIOR TO SUPERIOR OFFICER.** - **Annexure A5 TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR NO.20/2017 DATED 17.08.2017 OF THE STATE POLICE CHIEF.** - **Annexure A6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 17.05.2018.** - **Annexure A7 TRUE COPY OF THE SAID REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 07.12.2018.** - **Annexure A8 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER IN O.A. NOS.1098/2018 AND 2493 OF 2018 DATED 24.05.2019 OF THIS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL.** - **Annexure A9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT ISSUED VIDE G.O (RT) NO.3392/2019/HOME DATED 25.11.2019.** - **Annexure A10 TRUE COPY OF G.O (RT)NO.467/2021/HOME DATED 12.02.2021 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** - **Annexure A11 TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT) NO.619/2021/HOME DATED 25.02.2021 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** O.P.(KAT) No.291 of 2021 20 |**Annexure A12**|**TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED**| |---|---| ||**30.03.2021 FILED BY T.K.JOSE I.A.S., THE**| ||**ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, HOME**| ||**DEPARTMENT, BEFORE THIS HON'BLE**| ||**TRIBUNAL.**| |**Exhibit P2**|**A PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT OF**| ||**THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN THE ORIGINAL**| ||**APPLICATION.**| |**Exhibit P3**|**A PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13.08.2021**| ||**IN O.A.NO.1162/2021.**| |**RESPONDENT'S **|**EXHIBITS:-**<br>**NIL**|