SaiKuttan.O.N v. Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd & Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS** **TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 20TH SRAVANA, 1942** ## **WP(C).No.12087 OF 2020(I)** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **SAIKUTTAN.O.N (EMPLOYEE CODE 1052776), DRIVER - GRADE-I, KSEB ELECTRICAL DIVISION, CHERTHALA-688 524, ALAPPUZHA.** **BY ADVS. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ SRI.VARUN C.VIJAY KUM.A.ARUNA KUM.THULASI K. RAJ SMT.MAITREYI SACHIDANANDA HEGDE** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VAIDYUTHIBHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** - **2 THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD., VAIDYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** - **3 BOARD OF DIRECTORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMPANY SECRETARY KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD., VAIDYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** - **4 CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM) VYDYUTHIBHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM695 004.** ## W.P.(C)No.12087/2020 ..2.. - **5 EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD., KSEB ELECTRICAL DIVISION, CHERTHALA-688 524.** **6 MAYA MUKUNDAN EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KSEB ELECTRICAL DIVISION, CHERTHALA-688 524.** **R1-5 BY ADV. SRI.M.K.THANKAPPAN** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06-08-2020, THE COURT ON 11-08-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P.(C)No.12087/2020 ..3.. ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Dated this the 11th day of August 2020** This writ petition is filed challenging Exhibits P- 1, P-4 and P-4(a) orders of transfer. 2. The petitioner is working as Driver Grade-I at Electrical Division, Cherthala, under the 1[st] ― respondent the Kerala State Electricity Board (Board). He is aggrieved by Exhibit P-1 order of transfer dated 07.05.2020 issued by the 4[th] ― respondent the Chief Engineer, whereby the petitioner is transferred from Electrical Division, Cherthala to Kalamassery System Operation Circle. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that he joined the Board as a Driver, on 23.08.2003. Though he was initially posted at the Cherthala Division, thereafter, he was transferred to various places during different W.P.(C)No.12087/2020 ..4.. spells. He was again transferred to the present station on 03.06.2015. Since then, the petitioner has been working at the Electrical Division, Cherthala. The petitioner during his tenure at the present station had reported the irregularities committed by the 5[th] ― respondent Executive Engineer. It is due to this vengeance, the 5[th] respondent has submitted false reports against the petitioner to the 4[th] respondent, who has passed Exhibit P-1 transfer order, transferring the petitioner to Kalamassery. 4. Aggrieved by Exhibit P-1 order, the petitioner had submitted Exhibit P-2 representation before the 4[th] respondent and, thereafter, filed W.P.(C) No.9873 of 2020 before this Court. This Court by Exhibit P-3 judgment dated 22.05.2020, directed the 4[th] respondent to consider and pass orders on Exhibit P-2 representation, until such time the petitioner be W.P.(C)No.12087/2020 ..5.. permitted to continue at the present station. Now to the shock of the petitioner, the 4[th] respondent has proposed to transfer the petitioner from his present station to the Transmission Circle, Alappuzha. Although in Exhibit P-4 order, the station to which the petitioner is proposed to be transferred is not specifically mentioned, as understood by the petitioner, there is only one post at the Transmission Sub Division, Edapom under the Transmission Circle, Alappuzha. The distance from his residence to the proposed station is 65 km. A separate order has also been passed proposing the transfer of the petitioner to the Transmission Circle Alappuzha, which is cryptic. The petitioner has a wife and two sons, who are studying, and also an ailing mother, who is aged 72 years. W.P.(C)No.12087/2020 ..6.. 5. According to the petitioner, there are five posts of Driver in Cherthala Division, including the post occupied by the petitioner. The one post which was occupied by Mr.Sindhunath, who was a lorry driver, is lying vacant, as the said person had retired on 30.05.2020. Two out of the three other posts are occupied by contract employees. Therefore, it is necessary that the petitioner is not disturbed from the said station. The unwarranted transfer would show that the transfer order is not just and proper. A transfer during the current situation is extremely unjust. At this time of increasing number of COVID-19 cases, it is highly risky for the petitioner to travel such a distance, and the transfer would cause undue hardship and miseries to the petitioner’s family. At the time of considering Exhibit P-2 representation, the petitioner had submitted Exhibit P-5 argument notes W.P.(C)No.12087/2020 ..7.. clearly mentioning that there is no administrative exigency or any public interest involved in transferring the petitioner from the present station. Hence, the petitioner seeks to quash Exhibits P-1, P-4 and P-4(a) orders passed by the 4[th] respondent. 6. The respondents 1 to 5 have filed a counter affidavit through its Assistant Executive Engineer. It is, inter alia, contended that the petitioner was transferred from the Electrical Division, Cherthala to the System Operating Circle, Kalamassery, as per Exhibit P-1 order, on the basis of the complaint filed ― by the 5[th] respondent the petitioner’s controlling ― officer a woman. The 5[th] respondent complained that she is unable to use the vehicle for urgent and important official purposes due to the noncooperation and hesitation of the petitioner to reach the office on time in performing his duty in the post of W.P.(C)No.12087/2020 ..8.. Driver. On 20.02.2020, the petitioner made the 5[th] respondent and three other lady staff, which included a cancer patient, to stand on a verandah of a shop for an hour, late in the evening. The petitioner did not turn up or call back. At last, a departmental vehicle from the Electrical Section, S.L.Puram was arranged and the employees reached Cherthala only by 9.00 p.m. The 5[th] respondent had filed Exhibit R-4 (a) complaint before the 4[th] respondent, against the petitioner’s irresponsible attitude and behaviour, which caused immense stress and mental agony to her and the three other lady staff. The 5[th] respondent ― has also filed a complaint before the 2[nd] respondent the Chairman and Managing Director of the Board, to take action against the petitioner for having caused harassment and mental agony to her and her fellow women employees in a public place, and also caused W.P.(C)No.12087/2020 ..9.. obstruction in carrying out her official duties. The complaint is pending inquiry before the Internal Complaints Committee of the Board constituted under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013. 7. Pursuant to Exhibit P-3 judgment passed by this Court, the 4[th] respondent ― the Chief Engineer (HRM), by Exhibit P-4 order, has held that the continuance of the petitioner at the present station, where the four women employees, including the 5[th] respondent, are working, would not be in the best interests of the Board. However, Exhibit P-1 transfer order was modified, by permitting the petitioner to be reposted as Driver Grade-I in his home district itself, against an open vacancy at the Transmission Circle, Alappuzha, which is just 20kms away from the present station, instead of Kalamassery System W.P.(C)No.12087/2020 ..10.. Operation Circle. Accordingly, Exhibit R-4(d) order (Exhibit P-4) was passed and Exhibit R-4 (e) (Exhibit P-4 (a)) consequential order was issued. 8. The respondents have also contended that the petitioner joined the service of the Board on 23.08.2003. As per Exhibit R-(4) (b) incumbency details of the petitioner, during his total service of 16 years and 10 months, he had all through out worked in and around of only ten kilometers from his residence, except for a brief period of one year and 11 months, when he was transferred to a neighboring district. The claim put forth by the petitioner that his mother is ailing is incorrect. The petitioner had not raised any such claim requesting for protection in the General Transfer order, 2020. In the medical certificate produced by the petitioner, there is no such claim of blindness of his mother. Moreover, the W.P.(C)No.12087/2020 ..11.. petitioner’s wife is a housewife. The petitioner’s father, who is running his own commercial establishment, and his two sisters are residing with him. They can look after his mother. 9. The respondents have further contended that the petitioner was transferred from the present station as per Exhibits R-4(d) and R-4(e) orders, taking into consideration his inappropriate behavior and insubordination, which has caused harassment and mental agony to his controlling officer, who is a woman, and also to three other woman employees. The action of the petitioner has created obstruction to the discharge of the duties of his controlling officer. However, a lenient view was taken by the 4[th] respondent in Exhibit R-4 (d) and R-4 (e), by modifying Exhibit P-1 order and ordering the transfer of the petitioner from Kalamassery to the W.P.(C)No.12087/2020 ..12.. Transmission Circle, Alappuzha, which is just 20kms away from the present station. As the complaint is pending consideration before the Internal Complaints Committee, retaining the petitioner at the present station, under the control of the 5[th] respondent would not be in the best interest of the organization’s internal discipline. At present, there is no departmental vehicle in the office of the 5[th] respondent to engage the petitioner. Now, the petitioner is continuing in the office of the 5[th] respondent without any vehicle/engagement. The petitioner has already been given a posting in his domicile district. The petitioner's argument for posting to an office of his own choice cannot be considered in view of the serious allegation leveled against him. The writ petition is devoid of any merits and the same may be dismissed. W.P.(C)No.12087/2020 ..13.. 10. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit refuting the allegation in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents. He has, inter alia, contended that the incident dated 20.02.2020 has been cooked up by the 5[th] respondent, in order to wreak vengeance on him. The allegation of misbehavior against the 5[th] respondent and other woman employees is incorrect, grossly exaggerated and hence denied. Exhibit P-2 was not considered by the 4[th] respondent in its proper perspective. The hearing was just an empty formality. Hence, the counter affidavit may be rejected and the writ petition may be allowed. 11. Heard Shri.Kaleeswaram Raj, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.M.K.Thankappan, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 12. The learned counsel appearing for the W.P.(C)No.12087/2020 ..14.. petitioner reiterated the contentions in the pleadings in the writ petition and the reply affidavit. He argued that the 5[th] respondent has been impleaded in her individual capacity as the 6[th] respondent. Since the 6[th] respondent has not chosen to file a counter affidavit, to refute the assertion of malice averred against her, the assertion of malice has to be accepted as proved, in light of the decision of this Court in **Venkata Ramanan Potty v. Travancore Devaswom Board** [1993(2) KLT 374]. The learned counsel also relied on paragraph 16 of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in **Somesh Tiwari v. Union of India and others** [(2009) 2 SCC 592] and contended that when an order of transfer is passed in lieu of punishment, the same is liable to be set aside. He also placed strong reliance on grounds (b) and (c) of the writ petition and argued that the order of W.P.(C)No.12087/2020 ..15.. transfer of the petitioner from the present station to Kalamassery, which was subsequently modified to Transmission Circle, Alappuzha, is malafide and out of the personal vendetta of the 5[th] respondent. The counter affidavit filed by the respondents would improvise the case of the petitioner, to prove the malafide action on the part of the 5[th] respondent. Even though the petitioner had submitted Exhibit P-6 ― representation before the 2[nd] respondent the Chairman and Managing Director of the Board, the same has not been considered. He also drew the attention of this Court to Exhibit P-7 and contended that there is a vacancy at Cherthala Electrical Section in view of the transfer of the person mentioned in Sl.No.17. Hence, the petitioner can be accommodated in that vacancy. Similarly, as per Exhibit P-8, it is seen that protection has been given to the petitioner W.P.(C)No.12087/2020 ..16.. for transfers in the year 2020. Hence the writ petition may be allowed and Exhibits P-1, P-4 and P-4 (a) may be quashed and the petitioner be permitted to continue at the present station. 13. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents on the other hand argued that pursuant to the directions of this Court, the Chief Engineer had exhaustively considered the contentions of the petitioner in Exhibit P-2 representation and by Exhibit P-4 order (Exhibit R-4 (d)) felt that continuance of the petitioner and the four employees (including a cancer patient) in the very same office would not be in the best interest of the Board. Nevertheless, the 4[th] respondent modified Exhibit P-1 order by posting the petitioner in his home district itself against an open vacancy at Transmission Circle, Alappuzha. The complaint lodged by the 5[th] W.P.(C)No.12087/2020 ..17.. respondent for the harassment meted out on her and three other women employees is serious in nature and is pending consideration before the Internal Complaints Committee. The continuance of the petitioner at the same office, during the inquiry of the complaint, may adversely affect the proper determination of the complaint. Moreover, there is no departmental vehicle at the office of the 5[th] respondent at present to engage the petitioner. The petitioner has been transferred just 20 kilometers from the present Station. Exhibit P-8 is posted on the website only due to status quo order passed by this Court. The petitioner cannot aspire to have a posting of his choice. The transfer and posting of the petitioner, as per Exhibit P-4, is issued in public interest and the interest of the Board. The writ petition is unwarranted and the same is liable to be W.P.(C)No.12087/2020 ..18.. dismissed. 14. The sole question that emerges for consideration in this writ petition is whether the transfer and posting of the petitioner from Cherthala Division to the Transmission Circle, Alappuzha as per Exhibit P-4 [Exhibit R(4)-(d)] is justifiable or not. 15. The scope of judicial review in matters relating to transfer and posting of the employees under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is well settled in an host of judicial pronouncements by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shilpi Bose and Others v. State of Bihar and Others [(1991) Supp 2 SCC 659] the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows: “ 4. In our opinion, the courts should not interfere with a transfer order which are made in public interest and for administrative reasons (unless the transfer orders W.P.(C)No.12087/2020 ..19.. are made in violation of any mandatory statutory rule or on the ground of mala fide. A Government servant holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at one place or the other, he is liable to be transferred from one place to other. Transfer orders issued by the competent authority do not violate any of his legal rights. Even if a transfer order is passed in violation of executive instructions or orders, the Courts ordinarily should not interfere with the order instead affected party should approach the higher authorities in the Department. If the courts continue to interfere with day to day transfer orders issued by the Government and its subordinate authorities, there will be complete chaos in the Administration which would not be conducive to public interest. The High Court over looked these aspects in interfering with the transfer orders.” 17. The above legal proposition has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of M.P. and Another v. S.S.Kourav and others [(1995) 3 SCC 270], wherein, it is laid down thus: “4.............................................................. The Courts or Tribunals are not appellate forums to decide on transfer of officers on administrative grounds. The wheels of administration should be allowed to run W.P.(C)No.12087/2020 ..20.. smoothly and the Courts or Tribunals are not expected to interdict the working of the administrative system by transferring the officers to proper places. It is for the administration to take appropriate decision and such decisions shall stand unless they are vitiated either by mala fides or by extraneous consideration without any factual background foundation............................................” 18. The 4[th] respondent had by Exhibit P-1 order dated 07.05.2020 transferred the petitioner from Cherthala Division to System Operation Circle, Kalamassery. The petitioner then submitted Exhibit P-2 representation before the 4[th] respondent and filed W.P.(C) No.9873 of 2020 before this Court. This Court by Exhibit P-3 judgment dated 12.05.2020 directed the 4[th] respondent to consider Exhibit P-2 representation and until such time not to displace the petitioner. The 4[th] respondent considered Ext.P3 representation and Exhibit-P5 argument notes, and by Exhibit P-4 order came to a conclusion that it W.P.(C)No.12087/2020 ..21.. would be detrimental to the interest of the Board to permit the petitioner to continue in the present office, where the complainant/aggrieved woman - the 5[th] respondent is working, especially when the complaint filed by the 5[th] respondent is pending inquiry before the Internal Complaints Committee. The 4[th] respondent, however, in Ext.P4 order modified Ext.P1, by ordering the petitioner to be posted as Driver Grade-I in the Transmission Circle-Alappuzha, 20kms from the petitioner’s present office, instead of Kalamassery System Operation Circle. Now the petitioner is aggrieved by the said transfer also. 19. Undisputedly, the 5[th] respondent has lodged a complaint of harassment against the petitioner which is pending inquiry before the Internal Complaints Committee of the Board. It is the specific case of the 5[th] respondent that on 02.05.2020, the W.P.(C)No.12087/2020 ..22.. petitioner has caused stress and mental agony to her and three other woman employees. Whether the complaint is genuine or not, is a matter to be adjudicated by the Internal Complaints Committee. 20. The 4[th] respondent – the Chief Engineer after examining Exhibit P-2 representation and the complaint of the 5[th] respondent has felt it fit that in the best interest of the Board that the petitioner be transferred out from the present office to a nearby office, within the same district, so that the inquiry can be conducted by Internal Complaints Committee, without the interference of the petitioner, which is the mandate under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. 21. Section 12 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 reads thus: “12. **Action during pendency of inquiry:-** W.P.(C)No.12087/2020 ..23.. (1) During the pendency of an inquiry, on a written request made by the aggrieved woman, the Internal Committee of the Local Committee, as the case may be, may recommend to the employer to- (a) **transfer the aggrieved woman or the respondent to any other workplace; or** - (b) grant leave to the aggrieved woman up to a period of three months; or (c) grant such other relief to the aggrieved woman as may be prescribed.” 22. Going by the reasons assigned by the 4[th] respondent in Exhibit P-4 (Exhibit R4-(d)) order and the above extracted statutory provision, I hold that the impugned order is justifiable. 23. During the adjudication of the complaint by the Internal Complaints Committee, there is every likelihood of there being animosity between the petitioner and the 5[th] respondent and other woman employees working in the office, and that the petitioner may attempt to influence the witnesses as well as interfere with the proceedings. Therefore, W.P.(C)No.12087/2020 ..24.. the 4[th] respondent has rightly arrived at the conclusion that in the best interests of the Board that the petitioner is to be posted in another office, which is permissible in law. 24. The thrust of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order of transfer is hit by malice, at the instance of the 5[th] respondent. The 5[th] respondent though has been impleaded in her personal capacity as the 6[th] respondent, she has not filed a counter affidavit. Therefore, the assertions made in the writ petition have to be taken on its face value and the transfer orders have to be quashed. 25. Undisputedly, the 5[th] respondent has made a complaint to the 4[th] respondent regarding the acts of insubordination by the petitioner. She has also preferred a complaint before the 2[nd] respondent against the harassment that was meted out on her W.P.(C)No.12087/2020 ..25.. and other woman employees by the petitioner. The said complaint is pending consideration before the Internal Complaints Committee of the Board. The allegation of malice is against the 5/6[th] respondent. Whether the complaint lodged by the 5/6[th] respondent before the 2[nd] respondent is genuine or not is subjudice. The 4[th] respondent after considering Exhibit-P2 representation and Exhibit-P5 argument notes came to a conclusion that during the inquiry of the complaint by the Internal Complaints committee, it is adviceable that the petitioner be transferred to another office in the interest of the Board. The said action, which is in consonance with Section 12 of the Act, cannot be said to be one vitiated with malafides, as the said course is permissible in law. The action of transferring the petitioner was independently done by the 4[th] respondent, the Superior Authority, in W.P.(C)No.12087/2020 ..26.. discharge of his official functions. Therefore, according to me, the Exhibit.P4 order of transfer which is a speaking order is not vitiated with mala fides. 26. The Division Bench of this Court in **Gopinathan M. and Another v. State of Kerala and Others** [2014(4) KHC 315] has in paragraph 11 held as follows: “11. Therefore, if the service of an employee is found to be not satisfactory at a particular place for whatever reasons, it would be open to the employer to take such remedial measures as are permissible under law to meet the requirements of that situation, like initiation of disciplinary proceedings or transferring the employee out of that place. If the employer opines that mere transfer of the employee would suffice the interest of the administration and accordingly orders transfer of such employee, such order of transfer need not necessarily be a measure of punishment to such employee. Therefore, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that, an order of transfer based on certain complaints alleged to have been made against the employees would W.P.(C)No.12087/2020 **==> picture [22 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** render the transfer a punitive transfer can only be rejected.” 27. In light of the law laid down by this Court in the above decision, I am of the opinion that the 4[th] respondent has in the interest of the Board transferred the employer out of the office of the 5[th] respondent and other female employees, which cannot be said to be a punitive transfer as contended by the petitioner. 28. Also, taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner has been directed to be retained within his domicile district, and that he has been posted in a office just 20 km away from the present office, and also taking into consideration the public interest involved, I do not find any reason to interfere with Exhibits-P4 and P4-(a) orders passed by the 4[th] respondent. W.P.(C)No.12087/2020 ..28.. 29. On a cumulative appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case and the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the afore cited precedence, I am of the considered opinion that there is no illegality in Exhibit P-1 which has been modified by Exhibit P-4 and Exhibit P-4(a) passed by the 4[th] respondent, which is issued in public interest and in the best interest of the 1[st] respondent Board. I do not find any grounds warranting interference by this Court, in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in the aforesaid orders. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- ## **C.S.DIAS, JUDGE** **kkj/09.08.2020** W.P.(C)No.12087/2020 ..29.. ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TRANSFER ORDER DATED 7.5.2020 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 8.5.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 12.5.2020 IN WPC 9873/2020.** **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE TYPED COPY OF ORDER NO.EB3/DRIVER/W.P(C)NO.9873/2020/376414/2020 DATED 15.6.2020 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P4(A) TRUE TYPED COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED ON 15.6.2020 PROPOSING TO TRANSFER THE PETITIONER FROM KALAMASSERY SYSTEM OPERATION CIRCLE TO TRANSMISSION CIRCLE, ALAPPUZHA.** - **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE HEARING NOTED SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 20.6.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.EB3/DRIVER/GT/2020 DATED 03.08.2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT .** **EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OFTHE STATEMENT DOWNLOADED FROM THE WEBSITE OF KSEB** W.P.(C)No.12087/2020 ..30.. ## **RESPONDENTS'S EXHIBITS** **EXHIBIT R4(A) TRUE COPOY OFTHE COMPLAINT NO.EDCTLA/2019-20/TGB1/GF-13/1679 DATED 10.03.2020** **EXHIBIT R4(B) TRUE COPOY OFTHE INCUMBENCY DETAILS DTATED 24.06.2020 ` EXHIBIT R4(C) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.GB1/D.C./2005-06/901/17.05.2005 DATED 13.05.2005** **EXHIBIT R4(D) TRUE COPY OFTHE PROCEEDINGS NO.EB3/DRIVER/WPC 9873/2020/37614/2020 DATED 15.06.2020 EXHIBIT R4(E) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.EB3/DRIVER/T&P/07/2019 DATED 15.06.2020** **EXHIBIT R4(F) TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DATED 11.06.2020 ISSUED BY DR.KSHAMA MADHAVI, A CONSULTANT PULMONOLOGIS AND INTENSIVIST**