Sunil Dutt.S vs The State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 1236 Ker

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                 PRESENT

           THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

  WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 23TH POUSHA, 1942

                        WP(C).No.22416 OF 2019(B)

PETITIONER :-

                SUNIL DUTT.S, AGED 56 YEARS
                S/O.LATE SRI.SOMARAJAN, SAI ALAKA, KNRA 31A,
                KOOTIKKADA P.O., KOLLAM - 691 020.

                BY ADV. SRI.S.RAMESH

RESPONDENTS :-

      1         THE STATE OF KERALA
                REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
                GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
                GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,
                THIRUANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001.

      2         THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION,
                THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001.

      3         THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS
                (ACADEMIC), JAGATHY P.O.,
                TRIVANDRUM - 695 014.

      4         THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
                EDUCATION DEPARTMENT (GENERAL),
                KOLLAM, PIN - 691 001.

      5         THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
                KOLLAM, PIN - 691 001.

      6         THE MANAGER,
                MAYYANAD HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,
                MAYYANAD P.O., KOLLAM, PIN - 691 303.

                BY   ADV. SRI.B.ASHOK SHENOY
                BY   ADV. SRI.K.V.GEORGE
                BY   ADV. SRI.P.N.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR
                BY   ADV. SRI.P.S.GIREESH
                BY   ADV. SRI.RIYAL DEVASSY
                BY   SRI.P.M.MANOJ, SR.GP

     THIS   WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
24-11-2020, ALONG   WITH   WP(C).35611/2019(B), THE  COURT  ON
13-01-2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).Nos.22416/2019 &
35611/2019
                                   -: 2 :-

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                  PRESENT

                THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

    WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 23TH POUSHA, 1942

                         WP(C).No.35611 OF 2019(B)
PETITIONER :-

                SUNIL DUTT S., AGED 56 YEARS
                S/O.LATE SRI.SOMARAJAN, SAI ALAKA, KNRA 31A,
                KOOTTIKKADA P. O., KOLLAM - 691 020.

                BY ADV. SRI.S.RAMESH

RESPONDENTS :-

       1        THE STATE OF KERALA
                REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
                GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,
                THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001.

       2        THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL
                OFFICE OF THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
                PIN - 695 001.

       3        THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION
                EDUCATION DEPARTMENT (GENERAL), KOLLAM, PIN - 691 001.

       4        THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
                KOLLAM, PIN - 691 001.

       5        THE MANAGER
                MAYYANAD HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, MAYYANAD P. O.,
                KOLLAM, PIN - 691 303.

       6        THE HEAD MASTER
                MAYYANAD HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, MAYYANAD P. O.,
                KOLLAM, PIN - 691 303.

                BY   SRI.P.M.MANOJ, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER
                BY   ADV. SRI.B.ASHOK SHENOY
                BY   ADV. SRI.K.V.GEORGE
                BY   ADV. SRI.P.N.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR
                BY   ADV. SRI.P.S.GIREESH
                BY   ADV. SRI.RIYAL DEVASSY

     THIS   WRIT  PETITION   (CIVIL)  HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
24-11-2020, ALONG WITH WP(C).22416/2019(B), THE COURT ON 13-01-2021
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).Nos.22416/2019 &
35611/2019
                                  -: 3 :-


                               JUDGMENT

Dated this the 13th day of January 2021

W.P.(C) No.22416/2019 is filed by the petitioner, challenging

the order issued by the 6th respondent, Manager imposing a penalty

of reduction to a lower stage in the time scale as also treating the

period of suspension as such, without any service benefits other

than the subsistence allowance drawn. W.P.(C) No.35611/2019 has

been filed seeking the disbursal of terminal benefits due to the

petitioner on account of his retirement on 31.7.2019. It is

contended that due to the pendency of the illegal disciplinary

proceedings, the respondents are refusing to release the

pensionary benefits due to the petitioner.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

learned Government Pleader as well as the learned counsel

appearing for the Manager.

3. The petitioner submits that while he was working as HSA

(Mathematics) in the Mayyanad Higher Secondary School, he was

placed under suspension on 26.8.2011 and a charge memo was

also served on him. The charges mentioned in the charge memo

were as follows :-

"1) Sexual harassment against the students.

     2)    An act subversive of discipline and insubordination
 WP(C).Nos.22416/2019 &
35611/2019


     3)    Negligence or neglect of work.
     4)    Talking or behaving in a disrespectful manner to a superior,

challenging the authority of a superior, shouting at a superior etc.

5) Exhibiting a bad temper, using foul or filthy or abusive language or talking in a discourteous manner to another employee or superior or any person within the school and within the premises of the school.

6) Upsetting the peace and decorum of the office, work place or school premises.

7) Act or conduct detrimental to the interest of the school or its good name.

8) Loitering or leaving the place of work without permission during the prescribed time of work.

9) Absence without leave or permission granted by a competent authority or by an officer who is authorized to sanction such leave or grant such permission.

10) Deliberately making false complaint or statements against co-employees/superiors."

The petitioner has submitted his reply on 9.9.2011. An enquiry was

conducted and an enquiry report was submitted, based on which,

Ext.P1 order imposing penalty was issued. It is submitted that the

petitioner had retired from service on 31.7.2019, after having been

reinstated on 7.2.2018. It is submitted that the enquiry report is

totally vitiated in as much as even the dates of complaints made by

the students are wrongly mentioned therein. It is submitted that

the charge memo issued on 26.8.2011 referred to the complaints of

students dated 10.8.2011 and 16.8.2011 respectively. However, it WP(C).Nos.22416/2019 & 35611/2019

was based on another complaint dated 14.9.2011 that the charge

was sought to be proved. It is, therefore, contended that the only

charge which stood proved in the enquiry report was not proved on

the basis of any reliable material.

4. It is further submitted that the procedure prescribed in

Rule 75 of Chapter XIV A KER was not followed in the enquiry. It is

submitted that the specific defence of the petitioner and the

contentions that the PTA President and the guardian who were said

to have made complaints had withdrawn such complaints was not

considered in the proceedings. Further, it is contended that only

the penalties specified in Rule 65 of Chapter XIV A KER can be

imposed on a teacher, that too, on his being found guilty in a

properly conducted disciplinary proceedings in terms of Rule 75. It

is submitted that the penalty imposed on the petitioner, that is, a

reduction to a lower stage in the time scale is not a penalty

provided under Rule 65. It is further submitted that the Manager

has not obtained previous sanction under Rule 71 for the

imposition of the penalty and therefore, the order issued by the

Manager is illegal and void. It is further submitted that the

decision taken to treat the period of suspension as such, without

the benefit of pay or allowances is one issued without hearing the

petitioner and is, therefore, unsustainable. WP(C).Nos.22416/2019 & 35611/2019

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on

the decisions of this Court in Shiny T. Juster v. R.C. Schools

[2013 (2) KLT SN 105], Noushad v. State of Kerala [2013 (2) KLT

SN 89] and Seetharam Upper Primary School v. State of

Kerala [2012 (2) KLT 338] to contend that a proper enquiry in

terms of Rule 75 ought to have been conducted before the

imposition of any penalty. It is submitted that the enquiry under

Rule 75 has to be in accordance with the procedure laid down in

the Manual for Disciplinary Proceedings, governing the

Government employees. The decision in Manager, S.V.P.M. High

School v. State [1993 (2) KLT 628] is also relied on to contend that

where the Government initiates proceedings under Section 12A of

the Kerala Education Act or Rule 75A of Chapter XIV A KER, the

Government cannot alter the punishment in revision.

6. A counter affidavit has been placed on record by the 6 th

respondent Manager in W.P.(C) No.22416/2019. It is submitted

that Ext.P3 memo of charges was issued to the petitioner on the

basis of a complaint received from the parent of a girl student. It is

submitted that the petitioner has already availed of the alternate

remedy of revision by filing Ext.P11 revision petition challenging

Ext.P1 punishment as also the findings of guilt entered into by the WP(C).Nos.22416/2019 & 35611/2019

3rd respondent in Ext.P2 enquiry report. It is, therefore, contended

that the writ petition itself is not maintainable. It is submitted that

numerous complaints were received by the management from the

Parents Teacher Association and other teachers, staff and parents

alleging sexual harassment of girl students by the petitioner.

Ext.R6(a) complaint dated 16.8.2011 is produced. It is submitted

that later, several other complaints were received from girl

students, which are produced as Exts.R6(b), R6(c) and R6(d). It is

submitted that an enquiry was conducted and the 3 rd respondent

has submitted Ext.P2 enquiry report. It is submitted that copies of

all documents relied on by the management was served to the

petitioner. The deposition of the witnesses were recorded in the

presence of the petitioner and he was allowed to cross examine the

witnesses. It is stated that the findings in Ext.P2 are based on the

evidence recorded in the enquiry. It is submitted that after receipt

of Ext.P2, copy of the same was forwarded to the petitioner seeking

his comments on the same by Ext.R6(e) forwarding letter dated

28.6.2019. The petitioner submitted his reply by Ext.R6(f) dated

30.6.2019. It is submitted that after considering Ext.R6(f) reply,

Ext.R6(g) notice was issued to the petitioner proposing the

punishment of reduction to a lower stage in the time scale as also

seeking the petitioner's reply to the proposal for treating the WP(C).Nos.22416/2019 & 35611/2019

period of suspension as such. It is stated that Ext.R6(h) reply had

been submitted by the petitioner and it was after considering

Exts.R6(f) and R6(h) replies that Ext.P1 order was passed. It is

further submitted that the penalty imposed on the petitioner was

not one mentioned in clauses (iv) to (viii) of Rule 65 of Chapter XIV

A KER and that as such, the contention of the petitioner that prior

sanction is required for the imposition of penalty is completely

untenable. It is submitted that all the materials, which were relied

on as well as copies of the enquiry report had been duly served on

the petitioner and all allegations to the contrary are false.

7. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit, contending that

he is challenging the findings in Ext.P2 enquiry report since he has

no alternate remedy in view of the fact that the Government has no

power to modify the punishment. It is further contended that the

punishment was imposed on the petitioner without prior sanction

from the educational authorities and that therefore, Ext.P1 is

vitiated. It is stated that the issue of treating the period of

suspension had to be considered by the educational authorities and

not by the Manager and that even if a revision is filed by the

petitioner before the statutory authorities, the writ petition is liable

to be considered on merits by this Court. It is further submitted

that the complaints referred to in the counter affidavit of the 6 th WP(C).Nos.22416/2019 & 35611/2019

respondent were procured by instigation of the Headmistress and

the Manager and that those complaints which were subsequent to

the charge memo cannot be relied on in the enquiry. It is further

submitted that Ext.P15 is a statement of the students and parents

given before the Assistant Commissioner of Police in the pending

criminal case, which would show that the complaints preferred by

the students were fabricated.

8. In W.P.(C) No.35611/2019, a counter affidavit has been

placed on record by the 3rd respondent. It is contended that since

the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner have not

attained finality, only provisional pension in terms of Rule 3A of

Part III KSR has been paid to the petitioner. It is submitted that

the revised pension proposal of the petitioner has also been

forwarded to the Accountant General for verification.

9. The 5th and 6th respondents have also placed a counter

affidavit on record. It is stated that by Ext.R5(a) order dated

23.7.2019, the punishment of reduction to a lower stage in a time

scale has been imposed on the petitioner and the period of

suspension is liable to be treated as suspension itself. It is

submitted that the revised pension proposal of the petitioner had

been forwarded for verification to the departmental authorities,

which is pending consideration before them. It is submitted that WP(C).Nos.22416/2019 & 35611/2019

the delay in releasing the pensionary benefits is only on account of

the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, which has

culminated in Ext.P1 in W.P.(C) No.22416/2019.

10. I have considered the contentions advanced in these writ

petitions. The preliminary contention of the petitioner is that the

disciplinary proceedings initiated against him were not conducted

in compliance with the procedure prescribed under Rule 75 of

Chapter XIV A KER. The learned counsel for the petitioner would

contend, relying on the decisions of this Court, that the procedure

provided in the Manual for Disciplinary Proceedings of the

Government of Kerala is liable to be scrupulously followed in the

matter of conduct of disciplinary proceedings against the teachers

of aided schools as well. It is further contended that prior sanction

from the educational authorities was not secured for the imposition

of penalty and that the treating of the period of suspension was not

preceded by a specific notice for that purpose. On considering the

contentions of the respondents, I find that an enquiry in terms of

Rule 75 of Chapter XIV A KER had been conducted in the

petitioner's case. The materials before the enquiry officer were

considered in its entirety and a finding of guilt on charge memo (1)

had been entered. On an examination of Ext.P2, I do not find any

serious infringement of the procedure prescribed in Rule 75 of WP(C).Nos.22416/2019 & 35611/2019

Chapter XIV A KER in the conduct of the enquiry against the

petitioner. It appears that copies of all materials relied on had

been served on the petitioner. The witnesses were examined in the

presence of the petitioner and he was permitted to cross examine

them as well. In view of the fact that there was a substantial

compliance with the requirements of Rule 75, I am of the opinion

that the contention raised by the petitioner that the specific

provisions of the Manual of Disciplinary Proceedings were not

referred to or adhered by the DEO does not require any

consideration in a case of this nature.

11. Further, I find that the penalty imposed is one of

reduction to a lower stage in the time scale and is not one of

reduction to a lower rank in seniority list or to a lower post or time

scale, which is liable to be imposed by the Manager with the

previous sanction of the educational authorities as provided in Rule

71. Rule 75(11) also provides for previous sanction in case of

imposition of penalties under items (iv) to (viii) of Rule 65. Items

(iv) to (viii) of Rule 65 refer to reduction to a lower rank in the

seniority list or lower grade or post or time scale, compulsory

retirement, removal, dismissal or reduction in pension. Though the

reduction to a lower stage in a time scale is not specifically

provided in Rule 65 as a penalty, Rule 70 refers to reduction to a WP(C).Nos.22416/2019 & 35611/2019

lower stage in a time scale and the authority competent to impose

the same is specifically stated to be the Manager, who has to

consult the Head Master before imposing the penalty and also get

his action ratified by the educational officer.

12. In the instant case, the copy of the enquiry report had

been forwarded to the petitioner by Ext.R6(e) forwarding letter

dated 28.6.2019. The petitioner submitted Ext.R6(f) reply.

Thereafter, Ext.R6(g) notice had been issued to the petitioner

requiring him to show cause why the proposed punishment of

reduction to a lower stage in the time scale shall be imposed. He

was also required to show cause why the period of suspension

should not be treated as such. Ext.R6(g) specifically stated as

follows, "in view of the proposed punishment, it is proposed to

treat the period of suspension as such. Hence, during the period of

suspension you will not be eligible for any service benefits other

than the subsistence allowance you have already drawn."

Therefore, a composite show cause notice had been issued to the

petitioner with regard to the proposed punishment as well as the

proposed treatment of the period of suspension. Moreover, the

petitioner had approached the Government by Ext.P11 petition

challenging the findings in Ext.P2 and complaining of violation of

the principles of natural justice.

WP(C).Nos.22416/2019 & 35611/2019

13. Having considered the contentions advanced on either

side at considerable length, I am of the opinion that this is not a fit

case where the enquiry report is liable to be set aside on the

ground of non-compliance of the provisions of Rule 75 of Chapter

XIV A KER. I find that the requirements of Rule 75 have been

substantially complied with in the matter of conduct of the enquiry

against the petitioner. The fact that there were complaints raised

by girl students against the petitioner with regard to his conduct is

clear from the materials before me. It is also not in dispute that a

criminal case has been registered against the petitioner and is

pending investigation. In the above view of the matter, the finding

that there were complaints raised, which were later corroborated

by statements given by the students and parents, also cannot be

ignored. In the above view of the matter, I am of the opinion that

the contention raised that the findings in Ext.P2 are perverse or

illegal cannot be accepted. Further, in view of the fact that the

punishment imposed is only reduction to a lower stage in a time

scale, which is specifically referred to in Rule 70 of Chapter XIV A

KER, I am of the opinion that the contention that Ext.P1 is bad for

want of prior sanction also cannot be sustained. The treating of

the period of suspension is also a matter to be considered by the

Manager, who is the appointing authority and the disciplinary WP(C).Nos.22416/2019 & 35611/2019

authority in respect of the petitioner. The petitioner was

specifically put on notice as to how the period of suspension is

proposed to be treated, as is evident from Ext.R6(g).

In the above view of the matter, if the petitioner has any

complaints with regard to the treating of the period of suspension,

it is for the petitioner to approach the educational authorities as

against that portion of Ext.P1. Leaving open the right of the

petitioner to approach the educational authorities with regard to

the treating of his period of suspension, W.P.(C) No.22416/2019 is

dismissed.

There will be a direction to the respondents in W.P.(C)

No.35611/2019 to calculate and disburse the pensionary benefits

due to the petitioner taking note of the penalty imposed on the

petitioner as well and disburse the admitted pensionary benefits

within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy

of this judgment.

Sd/-

ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE Jvt/14.12.2020 WP(C).Nos.22416/2019 & 35611/2019

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22416/2019 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.7.2019 ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT DATED 4.1.2019 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES DATED 26.8.2011 ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF DDE NO B6/14103/2011 /DDE25-2-2012

EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE DEO DATED 20.9.2012

EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT 4.11.2015 IN WPC NO 30570/2015

EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS VIGILANCE DATED 8.12.2015

EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO 81031/2012/DIS DATED 27.2.2017 OF THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR (GENERAL) & VIGILANCE

EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE GO RT NO 2824/2017/G.EDN DATED 17.8.2017 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 5.1.2018 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN WRTI PETITION NO 29569/2017

EXHIBIT P10(a) A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO 1536/2018 G.EDN DATED 23.4.2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DATED 9.6.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE REMINDER DATED 19.7.2019 ON REVISION PETITION DATED 9.6.2019 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILED INVESTIGATION REPORT DATED 1.7.2016 OF THE ASST COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, KOLLAM WP(C).Nos.22416/2019 & 35611/2019

EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 2.12.2015 IN WPC NO.16171/2013 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENTS OF THE STUDENTS AND PARENTS GIVEN BEFORE THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, OBTAINED UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT.

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT R6(a) TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 16.8.2011 SUBMITTED BY PRESIDENT OF PARENTS TEACHERS ASSOCIATION OF THE MAYYANAD HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL BEFORE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KOLLAM.

EXHIBIT R6(b) TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 13.9.2011 SUBMITTED BY STUDENTS OF CLASS 8A OF OF THE MAYYANAD HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL TO HEADMISTRESS OF THE MAYYANAD HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL.

EXHIBIT R6(c) TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 14.9.2011 SUBMITTED BY GIRL STUDENTS OF CLASS 8C OF THE MAYYANAD HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL TO HEADMISTRESS OF THE MAYYANAD HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL.

EXHIBIT R6(d) TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 14.9.2011 SUBMITTED BY GIRL STUDENTS OF CLASS 8D OF THE MAYYANAD HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL TO HEADMISTRESS OF THE MAYYANAD HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL.

EXHIBIT R6(e) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.MHSS/SUNILDUTT/2019/1 DATED 28.6.2019 ISSUED BY 6TH RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER

EXHIBIT R6(f) TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER DATED 30.6.2019 SENT BY PETITIONER TO 6TH RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT R6(g) TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE NO.MHSS/SUNILDUTT/2019/2 DATED 9.7.2019 ISSUED BY 6TH RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER

EXHIBIT R6(h) TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER DATED 16.7.2019 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER TO 6TH RESPONDENT. WP(C).Nos.22416/2019 & 35611/2019

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 35611/2019 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B5/8401/2011 DATED 19.8.2019 APPROVING THE RETIREMENT OF THE PETITIONER FROM SERVICE ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT) NO.55/2019/FIN. ISSUED BY THE FINANCE WING OF THE GOVERNMENT.

EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 18.7.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH PENSION BOOKS.

EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 24.7.2019 FORWARDED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 8TH RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 29.7.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 8TH RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 19.10.2019 FORWARDED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT PASTED WITH POSTAL RECEIPT.

EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE SAID LETTER NO.PM/2/254738/19-

20/385 DATED 25.10.2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.MHSS/123/2019 DATED 24.10.2019 FORWARDED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT AND COPY MARKED TO THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE HEARING NOTICE NO.B5/8401/2011 DATED 4.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT R5(a) TRUE COPY OF THE PUNISHMENT ORDER NO.MHSS/SUNILDUTT/2019/3 DATED 23.7.2019 ISSUED TO PETITIONER BY 5TH RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT R5(b) TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 13.1.2020 ISSUED BY PETITIONER TO 5TH RESPONDENT ALONG WITH STATEMENT OF FIXATION OF PAY ATTACHED THEREWITH

EXHIBIT R5(c) TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 16.1.2020 ISSUED BY 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER