Kerala High Court
Union Of India vs Union Of India on 7 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
THURSDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 17TH POUSHA, 1942
OP (CAT).No.177 OF 2017(Z)
AGAINST THE ORDER IN OA 180/2015 DATED 06.12.2016 OF CENTRAL
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH
PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS IN O.A.:
1 UNION OF INDIA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, SOUTH
BLOCK, NEW DELHI 110 001.
2 CHIEF OF NAVAL STAFF
INTEGRATED HEAD QUARTERS OF MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
(NAVY), NEW DELHI 110 001.
3 VICE ADMIRAL CHIEF OF PERSONNEL
INTEGRATED HEAD QUARTERS OF MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
(NAVY),NEW DELHI 110 001.
4 FLAG OFFICER
COMMANDING IN CHIEF, SOUTHERN NAVAL COMMAND, COCHIN
682 004.
BY ADV. SRI.T.V.VINU, CGC
RESPONDENT/APPLICANTS IN O.A.:
P.M.JOSEPH
S/O.LATE P.J.DEVASSY, FOREMAN OF STORES (RETD.),
NSRY, KOCHI, RESIDING AT PUTHUSSERY HOUSE,
KOTHAKULANGARA HOUSE, NJARAKKAL, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT
682 505.
THIS OP (CAT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17-12-2020, ALONG WITH
OP (CAT).181/2017(Z), OP (CAT).182/2017(Z), OP (CAT).347/2017(Z),
THE COURT ON 07-01-2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
O.P.(CAT)No.177/2017 & Conn.cases 2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
THURSDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 17TH POUSHA, 1942
OP (CAT).No.181 OF 2017
AGAINST THE ORDER IN OA 53/2015 DATED 23.12.2016 OF CENTRAL
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH
PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS IN O.A.:
1 UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE,
SOUTH BLOCK,NEW DELHI-110001.
2 THE DIRECTOR
CIVILIAN PERSONNEL SERVICES,
INTEGRATED HQ OF MINISTRY OF DEFENCE (NAVY)ROOM
NO.109, D-II WING, SENA BHAWAN,
NEW DELHI-110011.
3 COMMODORE
CHIEF STAFF OFFICER (PERSONNEL AND
ADMINISTRATION)HEAD QUARTERS, SOUTHERN NAVAL
COMMAND,COCHIN-682004.
4 FLAG OFFICER COMMANDING-IN-CHIEF
SOUTHERN NAVAL COMMAND,COCHIN-682004.
BY ADV. SRI.T.V.VINU, CGC
RESPONDENTS/APPLICANTS IN O.A.:
1 G.RAJAN
AGED 57 YEARS,
S/O A.GOPINATHAN NAIR,
FOREMAN(EGF),
NSRY, NAVAL BASE,
KOCHI-4RESIDING AT DEVISADANAM, KUTHIATHODE
P.O.,CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA-688533.
O.P.(CAT)No.177/2017 & Conn.cases 3
2 N.G.SABU
AGED 47 YEARS,S/O N.J.GEORGE,RADAR HS-I, C-49, NSRY,
NAVAL BASE, KOCHI-4, RESIDING AT NEDUMPARAMBIL
HOUSE,15/1862, PALAMATTOM, EDAKOCHI-10.
3 BABY K.Y.
AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.K.C.YOHANAN, ENGINE DRIVER-II,
NSRY, NAVAL BASE, KOCHI-4, RESIDING AT THARIKKULATHIL
HOUSE, VETTICKAL P.O., MULANTHURUTHY (VIA),
ERNAKULAM, KERALA-683 314.
4 K.L.VARGHESE
AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.K.T.LONAPPAN, SR.ENGINE DRIVER-I,
NSRY-COFY, NAVAL BASE, KOCHI-4, RESIDING AT
KATTASHERY HOUSE, KOORKENEHERY P.O., THRISSUR-7.
5 DONALD R.J.FERNANDEZ,
AGED 54 YEARS, S/O.JOSEPH FERNANDAS, MCM (RADIO), C-
49, NSRY(K), NAVAL BASE, KOCHI-04, RESIDING AT 2B/28,
DAWSON VIHAR, THYKOODAM, VYTTILA-19.
6 C.P.KUNJU,
AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.PALLY, TDM, NSRY, NAVAL BASE,
KOHI-04, RESIDING AT CHENGAMANDU HOUSE, KOKKAPPALLI
P.O., THIRUVAMKULAM, ERNAKULAM.
7 E.PADMANABHAN,
AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.K.KUNJURAMAN, FOREMAN ADMIN
OFFICER (CIV), INDIAN NAVAL ACADEMY, EZHIMALA-670
310, RESIDING AT TYPE III/119, CERA, INA, EZHIMALA-
670 310.
8 N.M.JABBAR,
AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.K.S.MAKKAR, UDC, HQ SNC (CE
SECTION), NAVAL BASE, KOCHI-04, RESIDING AT KRISHNA
KRIPA, H.NO.8/241-C, EROOR (W) P.O.-682 306.
9 P.R.VIJAYAN,
AGED 58 YEARS, S/O.LATE NEELAKANDAN, TDM, NSRY, NAVAL
BASE, KOCHI-4, RESIDING AT QTRS.NO.A/6, TYPE-II,
PUMBA VIHAR, PALLURUTHI, KOCHI-682 006.
10 T.V.THOMAS,
AGED 53 YEARS,
S/O.T.O.VARKEY,
FOREMAN (ICE), NSRY, NAVAL BASE, KOCHI-04, RESIDING
AT 36/2322, AZAD ROAD, KALOOR-17.
11 P.P.RAVINDRAN,
AGED 61 YEARS,
S/O.LATE P.N.PAPPU, FOREMAN (PLATER), WOT, (RETD),
COCHIN SHIPYARD, COCHIN,
O.P.(CAT)No.177/2017 & Conn.cases 4
RESIDING AT POONTHODATH HOUSE, UDAYAMPEROOR P.O.,
PIN-682 307.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.R.MURALEEKRISHNAN
R1 BY ADV. SMT.T.M.RESHMY
THIS OP (CAT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17-12-2020, ALONG WITH
OP (CAT).177/2017(Z), OP (CAT).182/2017(Z), OP (CAT).347/2017(Z),
THE COURT ON 07-01-2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
O.P.(CAT)No.177/2017 & Conn.cases 5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
THURSDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 17TH POUSHA, 1942
OP (CAT).No.182 OF 2017
AGAINST THE ORDER IN OA 910/2015 DATED 6.12.2016 OF CENTRAL
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH
PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS IN O.A.:
1 UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, SOUTH BLOCK,
NEW DELHI - 110 001.
2 FLAG OFFICER COMMANDING IN CHIEF
SOUTHERN NAVAL COMMAND,
COCHIN - 682 004.
BY ADVS.
SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENE
SRI.T.V.VINU, CGC
RESPONDENTS/APPLICANTS IN O.A.:
1 V.R.SAJEEVAN PILLAI
S/O.P.K.RAMAN PILLAI, CHARGEMAN (RADIO),
NAVAL SHIP REPAIRING YARD,
NAVAL BASE, COCHIN-682004.
2 JOSEPH MATHEW,
S/O.KURUVILA JOSEPH,
MASTER CRAFTSMAN (ELECTRICAL),
NAVAL SHIP REPAIRING YARD,
NAVAL BASE, COCHIN-682004.
3 D.RAJEEVE,
S/O.D.RARU, FITTER ELECTRICAL (HS),
O.P.(CAT)No.177/2017 & Conn.cases 6
POWER HOUSE, NAVAL SHIP REPAIRING YARD, NAVAL BASE,
COCHIN-682004.
4 K.R.PRADEEPAN,
S/O.RAMANKUTTY, FITTER ELECTRICAL (HR), NAVAL SHIP
REPAIRING YARD, NAVAL BASE, COCHIN-682004.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.C.S.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR
THIS OP (CAT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17-12-2020, ALONG WITH
OP (CAT).177/2017(Z), OP (CAT).181/2017(Z), OP (CAT).347/2017(Z),
THE COURT ON 07-01-2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
O.P.(CAT)No.177/2017 & Conn.cases 7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
THURSDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 17TH POUSHA, 1942
OP (CAT).No.347 OF 2017
AGAINST THE ORDER IN OA 252/2015 DATED 23-05-2017 OF CENTRAL
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH
PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS IN O.A.:
1 UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF
DEFENCE,SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110001
2 FLAG OFFICER COMMANDING IN CHIEF
SOUTHERN NAVAL COMMAND,COCHIN -682004.
BY ADVS.
ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL
SRI.T.V.VINU, CGC
RESPONDENTS/APPLICANTS IN O.A.:
T.K.GOPI
S/O LATE KRISHNAN, AGED 58 YEARS,FOREMAN (PIPE
FITTING),WOT (K) COCHIN-682004.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.C.S.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR
THIS OP (CAT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17-12-2020, ALONG WITH
OP (CAT).177/2017(Z), OP (CAT).181/2017(Z), OP (CAT).182/2017(Z),
THE COURT ON 07-01-2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
O.P.(CAT)No.177/2017&Conn.cases -8-
JUDGMENT
[OP (CAT)Nos.177, 181, 182 & 347/2017]
Dated this the 7th day of January 2021
Gopinath, J.
These Original Petitions have been filed challenging orders in
O.A.Nos.1008/2015, 53/2015, 910/2015 and 252/2015. O.A.Nos.1008/2015 and
910/2015 were heard and disposed of by common order dated 6.12.2016.
O.A.Nos. 53/2015 and 252/2015 were disposed of on 23.12.2016 and 23.5.2017
respectively following the common order dated 6.12.2016 in O.A.Nos.1008/2015
and 910/2015.
2. The brief facts are that the applicants before the Tribunal were all
imposed with a penalty of reduction of pay by one stage for one year with the
condition that they would also not earn any increment during the period of
reduction. We are not called upon to examine the nature of allegations against
each of the applicants except to note that the allegations related to false claims of
Leave Travel Concession (LTC). It is admitted before us that these orders of
penalty have attained finality and were not under challenge before the Tribunal.
The orders in question imposing the aforesaid penalty were issued before the
issuance of the Civilians Defence Service (Revised Pay)Rules, 2008 (hereinafter
referred to as the Revised Pay Rules for short). However, the Revised Pay Rules
was to have retrospective effect from 1.1.2006. The orders of penalty in each of
these cases were issued after 1.1.2006, the date from which those Rules were to
apply but before the issuance of the Revised Pay Rules in September 2008.
3. Before the implementation of the Revised Pay Rules 2008, the
element of annual increment was a fixed sum. However, after notification of the
Revised Pay Rules, the element of annual increment became variable, i.e., 3% of
basic pay + grade pay. The dispute, in this case, relates to the annual increment
payable to each of the employees in question. The amount of annual increment
increased with the introduction of the Revised Pay Rules. The only question is
whether the penalty imposed with the condition that the employees in question
would not earn any increment during the period of reduction of pay by one stage
should be implemented with reference to their entitlement in terms of the
applicable Rules before the implementation of the Revised Pay Rules of 2008 or
with reference to their entitlement to increment under the Revised Pay Rules of
2008.
4. Certain other employees had approached the Tribunal earlier
challenging the denial of increment with reference to entitlement under the
Revised Pay Rules of 2008 inter alia contending that since they had already
suffered the penalty, they should not be mulcted with any additional liability
since they were entitled to additional amounts of increment when calculated with
reference to the provisions under the Revised Pay Rules of 2008. Those Original
Applications were dismissed. This Court set aside the judgment of the Tribunal
through the judgment in W.P.(C)No.4790/2010 and connected cases holding
that since the employees concerned had already suffered a penalty, there was no
question of imposing a further penalty with reference to the entitlement to
increment under the Revised Pay Rules of 2008. This Court found that such
suffering of penalty results in the indiscipline being purged and discharged by
efflux of time. This Court also found that the Revised Pay Rules of 2008 had
nothing to do with the penalty already imposed and therefore that the employees
in question were entitled, in law, to the difference in the amount of increment to
which they became entitled on account of the Revised Pay Rules of 2008. This
Court found that imposition of the deduction with reference to the Revised Pay
Rules of 2008 would amount to the imposition of a fresh penalty in respect of an
offence. This judgment of the Division Bench of this Court was challenged by
filing a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court
dismissed the Special Leave Petition, however, leaving the question of law open.
5. The employees, who filed the Original Applications in the present set
of cases, approached the Tribunal thereafter essentially contending that they
were entitled to the benefit of the finding of this Court in W.P.(C)No.4790/2010
and connected cases as they were similarly placed. The Tribunal has accepted
that contention given the judgment of this Court and held in favour of the
applicants/employees.
6. Sri. T.V. Vinu, the learned Central Government Counsel for the
Union of India and its officers would contend inter alia that the Tribunal went
wrong in following the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.
(C)No.4790/2010 and connected cases since the Supreme Court had left the
question of law open for consideration. He would also contend that we should
not be held bound by the finding of the Division Bench of this Court in
W.P.(C)No.4790/2010 and connected cases for the very same reason. He would
further contend that in any event, the present set of employees have approached
the Tribunal only belatedly and they had not raised any challenge against
withholding of increment due under the Revised Pay Rules as was done by the
other employees, who were part of the earlier round of litigation.
7. Sri. C.S. Gopalakrishnan Nair, learned counsel appearing for the
contesting respondents/applicants before the Tribunal would contend inter alia
that the matter was covered in his favour by the Division Bench judgment of this
Court in W.P.(C)No.4790/2010 and connected cases, which was accepted by the
Supreme Court while dismissing the Special Leave Petition filed against that
judgment. He would also further contend that withholding of increment with
reference to the amount payable under the Revised Pay Rules of 2008 amounts
to imposition of a second penalty for the same offence as the employees in
question had already suffered the penalty of withholding of increment with
reference to the amount of increment before the implementation of the Revised
Pay Rules. He would urge that we should follow the judgment of the Division
Bench of this Court in W.P.(C)No.4790/2010 and connected cases and dismiss
these Original Petitions.
8. We have considered the contentions raised by either side. The
penalty orders in question are not under challenge in these proceedings. The
orders related to a specific period. It is no doubt true that at the time when the
penalty was imposed, the benefits under the Revised Pay Rules of 2008 were not
available. Those Rules came into force only in September 2008, however with
retrospective effect from 1.1.2006. It is not disputed before us that the period for
which the penalty was imposed by the disciplinary authority relates to a period
after 1.1.2006. If that be so, withholding of increment ordered by way of the
penalty imposed is with reference to the increment payable for the period in
question and there cannot be any distinction made with reference to the fact that
the Revised Pay Rules were issued only in September 2008. The employees in
question must suffer the penalty order with reference to their entitlement as the
penalty imposed is a reduction to a lower stage for one year with the added
condition that they will not earn any increment during the period of reduction.
The penalty order can only mean that the employees in question were not
entitled to any amount of increment during the period of reduction and merely
since the employees had already suffered withholding of increments with
reference to the amount entitled before the implementation of the Revised Pay
Rules 2008 does not mean that the withholding of the balance amount of
increment payable under the Revised Pay Rules would amount to the imposition
of a fresh penalty. The penalty order, as explained above, already indicated
reduction by one stage with the condition that the employees would not earn any
increment during the period of reduction. If these employees became entitled to
increment under the Revised Pay Rules, which were implemented retrospective
effect from 1.1.2006, that increment cannot be paid during the period which they
suffered the penalty. We cannot agree with the finding of the Division Bench in
W.P.(C)No.4790/2010 and connected cases that the delinquency had been
purged when the amount of increment under the Rules applicable before the
implementation of the Revised Pay Rules of 2008 was recovered. Admittedly on
account of retrospective operation of the Revised Pay Rules, the employees
became entitled to an additional amount of increment. Such increment could not
have been paid to them on account of the order of penalty. The question of law
decided in W.P.(C)No.4790/2010 and connected cases having been left open by
the order of the Supreme Court, we believe that we need not treat the judgment
in W.P.(C)No.4790/2010 and connected cases as having declared the law. We
are also of the view that even if the applicants before the Tribunal were entitled
to the relief granted as in W.P.(C)No.4790/2010 and connected cases, the said
relief could not have been granted by the Tribunal because all the Original
Applications were filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed in Section 21
of the Central Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. There was no application for
condonation of delay in filing the Original Applications as well.
9. In view of our findings as above, we allow these original petitions
and set aside the orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam
Bench in O.A.Nos.1008/2015, 53/2015, 910/2015 and 252/2015. No costs.
Sd/-
A.M.SHAFFIQUE
JUDGE
Sd/-
GOPINATH P.
JUDGE
acd
APPENDIX OF OP (CAT) 177/2017
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE OA NO. 180/1008/2015
DATED 15.12.2015 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT
BEFORE THE CAT, ERNAKULAM BENCH
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT IN OA NO.
180/1008/2015 DATED .,,,2.2016 FILED BY
THE PETITIONERS
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN OA NO.
180/1008/2015 DATED 6.12.2016 OF THE
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
ERNAKULAM BENCH
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27.2.2015
IN SLP (CC) NO(S) 3558-3595/2015 PASSED
BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT
ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE DISCIPLINARY ORDER
NO.CPT(DV) 5315/D/06/PMJ DATED
01.11.2008.
ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL
DATED 26.12.2006.
ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED
14.07.2009.
ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
07.10.2013 IN WPC NO.4790 OF 2010.
ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
10.11.2014.
APPENDIX OF OP (CAT) 181/2017
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE OA NO.180/00053/2015
DATED 09.01.2016 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT
BEFORE THE CAT, ERNAKULAM BENCH.
ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION
CPT(L)/8000/OA-254/2009 DATED 09/09/2015.
ANNEXURE A6 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION CS
2695/43/1326 DATED 17/11/2015.
ANNEXURE A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE
HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN WPC NO.
4790/2020 AND CONNECTED CASES DATED
07/10/2013.
ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPIES OF THE PAY FIXATION ORDERS NO.
PA/03/2690/05 DATED 31/03/2009 INTIMATING
RECOVERY FROM THE APPLICANTS AGAIN FOR THE
PERIOD FROM 01/01/2007 TO 31/12/2007.
ANNEXURE A3 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION
SUBMITTED BY ONE OF THE APPLICANTS DATED
04/12/2013.
ANNEXURE A4 A TRUE COPY OF THE REMINDER SUBMITTED BY
ONE OF THE APPLICANTS DATED 02/02/2015.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FEBRUARY,
2016 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN OA
NO.180/00053/2016 DATED 23.12.2016, OF THE
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM
BENCH.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27.02.2015 IN
SLP(CC)NO(S).3558-3595/2015 PASSED BY THE
HON'BLE SUPREME COURT.
APPENDIX OF OP (CAT) 182/2017
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE OA NO. 180/00910/2015
DATED 02.11.2015 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT
BEFORE THE CAT, ERNAKULAM BENCH.
ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE DISCIPLINARY ORDER
DATED 02.1.2007.
ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE DISCIPLINARY ORDER
DATED 26.12.2006.
ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE DISCIPLINARY ORDER
DATED 18.12.2006.
ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE DISCIPLINARY ORDER
DATED 21.03.2007.
ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF THE DISCIPLINARY ORDER
DATED 15.06.2007.
ANNEXURE A6 TRUE COPY OF THE DISCIPLINARY ORDER
DATED 26.03.2007.
ANNEXURE A7 TRUE COPY OF THE DISCIPLINARY ORDER
DATED 15.12.2006.
ANNEXURE A8 TRUE COPY OF THE DISCIPLINARY ORDER
DATED 18.12.2006.
ANNEXURE A9 TRUE COPY OF THE DISCIPLINARY ORDER
DATED 15.12.2006.
ANNEXURE A10 TRUE COPY OF THE DISCIPLINARY ORDER
DATED 19.12.2006.
ANNEXURE A11 TRUE COPY OF THE DISCIPLINARY ORDER
DATED 01.01.2007.
ANNEXURE A12 TRUE COPY OF THE APPELLATE ORDER ISSUED
IN RESPECT OF THE 1ST APPLICANTS APPEAL.
ANNEXURE A13 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
07.10.2013 IN WPC NO. 4790 OF 2010.
ANNEXURE A14 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
04.12.2013.
ANNEXURE A15 TRUE COPY OF THE REMINDER DATED
26.02.2015.
ANNEXURE A16 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NO.
PA/03/2690/05(CC) DATED 18.03.2015.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT IN OA
NO. 180/00910/2015 DATED NIL. 02.2016
FILED BY THE PETITIONERS.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN OA NO.
180/00910/2015 DATED 06.12.2016 OF THE
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
ERNAKULAM BENCH.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27.02.2015
IN SLP(CC) NO(S).3558-3595/2015 PASSED
BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT.
APPENDIX OF OP (CAT) 347/2017
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN OP(CAT)
NO. 181/2017 DATED 30/6/2017
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION IN
OA/180/00252/2015, DATED 19/3/2015 FILED
BY THE RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT IN
OA/180/00252/2015, DATED NIL. JANUARY 2016
FILED BY THE PETITIONERS.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN
OA/180/00252/2015, DATED 23/5/2017 OF THE
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM
BENCH.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27/2/2015 IN
SLP (CC) NOS(S) 3558-3595/2015 PASSED BY
THE HON'BLE SUPREME COUT.
ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF CHARGES
NO.CS2690/1/E-15 DATED 08.05.2006.
ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF DISCIPLINARY ORDER
NO.CPT(DV)5315/D/06/TKG DATED 12.12.2006
ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF CIVILAN ESTABLISHMENT LIST
NO.16/2007 DATED 31.01.2007.
ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF ORDER
NO.PA/03/2690/05(TKG)DATED 25.01.2007.
ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF CIVILIAN ESTABLISHMENT LIST
NO.1/2008 DATED 01.01.2008.
ANNEXURE A6 TRUE COPY OF THE CIVILIAN ESTABLISHMENT
LIST NO.12/2008 DATED 11.01.2008.
ANNEXURE A7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 07.10.2013
IN WPC NO.4790 OF 2010.
ANNEXURE A8 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
06.12.2013.
ANNEXURE A9 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.WOT/ADM/003
DATED 09.12.2013.
ANNEXURE A10 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.WOT/ADM/003
DATED 11.03.2014.
ANNEXURE A11 TRUE COPY OF THE REMINDER DATED
11.12.2014.
ANNEXURE A12 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.WOT/ADM/003
DATED 11.12.2014.
ANNEXURE A13 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO NO.2690/1/A DATED
30.12.2014.
