Mohanan.K.P vs The State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 8152 Ker

                                                              'C.R'
                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN

   WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 19TH PHALGUNA, 1942

                       WP(C).No.30911 OF 2015(L)

PETITIONER/S:
                MOHANAN.K.P, AGED 57 YEARS
                S/O.K.K.KUNHIRAMAN, RETIRED DEO,
                SREYAS, KOYYAM P.O., KANNUR-670142.

                BY ADVS.
                SRI.K.R.AVINASH (KUNNATH)
                SRI.ABDUL RAOOF PALLIPATH
RESPONDENTS:
       1     THE STATE OF KERALA
             REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY,
             SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM-695 001.

      2         THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
                DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
                TRIVANDRUM-695 001.

      3         THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS
                TRIVANDRUM-695001.

      4         SASIDHARAN K.N.,
                S/O.NARAYANAN KOCHUPARACKAL,
                RETIRED ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT,
                MANAKKAD, P.O., THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI-685 608.

      5         ISMAIL P.H.,S/O.HASSAN,
                RETIRED SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT,
                PODIPPARAYIL HOUSE, NEYYASSERI P.O.,
                KARIMANNOOR, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI-685 581.

                R4-5 BY ADV. SRI.T.B.HOOD
                R4-5 BY ADV. SMT.M.ISHA
                R4-5 BY ADV. SRI.ABDULLA ZIYAD

OTHER PRESENT:

                R1-3 BY ADV.JESTIN MATHEW G.P

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03-03-
2021, THE COURT ON 10-03-2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.30911 OF 2015(L)      ..2 ..




                                                      'C.R.'
                            JUDGMENT

Dated this the 10th day of March, 2021

The petitioner is a retired District Educational

Officer. The petitioner's wife Smt. E.P. Pushpalatha

was working as Head Mistress in Kunjithanni

Government High School in Idukki District. She

took charge as Head Mistress in the said school on

23.07.2014.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that on

06.03.2015, the 4th and 5th respondents who are

the officials from the office of the Deputy Director

of Education, Idukki went to the Kunjithanni

Government High School under the guise of

inspection and found that one clerk, namely,

Anakha was continuously on leave. The 4 th and 5th WP(C).No.30911 OF 2015(L) ..3 ..

respondents demanded a statement in writing from

the petitioner's wife regarding the absence of the

said clerk and the salary collected by her.

Petitioner's wife was not willing to give such

statement forthwith in writing because she was

busy with the SSLC examination to be held in

couple of days. Petitioner's wife was threatened by

the 4th respondent stating that she would face

severe consequences if such a statement is not

given. The 4th respondent was very aggressive

and shouted and told that she would be put in jail

etc; and the chair in that office was pushed away

with force creating a scene in the office. She was

also told that unless a statement is submitted by

next day she would face severe consequences.

Again in the evening, the 4th respondent WP(C).No.30911 OF 2015(L) ..4 ..

telephoned the petitioner's wife and repeated the

threat.

3. According to the petitioner, after the said

incident, his wife was mentally stressed and on the

next day, when she went to the school, she was

nervous due to the threat caused by respondents 4

and 5 and could not concentrate on her duties.

She went home little early and by about 7 'O' clock

in the evening, she fell unconscious and was taken

to Kolenchery Medical College Hospital and she

was admitted therein due to sudden stroke in the

brain. At the hospital, she had undergone major

operation and other treatment. However, she died

in the hospital on 11.03.2015. According to the

petitioner, the threat of the respondents 4 and 5

and the resultant stroke led to her unfortunate WP(C).No.30911 OF 2015(L) ..5 ..

demise.

4. Though a complaint was submitted by

petitioner's relative before the Vellathooval Pollice

Station, no case was registered by the Police.

5. The District Educational Officer,

Thodupuzha, on 11.03.2015 conducted an enquiry

in connection with the death of the petitioner's wife

and submitted Ext.P3 report along with statements

of four persons stated to be present at the time of

the visit of the respondents 4 and 5 to the school.

6. The Additional Director of Public Instructions

(Academics) conducted another enquiry based on

the instructions of the Director of Public

Instructions and filed Ext.P4 report wherein it was

reported that the death of the Head Mistress might

be due to the stress and strain caused on account WP(C).No.30911 OF 2015(L) ..6 ..

of the threat of respondents 4 and 5 and

recommended appropriate action against them.

7. Ext. P5 is the report of the Deputy Director

of Education, Idukki, narrating other incidents of

insubordination and misbehavior of the 4th

respondent and recommending strict action

against respondents 4 and 5.

8. Based on Exts.P3 and P5 reports, as well as

the complaint filed by the mother of the deceased,

the Director of Public Instructions vide Ext.P6

proceedings suspended the 5th respondent who

was the Senior Superintendent in the office of the

Deputy Director of Education, Idukki and

recommended the Government to suspend the 4 th

respondent, the Administrative Assistant.

WP(C).No.30911 OF 2015(L) ..7 ..

9. The Government decided to conduct a

hearing in the matter of disciplinary proceedings

against the respondents 4 and 5 in relation to the

incident leading to the demise of the petitioner's

wife based on petitions preferred by respondents 4

and 5. The Director of Public Instructions

submitted Ext.P7 report to the Government

wherein, referring to Exts.P3 to P5 reports, the DPI

reported that the said reports point to the lapses

on the part of the respondents 4 and 5 and

disciplinary action shall be initiated against them

by placing the 4th respondent also under

suspension.

10. As directed by the Hon'ble Minister for

Education and the Hon'ble Chief Minister, the

Principal Secretary to Government, General WP(C).No.30911 OF 2015(L) ..8 ..

Education Department conducted a hearing on the

petitions filed by respondents 4 and 5 and

submitted a Note before the Hon'ble Minister for

Education and the Hon'ble Chief Minister. The said

Note is produced as Ext.P8 in the writ petition. In

the said Note, the Principal Secretary

recommended disciplinary action against the 4th

respondent, the Administrative Assistant and to

issue warning to the 5th respondent, the Senior

Superintendent. According to the petitioner it is

clearly stated in Ext.P8 Note that the actions of

respondents 4 and 5 were unauthorized, illegal and

clear case of dereliction of duty and abuse of

power and their attitude towards the wife of the

petitioner on the date of incident was rude.

   However,       the    Chief    Minister   recommended
 WP(C).No.30911 OF 2015(L)     ..9 ..

dropping all further action in the matter without

any valid or justifiable reason and without hearing

the aggrieved parties including the close relatives

of late Pushpalatha. This is illegal and arbitrary

and sheer abuse of power on political

consideration, contends the petitioner. The

petitioner has, therefore, prayed for declaring

Ext.P8 as illegal, arbitrary and ultra vires and for

direction to the Government to take appropriate

action against respondents 4 and 5.

11. The respondents 4 and 5 have filed

separate counter affidavits. In the counter affidavit

filed by the 4th respondent he has denied all the

allegations raised against him by the writ petitioner

and has stated that Exts.P3 to P5 reports were

submitted behind his back. According to the 4 th WP(C).No.30911 OF 2015(L) ..10 ..

respondent he visited the school for an enquiry to

ascertain the correctness of the information

received by him that the clerk of the school Smt.

Anakha was pursuing regular studies without

attending office and was receiving salary. He has

denied the allegation that he threatened the wife

of the petitioner. He states that the next day of the

alleged incident, the petitioner's wife had gone to

the Sub Treasury, Adimaly which is more than 20

km away from the School for encashment of salary

bill and the salary of the staff were disbursed and

she left the School after office hours at 5.p.m and

that there is absolutely nothing on record which

may even remotely suggest any linkage between

his visit to the school on 06.03.2015 and the death

of the Headmistress on 11.03.2015. It is further WP(C).No.30911 OF 2015(L) ..11 ..

stated in the counter affidavit filed by the 4 th

respondent that he was not suspended from

service and no memo of charges was issued to him

while he was in service and he retired from service

on 31.05.2015 and after the retirement, no

disciplinary proceedings can be initiated or

continued against him. The 4th respondent has also

stated that on a complaint filed by the petitioner's

brother-in-law, the Sub Inspector of Police,

Vellathooval Police Station conducted an enquiry

and dropped further action as there was no

material to indicate that the death of Pushpalatha

was due to the alleged conduct of respondents 4

and 5. The 4th respondent has produced Ext.R4(a)

judgment in W.P.(C) No. 11932/2015 filed by the

brother-in-law of the petitioner, wherein this Court WP(C).No.30911 OF 2015(L) ..12 ..

refused to give any direction to the Police in the

complaint after considering the entire facts placed

before the Court.

12. In the counter affidavit filed by the 5 th

respondent which is almost in line with the counter

affidavit of the 4th respondent, the 5th respondent

rebutting the allegations raised against him has

further stated that by Ext.R5(a) order dated

12.03.2015 he was suspended from service by the

DPI pursuant to Ext.R5(b) complaint filed by the

mother-in-law of the petitioner and later he was

reinstated in service as per Ext.R5(c) order dated

24.03.2015. It is also stated that a memo of

charges dated 30.03.2015 and statement of

allegations were issued to him by the DPI. He

superannuated from service on 31.03.2015. He WP(C).No.30911 OF 2015(L) ..13 ..

submitted his explanation to the charges. By

Ext.R5(d) order dated 06.08.2015, the disciplinary

proceedings initiated against him were dropped by

the DPI and the period of suspension was treated

as duty and was regularized.

13. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf

of the Government supporting the decision to drop

the disciplinary proceedings against the

respondents 4 and 5 and it is stated that the

officers who conducted the enquiry did not take

evidence from those who were actually present in

the school and no opportunity was given to the

accused officers to cross examine the witnesses

and that in the case registered by the Police, it was

categorically stated that there was no connection

with the sad demise of the Headmistress and the WP(C).No.30911 OF 2015(L) ..14 ..

enquiry conducted in the school by the

respondents 4 and 5. It is further stated that there

was no room for suspicion regarding the

involvement of the respondents 4 and 5 in the

incident and over all the respondents were on the

verge of superannuation and deserved some

humanitarian consideration and the Government

found that there was no justification to proceed

against them and decided to drop further action in

the matter.

14. The writ petitioner has filed reply affidavits

to the counter affidavits filed by the respondents.

15. I have heard Sri. Abdul Raoof Pallipath

learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Jestin

Mathew, the learned Government Pleader for

respondents 1 to 3 and Sri. T.B.Hood, the learned WP(C).No.30911 OF 2015(L) ..15 ..

Counsel for respondents 4 and 5.

16. What is impugned in the writ petition is

Ext.P8 Note submitted by the Principal Secretary to

Government, General Education Department to the

Hon'ble Chief Minister and the Minister for

Education and the decision of the Hon'ble Chief

Minister and the Minister for Education endorsed

thereon.

17. In Ext.P8 Note, the Principal Secretary

to Government has, in short, found that the

incident occurred when Smt. Pushpalatha, as

Headmistress was under pressure of duties related

to the SSLC examination and she shared her

worries with the witnesses present at the time and

the chances of the 4th respondent using harsh

language cannot be ruled out and even though the WP(C).No.30911 OF 2015(L) ..16 ..

5th respondent was associated with the inspection

conducted by the 4th respondent, no direct

involvement of the 5th respondent could be

established. It is further concluded that it is difficult

to establish direct link between the visit of

respondents 4 and 5 to school and the death of the

Headmistress. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent

recommended that the 4th respondent may be

suspended with immediate effect and disciplinary

action may be taken for insubordination and unruly

behaviour and the 5th respondent may be let off

with a written warning. The Note also contains the

decision of the Hon'ble Chief Minister and the

Minister for Education to drop all further action in

the matter stating that there is no room for

suspicion regarding the involvement of WP(C).No.30911 OF 2015(L) ..17 ..

respondents 4 and 5 in the incident and over all

the respondents were on the verge of

superannuation and deserved some humanitarian

consideration.

18. No orders pursuant to Ext.P8 Note or any

consequential proceedings have been produced

before this Court. With regard to the challenge

against Ext.P8 Note, it is trite law that notings in a

Departmental file do not have the sanction of law

to be an effective order. In Bachhittar Singh v.

State of Punjab and another (AIR 1963 SC

395), the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court

considered the effect of an order passed by a

Minister on a file which order was not

communicated to the person concerned. Referring

to Article 166(1) of the Constitution, the Court held WP(C).No.30911 OF 2015(L) ..18 ..

that order of the Minister could not amount to an

order by the State Government unless it was

expressed in the name of the Rajpramukh, as

required by the said Article and was then

communicated to the party concerned. The Court

observed that business of State is a complicated

one and has necessarily to be conducted through

the agency of a large number of officials and

authorities. Before an action is taken by the

authority concerned in the name of the

Rajpramukh, which formality is a Constitutional

necessity, nothing done would amount to an order

creating rights or casting liabilities to third parties.

The Court noticed that it is possible that after

expressing one opinion about a particular matter at

a particular stage, a Minister or the Council of WP(C).No.30911 OF 2015(L) ..19 ..

Ministers may express quite a different opinion

which may be opposed to the earlier opinion.

Which of the two opinions can be regarded as the

"order" of the State Government? It was held that

opinion becomes a decision of the Government

only when it is communicated to the person

concerned. The said decision was followed in Sethi

Auto Service Station and Another v. Delhi

Development Authority and Others [(2009) 1

SCC 180] wherein the Apex Court held that

notings in a departmental file do not have the

sanction of law to be an effective order and that a

noting by an officer is an expression of his

viewpoint on the subject. It is no more than an

opinion by an officer for internal use and

consideration of the other officials of the WP(C).No.30911 OF 2015(L) ..20 ..

department and for the benefit of the final

decision-making authority. The Court observed that

internal notings are not meant for outside exposure

and notings in the file culminate into an executable

order, affecting the rights of the parties, only when

it reaches the final decision-making authority in the

department, gets his approval and the final order is

communicated to the person concerned. The Apex

Court also observed that mere favourable

recommendations at some level of the decision

making process, are of no consequence and shall

not confer any right. Following the decision in

Bachhittar Singh's case (supra), this Court in

Ramachandran v. State of Kerala [2009 (3)

KLT 473] has held that the Note whereby the

Minister ordered that the petitioner's service as WP(C).No.30911 OF 2015(L) ..21 ..

Managing Director of a Corporation is terminated

without an order of the State Government

expressed in the name of the Governor as required

by cl. (1) of Art.166 of the Constitution of India

cannot be said to be an order passed by the

Government and cannot be challenged in a writ

petition. Relying on the decisions in Bachhittar

Singh's case (supra) and Shanti Sports Club

and another v. Union of India [2009 (15) SCC

705], the Apex Court in Ali K.S.B. v. State of

Andra Pradesh and others [2018 (11) SCC

277] reiterated that notings recorded in official

files by officers of the Government at different

levels even of Ministers, do not become decisions

of the Government unless same are sanctified and

acted upon by issuing an order in the name of the WP(C).No.30911 OF 2015(L) ..22 ..

President or the Governor as the case may be,

authenticated in the manner provided in Art.77(2)

and Art.166(2) of the Constitution.

19. In view of the principles laid down by the

Apex Court and this Court in the above decisions,

the challenge to Ext.P8 Note is not sustainable.

20. Though no orders pursuant to Ext.P8 Note

or any consequential proceedings have been

produced before this Court and challenged, it is

not disputed that pursuant to the hearing by the

2nd respondent on the petitions submitted by

respondents 4 and 5, the Government have

decided to drop all disciplinary action against

respondents 4 and 5. The second prayer of the

Petitioner is to take appropriate action against

respondents 4 and 5.

WP(C).No.30911 OF 2015(L) ..23 ..

21. So far as the 5th respondent is concerned,

he was placed under suspension by the Director of

Public Instructions as per Ext.R5(a) dated

12.03.2015 and was served with a memo of

charges and statement of allegations dated

30.03.2015 and the disciplinary proceedings

against the 5th respondent was dropped vide

Ext.R5(d) order of the DPI and the period of

suspension was treated as duty and regularised. By

Ext.R5(d), the disciplinary proceedings initiated

against the 5th respondent has come to a logical

conclusion.

22. As far as the 4th respondent is concerned,

the 4th respondent was neither placed under

suspension nor issued with any memo of charges

or statement of allegations in respect of the WP(C).No.30911 OF 2015(L) ..24 ..

incident leading to the death of petitioner's wife.

The incident leading to the death of petitioner's

wife viz; the visit of respondents 4 and 5 to

Kunjithanni Government High School was on

06.03.2015. No disciplinary action was initiated

against the 4th respondent while the 4th respondent

was in service and he was allowed to retire from

service on 31.05.2015. On termination of

employment, the employer loses disciplinary

control over the employee. However, in relation to

employment under the State, the State retains

some authority to deal with retired employees. As

per the provisions of Rule 3 of Part III of the Kerala

Service Rules, the Government reserves the right

to withhold the pension of a retired employee

under certain contingencies. The said Rules read as WP(C).No.30911 OF 2015(L) ..25 ..

follows:

"3. The Government reserve to themselves the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or any part of it, whether permanently or for a specified period, and the right of ordering the recovery from a pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to Government, if in a departmental or judicial proceeding, the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his service, including service rendered upon re-employment after retirement:

Provided that -

(a) such departmental proceeding, if instituted while the employee was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re- employment, shall after the final retirement of the employee, be deemed to be a proceeding under this rule and shall be continued and concluded by the authority by which it was commenced in the same manner as if the employee had continued in service;

(b) such departmental proceeding, if not instituted while the employee was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re- employment-

WP(C).No.30911 OF 2015(L) ..26 ..

(i) shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the Government;

(ii) shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution; and

(iii) shall be conducted by such authority and in such place as the Government may direct and in accordance with the procedure applicable to departmental proceedings in which an order of dismissal from service could be made in relation to the employee during his service;

(c) no such judicial proceedings, if not instituted while the employee was in service whether before his retirement or during his re- employment, shall be instituted, save with the sanction of the Government, in respect of a cause of action which arose or an event which took place more than four years before such institution; and

(d) the Public Service Commission shall be consulted before final orders are passed. Explanation-- For the purpose of this rule -

(a) a departmental proceeding shall be deemed to be instituted on the date on which the statement of charges is issued to the employee or pensioner or if the employee has been placed under suspension from an earlier date, on such date; and

(b) a judicial proceeding shall be deemed to be WP(C).No.30911 OF 2015(L) ..27 ..

instituted -

(i) in the case of a criminal proceeding, on the date on which the complaint or report of police officer on which the Magistrate takes cognizance is made; and

(ii) in the case of a civil proceeding, on the date of presentation of the plaint in the Court."

23. The scope of disciplinary proceedings against an employee who has retired from service has been considered by the Division Bench of this Court in Ayyappan Pillai v. Kerala State Electricity Board and Another [2010 (4) KHC 300 : 2010 (4) KLT SN 77]. Paragraph 11 of the said judgment reads:

xxx

"11. We do see force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant. On the termination of employment, the employer loses disciplinary control over the employee.

Their legal relationship of employer-employee comes to an end on the termination of the employment. However, in the case of employment under the State, the State by WP(C).No.30911 OF 2015(L) ..28 ..

appropriate law may retain some authority to deal with its erstwhile employees. Rule 3 of Part III of the Kerala Service Rules is such a law which authorises the State to withhold the pension of a former employee either totally or partially. Such withholding could be either permanent or for a specified period in the contingencies mentioned in the said rule. Such contingencies are (1) the pensioner is found guilty in a departmental proceeding of grave misconduct or negligence during the course of his service or (2) in a judicial proceeding such a finding is recorded. Further it is required under sub-rule (a) of Rule 3 of the Kerala Services Rules that the departmental proceedings referred to under Rule 3 need not have been concluded while the employee was in service. Sub-rule (a) of Rule 3 authorizes the continuation of a pending departmental proceeding even after the retirement of the employee against whom proceedings were initiated.

24. In the case of the 4th respondent, no

departmental proceedings were initiated while he WP(C).No.30911 OF 2015(L) ..29 ..

was in service. No disciplinary proceedings can be

initiated against the 4th respondent after retirement

at this distance of time even for the limited

purpose provided in Rule 3 of Part III of Kerala

Service Rules. I find no reason for this Court to

direct the respondents 1 to 3 to initiate any

disciplinary proceedings against the respondents

4 and 5.

25. The locus standi of the writ petitioner to

challenge the action of the 1st respondent to drop

the disciplinary proceedings against the

respondents 4 and 5 is also a matter to be

considered in this writ petition. It is true that the

subject matter of the disciplinary proceedings is in

relation to the unfortunate incident leading to the

sad demise of the petitioner's wife. Nevertheless, WP(C).No.30911 OF 2015(L) ..30 ..

the petitioner is a stranger in the matter of

disciplinary proceedings. Disciplinary proceedings

is essentially a matter between the employer and

the employee and a stranger cannot be said to

have any interest in those proceedings. The

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnit Prasad v. Union

of India [2000 (9) SCC 313] considered the

scope of locus standi in entertaining a challenge to

disciplinary proceedings and held that a person,

who is not connected with those proceedings

cannot challenge any aspect of such departmental

proceedings or action by filing a writ petition. A

departmental proceedings is essentially a matter

between the employer and the employee and a

stranger cannot be said to have any interest in

those proceedings. The Court held:

WP(C).No.30911 OF 2015(L) ..31 ..

"8. It is, no doubt, true that the scope of "locus standi" has been widened by this Court through its various decisions and, that too, in the field of Public Interest Litigation where it has been said that Public Interest Litigation can be initiated not only by filing petitions in the High Court or in this Court in a regular manner but also by means of letters and telegrams addressed to the Court. (See : People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India2, Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India3, State of Himachal Pradesh v. A Parentof a Student of Medical College4, Shimla and Bangalore Medical Trust v. B.S. Muddappa 5 .

9. But a mere busy-body who has no interest cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the Court. In respect of departmental proceedings which are initiated or sought to be initiated by the Government against its employees, a person who is not even remotely connected with those proceedings cannot challenge any aspect of the departmental proceedings or action by filing a Writ Petition in the High Court or in this Court. Disciplinary action against an employee is taken by the Government for various reasons principally for "misconduct" on the part of the WP(C).No.30911 OF 2015(L) ..32 ..

employee. This action is taken after a "domestic" enquiry in which the employee is provided an opportunity of hearing as required by the constitutional mandate. It is essentially a matter between the employer and the employee, and a stranger, much less a practising advocate, cannot be said to have any interest in those proceedings. Public interest of general importance is not involved in disciplinary proceedings. In fact, if such petitions are entertained at the instance of persons who are not connected with those proceedings, it would amount to an abuse of the process of Court".

26. In Dr. Duryodhan Sahu and others v.

Jitendra Kumar Mishra and others [1998] 7

SCC 273] it was held by the Apex court that in

service matters Public Interest Litigation shall not

be entertained. The Petitioner in this writ petition is

not challenging any action initiated against the

petitioner's wife while she was in service or any WP(C).No.30911 OF 2015(L) ..33 ..

action of the respondents 1 to 3 that would curtail

any of the service or terminal benefits of the

petitioner's wife. Therefore, the petitioner cannot

have any locus standi to challenge the decision of

the Government in dropping the disciplinary

proceedings against respondents 4 and 5.

The writ petition fails and is accordingly

dismissed.

Sd/-

                            MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN,
                                            JUDGE
   SB
 WP(C).No.30911 OF 2015(L)            ..34 ..




                              APPENDIX
   PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

   EXHIBIT P1 TRUE   COPY   OF   THE    COMPLAINT    MADE     BY
              PETITIONER'S      BROTHER       BEFORE         THE
              VELLATHOTHOOVAL POLICE.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM APPEARED IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY AND MATHRU BHUMI DATED 11.3.2015.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER ALONG WITH THE STATEMENT.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE RECOMMENDATION OF 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 16.03.2015 AND THE ENDORSEMENT ON THE SAID STATEMENT.

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS.

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTE GIVEN BY 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE EDUCATION MINISTER AND CHIEF MINISTER.

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT R4A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 20-02-2017 IN WRIT PETITION (C) NO.11932/2015.

EXHIBIT R5A TRUE COPY OF THE SUSPENSION ORDER DATED 12-

03-2015.

EXHIBIT R5B TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE MOTHER-IN-LAW OF THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT R5C TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24-03-2015 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS.

EXHIBIT R5D TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 06-08-2015 CONCLUDING DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS. //true copy //P.A To Judge