Kerala High Court
Anoop Varkey, S/O. E.V. Varkey, ... vs G.S. Sajiprasad on 11 April, 2025
Author: A.Muhamed Mustaque
Bench: A.Muhamed Mustaque
OP(KAT)No.35 of 2025
1
2025:KER:31193
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR
FRIDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 21ST CHAITHRA, 1947
OP(KAT) NO. 35 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 21.01.2025 IN OA NO.828 OF 2024
OF KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONER/4TH RESPONDENT IN O.A.:
ANOOP VARKEY, S/O. E.V. VARKEY,
AGED 49 YEARS
REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, REGIONAL TRANSPORT
OFFICE, ENFORCEMENT WAYANAD (NOW WORKING AS AND
CORRECT ADDRESS AS ANOOP VARKEY, DEPUTY TRANSPORT
COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL ZONE II, HARF, PLOT NO. 191
A, MAVELIPURAM, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM-682030
BY ADVS.
M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI
BRIJESH MOHAN
K.JAJU BABU (SR.)
RESPONDENTS/APPLICANT AND RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 AND 5 IN O.A.:
1 G.S. SAJIPRASAD,
AGED 51 YEARS, S/O.(LATE)GOPINATHAN PILLAI, DEPUTY
TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER,OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY
TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL ZONE-2, HARF, PLOT
NO.191 A MAVELIPURAM, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM - 682030
OP(KAT)No.35 of 2025
2
2025:KER:31193
(NOW WORKING AS REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, CIVIL
STATION, VIDYA NAGAR, KASARGOD - 691121) RESIDING
AT ‘CHAITANYA', KURATTICKADU, MANNAR.P.O,
CHENGANOOR TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 686540
2 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
3 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY & CONVENER DEPARTMENT
PROMOTION COMMITTEE (HIGHER) TRANSPORT(C)
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
4 THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER,
OFFICE OF THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, TRANS TOWERS,
VAZHUTHACADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014
5 KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE KERALA
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695004
BY ADVS.
C.LEENA
V.PRINCE DEV
SR.GOVT. PLEADER SRI.A.J.VARGHESE
SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC
THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP
FOR HEARING ON 01.04.2025, THE COURT ON 11.04.2025 DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
OP(KAT)No.35 of 2025
3
2025:KER:31193
CR
JUDGMENT
P.Krishna Kumar, J.
The short legal issue to be determined in this
case is whether, in view of the provisions contained
in Note (i) to Rule 28(b)(i)(7) of Part II of the
Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules
('KS&SSR", for short), an officer against whom an FIR
has been lodged in a graft case is entitled to be
included in the select list for promotion.
2. The facts necessary for the determination of
this case are as follows: the petitioner was included
in the revised select list of Deputy Transport
Commissioners for the year 2022. The first
respondent, who is also a candidate included in the
select list, challenged the validity of the inclusion
2025:KER:31193
of the petitioner in the select list before the
Kerala Administrative Tribunal on the ground that the
petitioner is an accused in Vigilance Case No.
VC/1/2019/SCK and thus he should not have been
included in the select list in view of Note (i) to
Rule 28(b)(i)(7) of Part II KS&SSR. Pursuant to the
inclusion of the petitioner in Annexure A6 select
list, the Government notionally promoted him as
Deputy Transport Commissioner by Annexure A7 order.
As there was no vacancy in the said cadre, the first
respondent, being junior to the petitioner, was
reverted to the post of Regional Transport Officer.
Thus, the first respondent challenged Annexure A7 as
well before the Tribunal.
3. We have heard Sri.Jaju Babu, the learned
Senior Counsel, instructed by Sri.Brijesh Mohan, the
learned counsel appearing for the petitioner,
Smt.Leena, the learned counsel appearing for the
2025:KER:31193
first respondent, and Sri.A.J.Varghese, the learned
Senior Government Pleader.
4. As the question to be determined in this
matter is the application of Note (i) to Rule 28(b)
(i)(7) of Part II KS&SSR, it is reproduced below,
with emphasis on the relevant part:
"Note.- (i) Officers under suspension
and officers against whom criminal
proceedings are pending in a Sessions Court
or in any other higher Court for grave
offences like murder, dacoity, etc; and
Officers against whom departmental
proceedings are taken for the imposition of a
major penalty under the disciplinary rules
applicable to them should not be included in
the select list. But the suitability of such
an Officer for promotion should be assessed
at the relevant time by the Departmental
Promotion Committee and a finding reached
whether, if the Officer had not been
suspended or the criminal proceedings/
departmental proceedings had not been pending
against him, he would have been
recommended/selected for promotion. Where a
2025:KER:31193
select list is prepared the Departmental
Promotion Committee shall also make a finding
as to what the position of the Officer in
that list would have been but for the
suspension or the criminal proceedings/
departmental proceedings against him. The
findings as to the suitability and the place
in the select list of the officer should be
recorded separately and attached to the
proceedings. The proceedings of the
Departmental Promotion Committee need only
contain a note. The findings are recorded in
the attached sheet of paper". The authority
competent to fill the vacancy should be
separately advised to fill the vacancy only
on a temporary basis. Officers against whom
vigilance or departmental proceedings are
taken after the charges have prima facie been
established in a preliminary enquiry should
not be included in the select list. But, the
cases of such Officers should also be
assessed. The question of including them in
the select list shall be considered when the
result of the enquiry is known. However
Officers against whom departmental
proceedings are taken for the imposition of a
minor penalty may be included in the select
list provisionally if they are found suitable
but for the pendency of disciplinary
2025:KER:31193
proceedings initiated against them."
The legality of excluding officers against whom an
FIR is lodged under the provisions of the Prevention
of the Corruption Act is well settled. A Division
Bench of this Court considered the said question in
detail, with reference to the said Note, in State of
Kerala and Others v. Babu Prasad (2019 KHC 940). The
Bench also examined the correctness of the decision
of a Single Bench of this Court in Sasidharan K.K. v.
State of Kerala and Others (2008 (4) KHC 146) wherein
it was held that the embargo on inclusion of a person
in the select list for promotion, who faces a
vigilance case would arise only when a charge is
framed by the Vigilance Court against the said
official. Overruling the above decision, the Division
Bench held as follows:
"15. We are unable to subscribe to the
findings in Sasidharan's case (supra). The
provision considered by the Apex Court for
2025:KER:31193
arriving at the conclusion in Janakiraman's case
(supra) is distinct from Note (i) to R.28(b)(i)
(7) of Par II KS&SSR. The marked distinction in
the terminology of Note (i), with respect to
pendency of Sessions cases and taking of
vigilance proceedings was omitted to be noted.
The distinction in the procedure with respect to
Sessions and Vigilance cases was also not
considered. The Code of Criminal Procedure which
is applicable for Sessions Cases, do not provide
for any preliminary enquiry and prima facie
establishment of charges pursuant thereto as a
precursor to registration of an FIR, but
mandates the registration of FIR on information
regarding the commission of a cognizable offence
being given to an officer-in-charge of a police
station. Per contra, as per S.17A of the P.C Act
previous approval from the appropriate
Government is a prerequisite for conduct of any
inquiry or enquiry, into any offence under the
Act, alleged to have been committed by a public
servant, after completion of which alone the FIR
can be registered.
16. Another crucial distinction is that
criminal proceedings pending against an officer
in a Sessions or higher Court, for grave
offences like murder, dacoity etc. are not
offences linked to the service of the accused
2025:KER:31193
officer as a public servant, whereas vigilance
proceedings are initiated specifically for
commission of the offence of criminal misconduct
by a public servant by abusing his official
position. This would be akin to a disciplinary
proceeding, where the requirement is the
issuance of a charge-memo. If the appropriate
Government, enjoined to grant an approval for
registration of Vigilance case is of the opinion
that the allegations are not grave enough for
registration of FIR, it may direct a
disciplinary proceeding to be carried on, in
which event the next step would be issuance of a
charge-memo. In the event of an approval being
granted, the next step would be registration of
an FIR.
17. The later part of Note(i), states about
vigilance as well as departmental proceedings
being taken against an officer on the charges
being prima facie established in a preliminary
enquiry. Paragraph 32 of the Vigilance Manual
makes it clear that a preliminary enquiry by the
Vigilance and Anti - Corruption Bureau can
result in either (i) registration of a Vigilance
case by the Bureau. (ii) enquiry by the
Vigilance Tribunal or (iii) departmental action
against the suspect officer. The taking of
disciplinary proceedings after conduct of
2025:KER:31193
preliminary enquiry by the Vigilance Department
and prima facie establishment of charges is
definitely more onerous than taking of
disciplinary proceedings straightaway by the
employer, for imposition of major penalty. The
former part of Note (i), with respect to pending
criminal proceedings before the Sessions or
higher courts for grave offence and taking of
disciplinary proceedings for imposition of major
penalties, cannot therefore be equated with the
later part, which is with respect to taking of
vigilance or departmental proceedings after the
charges are prima facie established in a
preliminary enquiry. Thus understood, the words
"officers against whom vigilance or departmental
proceedings are taken after the charges are
prima facie established in the preliminary
enquiry" can only mean, initiation of
departmental proceedings or vigilance
proceedings. A vigilance case is commenced and
deemed to be pending on submission of the report
with recommendations, based on the preliminary
enquiry conducted by the Vigilance and Anti -
Corruption Bureau along with the approval
granted by the Government for a particular
course of action, be it registration of FIR or
placement of the matter before the Vigilance
Tribunal. If the recommendation is for initiation
of departmental proceedings, the commencement of
2025:KER:31193
the proceedings will be on issuance of charge
sheet. Hence, we find that Sasidharan's case
(supra) does not lay down the correct law. An
officer against whom FIR is registered after
conducting preliminary enquiry and obtaining
approval for prosecution from the Government or
recommended to be proceeded against
departmentally by issuance of a charge-memo, is
not eligible to be included in the select list.
The DPC must adopt the sealed cover procedure in
the case of such officers."
(Emphasis added)
5. It is relevant to observe that, the first
part of Note (i) to Rule 28(b)(i)(7) of Part II
KS&SSR provides that officers against whom criminal
proceedings are pending in a Sessions Court for a
grave offence or officers against whom departmental
proceedings are taken for the imposition of major
penalty should not be included in the select list,
besides the officers under suspension. The later part
of Note (i) specifies that officers against whom
Vigilance or departmental proceedings are taken after
2025:KER:31193
the charges have been prima facie established in a
preliminary enquiry should also not be included in
the select list.
6. However, the Single Bench did not notice the
important distinction between the first part of the
Note (i) and its later part. Accordingly, it was held
that, as issuance of a memo of charges is sine qua
non for deeming that a departmental proceeding is
pending, the same analogy is to be applied to
vigilance proceedings as well and thus, it can be
said that a vigilance proceeding is pending for the
purpose of Note (i) only if charges are framed by the
Vigilance Court. Overruling this finding, the
Division Bench observed that no preliminary enquiry
is contemplated in a Sessions Case for prima facie
establishing the charges as a precursor to the
registration of an FIR. In contrast, Section 17A of
the Prevention of Corruption Act requires previous
2025:KER:31193
approval from the appropriate Government for
conducting an enquiry into any offence under the Act
and only after the completion of such preliminary
enquiry with the approval of the appropriate
authority, an FIR can be registered. Thus, framing of
charge by the Vigilance Court is not necessary to
attract the condition mentioned in Note (i), but the
mere filing of the FIR after a preliminary enquiry is
sufficient, the Bench held. Before arriving at the
above conclusions, the Division Bench has
meticulously discussed the procedure to be followed
by the Vigilance Department while registering an FIR.
The Division Bench has examined the relevant
provisions contained in the Vigilance Manual and then
concluded that the Single Bench omitted to note the
marked distinction in the terminology of Note (i)
with respect to the involvement of officers in a
Sessions Case and a vigilance proceeding. The Bench
further opined that unlike an ordinary criminal act,
2025:KER:31193
vigilance proceedings are initiated against an
officer alleging commission of criminal misconduct by
abusing official position.
7. However, Sri.Jaju Babu, the learned Senior
Counsel, took us through the last few lines in the
said judgment of the Division Bench and argued that
to attract the inhibition of Note (i), the mere
registration of an FIR after conducting a preliminary
enquiry is not enough, but approval for prosecution
from the Government under Section 19 of the
Prevention of Corruption Act is also required. We are
afraid we cannot accept the above contention. The
entire discussion made by the Division Bench was on a
completely different aspect from the application of
Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Inasmuch as the provisions in Note(i) are concerned,
the sanction order under Section 19 has no
relevance. Section 19 comes into question only when
2025:KER:31193
the court takes cognizance upon a final report. All
that was discussed in the said case was about a
previous stage of the investigation, viz., filing of
an FIR after a preliminary enquiry with the approval
of the appropriate authority. This is well evident
from the discussion made by the court in paragraph 17
itself.
8. As Note (i) provides that officers against
whom Vigilance proceedings are taken after the
charges have prima facie been established in a
preliminary enquiry should not be included in the
select list, the Division Bench was called upon to
consider when a 'Vigilance or Departmental
proceeding' can be said to have commenced and be
deemed pending. In paragraph 15, the court referred
to the requirement of previous approval from the
appropriate Government as a prerequisite for
conducting a preliminary enquiry into the offences
2025:KER:31193
under the Prevention of Corruption Act, before
lodging an FIR. In paragraph 16, the Court held that
if the appropriate Government, which is required to
grant approval for the initiation of vigilance cases,
finds that the allegations are grave enough, only
then can an FIR be registered for such offences. The
said observation was made by the Bench to clarify
that lodging an FIR with the approval of the
appropriate authority after conducting a preliminary
enquiry is a more onerous process than initiating
disciplinary proceedings by issuing a memo of
charges. It is thus obvious that the reference made
by the Court in its judgment was about the previous
approval from the Government, which is required under
Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The
Division Bench has not considered the question of
necessity of obtaining sanction under Section 19 of
the Prevention of Corruption Act for taking
cognizance by the court. A judgment must be
2025:KER:31193
understood as a verdict on facts and the applicable
law. It is well settled that judicial observations
must not be read in isolation or divorced from their
context.
9. As rightly contended by Smt.Leena, the learned
counsel for the first respondent, going by the plain
meaning of the terms used in Note (i) to Rule 28(b)
(i)(7) of Part II KS&SSR, only two conditions are to
be satisfied for excluding an officer from the select
list: (i) a vigilance/departmental proceeding is
initiated and (ii) it was initiated after a
preliminary enquiry to prima facie establish the
charge. The term 'vigilance proceeding' is to be
understood as a Vigilance Case initiated by the
Vigilance & Anti-Corruption Bureau and the term
'charge' is to be understood as the allegations against
the officer in such a case. If an FIR is lodged after
such a preliminary enquiry against an officer by the
Vigilance and Anti-corruption Bureau, the above twin
2025:KER:31193
conditions are attracted and thus the name of the
officer cannot be included in the select list.
However, if it is only a disciplinary proceeding, the
above conditions would be attracted only when a
charge memo is issued. In short, the gist of the
ratio in Babu Prasad's case (supra) is that, if it is
a vigilance case, initiation of an FIR after the
approval of the preliminary enquiry report by the
Government is sufficient to hold that the above twin
conditions are satisfied.
10. There is no dispute that an FIR was
registered against the petitioner herein after
conducting a preliminary enquiry and after obtaining
the previous approval. Hence Note (i) to Rule 28(b)
(i)(7) of Part II KS&SSR prohibits his inclusion in
the select list. The decision of the Tribunal is thus
unimpeachable.
In the result, the original petition is
2025:KER:31193
dismissed and the impugned order is upheld.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
JUDGE
Sd/-
P. KRISHNA KUMAR
sv JUDGE
2025:KER:31193
APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 35/2025
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION, GO(P) NO.
23/2022/TRANS. DATED 20.7.2022 ISSUED BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN OA
Annexure A2 TRUE COPY NOTIFICATION, GO(P) NO.
24/2023/TRANS. DATED 11.10.2023 PUBLISHED
BY THE ADDL. CHIEF SECRETARY AND
CONVENER, DPC (H)
Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF GO(RT) NO. 564/2023/TRANS.
DATED 16.12.2023 PROMOTING THE APPLICANT
IN OA AS DEPUTY TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER
Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. A1/40/2024-TC
OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN OA TO ALL DEPUTY
TRANSPORT COMMISSIONERS AND PROVISIONAL
SENIORITY LIST OF DEPUTY TRANSPORT
COMMISSIONERS AS ON 1.1.2024
Annexure A5 TRUE COPY OF GO(RT) NO. 8/2024/TRANS
DATED 5.1.2024 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN
OA IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE ORDER OF THIS
HON'BLE TRIBUNAL OA(EKM) NO. 1298/2022
Annexure A6 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION AS PER
GO(P) NO. 7/2024 /TRANS. DATED 30.3.2024
PUBLISHED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN OA
Annexure A7 TRUE COPY OF GO(RT) NO. 187/2024/TRANS.
DATED 25.5.2024 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN
OA
Annexure R1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE ENQUIRY
COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL JUDGE , KOTTAYAM
DATED 20.3.2024 IN VC NO. 5/2017/SCE
2025:KER:31193
Annexure R4(a) TRUE COPY OF THE GO(RT) NO.
80/2021/TRANSPORT DATED 15.2.2021 ISSUED
BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN OA
Annexure R4(b) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 5.8.2024 OF
THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA CRL. MC
Annexure R4(c) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.6.2017
IN WP(C) NO. 430/2017 OF THE HONBLE HIGH
COURT OF KERALA
Annexure R4(d) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
19.10.2017 IN OP(CRL) NO. 427/2017 AND
CONNECTED CASES OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT
OF KERALA
Annexure R4(e) TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 22.6.2023 IN
CRL. MC NO. 2804/2023 AND CONNECTED CASES
OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Annexure A8 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO. 01/2019/SCK
DATED 20.12.2019, REGISTERED BY VACB,
SPECIAL CELL, KOZHIKODE POLICE STATION
Annexure A9 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
MINUTES OF ADHOC DPC (HIGHER) HELD ON
22.2.2024
Annexure A10 TRUE COPY OF THE GO(RT) NO.
44/2019/TRANS. DATED 29.1.2019 ISSUED BY
THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN OA
Annexure A10(a) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE
FINAL REPORT NO. 9/2019 DATED 31.8.2019
SUBMITTED BEFORE THE HONBLE COURT AND
ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL JUDGE ,
KOTTAYAM
Annexure A11 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13.10.2023
OF THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL IN OA (EKM) NO.
2025:KER:31193
Annexure A12 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE DIVISION
BENCH OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA
IN STATE OF KERALA AND ORS VS BABU PRASAD
B 2019 KHC 940/2020 (OP KAT NO. 336/2019
DATED 26.10.2019)
Annexure A13 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE
TRIBUNAL IN OA NO. 834/2019 DATED
25.2.2020
Annexure A14 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
MINUTES OF ADHOC (DPC) (H) OF THE MOTOR
VEHICLE DEPARTMENT HELD ON 8.2.2021
Annexure R4(f) TRUE COPY OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE DATED
23.12.2024 SUBMITTED BY THE
MISCE.APPLICANT /4TH RESPONDENT BEFORE
THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, HOME AND
VIGILANCE , GOVT.SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
Annexure R4(g) TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NO. VIG
-A3/274/2024-VIG DATED 3.1.2025 ISSUED BY
THE STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER AND
DEPUTY SECRETARY, VIGILANCE (A)
DEPARTMENT TO ANNEXURE R4(F)
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF O.A.NO.828/2024 ALONG WITH
ANNEXURES A1 TO A7
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT FILED BY THE
1ST RESPONDENT IN OA IN OA NO. 828/2024
DATED 30.9.2024
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF MEMORANDUM FILED ON BEHALF
OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT ALONG WITH
DOCUMENTS IN OA NO. 828/2024, DATED
30.10.2024
2025:KER:31193
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF ADDITIONAL STATEMENT FILED
BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN THE OA NO.
828/2024 DATED 18.12.2024 ALONG WITH
ANNEXURE R1(A)
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE
PETITIONER/4TH RESPONDENT IN THE OA NO.
828/2024 DATED 29.10.2024 ALONG WITH
ANNEXURE R4(A) TO R4(E)
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF MA.NO.1165/2024 IN
OA.NO.828/2024 FILED BY THE APPLICANT IN
OA DATED 14.6.2024 BEFORE THE KAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE MA.NO.1166/2024 FILED BY
THE 1ST RESPONDENT/APPLICANT IN
OA.NO.828/2024 ALONG WITH ANNEXURE.A8
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF M.A NO.2042/2024 IN OA NO.
828/2024 FILED BY THE APPLICANT IN OA
DATED 31.10.2024 ALONG WITH ANNEXURE A9
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER FILED BY THE
1ST RESPONDENT HEREIN/APPLICANT IN OA
AGAINST THE REPLY STATEMENT OF THE 4TH
RESPONDENT IN OA 828/2024 DATED 9.11.2024
ALONG WITH ANNEXURE A10 TO A12
Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE MA NO. 6/2025 IN OA NO.
828/2024 FILED BY THE APPLICANT IN OA
DATED 29.12.2024 ALONG WITH ANNEXURES A
13 AND A14
Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE MA NO. 60/2025 IN OA NO.
828/2024 FILED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT IN
OA DATED 7.1.2025 ALONG WITH ANNEXURES
R4(F) AND R4(G)
Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21.1.2025 IN
OA NO. 828/2024 OF THE KERALA
2025:KER:31193
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
