Kerala High Court
Ashik, V. S,S/O. Vikraman vs State Of Kerala, Represented on 13 March, 2025
Author: A.Muhamed Mustaque
Bench: A.Muhamed Mustaque
O.P.(KAT)Nos.504 & 544 of 2024
1
2025:KER:21075
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR
THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 22ND PHALGUNA, 1946
OP(KAT) NO. 504 OF 2024
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 25.09.2024 IN OA NO.1049 OF
2022 OF KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONER/APPLICANT:
AKHIL P.,
AGED 31 YEARS
S/O. PANKAJAKSHAN NAIR, PARANKIMAVILA VEEDU,
NETHAJIPURAM, SANTHIGIRI P.O, POTHENCODE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695589
BY ADVS.
JINSON OUSEPH
BASIL MECHERY
CHITRA VIJAYAN
S.VIJAYAN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT:
1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED
BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, HOME &
VIGILANCE, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
O.P.(KAT)Nos.504 & 544 of 2024
2
2025:KER:21075
2 COMMANDANT,
SPECIAL ARMED POLICE, PEROORKADA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695005
3 KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE
KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM, PALACE
PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695004
4 ADDITIONAL DIRECT GENERAL OF POLICE
(INTELLIGENCE),
OFFICE OF THE ADDITIONAL DIRECT GENERAL OF POLICE
(INTELLIGENCE), PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695004
BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.SUNILKUMAR KURIAKOSE
THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP
FOR HEARING ON 12.02.2025, ALONG WITH OP(KAT).544/2024, THE
COURT ON 13.03.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
O.P.(KAT)Nos.504 & 544 of 2024
3
2025:KER:21075
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR
THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 22ND PHALGUNA, 1946
OP(KAT) NO. 544 OF 2024
PETITIONER/S:
ASHIK, V. S,S/O. VIKRAMAN,
AGED 29 YEARS
UDAYANKUZHI VAYALIL VEEDU, NEDUNGANDA P.O.,
VARKALA, KOLLAM, PIN - 695307
BY ADVS.
O.V.MANIPRASAD
JOSE ANTONY
HARIKRISHNAN P.
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED
BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY,HOME &
VIGILANCE, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
(INTELLIGENCE),
OFFICE OF THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF
O.P.(KAT)Nos.504 & 544 of 2024
4
2025:KER:21075
POLICE (INTELLIGENCE), PATTOM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695005
3 COMMANDANT,
KERALA ARMED POLICE 5TH BATTALION, KUTTIKANAM,
LDUKKI, PIN - 685531
4 KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE
KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
PATTOM PALACE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695004
BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.SUNILKUMAR KURIAKOSE
THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP
FOR HEARING ON 12.02.2025, ALONG WITH OP(KAT).504/2024, THE
COURT ON 13.03.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
O.P.(KAT)Nos.504 & 544 of 2024
5
2025:KER:21075
JUDGMENT
P.Krishna Kumar, J.
The petitioner, who was advised by the
Public Service Commission for appointment as a
Police Driver, was not called for training alleging
that he had indulged in certain criminal cases and
thus his character and antecedents are not
befitting to the said post. The petitioner
challenged Annexure A9 communication in this regard
by contending that the three criminal cases in
which he was implicated had occurred as part of his
student life activities at Mahatma Gandhi College,
Thiruvananthapuram and the actual allegations made
against him were only of a trifling nature.
O.P.(KAT)Nos.504 & 544 of 2024
2025:KER:21075
2. He also contended that among the three
cases, two cases were already over as he pleaded
guilty to the charges and he was sentenced to pay a
fine of Rs.1,900/- each. In the third case, he was
acquitted by the Assistant Sessions Judge,
Thiruvananthapuram, after a full-fledged trial by
Annexure A4 judgment, on finding that none of the
witnesses including the police officials were able
to identify any of the accused persons. He also
attempted to clarify that the Verification Roll
which he had to submit before joining the service
was in a bilingual proforma and the terms used in
the Malayalam language were different from the
requirements given in the English version.
According to him, because of that confusion, he
did not furnish the details of the two cases which
were already disposed of on payment of a fine,
though he provided the details of the other case.
O.P.(KAT)Nos.504 & 544 of 2024
2025:KER:21075
3. The respondents contended that offences
alleged against him are grave in nature and there
is no justification for suppressing the relevant
facts in the Verification Roll and thus he is not
suitable to be appointed in the Police force. The
State further contended that the Kerala Police
constabulary being a disciplined and uniformed
force, persons with unblemished character alone
could be appointed therein. It is also contended
that the terms used in the Verification Roll were
specific and precise and hence the contention that
it caused confusion is incorrect, especially when
the petitioner is a graduate.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader.
5. The law has been settled by the Honourable
Supreme Court in Avtar Singh v. Union of India and
Others [(2016) 8 SCC 471) as to the essential
matters to be considered while rejecting the
O.P.(KAT)Nos.504 & 544 of 2024
2025:KER:21075
candidature of a person on account of his criminal
antecedents. After considering a catena of
decisions dealing with the propriety of appointing
persons involved in criminal cases, the Apex Court
set out the following guidelines for the compliance
of the appointing authority when the candidate to
be appointed has a criminal background.
"38. We have noticed various decisions and
tried to explain and reconcile them as far
as possible. In view of the aforesaid
discussion, we summarise our conclusion
thus:
38.1. Information given to the employer by a
candidate as to conviction, acquittal or
arrest, or pendency of a criminal case,
whether before or after entering into
service must be true and there should be no
suppression or false mention of required
information.
38.2. While passing an order of termination
of services or cancellation of candidature
for giving false information, the employer
may take notice of special circumstances of
O.P.(KAT)Nos.504 & 544 of 2024
2025:KER:21075
the case, if any, while giving such
information.
38.3. The employer shall take into
consideration the government
orders/instructions/rules, applicable to the
employee, at the time of taking the
decision.
38.4. In case there is suppression or false
information of involvement in a criminal
case where conviction or acquittal had
already been recorded before filling of the
application/verification form and such fact
later comes to knowledge of employer, any of
the following recourses appropriate to the
case may be adopted:
38.4.1. In a case trivial in nature in which
conviction had been recorded, such as
shouting slogans at young age or for a petty
offence which if disclosed would not have
rendered an incumbent unfit for post in
question, the employer may, in its
discretion, ignore such suppression of fact
or false information by condoning the lapse.
38.4.2. Where conviction has been recorded
in case which is not trivial in nature,
employer may cancel candidature or terminate
services of the employee.
O.P.(KAT)Nos.504 & 544 of 2024
2025:KER:21075
38.4.3. If acquittal had already been
recorded in a case involving moral turpitude
or offence of heinous/serious nature, on
technical ground and it is not a case of
clean acquittal, or benefit of reasonable
doubt has been given, the employer may
consider all relevant facts available as to
antecedents, and may take appropriate
decision as to the continuance of the
employee.
38.5. In a case where the employee has made
declaration truthfully of a concluded
criminal case, the employer still has the
right to consider antecedents, and cannot be
compelled to appoint the candidate.
38.6. In case when fact has been truthfully
declared in character verification form
regarding pendency of a criminal case of
trivial nature, employer, in facts and
circumstances of the case, in its
discretion, may appoint the candidate
subject to decision of such case.
38.7. In a case of deliberate suppression of
fact with respect to multiple pending cases
such false information by itself will assume
significance and an employer may pass
appropriate order cancelling candidature or
O.P.(KAT)Nos.504 & 544 of 2024
2025:KER:21075
terminating services as appointment of a
person against whom multiple criminal cases
were pending may not be proper.
38.8. If criminal case was pending but not
known to the candidate at the time of
filling the form, still it may have adverse
impact and the appointing authority would
take decision after considering the
seriousness of the crime.
38.9. In case the employee is confirmed in
service, holding departmental enquiry would
be necessary before passing order of
termination/removal or dismissal on the
ground of suppression or submitting false
information in verification form.
38.10. For determining suppression or false
information attestation/verification form
has to be specific, not vague. Only such
information which was required to be
specifically mentioned has to be disclosed.
If information not asked for but is relevant
comes to knowledge of the employer the same
can be considered in an objective manner
while addressing the question of fitness.
However, in such cases action cannot be
taken on basis of suppression or submitting
false information as to a fact which was not
O.P.(KAT)Nos.504 & 544 of 2024
2025:KER:21075
even asked for.
38.11. Before a person is held guilty of
suppressio veri or suggestio falsi,
knowledge of the fact must be attributable
to him."
6. As far as the facts of the present case
are concerned, the directions Nos.38.1, 2 and 4 are
relevant. The allegation against the petitioner in
one of the said cases (Crime No.1124/2013) was
indeed very serious. The offences involved therein
include Sections 308 and 149 of the India Penal
Code and Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive
Substance Act. However, the petitioner was
acquitted of the charges by Annexure A4 judgment.
Now the question is, whether it was a clean
acquittal as held by the Apex Court.
7. When we pursue Annexure A4 judgment, we
find that there is no iota of evidence even to
suspect that the petitioner had any complicity in
O.P.(KAT)Nos.504 & 544 of 2024
2025:KER:21075
the said offence. The contention of the petitioner
before us is that he was wrongly implicated in the
said case and he was never arrested by the Police.
Through the said judgment, the Assistant Sessions
Judge acquitted all the accused persons by holding
that none of the witnesses including the police
officials were able to identify any of the accused
persons. Apart from relying on the said judgment
and the case records, the Government did not
independently consider whether the petitioner had
any role in that case. In the absence of any such
materials, the alleged involvement of the
petitioner in that case cannot be cited as a ground
to decline his appointment. It is relevant to note
that the said case was also registered by the
Police in respect of some student protest in the
college of the petitioner.
8. The allegations in the other two criminal
cases, in our opinion, are not serious and
O.P.(KAT)Nos.504 & 544 of 2024
2025:KER:21075
admittedly occurred in connection with student
agitations in the college of the petitioner. In
Crime No.998/2013, the summary of the allegation as
is evident from Annexure A9 is that the petitioner
and certain other students led a procession
shouting slogans, damaged the chair of the security
guard and squatted in the road in front of the main
gate of the Mahatma Gandhi college and caused
obstruction to the vehicular traffic. The
allegation in Crime No.1057/2013 is also the same.
In both these cases, the petitioner appeared before
the court and pleaded guilty and paid a fine of
Rs.1,900/- each.
9. The Apex Court in Avtar Singh's case
(supra) has observed that even when an employee
gave false information about his antecedents, the
employer may take notice of special circumstances
of the case which resulted in furnishing false
information, before proposing an order of
O.P.(KAT)Nos.504 & 544 of 2024
2025:KER:21075
cancellation of the candidature or termination of
service. In this case, the petitioner had furnished
the details of one case, but did not mention the
other two cases.
10. According to the petitioner, he did not
furnish such details believing that it was not
required to state about those cases, as the format
of the Verification Roll caused some confusion. It
is contended that from the Malayalam version of the
question in Column No.19(a) in the proforma of the
Verification Roll, what he understood was that he
was not bound to answer the question in Column
No.19(b). Whatever may be that, as we noted above,
the allegations against the petitioner in those
cases are trivial in nature and were the result of
student indiscretions. The Apex Court in Avtar
Singh's case (supra) further opined that at a young
age, people often commit mistakes and such lapses
are often condonable considering the immaturity of
O.P.(KAT)Nos.504 & 544 of 2024
2025:KER:21075
youthful offenders, while deciding whether their
candidature for employment is to be rejected or
not. As we observed above, even in the case in
which he was tried and acquitted, the alleged
incident occurred as part of a strike in his
college. Anyway, we need not advert to the details
of the said case as there is nothing on record to
suspect his involvement in it.
11. The allegations against the petitioner in
the criminal cases being the nature as referred to
above, we are of the opinion that denying his
candidature by concluding that the character and
antecedents of the petitioner are not satisfactory,
is arbitrary and unfair. In Annexure A9, the
Government took that decision by drawing authority
from Section 86 of the Kerala Police Act and Rule
10(b)(iii) of the Kerala State & Subordinate
Services Rules.Earlier, this Court had the occasion
to consider almost similar aspects in State of
O.P.(KAT)Nos.504 & 544 of 2024
2025:KER:21075
Kerala & Others v. Durgadas & Another (2023 (6) KHC
339). In that case, a person was denied appointment
to the Police department citing that the department
found his character and antecedents unsatisfactory
because of his involvement in certain criminal
cases. In the said circumstances, this Court
observed that involvement in criminal cases can
certainly be considered as relevant material while
verifying the character and antecedents, but the
same should not in itself be taken as a ground to
conclude that the person is of bad character/
antecedents. The court further held that the
allegations in the criminal cases have to be
considered independently to assess the character
and integrity of a person. It is also observed that
based on the mere allegations in the prosecution
case, the Government should not hold that the
person is disqualified for appointment in Police
service, by resorting to Rule 10(b)(iii) of the
O.P.(KAT)Nos.504 & 544 of 2024
2025:KER:21075
KS&SSR and Section 86 of the Police Act.
12. In Annexure A9 order, the Government did
not consider the character and antecedents of the
petitioner in an objective manner, independent of
his mere involvement in the criminal cases. The
Government did not follow the law laid down by this
court before arriving at such a conclusion. Thus,
merely for the reason that the petitioner suffered
a sentence of fine on pleading guilty in a case
where allegations of trivial nature are made
against him, we do not find any justification in
issuing Annexure A9 order, particularly in view of
the guidelines issued by the Honourable Apex Court
in Avtar Singh's case.
13. In view of the above discussion, we are
of the opinion that the conclusions arrived at by
the Government to hold against the candidature of
the petitioner are grossly erroneous and
unsustainable. The Tribunal also did not consider
O.P.(KAT)Nos.504 & 544 of 2024
2025:KER:21075
the law laid down in this regard by the Honourable
Supreme Court as well as this Court, in its proper
perspective. The learned Tribunal rejected the
claim of the petitioner without referring to the
allegations made against him in the said cases and
the shallow nature of the assessment made by the
Government while issuing Annexure A9 order.
Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set
aside.
14. The petitioner in this case applied for
the post of Civil Police Officer for various
Battalions of the Kerala Armed Police. He belongs
to a scheduled caste community. He was advised by
the Public Service Commission, but he was served
with Annexure A15 order dated 23.10.2021 refusing
appointment on the ground that his character and
antecedents were found unsatisfactory, as he had
been involved in a criminal case. Similar to the
O.P.(KAT)Nos.504 & 544 of 2024
2025:KER:21075
contentions raised by the petitioner in O.P.
(KAT)No.504/2024, the petitioner herein also
contended that he omitted to mention the details of
the said case believing that the same is not
required as the offences alleged therein were
compounded on paying fine. According to him, he was
falsely implicated in that case on a mistaken
identity and he pleaded guilty to avoid unnecessary
complications, following the advice of a Police
officer.
15. We perused Annexure A15 order issued by the
Government to consider whether the Government acted
fairly while arriving at the above conclusion. The
allegation against the petitioner in Crime
No.1524/2017 was that on 19.11.2017 at 2 p.m., he
uttered abusive words and showed some sexual
gestures, in a public place. The explanation
offered by the petitioner was that at the age of
23 when the petitioner was asked by a Police
O.P.(KAT)Nos.504 & 544 of 2024
2025:KER:21075
officer attached to Kadakkavoor police station to
pay a fine in a petty case against him, he pleaded
guilty and remitted the fine believing the advice
given by the said Police officer that it would help
him from avoiding unwanted complications of
contesting the case on merit. According to the
petitioner, he was never involved in the said case
and he was implicated in it on a mistaken identity.
Even if the said explanation cannot be given any
credence, we do not find that the involvement in
such a case alone is sufficient to decline the
candidature of the petitioner. The petitioner
belongs to a marginalised community. The allegation
against him, i.e., showing some sexual gestures and
uttering abusive words at the age of 23, if
considered as so serious to deny him public
employment, it would be an unfair and arbitrary
exercise and against the law settled by the
Honourable Supreme Court in Avtar Singh's case.
O.P.(KAT)Nos.504 & 544 of 2024
2025:KER:21075
16. The learned counsel for the petitioner
placed reliance on the decision rendered by this
court in Binnesh Babu @ Bineesh Babu v. State of
Kerala (2024 (3) KHC 364) wherein this Court has
taken a lenient view in a similar matter following
the decision in Avtar Singh's case. The applicant
in the said case was involved in many criminal
cases and was imposed with a fine on pleading
guilty in certain cases. However, this court held
that he being a person belonging to a scheduled
caste community, the State must act with fairness
and show genuine concern for its citizens, while
striving to achieve the status of a true welfare
State, by addressing social disparities and
acknowledging that not everyone in our society has
the same access to resources and opportunities.
17. Considering the entire materials available
before us, we find that the Government did not act
fairly while issuing Annexure A15 order and hence
O.P.(KAT)Nos.504 & 544 of 2024
2025:KER:21075
the same is liable to be set aside.
In the result, O.P.(KAT)Nos.504/2024 and
544/2024 are allowed. The impugned order and
Annexure A9 in O.P.(KAT)No.504/2024 and Annexure
A15 in O.P.(KAT)No.544/2024 are set aside. The
respondents are directed to appoint the petitioners
in accordance with law, based on the advice made by
the Public Service Commission.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
JUDGE
Sd/-
P.KRISHNA KUMAR
JUDGE
sv
O.P.(KAT)Nos.504 & 544 of 2024
2025:KER:21075
APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 544/2024
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE SSLC CERTIFICATE WHICH
COMMUNITY ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, BOARD
OF PUBLIC EXAMINATION, KERALA BASED ON
THE EXAMINATION RESULT PUBLISHED ON
03/05/2010. SHOWS THAT THE APPLICANT
BELONGS TO SC HINDU KURAVAN.
Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE, EXTRA ORDINARY GAZETTE
DATED 30.12.2017 INVITING APPLICATION
FOR THE POST OF CIVIL POLICE OFFICER
(POLICE CONSTABLE) (ARMED POLICE
BATTALION) FOR VARIOUS BATTALIONS OF
KERALA ARMED POLICE PUBLISHED BY THE 4TH
RESPONDENT
Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE SUMMONS DATED
20/03/2018 IN CC NO. 319/2018 ISSUED BY
THE JFMC-I,VARKKALA.
Annexure A3 (a) TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO. 670161 IN
FORM TR5 FOR RS. 2500/- AS FINE IN CC
NO. 319/2018 DATED 16/04/2018 ISSUED BY
THE OFFICE OF THE JFMC-I, VARKALA.
AnnexureA4 TRUE COPY OF THE ABSTRACT OF THE RANK
LIST PUBLISHED VIDE NO. 374/19/DOJ CAT.
NO. 657/2017 W.E.F 01.07.2019 BY THE 4"
RESPONDENT.
Annexure A5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER IN A2
11701/2020/KAP-\V DATED 01.10.2020
ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
Annexure A6 TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE NO.
SSB3/45/2021/HOME DATED 01/02I2021
ISSUED BY R. SHEELARANI, SPECIAL
O.P.(KAT)Nos.504 & 544 of 2024
2025:KER:21075
SECRETARY OF THE OFFICE OF THE 1ST
RESPONDENT.
Annexure A7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED ANNEXURE A6
01/02/2021 TO SHOW CAUSE NOTICE
SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT BEFORE THE
SPECIAL SECRETARY, HOME (SSB) DEPARTMENT
OF THE OFFICE OF THE 1 RESPONDENT.
Annexure A8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13/11/2020
IN OA NO. 1775/2020 OF THIS HON'B<E
TRIBUNAL.
Annexure A9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDR DATED 06.08.2021
IN OA 740/2021 FILED BY ASHIK V.S.
(COMMON ORDER IN OA 740/2021 & 957/2021
FILED UY SUHAIL MOHAMMED A.)
Annexure A10 TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED
12.08.2021 OF THE APPLICANT BEFORE THE 1
RESPONDENT.
Annexure A11 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
27/11/2021 SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT
BEFORE THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
KADAYKAVOOR.
Annexure A 11 (a) TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 01/12/2021
RECEIVED FROM THE STATE PUBLIC
INFORMATION OFFICER AND INSPECTOR SHP OF
KADAYKAVOOR POLICE STATION.
Annexure A12 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
10.12.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT
BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT THROUGH THE
HON'BLE CHIEF MINISTER.
Annexure A 13 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED
22.12.2021 ISSUED BY THE 1 RESPONDENT TO
THE APPLICANT.
O.P.(KAT)Nos.504 & 544 of 2024
2025:KER:21075
Annexure A14 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER NO.
A2-11000/2019/SAP DATED 30.12.2021
ISSUED BY THE COMMANDANT SAP APPOINTINA.
SRI. SUHAIL MOHAMMED AS POLICE CONSTABLE
BASEG ON THE CLEARANCE OF THE 1ST
RESPONDENT
Annexure A14(a) TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED
19.08.2022 IN NO G1/417/2022 S FROM THE
STATE PUBLICTRUE COPY OF THE COVERING
LETTER DATED 19.08.2022 IN NO
G1/417/2022 S FROM THE STATE PUBLICTRUE
COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED
19.08.2022 IN NO G1/417/2022 S FROM THE
STATE PUBLICINFORMATION OFFICER OF THE
OFFICE OF THE COMMANDANT SAP ISSUED TO
THE APPLICANT ALONG WITH ANNEXURE A14.
Annexure A15 TRUE COPY OF THE GO(RT) NO:
2894/2021/HOME DATED 23/10/2021 OF THE
1" RESPONDENT.
Annexure A16 TRUE COPY OF THE VERIFICATION RóLI IN
ANNEXURE VIL FOM VI OF THE KERALA
POLICE.
Annexure A17 TRUE COPY OF GO(RT) NO: 1958/2022/HOME
DATED 15/07/2022 OF THE 1 RESPONDENT.
Annexure A17(a) TRUE COPY OF THE GO(RT) 2712/2022/HOME
DAED 01/10R2022 OF THE 1 RESPONDENT.
Annexure A18 TRUE COPY OF THE CITIZEN COPY OF THE FIR
IN CRIME 1524/2017 OF KADAKKAVOOR POLICE
STATION.
Annexure R1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE VERIFICATION ROLL
FILLED UP BY THE APPLICANT DATED
14.10.2020.
Annexure A19 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 15/03/2024 IN
O.P.(KAT)Nos.504 & 544 of 2024
2025:KER:21075
OP (KAT) 315 OF 2023 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH
COURT OF KERALA.
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE OA NO. 354 OF 2023
DATED 28.02.2023 BEFORE THE KERALA
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL .
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT DATED
17.04.2023 FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
IN OA 354/2023.
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER DATED
28.05.2023 FILED BY THE APPLICANT .
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL REPLY
STATEMENT DATED 01.07.2024 IN OA 354 OF
2023 .
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL REJOINDER
DATED 21.04.2024 IN OA NO. 354 OF 2023 .
Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
25.09.2024 IN OA NO. 354 OF 2023 .
Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE IN CRIME NO.
1524 OF 2017 OF KADAKAVOOR POLICE
STATION .
O.P.(KAT)Nos.504 & 544 of 2024
2025:KER:21075
APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 504/2024
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE ADVICE MEMO NO. RIA (3)
3504/2020/GW DATED 23.10.2021 OF THE 3RD
RESPONDENT.
Annexure A1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE ABSTRACT OF THE
APPOINTMENT CHART IN CATEGORY NO.
385/2018 PUBLISHED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
IN NO. RIA(3) 3504/2020/GW WHEREIN THE
APPLICANT WAS INCLUDED AS SERIAL NUMBER
Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT IN NO. 639047
DATED 22.11.2021 IN CC 45/2017 ISSUED BY
THE OFFICE OF THE JFMC XI OF
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM IN BOOK NO. 06191
Annexure A2(a) TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO. 639046
DATED 22.11.2021 IN CC 1565/2016 ISSUED
BY THE OFFICE OF THE JFMC XI OF
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM IN BOOK NO. 06191
Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE ABSTRACT OF
VERIFICATION ROLL PERTAINING TO THE
CANDIDATES SEEKING APPOINTMENT IN THE
POLICE DEPARTMENT
Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 07/1/2022 IN
SC 1200/2015 OF THE PRINCIPAL ASSISTANT
SESSIONS JUDGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
Annexure A5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 08.02.2022
IN OA 2423/2021 ISSUED BY THE HON'BLE
KAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
Annexure A6 TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE NO.
SSB3/46/2022/HOME DATED 08.02.2022
O.P.(KAT)Nos.504 & 544 of 2024
2025:KER:21075
ISSUED BY SMT. PRIYAMOL M.P, DEPUTY
SECRETARY OF THE OFFICE OF THE 1ST
RESPONDENT.
Annexure A7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 11.02.2022
TO ANNEXURE A6 SHOW CAUSE NOTICE
SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT BEFORE THE
1ST RESPONDENT.
Annexure A8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16.02.2022
IN OA 2423/2021 ISSUED BY THE HON'BLE
KAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
Annexure A9 TRUE COPY OF THE GO(RT) NO.
729/2022/HOME DATED 18.03.2022 ISSUED BY
THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Annexure A10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 06.08.2021
IN OA 957/2021 ISSUED BY THE HON'BLE
KAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
Annexure A11 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. A2-
11000/2019/SAP DATED 30/12/2021 OF THE
COMMANDANT, SAP, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PRODUCED ALONG WITH EXHIBIT P2.
Annexure A12 TRUE COPY OF THE GO(RT) NO.
1958/2022/HOME DATED 15/07/2022 ISSUED
BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT PRODUCED ALONG
WITH EXHIBIT P3.
Annexure A13 TRUE COPY OF THE GO(RT)NO.
2712/2022/HOME DATED 01.10.2022 ISSUED
BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT PRODUCED ALONG
WITH EXHIBIT P3.
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION
1049 OF 2022 ALONG WITH ANNEXURES A1 TO
A13 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE
KAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
O.P.(KAT)Nos.504 & 544 of 2024
2025:KER:21075
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT DATED
20/07/2022 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REJIOINDER DATED
15/08/2022 FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO
THE EXHIBIT P2 REPLY STATEMENT.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE MA NO. 1997/2022 DATED
10/10/2022 IN OA NO. 1049/2022.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE MA NO. 2110/2022 DATED
28/10/2022 IN OA NO. 1049/2022.
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL REPLY
STATEMENT DATED 11/11/2022 OF THE 1ST
RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL REJIOINDER
DATED 16/05/2023 FILED BY THE PETITIONER
TO THE EXHIBIT P6 ADDITIONAL REPLY
STATEMENT.
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM DATED
09/09/2024 FILED BY THE GOVERNMENT
PLEADER REGARDING PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENT
ALONG WITH VERIFICATION ROLL DATED
25/11/2021 OF THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit P9 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
25/09/2024 IN OA 1049/2022 OF THE KERALA
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL.
