[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Vinodan. V. N vs State Of Kerala on 6 April, 2026
Author: Anil K.Narendran
Bench: Anil K.Narendran
2026:KER:28697
1
OP(KAT)No.38 and 56 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
MONDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF APRIL 2026 / 16TH CHAITHRA, 1948
OP(KAT) NO. 38 OF 2026
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 07.11.2024 IN OA NO.1683 OF 2022 OF
KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONER/APPLICANT:
MADHUSOODHANAN T.M, AGED 64 YEARS
S/O GOPALAN, SI OF POLICE (RTD), OFFICE OF THE DYSP,
SB CID, KANNUR - 688 001 CURRENTLY RESIDING AT :
ALILLA, POOKOD P.O, PATHAYAKUNNU (VIA), PATTYAM,
KANNUR, PIN - 670691
BY ADVS.
SRI.JINSON OUSEPH
SMT.CHITRA VIJAYAN
SHRI.BASIL MECHERY
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY HOME &
VIGILANCE, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 STATE POLICE CHIEF
POLICE HEADQUARTERS, VELLAYAMBALAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695010
3 INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, NORTH ZONE
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, NORTH ZONE,
NADAKKAVU, KOZHIKKODE, PIN - 673011
2026:KER:28697
2
OP(KAT)No.38 and 56 of 2026
4 DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, KANNUR
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
KANNUR RANGE, KANNUR, PIN - 670001
5 DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF & COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, KANNUR
CITY , OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF &
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, KANNUR CITY, KANNUR, PIN -
670002
SMT.PRINCY XAVIER, SR.G.P
THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL WAS FINALLY HEARD ON
16.3.2026 ALONG WITH OPKAT 56 OF 2026, THE COURT ON 6.4.2026 PASSED
THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:28697
3
OP(KAT)No.38 and 56 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
MONDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF APRIL 2026 / 16TH CHAITHRA, 1948
OP(KAT) NO. 56 OF 2026
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 07.11.2024 IN OA NO.1633 OF 2021 OF
KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONER/APPLICANT:
VINODAN. V. N
AGED 55 YEARS
S/O ACHUTHAN, GRADE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
KOOTHUPARAMBA POLICE STATION, KANNUR CITY, KANNUR -
670 643 CURRENTLY RESIDING AT : POLICE QUARTERS,
MATTANNUR, KANNUR, PIN - 670702
BY ADVS.
SRI.JINSON OUSEPH
SMT.CHITRA VIJAYAN
SHRI.BASIL MECHERY
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY IN
CHARGE OF HOME & VIGILANCE, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 STATE POLICE CHIEF
POLICE HEADQUARTERS, VELLAYAMBALAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695010
3 INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, NORTH ZONE
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, NORTH ZONE,
2026:KER:28697
4
OP(KAT)No.38 and 56 of 2026
NADAKKAVU, KOZHIKKODE, PIN - 673011
4 DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, KANNUR RANGE
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
KANNUR RANGE, KANNUR, PIN - 670003
5 DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF & COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, KANNUR
CITY, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF &
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, KANNUR CITY, KANNUR, PIN -
670002
6 CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KANNUR CITY
OFFICE OF THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KANNUR CITY,
KANNUR, PIN - 670003
SMT.PRINCY XAVIER, SR.G.P
THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL WAS FINALLY HEARD ON
16.3.2026 ALONG WITH OPKAT 38 OF 2026, THE COURT ON 6.4.2026 PASSED
THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:28697
5
OP(KAT)No.38 and 56 of 2026
COMMON JUDGMENT
Muralee Krishna, J.
The applicant in O.A.No.1683 of 2022 filed O.P.(KAT)No.38
of 2026 and the applicant in O.A.No.1633 of 2021 filed
O.P.(KAT)No.56 of 2026, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of
this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,
challenging the common order dated 07.11.2024 passed by the
Kerala Administrative Tribunal at Thiruvananthapuram, (the
'Tribunal' for short).
2. The petitioner in O.P.(KAT)No.56 of 2026 is currently
working as a Sub Inspector (Grade) at Koothuparamba Police
Station. The petitioner in O.P.(KAT)No.38 of 2026 joined service
on 24.07.1984 as a Police Constable of District Armed Service,
Kannur and retired from service on superannuation on
31.05.2017. While the petitioner in O.P.(KAT)No.56 of 2026 was
working as Police Constable attached to the Crime Squad of the
Deputy Superintendent of Police, Panoor Circle and the petitioner
in O.P.(KAT)No.38 of 2026 was working as Police Constable at
Kolavalloor Police Station, both of them, as authorized by Deputy
Superintendent of Police, proceeded to arrest one Vinodan who
2026:KER:28697
OP(KAT)No.38 and 56 of 2026
was an absconding accused in LP Case Nos.38 of 1998 and 39 of
2001 on the file of the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Thalassery, which arose from Crime Nos.108 of 1996 and 112 of
1996 of Kolavalloor Police Station. On execution of the non-
bailable warrant by the petitioners on 17.08.2004, the arrested
person was produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Thalassery and was remanded in judicial custody. The arrested
person was later released on bail. However, subsequently it came
to the knowledge that the arrested person was in fact not Vinodan
but his younger brother Manojan, which, according to the
petitioners, is due to the impersonation done by the said Manojan,
in order to avoid the arrest of his brother Vinodan and to facilitate
his marriage scheduled.
3. Consequent to the above incident, disciplinary
proceedings were initiated against the petitioners, and both of
them were suspended from service and an oral enquiry was
initiated as provided under Rule 8(1)(iii) of the Kerala Police
Departmental Inquiries, Punishment and Appeal Rules, 1958
('KPDIP & A Rules' for short). The disciplinary proceedings were
2026:KER:28697
OP(KAT)No.38 and 56 of 2026
finalised, vide order dated 24.02.2005, by awarding a minor
penalty of withholding of one increment without cumulative effect.
The appeal and review petition submitted by the petitioners was
rejected by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Kannur and
the Inspector General of Police, North zone, by the orders dated
31.10.2005 and 24.04.2006, respectively.
4. The petitioners plead that in respect of the incident,
Crime No.329 of 2004 under Section 419 of IPC was registered
against said Manojan, and he was convicted by the Court of Chief
Judicial Magistrate for the said offence as per the judgment dated
15.03.2012 in C.C No.79 of 2007. After the said judgment, the
petitioners submitted a review petition before the State Police
Chief, but the same was returned stating delay. The petitioner in
O.P.(KAT)No.56 of 2026 filed a review under Rule 36A of KPDIP &
A Rules, which was rejected by the Government as per the order
dated 26.02.2018. Thereafter, the petitioners filed the respective
original applications under Section 19 of the Administrative
Tribunals Act, 1985, before the Tribunal challenging the adverse
orders against them and also seeking a direction against the
2026:KER:28697
OP(KAT)No.38 and 56 of 2026
District Police Chief, Kannur to regularise the suspension period of
the petitioners as duty for the purpose of increment in addition to
the regularisation already done for the purpose of pension and
gratuity.
5. In O.A.No.1633 of 2021, the 5th respondent filed a
reply statement dated 13.12.2021 opposing the reliefs sought for.
The said reply statement was adopted by the 2nd respondent by
filing a memorandum dated 03.06.2022. To the reply statement
filed by the 5th respondent, the petitioner filed a rejoinder dated
30.12.2023. Similarly, in O.A.No.1683 of 2022, the 5th respondent
filed a reply statement dated 02.12.2022, opposing the reliefs
sought for in that original application, which was adopted by the
respondents 1 and 2 by filing separate adoption memorandums
dated 14.12.2023 and 07.12.2022, respectively. To the reply
statement filed by the 5th respondent, the petitioner in
O.P.(KAT)No.38 of 2026 filed a rejoinder dated 02.02.2024.
6. After hearing both sides, the Tribunal, by the impugned
common order dated 07.11.2024, dismissed the original
applications. Paragraphs 9 to 11 and the last paragraph of that
2026:KER:28697
OP(KAT)No.38 and 56 of 2026
order read thus;
"9. The disciplinary proceedings initiated against the
applicants were with respect to the wrongful arrest of
Manojan, who impersonated himself as Vinodan against
whom LP Warrants were pending execution. It was much
later, even after the Judicial remand, it came out that
Manojan impersonated as his brother Vinodan. The
disciplinary proceedings initiated against the applicants
under Rule 8 (1) (iii) of the KPDIP & A Rules were concluded
through awarding a final punishment of barring of one
increment without cumulative effect for one year. The
enquiry contemplated under Rule 8 (1)(iii) is with respect
to major penalty whereas the punishment finally awarded
was a minor penalty. AS argued by the learned
Government pleader, the oral enquiry was completed as
per the procedure laid down in the Rules. The applicants
had sufficient opportunities to defend their side. The
decision in Rajashree Ajith's case (supra) is with respect to
initiating disciplinary proceedings for imposing major
penalty under Rule 15 of KCS (CC&A) Rules and the
Enquiry Officer completing the enquiry without following
the procedure laid down under this Rule The contention of
the respondents therein was that the penalty imposed was
only minor in nature and therefore the petitioners could not
insist compliance of procedure for imposing major penalty.
After considering the earlier Judgments of the Hon'ble High
Court on the subject, in paragraph 14, the Hon'ble High
2026:KER:28697
OP(KAT)No.38 and 56 of 2026
Court came to the following conclusion;
"14. After hearing the Counsels on either sides, I find from
Ext.P5 Memo of Charges and Ext.P7 Order appointing
Enquiry Officer that the second respondent initiated
disciplinary proceedings as contemplated under Rule 15
of the KCS (CC&A) Rules. It is well settled by the aforesaid
decisions cited by the Counsel for the petitioner in
Raveendranathan and Vaijayanthi (supra) that after
initiating proceedings for imposition of a major penalty,
the disciplinary authority cannot take short cut by not
following the procedure prescribed under Rule 15 for
infliction of the major penalty and choose to inflict a minor
penalty without properly completing the enquiry following
the procedure prescribed in that behalf. Even though the
Counsel for the second respondent contended that there
is no prejudice caused to the petitioner on account of the
fact that only a minor penalty imposed on her, in view of
the aforesaid settled law, imposition of a minor penalty
after choosing to initiate proceeding for imposition of
major penalty and without following and completing the
procedure for the same is illegal and unsustainable."
10. This is different from the facts of this case so far as the
disciplinary authority came to the decision to impose major
penalty only after the procedure for Oral Enquiry was duly
completed. The applicants had taken up the matter before
the appellate authority as well as the review authority both
of which were declined. However, neither of the applicants
have produced their appeal / review petition showing that
they had challenged the imposition of the penalty without
issuing the Show Cause Notice. In fact the review petition
2026:KER:28697
OP(KAT)No.38 and 56 of 2026
said to have been declined by the 2nd respondent and
produced as Annexure-A10 in OA.No.1633 of 2021 pertains
to the applicant in the O.A.1683 of 2022 Even in the orders
declining the appeal and review petition, only the final order
in the disciplinary proceedings is shown as reference
indicating that the applicants had not challenged the
decision regularising their period of suspension. The
disciplinary proceedings concluded once was reopened by
the applicants through the Mercy Petitions much after the
impersonator was convicted. One of the arguments of the
petitioners is that the impersonator was successful in
misleading the other Police personnel as well as the Judicial
authority. Contrary to the contention of the applicant, this is
not in any manner augmenting their case against the
punishment as the primary dereliction was committed by the
applicants themselves by not ensuring through proper
verification of documents and witnesses that the arrested
person was the accused person himself. Convicting the
impersonator does not in any manner erase the dereliction
of duty committed by the applicants which is admitted by
them also.
11. Going through the facts and circumstances of the case
presented before us, this tribunal is of the view that the
final order passed in the disciplinary proceedings initiated
against the applicants as well as the regularisation of the
suspension period of the applicants do not warrant any
judicial interference.
Accordingly, the Original Applications are dismissed".
2026:KER:28697
OP(KAT)No.38 and 56 of 2026
7. Being aggrieved, the respective applicants are now
before this Court with these original petitions.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the
learned Senior Government Pleader.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit
that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the
petitioners by ordering an oral enquiry under Rule 8 (1) (iii) of the
KPDIP & A Rules, which is applicable to major penalty proceedings.
However, after completing the enquiry, the disciplinary authority
imposed a minor penalty, without furnishing the enquiry report or
issuing a show cause notice, which is a clear violation of Rule
17(i)(b) of KPDIP & A Rules and the principles of natural justice.
The petitioners' suspension period was regularised only for
pensionary benefits, resulting in the denial of increments and
causing continuing financial loss amounting to a disguised major
penalty. The learned counsel relied on the judgments of this Court
in Raveendranathan v. District Collector, Palghat [1984 KLJ
268], Vaijayanthi v. State of Kerala [2003 (3) KLT 1055]
and Rajashree Ajith (Dr.) v. Principal Secretary, Transport
2026:KER:28697
OP(KAT)No.38 and 56 of 2026
(A) Department [2024 KHC Online 602] in support of his
arguments that imposition of a minor penalty after choosing to
initiate proceeding for imposition of major penalty and without
following and completing the procedure of the same is illegal and
unsustainable.
10. On the other hand, the learned Senior Government
Pleader would submit that the aforesaid judgments relied by the
learned counsel for the petitioners is not applicable to the facts of
the instant case, since the minor penalty was imposed on the
petitioners after the completion of the enquiry proceedings,
whereas in the judgments relied by the petitioners, the enquiry
proceedings were not completed. The learned Senior Government
Pleader further pointed out that though the enquiry report was
submitted on 13.02.2005 and the review petition filed by the
petitioner in O.P.(KAT) No.56 of 2026 was finally rejected on
26.02.2018, the original application was filed only in the year
2021. This delay is not properly explained by the petitioners. All
the contentions taken by the petitioners against the disciplinary
proceedings were considered by the Government while passing
2026:KER:28697
OP(KAT)No.38 and 56 of 2026
the order dated 26.2.2018 in the review petition filed by the
petitioner in O.P.(KAT) No.56 of 2026. The Tribunal also
considered the contentions of the petitioners on merit, and there
is no illegality in the said order.
11. Article 227 of the Constitution of India deals with the
power of superintendence over all courts by the High Court. Under
clause (1) of Article 227 of the Constitution, every High Court shall
have superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the
territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction.
12. In Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (Pvt.) Ltd [(2001)
8 SCC 97], the Apex Court held thus;
"The scope and ambit of exercise of power and jurisdiction
by a High Court under Art.227 of the Constitution of India
is examined and explained in number of decisions of this
Court. The exercise of power under this Article involves a
duty on the High Court to keep inferior courts and tribunals
within the bounds of their authority and to see that they do
duty expected or required by them in a legal manner. The
High Court is not vested with any unlimited prerogative to
correct all kinds of hardship or wrong decisions made within
the limits of the jurisdiction of the courts subordinate or
tribunals. Exercise of this power and interfering with the
orders of the courts or tribunal is restricted to cases of
2026:KER:28697
OP(KAT)No.38 and 56 of 2026
serious dereliction of duty and flagrant violation of
fundamental principles of law or justice, where if High Court
does not interfere, a grave injustice remains uncorrected. It
is also well settled that the High Court while acting under
this Article cannot exercise its power as an appellate court
or substitute its own judgment in place of that of the
subordinate court to correct an error, which is not apparent
on the fact of the record. The High Court can set aside or
ignore the findings of facts of inferior court or tribunal, if
there is no evidence at all to justify or the finding is so
perverse, that no reasonable person can possibly come to
such a conclusion, which the court or Tribunal has come to."
13. In Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil
[(2010) 8 SCC 329] the Apex Court, while analysing the scope
and ambit of the power of superintendence under Article 227 of
the Constitution, held that the object of superintendence, both
administrative and judicial, is to maintain efficiency, smooth and
orderly functioning of the entire machinery of justice in such a way
as it does not bring it into any disrepute. The power of interference
under Article 227 is to be kept to the minimum to ensure that the
wheel of justice does not come to a halt and the fountain of justice
remains pure and unpolluted in order to maintain public
confidence in the functioning of the tribunals and courts
2026:KER:28697
OP(KAT)No.38 and 56 of 2026
subordinate to the High Court.
14. In Jai Singh v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
[(2010) 9 SCC 385], while considering the nature and scope of
the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Apex
Court held that, undoubtedly the High Court, under Article 227 of
the Constitution, has the jurisdiction to ensure that all subordinate
courts, as well as statutory or quasi-judicial tribunals exercise the
powers vested in them, within the bounds of their authority. The
High Court has the power and the jurisdiction to ensure that they
act in accordance with the well-established principles of law. The
exercise of jurisdiction must be within the well-recognised
constraints. It cannot be exercised like a 'bull in a china shop', to
correct all errors of the judgment of a court or tribunal, acting
within the limits of its jurisdiction. This correctional jurisdiction can
be exercised in cases where orders have been passed in grave
dereliction of duty or in flagrant abuse of fundamental principles
of law or justice.
15. In K.V.S. Ram v. Bangalore Metropolitan Transport
Corporation [(2015) 12 SCC 39] the Apex Court held that, in
2026:KER:28697
OP(KAT)No.38 and 56 of 2026
exercise of the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, the High Court can interfere with the order
of the court or tribunal only when there has been a patent
perversity in the orders of the tribunal and courts subordinate to
it or where there has been gross and manifest failure of justice or
the basic principles of natural justice have been flouted.
16. In Sobhana Nair K.N. v. Shaji S.G. Nair [2016 (1)
KHC 1] a Division Bench of this Court held that, the law is well
settled by a catena of decisions of the Apex Court that in
proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this
Court cannot sit in appeal over the findings recorded by the lower
court or tribunal and the jurisdiction of this Court is only
supervisory in nature and not that of an appellate court.
Therefore, no interference under Article 227 of the Constitution is
called for, unless this Court finds that the lower court or tribunal
has committed manifest error, or the reasoning is palpably
perverse or patently unreasonable, or the decision of the lower
court or tribunal is in direct conflict with settled principles of law.
17. In view of the law laid down in the decisions referred to
2026:KER:28697
OP(KAT)No.38 and 56 of 2026
supra, the High Court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, cannot sit in appeal
over the findings recorded by a lower court or tribunal. The
supervisory jurisdiction cannot be exercised to correct all errors of
the order or judgment of a lower court or tribunal, acting within
the limits of its jurisdiction. The correctional jurisdiction under
Article 227 can be exercised only in a case where the order or
judgment of a lower court or tribunal has been passed in grave
dereliction of duty or in flagrant abuse of fundamental principles
of law or justice. Therefore, no interference under Article 227 is
called for, unless the High Court finds that the lower court or
tribunal has committed manifest error, or the reasoning is palpably
perverse or patently unreasonable, or the decision of the lower
court or tribunal is in direct conflict with settled principles of law
or where there has been gross and manifest failure of justice or
the basic principles of natural justice have been flouted.
18. The disciplinary proceedings initiated against the
petitioners were pursuant to the wrongful arrest of one Manojan,
who is the brother of the actual absconding accused in the criminal
2026:KER:28697
OP(KAT)No.38 and 56 of 2026
case against whom non bailable warrants were pending from the
Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thalassery, Kannur. It is
true that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the
petitioners were one for the imposition of a major penalty under
Rule 8(1)(iii) of KPDIP & A Rules. But the penalty imposed was a
minor penalty. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners
relied on the judgments of this Court in Raveendranathan
[1984 KLJ 268], Vaijayanthi [2003 (3) KLT 1055] and
Rajashree Ajith (Dr.) [2024 KHC Online 602] as cited above,
those judgments are not applicable to the facts of the instant case
as rightly submitted by the learned Senior Government Pleader for
the simple reason that in the present case the minor penalty was
imposed after the conclusion of the departmental enquiry initiated
against the petitioners and the submission of the enquiry report;
and whereas in the cited judgments the minor penalty was
imposed without completing the procedure for imposition of the
major penalty.
19. From the impugned order of the Tribunal, we notice
that the Tribunal also considered the aforesaid aspects with
2026:KER:28697
OP(KAT)No.38 and 56 of 2026
reference to the judgment in Rajashree Ajith's case. Having
considered the pleadings and materials on record and the
submissions made at the Bar in the light of the judgments
referred to supra, we find no ground to hold the impugned order
of the Tribunal as perverse or patently illegal, which warrants
interference by exercising supervisory jurisdiction.
In the result, these original petitions stand dismissed.
Sd/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
sks MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE
2026:KER:28697
OP(KAT)No.38 and 56 of 2026
APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) NO. 56 OF 2026
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE DO NO: 803/2004 C DATED
15/09/2004 OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
KANNUR DISTRICT SUSPENDING THE APPLICANT &
ANOTHER FROM SERVICE AND APPOINTING CI OF
POLICE KANNUR CITY, THE 6TH RESPONDENT AS
ENQUIRY OFFICER
Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGE ALONG WITH
STATEMENT OF ALLEGATION DATED 29/04/.....
ISSUED BY THE ENQUIRY OFFICER DULY APPROVED
BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT
Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL STATEMENT OF DEFENSE
DATED 02/05/.... SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT
BEFORE THE ENQUIRY OFFICER
Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF THE DO NO. 152/05 DATED
21/02/2005 IN FILE NO. H1-PR-15/04C IMPOSING
A PUNISHMENT OF ONE YEAR INCREMENT WITHOUT
CUMULATIVE EFFECT IMPOSED ON THE APPLICANT
Annexure A5 TRUE COPY OF THE DO NO: 387/05 C DATED
21/05/2005 REGULARIZING THE SUSPENSION
PERIOD OF THE APPLICANT BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT
ALONG WITH SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED ..../04/05
ALONG WITH RETYPED COPY
Annexure A6 TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT DATED
13/02/2005 FINALISED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT
WHICH ENDORSED THE ALLEGATION AS PER ANNEXURE
A2 MEMO OF CHARGE ALONG WITH RETYPED COPY
Annexure A7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO:
A2/APPEAL/42(B)/05K R DATED 31/10/2005 OF THE
4TH RESPONDENT REJECTING THE APPEAL SUBMITTED
BY THE APPLICANT
Annexure A8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. A2/9473-A/06-NZ
DATED 24/04/2006 REJECTING THE ANNEXURE A8
REVIEW PETITION BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
Annexure A9 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 15/03/2012
IN CC NO. 78/2007 (CRIME NO. 329/2004 OF
KOLAVALLUR PS) OF THE HON'BLE CJM COURT,
THALASSERY CONVICTING ACCUSED SRI. MANOJAN
Annexure A10 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. G4/87866/2013
DATED 01/09/2014 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT
REJECTING THE REVIEW PETITION DATED
28/08/2013
Annexure A11 TRUE COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION DATED
2026:KER:28697
OP(KAT)No.38 and 56 of 2026
.../03/2015 SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT BEFORE
THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Annexure A12 TRUE COPY OF THE GO(RT.) NO. 582/2018/HOME
DATED 26/02/2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF O.A. NO.1633 OF 2021, ALONG WITH
ANNEXURES A1 TO A12 AND THE MA 1681/2021 FOR
CONDONATION OF FILING DELAY
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE 2ND
AND 5TH RESPONDENTS IN M.A. NO.1681/2021
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE
5TH RESPONDENT
Exhibit P3(a) TRUE COPY OF THE ADOPTION MEMORANDUM FILED
BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER FILED BY THE
APPLICANT TO THE REPLY OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4(a) TRUE COPY OF THE ADOPTION MEMORANDUM ADOPTING
THE REJOINDER IN RELATION TO THE REPLY OF THE
2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL ORDER DATED 07.11.2024
2026:KER:28697
OP(KAT)No.38 and 56 of 2026
APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) NO. 38 OF 2026
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE DO NO. 803/04C DATED
15/09/2004 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT
SUSPENDING THE APPLICANT FROM SERVICE.
Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME 329/2004 U/S
419 IPC REGISTERED AGAINST ACCUSED MANOJAN
AND 2 OTHERS ON 26/09/04 AT KOLAVALLOOR
POLICE STATION
Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE DO NO. 152/2005 DATED
21/02/2005 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT
Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF THE DO NO.387/2005 C DATED
21/05/2005 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT
Annexure A5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 15/03/2012
IN CC NO. 78/2007 (CRIME NO. 329/2004 OF
KOLAVALLUR PS) OF THE HON'BLE CJM COURT,
THALASSERY CONVICTING ACCUSED SRI. MANOJAN
Annexure A6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. G4/ 87866/2013
DATED 01.09.2014 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Annexure A7 TRUE COPY OF THE MERCY PETITION DATED
23.03.2015 FORWARDED THROUGH PROPER CHANNEL
AS DIRECTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT COVERED
UNDER RULE 36 A OF KPDIP & A RULES
Annexure A8 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. B2-3761/2013/SB-
KR DATED 20.04.2015 ISSUED BY THE
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SB CID ADDRESSED
TO ADGP(INT), HEAD QUARTERS SB CID,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
Annexure A9 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.S2-21831/2015/SB
DATED 06.05.2015 ISSUED BY THE ADDITIONAL
DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (INT) TO THE 2ND
RESPONDENT ALONG WITH ANNEXURE A6
Annexure A10 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO G4/67080/2015
DATED 19.02.2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Annexure A11 TRUE COPY OF THE DO LETTER NO. G4-
9110/2021/PHQ DATED 09.04.2021 TO THE DEPUTY
SECRETARY
Annexure A12 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. H/5.3.2021/HOME
DATED 18.11.2021 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Annexure A13 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 03/02/2022 OF
THIS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL IN OA 182 OF 2022
Annexure A14 TRUE COPY OF THE G O (RT)NO.1930/2022/HOME
2026:KER:28697
OP(KAT)No.38 and 56 of 2026
DATED 12/07/2022 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE OA NO 1683 OF 2021 ALONG
WITH ANNEXURES.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE
5TH RESPONDENT
Exhibit P2(a) TRUE COPY OF THE ADOPTION MEMORANDUM FILED
BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P2(b) TRUE COPY OF THE ADOPTION MEMORANDUM FILED
BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER FILED BY THE
APPLICANT TO THE REPLY OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT
Exhibit P3(a) TRUE COPY OF THE ADOPTION MEMORANDUM ADOPTING
THE REJOINDER IN RELATION TO THE REPLY OF THE
1ST AND 2ND RESPONDENTS
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL ORDER DATED 07.11.2024
