Partly allowed

Sunil Dutt S. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC13 Jan 2021WP(C)/35611/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In two writ petitions, the High Court upheld the validity of a reduction penalty imposed on a teacher and dismissed the challenge to the enquiry procedure, directing instead the state to disbursal pensionary benefits within three months.

What did the court decide?

W.P.(C) No.22416/2019 dismissed; respondents in W.P.(C) No.35611/2019 directed to disburse pensionary benefits within 3 months.

Sunil Dutt S. Vs State of Kerala — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 23TH POUSHA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.22416 OF 2019(B)

¶6

PETITIONER :-

¶7

SUNIL DUTT.S, AGED 56 YEARS S/O.LATE SRI.SOMARAJAN, SAI ALAKA, KNRA 31A, KOOTIKKADA P.O., KOLLAM - 691 020.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.S.RAMESH

¶9

RESPONDENTS :-

¶10

1 THE STATE OF KERALA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001.

¶11

2 THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001.

¶12

3 THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS (ACADEMIC), JAGATHY P.O., TRIVANDRUM - 695 014.

¶13

4 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT (GENERAL), KOLLAM, PIN - 691 001.

¶14

5 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KOLLAM, PIN - 691 001.

¶15

6 THE MANAGER, MAYYANAD HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, MAYYANAD P.O., KOLLAM, PIN - 691 303.

¶16

BY ADV. SRI.B.ASHOK SHENOY BY ADV. SRI.K.V.GEORGE BY ADV. SRI.P.N.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR BY ADV. SRI.P.S.GIREESH BY ADV. SRI.RIYAL DEVASSY BY SRI.P.M.MANOJ, SR.GP

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24-11-2020, ALONG WITH WP(C).35611/2019(B), THE COURT ON 13-01-2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

WP(C).Nos.22416/2019 & 35611/2019

¶19

-: 2 :-

¶20

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶21

PRESENT

¶22

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶23

WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 23TH POUSHA, 1942

¶24

WP(C).No.35611 OF 2019(B)

¶25

PETITIONER :-

¶26

SUNIL DUTT S., AGED 56 YEARS S/O.LATE SRI.SOMARAJAN, SAI ALAKA, KNRA 31A, KOOTTIKKADA P. O., KOLLAM - 691 020.

¶27

BY ADV. SRI.S.RAMESH

¶28

RESPONDENTS :-

¶29

1 THE STATE OF KERALA

¶30

REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001.

¶31

2 THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL OFFICE OF THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001.

¶32

3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION EDUCATION DEPARTMENT (GENERAL), KOLLAM, PIN - 691 001.

¶33

4 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER KOLLAM, PIN - 691 001.

¶34

5 THE MANAGER MAYYANAD HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, MAYYANAD P. O., KOLLAM, PIN - 691 303.

¶35

6 THE HEAD MASTER MAYYANAD HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, MAYYANAD P. O., KOLLAM, PIN - 691 303.

¶36

BY SRI.P.M.MANOJ, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER BY ADV. SRI.B.ASHOK SHENOY BY ADV. SRI.K.V.GEORGE BY ADV. SRI.P.N.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR BY ADV. SRI.P.S.GIREESH BY ADV. SRI.RIYAL DEVASSY

¶37

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24-11-2020, ALONG WITH WP(C).22416/2019(B), THE COURT ON 13-01-2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶38

WP(C).Nos.22416/2019 & 35611/2019

¶39

-: 3 :-

¶40

JUDGMENT

¶41

Dated this the 13th day of January 2021

¶42

W.P.(C) No.22416/2019 is filed by the petitioner, challenging

¶43

the order issued by the 6^th respondent, Manager imposing a penalty of reduction to a lower stage in the time scale as also treating the

¶44

period of suspension as such, without any service benefits other than the subsistence allowance drawn. W.P.(C) No.35611/2019 has been filed seeking the disbursal of terminal benefits due to the petitioner on account of his retirement on 31.7.2019. It is contended that due to the pendency of the illegal disciplinary proceedings, the respondents are refusing to release the pensionary benefits due to the petitioner.

¶45

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader as well as the learned counsel appearing for the Manager.

¶46

The petitioner submits that while he was working as HSA (Mathematics) in the Mayyanad Higher Secondary School, he was placed under suspension on 26.8.2011 and a charge memo was also served on him. The charges mentioned in the charge memo were as follows :-

¶47

“1) Sexual harassment against the students.

¶48

1. An act subversive of discipline and insubordination

¶49

WP(C).Nos.22416/2019 & 35611/2019

¶50

-: 4 :-

¶51

1. Negligence or neglect of work.

¶52

1. Talking or behaving in a disrespectful manner to a superior, challenging the authority of a superior, shouting at a superior etc.

¶53

1. Exhibiting a bad temper, using foul or filthy or abusive language or talking in a discourteous manner to another employee or superior or any person within the school and within the premises of the school.

¶54

1. Upsetting the peace and decorum of the office, work place or school premises.

¶55

1. Act or conduct detrimental to the interest of the school or its good name.

¶56

1. Loitering or leaving the place of work without permission during the prescribed time of work.

¶57

1. Absence without leave or permission granted by a competent authority or by an officer who is authorized to sanction such leave or grant such permission.

¶58

1. Deliberately making false complaint or statements against co-employees/superiors.”

¶59

The petitioner has submitted his reply on 9.9.2011. An enquiry was conducted and an enquiry report was submitted, based on which, Ext.P1 order imposing penalty was issued. It is submitted that the petitioner had retired from service on 31.7.2019, after having been reinstated on 7.2.2018. It is submitted that the enquiry report is totally vitiated in as much as even the dates of complaints made by the students are wrongly mentioned therein. It is submitted that the charge memo issued on 26.8.2011 referred to the complaints of students dated 10.8.2011 and 16.8.2011 respectively. However, it

¶60

WP(C).Nos.22416/2019 & 35611/2019

¶61

-: 5 :-

¶62

was based on another complaint dated 14.9.2011 that the charge was sought to be proved. It is, therefore, contended that the only charge which stood proved in the enquiry report was not proved on

¶63

the basis of any reliable material.

¶64

It is further submitted that the procedure prescribed in Rule 75 of Chapter XIV A KER was not followed in the enquiry. It is submitted that the specific defence of the petitioner and the contentions that the PTA President and the guardian who were said to have made complaints had withdrawn such complaints was not considered in the proceedings. Further, it is contended that only the penalties specified in Rule 65 of Chapter XIV A KER can be imposed on a teacher, that too, on his being found guilty in a properly conducted disciplinary proceedings in terms of Rule 75. It is submitted that the penalty imposed on the petitioner, that is, a reduction to a lower stage in the time scale is not a penalty provided under Rule 65. It is further submitted that the Manager has not obtained previous sanction under Rule 71 for the imposition of the penalty and therefore, the order issued by the Manager is illegal and void. It is further submitted that the decision taken to treat the period of suspension as such, without the benefit of pay or allowances is one issued without hearing the petitioner and is, therefore, unsustainable.

¶65

WP(C).Nos.22416/2019 & 35611/2019

¶66

-: 6 :-

¶67

The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decisions of this Court in Shiny T. Juster v. R.C. Schools [2013 (2) KLT SN 105], Noushad v. State of Kerala [2013 (2) KLT SN 89] and Seetharam Upper Primary School v. State of Kerala [2012 (2) KLT 338] to contend that a proper enquiry in terms of Rule 75 ought to have been conducted before the imposition of any penalty. It is submitted that the enquiry under Rule 75 has to be in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Manual for Disciplinary Proceedings, governing the Government employees. The decision in Manager, S.V.P.M. High School v. State [1993 (2) KLT 628] is also relied on to contend that where the Government initiates proceedings under Section 12A of the Kerala Education Act or Rule 75A of Chapter XIV A KER, the Government cannot alter the punishment in revision.

¶68

A counter affidavit has been placed on record by the 6^th respondent Manager in W.P.(C) No.22416/2019. It is submitted that Ext.P3 memo of charges was issued to the petitioner on the basis of a complaint received from the parent of a girl student. It is submitted that the petitioner has already availed of the alternate remedy of revision by filing Ext.P11 revision petition challenging Ext.P1 punishment as also the findings of guilt entered into by the

¶69

WP(C).Nos.22416/2019 & 35611/2019

¶70

-: 7 :-

¶71

3^rd respondent in Ext.P2 enquiry report. It is, therefore, contended that the writ petition itself is not maintainable. It is submitted that numerous complaints were received by the management from the Parents Teacher Association and other teachers, staff and parents alleging sexual harassment of girl students by the petitioner. Ext.R6(a) complaint dated 16.8.2011 is produced. It is submitted that later, several other complaints were received from girl students, which are produced as Exts.R6(b), R6(c) and R6(d). It is submitted that an enquiry was conducted and the 3^rd respondent has submitted Ext.P2 enquiry report. It is submitted that copies of all documents relied on by the management was served to the petitioner. The deposition of the witnesses were recorded in the presence of the petitioner and he was allowed to cross examine the witnesses. It is stated that the findings in Ext.P2 are based on the evidence recorded in the enquiry. It is submitted that after receipt of Ext.P2, copy of the same was forwarded to the petitioner seeking his comments on the same by Ext.R6(e) forwarding letter dated 28.6.2019. The petitioner submitted his reply by Ext.R6(f) dated 30.6.2019. It is submitted that after considering Ext.R6(f) reply, Ext.R6(g) notice was issued to the petitioner proposing the punishment of reduction to a lower stage in the time scale as also seeking the petitioner's reply to the proposal for treating the

¶72

WP(C).Nos.22416/2019 & 35611/2019

¶73

-: 8 :-

¶74

period of suspension as such. It is stated that Ext.R6(h) reply had been submitted by the petitioner and it was after considering Exts.R6(f) and R6(h) replies that Ext.P1 order was passed. It is further submitted that the penalty imposed on the petitioner was not one mentioned in clauses (iv) to (viii) of Rule 65 of Chapter XIV A KER and that as such, the contention of the petitioner that prior sanction is required for the imposition of penalty is completely untenable. It is submitted that all the materials, which were relied on as well as copies of the enquiry report had been duly served on the petitioner and all allegations to the contrary are false.

¶75

The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit, contending that he is challenging the findings in Ext.P2 enquiry report since he has no alternate remedy in view of the fact that the Government has no power to modify the punishment. It is further contended that the punishment was imposed on the petitioner without prior sanction from the educational authorities and that therefore, Ext.P1 is vitiated. It is stated that the issue of treating the period of suspension had to be considered by the educational authorities and not by the Manager and that even if a revision is filed by the petitioner before the statutory authorities, the writ petition is liable to be considered on merits by this Court. It is further submitted that the complaints referred to in the counter affidavit of the 6^th

¶76

WP(C).Nos.22416/2019 & 35611/2019

¶77

-: 9 :-

¶78

respondent were procured by instigation of the Headmistress and the Manager and that those complaints which were subsequent to the charge memo cannot be relied on in the enquiry. It is further submitted that Ext.P15 is a statement of the students and parents given before the Assistant Commissioner of Police in the pending criminal case, which would show that the complaints preferred by the students were fabricated.

¶79

In W.P.(C) No.35611/2019, a counter affidavit has been placed on record by the 3^rd respondent. It is contended that since the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner have not attained finality, only provisional pension in terms of Rule 3A of Part III KSR has been paid to the petitioner. It is submitted that the revised pension proposal of the petitioner has also been forwarded to the Accountant General for verification.

¶80

The 5^th and 6^th respondents have also placed a counter affidavit on record. It is stated that by Ext.R5(a) order dated 23.7.2019, the punishment of reduction to a lower stage in a time scale has been imposed on the petitioner and the period of suspension is liable to be treated as suspension itself. It is submitted that the revised pension proposal of the petitioner had been forwarded for verification to the departmental authorities, which is pending consideration before them. It is submitted that

¶81

WP(C).Nos.22416/2019 & 35611/2019

¶82

-: 10 :-

¶83

the delay in releasing the pensionary benefits is only on account of the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, which has culminated in Ext.P1 in W.P.(C) No.22416/2019.

¶84

I have considered the contentions advanced in these writ petitions. The preliminary contention of the petitioner is that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him were not conducted in compliance with the procedure prescribed under Rule 75 of Chapter XIV A KER. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend, relying on the decisions of this Court, that the procedure provided in the Manual for Disciplinary Proceedings of the Government of Kerala is liable to be scrupulously followed in the matter of conduct of disciplinary proceedings against the teachers of aided schools as well. It is further contended that prior sanction from the educational authorities was not secured for the imposition of penalty and that the treating of the period of suspension was not preceded by a specific notice for that purpose. On considering the contentions of the respondents, I find that an enquiry in terms of Rule 75 of Chapter XIV A KER had been conducted in the petitioner's case. The materials before the enquiry officer were considered in its entirety and a finding of guilt on charge memo (1) had been entered. On an examination of Ext.P2, I do not find any serious infringement of the procedure prescribed in Rule 75 of

¶85

WP(C).Nos.22416/2019 & 35611/2019

¶86

-: 11 :-

¶87

Chapter XIV A KER in the conduct of the enquiry against the petitioner. It appears that copies of all materials relied on had been served on the petitioner. The witnesses were examined in the presence of the petitioner and he was permitted to cross examine them as well. In view of the fact that there was a substantial compliance with the requirements of Rule 75, I am of the opinion that the contention raised by the petitioner that the specific provisions of the Manual of Disciplinary Proceedings were not referred to or adhered by the DEO does not require any consideration in a case of this nature.

¶88

Further, I find that the penalty imposed is one of reduction to a lower stage in the time scale and is not one of reduction to a lower rank in seniority list or to a lower post or time scale, which is liable to be imposed by the Manager with the previous sanction of the educational authorities as provided in Rule 71. Rule 75(11) also provides for previous sanction in case of imposition of penalties under items (iv) to (viii) of Rule 65. Items (iv) to (viii) of Rule 65 refer to reduction to a lower rank in the seniority list or lower grade or post or time scale, compulsory retirement, removal, dismissal or reduction in pension. Though the reduction to a lower stage in a time scale is not specifically provided in Rule 65 as a penalty, Rule 70 refers to reduction to a

¶89

WP(C).Nos.22416/2019 & 35611/2019

¶90

-: 12 :-

¶91

lower stage in a time scale and the authority competent to impose the same is specifically stated to be the Manager, who has to consult the Head Master before imposing the penalty and also get his action ratified by the educational officer.

¶92

In the instant case, the copy of the enquiry report had been forwarded to the petitioner by Ext.R6(e) forwarding letter dated 28.6.2019. The petitioner submitted Ext.R6(f) reply. Thereafter, Ext.R6(g) notice had been issued to the petitioner requiring him to show cause why the proposed punishment of reduction to a lower stage in the time scale shall be imposed. He was also required to show cause why the period of suspension should not be treated as such. Ext.R6(g) specifically stated as follows, “in view of the proposed punishment, it is proposed to treat the period of suspension as such. Hence, during the period of suspension you will not be eligible for any service benefits other than the subsistence allowance you have already drawn.” Therefore, a composite show cause notice had been issued to the petitioner with regard to the proposed punishment as well as the proposed treatment of the period of suspension. Moreover, the petitioner had approached the Government by Ext.P11 petition challenging the findings in Ext.P2 and complaining of violation of the principles of natural justice.

¶93

WP(C).Nos.22416/2019 & 35611/2019

¶94

-: 13 :-

¶95

Having considered the contentions advanced on either side at considerable length, I am of the opinion that this is not a fit case where the enquiry report is liable to be set aside on the ground of non-compliance of the provisions of Rule 75 of Chapter XIV A KER. I find that the requirements of Rule 75 have been substantially complied with in the matter of conduct of the enquiry against the petitioner. The fact that there were complaints raised by girl students against the petitioner with regard to his conduct is clear from the materials before me. It is also not in dispute that a criminal case has been registered against the petitioner and is pending investigation. In the above view of the matter, the finding that there were complaints raised, which were later corroborated by statements given by the students and parents, also cannot be ignored. In the above view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the contention raised that the findings in Ext.P2 are perverse or illegal cannot be accepted. Further, in view of the fact that the punishment imposed is only reduction to a lower stage in a time scale, which is specifically referred to in Rule 70 of Chapter XIV A KER, I am of the opinion that the contention that Ext.P1 is bad for want of prior sanction also cannot be sustained. The treating of the period of suspension is also a matter to be considered by the Manager, who is the appointing authority and the disciplinary

¶96

WP(C).Nos.22416/2019 & 35611/2019

¶97

-: 14 :-

¶98

authority in respect of the petitioner. The petitioner was specifically put on notice as to how the period of suspension is proposed to be treated, as is evident from Ext.R6(g).

¶99

In the above view of the matter, if the petitioner has any complaints with regard to the treating of the period of suspension, it is for the petitioner to approach the educational authorities as against that portion of Ext.P1. Leaving open the right of the petitioner to approach the educational authorities with regard to the treating of his period of suspension, W.P.(C) No.22416/2019 is dismissed.

¶100

There will be a direction to the respondents in W.P.(C) No.35611/2019 to calculate and disburse the pensionary benefits due to the petitioner taking note of the penalty imposed on the petitioner as well and disburse the admitted pensionary benefits within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶101

Sd/ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE

¶102

Jvt/14.12.2020

¶103

WP(C).Nos.22416/2019 & 35611/2019

¶104

-: 15 :-

¶105

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22416/2019

¶106

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶107

EXHIBIT P1	A TRUE COPY OF THE BY THE 6TH RESPONDE	ORDER DATED 23.7.2019 ISSUED NT
EXHIBIT P2	A TRUE COPY OF THE OF THE 2ND RESPONDE	ENQUIRY REPORT DATED 4.1.2019 NT
EXHIBIT P3	A TRUE COPY OF THE 26.8.2011 ISSUED BY	MEMO OF CHARGES DATED THE 6TH RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P4	A TRUE COPY OF THE B6/14103/2011 /DDE2	ORDER OF DDE NO 5-2-2012
EXHIBIT P5	A TRUE COPY OF THE 20.9.2012	REPORT OF THE DEO DATED
EXHIBIT P6	A TRUE COPY OF THE 30570/2015	JUDGMENT 4.11.2015 IN WPC NO
EXHIBIT P7	A TRUE COPY OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC 8.12.2015	REPORT OF THE ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTIONS VIGILANCE DATED
EXHIBIT P8	A TRUE COPY OF THE 27.2.2017 OF THE AD VIGILANCE	ORDER NO 81031/2012/DIS DATED DITIONAL DIRECTOR (GENERAL) &
EXHIBIT P9	A TRUE COPY OF THE 17.8.2017 ISSUED BY	GO RT NO 2824/2017/G.EDN DATED THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P10	A TRUE COPY OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT	JUDGMENT DATED 5.1.2018 OF THE IN WRTI PETITION NO 29569/2017
EXHIBIT P10(a)	A TRUE COPY OF THE 23.4.2018 ISSUED BY	ORDER NO 1536/2018 G.EDN DATED THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P11	A TRUE COPY OF THE 9.6.2019 SUBMITTED 1ST RESPONDENT	REVISION PETITION DATED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE
EXHIBIT P12	A TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION D THE 1ST RESPONDENT	REMINDER DATED 19.7.2019 ON ATED 9.6.2019 SUBMITTED BEFORE
EXHIBIT P13	A TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 1.7.2016 OF T POLICE, KOLLAM	DETAILED INVESTIGATION REPORT HE ASST COMMISSIONER OF

¶108

WP(C).Nos.22416/2019 & 35611/2019

¶109

-: 16 :-

¶110

EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 2.12.2015 IN WPC NO.16171/2013 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

¶111

EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENTS OF THE STUDENTS AND PARENTS GIVEN BEFORE THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, OBTAINED UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT.

¶112

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:

¶113

EXHIBIT R6(a)	TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 16.8.2011 SUBMITTED
	BY PRESIDENT OF PARENTS TEACHERS ASSOCIATION OF
	THE MAYYANAD HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL BEFORE
	DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KOLLAM.

¶114

EXHIBIT	R6(b) TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 13.9.2011 SUBMITTED BY STUDENTS OF CLASS 8A OF OF THE MAYYANAD HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL TO HEADMISTRESS OF THE MAYYANAD HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL.
EXHIBIT	R6(c) TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 14.9.2011 SUBMITTED BY GIRL STUDENTS OF CLASS 8C OF THE MAYYANAD HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL TO HEADMISTRESS OF THE MAYYANAD HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL.
EXHIBIT	R6(d) TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 14.9.2011 SUBMITTED BY GIRL STUDENTS OF CLASS 8D OF THE MAYYANAD HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL TO HEADMISTRESS OF THE MAYYANAD HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL.
EXHIBIT	R6(e) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.MHSS/SUNILDUTT/2019/1 DATED 28.6.2019 ISSUED BY 6TH RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER
EXHIBIT	R6(f) TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER DATED 30.6.2019 SENT BY PETITIONER TO 6TH RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT	R6(g) TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE NO.MHSS/SUNILDUTT/2019/2 DATED 9.7.2019 ISSUED BY 6TH RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER
EXHIBIT	R6(h) TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER DATED 16.7.2019 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER TO 6TH RESPONDENT.

¶115

WP(C).Nos.22416/2019 & 35611/2019

¶116

-: 17 :-

¶117

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 35611/2019

¶118

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶119

EXHIBIT	P1	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B5/8401/2011 DATED 19.8.2019 APPROVING THE RETIREMENT OF THE PETITIONER FROM SERVICE ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT	P2	A TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT) NO.55/2019/FIN. ISSUED BY THE FINANCE WING OF THE GOVERNMENT.
EXHIBIT	P3	A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 18.7.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH PENSION BOOKS.
EXHIBIT	P4	A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 24.7.2019 FORWARDED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 8TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT	P5	A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 29.7.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 8TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT	P6	A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 19.10.2019 FORWARDED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT PASTED WITH POSTAL RECEIPT.
EXHIBIT	P7	A TRUE COPY OF THE SAID LETTER NO.PM/2/254738/19- 20/385 DATED 25.10.2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT	P8	A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.MHSS/123/2019 DATED 24.10.2019 FORWARDED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT AND COPY MARKED TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT	P9	A TRUE COPY OF THE HEARING NOTICE NO.B5/8401/2011 DATED 4.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
RESPOND	ENT'S	EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT	R5(a)	TRUE COPY OF THE PUNISHMENT ORDER NO.MHSS/SUNILDUTT/2019/3 DATED 23.7.2019 ISSUED TO PETITIONER BY 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT	R5(b)	TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 13.1.2020 ISSUED BY PETITIONER TO 5TH RESPONDENT ALONG WITH STATEMENT OF FIXATION OF PAY ATTACHED THEREWITH
EXHIBIT	R5(c)	TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 16.1.2020 ISSUED BY 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER

Sunil Dutt S. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Dutt S. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Judit J.Bivera Vs State of Kerala

Sindhu P., Vs State of Kerala

Dr. B .Gopakumar Vs State of Kerala

The Manager, Vs the State of Kerala

Raheema.P.v Vs the State of Kerala

Abdulla .O Vs the Sc and St Development (C) Department