Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 4TH PHALGUNA, 1944 OP(KAT) NO. 420 OF 2022 AGAINST THE ORDER IN OA 1898/2020 OF KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PETITIONER: BIJU C.S AGED 51 YEARS S/O. C.T.SHANMUGHAN, ARMED POLICE INSPECTOR, KERALA ARMED POLICE 2ND BATTALION, MUTTIKULANGARA P.O, PALAKKAD, KERALA-679594, RESIDING AT ABHIRAMAM, NEDIYEDATH ROAD, AIMS, PONEKKARA P.O, KOCHI, KERALA-, PIN - 682041
BY ADV T.R.RAJESH RESPONDENTS: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME (A) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA-, PIN - 695001 2 THE STATE POLICE CHIEF, OFFICE OF THE STATE POLICE CHIEF, POLICE HEADQUARTERS, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA-, PIN - 695014 3 THE DEPARTMENTAL PROMOTION COMMITTEE (LOWER), REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER AND STATE POLICE CHIEF, POLICE HEADQUARTERS, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA-, PIN - 695014 -2- 4 THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, ARMED POLICE BATTALION HEADQUARTERS, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-, PIN - 695014 OTHER PRESENT: SR GP ANTONY MUKKATH THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.02.2023, ALONG WITH OP(KAT).446/2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: -3-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 4TH PHALGUNA, 1944 OP(KAT) NO. 446 OF 2022 AGAINST THE ORDER IN OA 1886/2020 OF KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONER: SAMJITH S AGED 42 YEARS S/O.SOMAN.P, ARMED POLICE INSPECTOR, KERALA POLICE ACADEMY, THRISSUR RESIDING AT SAJI VILASOM, NELLIKKUNNU, MAILAMOODU.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 695609 BY ADVS. BENNY GERVACIS BEA MARY BENNY ABI BENNY AREECKAL RESPONDENTS: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001 2 SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001 3 STATE POLICE CHIEF KERALA POLICE, HEAD QUARTERS, VAZHUTHACAUD, -4- THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014 4 CONVENER DEPARTMENTAL PROMOTION COMMITTEE (LOWER), KERALA POLICE, HEAD QUARTERS, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 695014 OTHER PRESENT: SR GP ANTONY MUKKATH THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.02.2023, ALONG WITH OP(KAT).420/2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: -5-
JUDGMENT
[OP(KAT) Nos.446/2022, 420/2022]
S.V. Bhatti, J.
We have heard Mr Benny Gervasis, Mr Rajesh for the petitioners, and Mr Antony Mukkath, learned Senior Government Pleader for the respondents.
2. The instant petitions arise from the common order
dated 30.11.2022 in O.A Nos.1898 and 1886 of 2020 of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram (for short, ‘the Tribunal’). The petitions arise under Notes (i) and (iii) to Rule 28 (b) (i) of KS & SSR (for short, ‘the Rules’).
3. The petitioners are Armed Police Inspectors at the Kerala Police Academy, Thrissur. The petitioners challenge the
order dated 23.11.2020, reverting them as ‘Armed Police sub-
Inspectors’. The petitioners were temporarily promoted as Armed Police Inspectors by orders dated 16.05.2018 and -6- 04.06.2018 due to the non-availability of Select list of Armed Police Sub Inspectors for promotion as Armed Police Inspectors considering the administrative exigency prevailing when the temporary promotion was made. Briefly stated, it is the case of petitioners that the temporary promotion as Armed Police Inspectors could not be continued, or the petitioners were promoted as Armed Police Inspectors on a regular basis on account of non-inclusion of the petitioners in the select list published on 19.06.2019, 19.11.2019, 07.12.2019 and 17.04.2020. The petitioners were not included in the select list due to the pendency of the criminal case or disciplinary action. The circumstances leading to the original application are chronologically stated to appreciate and apply the notes appended to Rules 28 (b) (i) of the Rules:
3. On 15.07.2014, FIR No. RC-06(A)/2014-CBI/Tvpm was
registered in connection with offences under Sections 11, 12, -7- 13(2) r/w 13(1) (a), 13(1) (d) and 14 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, Section 24 of Emigration Act, 1983 r/w Section 120-B of the IPC (in OP (KAT) No.420/2022) and similarly, FIR No.RC-06(A)/14/CBI/Tvm was registered (in OP (KAT) No.446/2022). The narrative in the FIR can be summarised that the emigration wing of the Cochin International Airport Ltd (CIAL) and Trivandrum International Airport was handled by the Kerala Police Department till 31.07.2012. During the period administered by the Kerala Police Department, the petitioners were posted and working as Sub Inspectors/ Inspectors (temporary), at the airport as the case may be. To protect and ensure the welfare of emigrants, the Government of India, for the passengers moving through these Airports to Gulf countries, stipulated a few conditions for verification of workers leaving India for working with foreign employers. One of the requirements is verification of Emigration Clearance Required (ECR). This is one of the essential certificates to be carried by -8- each one of the migrant workers going out of the country for working a foreign employer. The petitioners state that in the FIR, their names are not shown as accused persons. On 19.10.2016 and 09.11.2016, the CBI filed the charge sheet arraying the petitioner in OP (KAT) No.446/2022 as accused no.5 and the petitioner in OP (KAT) No.420/2022 as accused no.21.
4. The Departmental Promotion Committee (Lower) did not enlist the petitioners herein in the list of eligible candidates for consideration and promotion as Inspectors. Through an
order dated 23.1.2020, the competent authority reverted the
petitioners as Armed Police sub-Inspectors and has given posting orders. The petitioners filed Original Applications for the prayers to set aside the order of reversion, set aside the select list of the Inspectors and direct for consideration to include the names of the petitioners in the select list of inspectors. The petitioners claimed consideration and -9- promotion to the post of Inspector for the years 2015 and 2016.
5. The Tribunal, through the order impugned before us, rejected the claim, and the operative portion of the common
order reads thus:
“15. There is yet another decision in OP (KAT) Bench had occasion to consider the challenge against an interim order. passed by the Tribunal refusing to stay an order of reversion. This is the case which was referred by the applicants and respondents as the case of one Mr. Rejikumar. He was granted promotion inspite of being booked under various provisions of criminal act. In the above case the Government Pleader produced an order reverting him from the post of Armed Police Inspector to Armed Police Sub Inspector and the case was remanded back to the Triburial for further hearing of O.A 959/2022.
16. After going through the materials on record and also after hearing the argument of the counsel for the applicants and respondents it is found that the
facts involved in these Original Applications are
identical to those referred in OP (KAT)375/2018 and OP
(KAT) 336/2019. On the date of convening DPC,
departmental proceedings as well as vigilance cases were pending against all the applicants as is revealed from the reply statement which is not denied. As is disclosed from the proceedings of DPC Incorporated in the reply statement, it was due to the pendency of such cases that the applicants were excluded from consideration for promotion. In proceedings which are
-10- preceded by elaborate preliminary enquiry the rule mandates exclusion of the officers from consideration. The facts of OP (KAT) 313/2022 are entirely different where such proceedings were not there on the date of convening of DPC. The applicants have relied on the
Judgment in Sasidharan's case which was impliedly
overruled by the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High
Court in OP (KAT) 375/2018 and also by the judgment
in State of Kerala and Others v. Babu Prasad (2019 KHC 940).
17. It is now settled law that the pendency of Vigilance proceedings is an embargo for considering
the name of person for promotion by the DPC The facts
reveal that in all these cases Note (1) to Rule 28(b)(1)(7) of KS & SSR is squarely applicable as promotion was denied only on account of pendency of vigilance proceedings/departmental proceedings against the applicants.” Hence the Original Petitions challenging the order dated 30.11.2022 of the Tribunal.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners rely on Note
(i) appended to Rule 28 (b) (i) of the Rules, which deals with promotion and appointment by transfer according to merit and ability. Note (i) reads as follows: “Note.-(1) Officers under suspension and Officers against whom criminal proceedings are pending in a -11-
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 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
-12- proceedings initiated against them.”
7. The learned counsel would contend that Rule 28(b) (i)
(7) mandates the preparation of Select List from among the
eligible officers based on merit and ability, seniority being a consideration only when all the qualifications are equal. The other portion of sub-rule (7) is commended to the court for appreciating that under sub-rule (7), the procedure for the select list is equivocal, and non-inclusion of the name of an eligible candidate can be only for a valid and the attributable reason stated in Note (i). In the said background, the argument proceeds that the petitioners are eligible for inclusion in the select list prepared for the years 2015 and 2016. At that time, viz. 2015 & 2016 had the DPC been convened, the petitioners automatically, referring to subrule (7) of Rule 28 (b), would have been empanelled in the select list. The criteria or deciding factor is the day on which they have become eligible for -13- inclusion in the select list of 2015 or 2016. The day on which the petitioners have become eligible for promotion, the disqualifications stated in Note (i), in any manner, are not available or attracted. Their inclusion would have been automatic, and the denial is on account of the fact that the DPC (Lower) was convened in 2019 and 2020. At that time, the final report should not be considered for empanelling the petitioners. Therefore, in short, the argument is that the contemporaneous position as of 2015 and 2016 would matter, and the petitioners do not suffer from any disqualification; they should have been firstly included in the select list secondly, there would not have been an occasion to revert them from Inspectors (temporary) to Sub Inspectors.
8. Mr Antony Mukkath, learned Sr. Government,
Pleader contends that the exercise undertaken by DPC (Lower) under Rule 28 is an exercise intended to prepare a list of eligible -14- candidates for consideration and promotion as against the available vacancies. In other words, the argument is that when the DPC is considering the preparation of the eligible/select list, the DPC is duty-bound to verify the year(s) for which the select list is prepared and the eligibility criteria against the respective relevant years. In the case on hand, the DPC examined the eligibility of the petitioners by looking at the final reports filed by the CBI against both the petitioners in the crimes referred to above. The offences are charged under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The period for which the select list is prepared and the final report contemporaneously relates to the circumstances relevant for DPC (Lower) to exclude the petitioners from the select list. Secondly, it is argued that Note
(iii) protects the interest of petitioners subject to the petitioners getting clean acquittal as stipulated by the Rules, which reads as follows: -15-
“(iii) Officers whose names are included in the select list but who are subsequently placed under suspension or against whom criminal proceedings are taken in a sessions court or in any other higher court for grave offences and officers against whom departmental proceedings are taken for the imposition of a major penalty under the disciplinary rules applicable to them, shall not be promoted on the basis of their inclusion in the select list until they are fully exonerated of the charges against them. If the officer is fully exonerated of the charges, he shall be promoted on the basis of his position in the select list to the post which has been filled on a temporary basis pending disposal of the charges against him. If the Officer is not fully exonerated, the Departmental Promotion Committee may consider each case on its own merit. Officers whose names are included in the select list but against whom departmental proceedings for imposing a minor penalty are initiated subsequently, may be promoted on a temporary basis pending disposal of the proceedings against them. If the Officer is fully exonerated of the charges the temporary promotion shall be treated as regular promotion and if the Officer is not fully exonerated of the charges, his case may be considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee on merits.”
9. Government Pleader commends to us the findings
recorded by the Tribunal and argues that the Tribunal has considered each one of the aspects in detail, the case law on the aspect, and recorded strictly an available finding in this behalf. Therefore, there is no ground warranting interference by this -16- Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
10. We have taken note of the contentions and perused
the record. The order of the Tribunal is assailed particularly by referring to the view taken in paragraphs 15 and 16, which are already excerpted in paragraph 5. Before we express a view on the consideration by the Tribunal, it is relevant to appreciate a few of the milestones which have a bearing on sub- rule (7) of Rule 28(b) r/w Note (i). The First Information Report is filed noticing a few alleged collusive emigration clearances given by a few police personnel working in Kerala Armed Police Force. The CBI, after investigating the crime registered, has included the petitioners. In the case on hand, the final reports are dated 19.10.2016 and 09.11.2016. Admittedly, both the petitioners are shown as one of the accused in both the final reports. The Sections under which the petitioners are charged are already noted. Therefore, the next question is whether the -17- DPC, while considering the cases of the petitioners in 2019, can take cognisance of a final report filed on the dates referred to above for preparing the select list for the years 2015 and 2016. In other words, the case is that had the DPC (Lower) considered the preparation of the list contemporaneously; the petitioners would have been empanelled in the select list of Inspectors. The petitioners’ argument for ignoring the final report misses more than one logical consideration. The crime relates to happenings between 2007 and 2012. It is not at this stage, to dispose of the Original Petitions, we may notice a circumstance that both the petitioners were working at the respective Airports at the time when these omissions had taken place.
11. The next question is the petitioners' alleged
commission of a crime. Upon investigation, the CBI has filed the report implicating them of the charged offences. The charge sheets were again filed in 2016. It may be that the DPC (Lower) -18- was not convened in the respective years to prepare the select list of Armed Police Inspectors. But what is essential for the DPC (Lower) to examine when it is preparing the select list for the various periods referred to above is the material available against each one of the candidates and when that exercise is undertaken in our considered view, we observe that the DPC is justified in applying Note (i) appended to Rule 28 (b) of the KS and SSR and did not include the petitioners in the select list. This non-inclusion in the list naturally results in reversion from Inspector (temporary) to the Sub Inspector. Note (iii), as is rightly pointed out by the Sr. Government Pleader, sufficiently protects the interest of the petitioners in the event the petitioners come clean from the pending prosecution; their cases would be considered in accordance with note (iii) to Rules 28 (b) (i). The order of the Tribunal is well considered and also acts on all the issues raised before the Tribunal. The case on hand more centres around applying the admitted -19- circumstances to the applicable Rules. Therefore, we hold that the action of DPC in not including the petitioners in the select list is correct and in accordance with Note (i) to Rules 28 (b) (i). For the above reasons, we are of the view that the other contentions urged need not be gone into. Petitions fail, dismissed accordingly. No order as to costs. S.V.BHATTI JUDGE BASANT BALAJI JUDGE JS -20- APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 420/2022 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER PASSED BY THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL DATED 17.08.2017 IN OA.797/2017. Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL ORDER PASSED BY THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL 27.03.2018 IN OA.797/2017. Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE DGO NO.722/2018 DATED 16.05.2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE FINALIZED
SENIORITY LIST OF ARMED POLICE SUB INSPECTORS PUBLISHED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT VIDE NO.A8- 6959/APB DATED 19.06.2010 Annexure A5 TRUE COPY OF SELECT LIST PUBLISHED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT VIDE NOTIFICATION NO.T4/18430/2019 DATED 07.12.2019 Annexure A6 TRUE COPY OF THE DGO NO.2119/2020/PHQ DATED 23.11.2020 Annexure A7 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE FINAL REPORT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE SPECIAL JUDGE-1 OF CBI CASES, ERNAKULAM IN FIR NO.RC- 06(A)/2014/CBI/TVPM DATED 15.07.2014
Annexure A8 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(RT)NO.3343/2017/HOME DATED 14.12.2017 Annexure A9 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT VIDE NO.413/LEG.E1/2019/LAW DATED 08.01.2019. Annexure A10 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN GOVT. OF KERALA V. BABU REPORTED IN 2021 (2) KLT ONLINE 1088 -21- Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE O.A.1898/2020 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE KAT DATED 25.11.2020 Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL DATED 26.11.2020 IN OA.1898/2020 Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE EXTENDED INTERIM ORDER PASSED BY THE HON'BLETRIBUNAL DATED 26.10.2022 IN OA.1898/2020. Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED ON BEHALF OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 28.10.2021 IN OA.1898/2020 Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM FILED FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT ADOPTING THE REPLY STATEMENT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 17.01.2022 Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO EXT.P4 REPLY STATEMENT DATED 05.01.2022 Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL ORDER PASSED BY THE HON'BLE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL DATED 30.11.2022 IN O.A.1898/2020 Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE DGO NO.2466/2022/PHQ DATED 03.12.2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. -22- APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 446/2022 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE FINALIZED SENIORITY LIST OF ARMED POLICE SUB INSPECTOR WITH ORDER NO.A8-6959/2019/APB DATED 4-6-2019. Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE TEMPORARY PROMOTION GRANTED TO THE APPLICANT WITH ORDER NO.A7/2401/ 2018/PHQ DATED 7-6-2018. Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF FINALISED
SENIORITY LIST OF ARMED POLICE INSPECTORS AS ON 1-7-2017 WITH ORDER NO.A7-35650/2020/PHQ DATED 28-2-2020.
Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF THE CONFIDENTIAL NO. T4/118430/2019/PHQ DATED 9-12-2019. Annexure A5 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT FILED BEFORE HON'BLE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION CASES COURT, ERNAKULAM. Annexure A6 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES ALONG WITH STATEMENT OF ALLEGATION WITH NO.96/ CAMP/2014/KEPA DATED 30-7-2014. Annexure A7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXONERATING THE APPLICANT FROM THE
CHARGES LEVELED AGAINST HIM WITH ORDER
NO.GO(RT) NO.3368/ 2017/HOME DATED, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 16-12-2017. Annexure A8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HON'BLE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN OA 797/2017 DATED 27- 3-2018. Annexure A9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT WITH NO.A7/2401/2018 DATED 4-6-2018 PROMOTING THE APPLICANT PROVISIONALLY -23- INVOKING RULE 31(A)(I) PART II KS & SSR. Annexure A10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A7- 100551/2020/PHQ DATED 23-11-2020 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. Annexure A11 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED WITH NO.A7-
Annexure A12 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE ORDER
NO.A4/5120/2019 PHQ DATED 3-3-2019. Annexure A13 TRUE COPY OF THE GO(MS)NO.113/2020 HOME DATED 25-5-2020 Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE O.A.NO.1886/2020 DATED 25-11-2020 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HON'BLE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT DATED 28-10- 2021 FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN OA.1886/20 BEFORE THE HON'BLE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER DATED 15-1-2022 FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN O.A.1886/20BEFORE HON'BLE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. Exhibit P4 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30-11-2022 OF THE HON'BLE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM IN O.A.NO.1886/20. Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO. RC 6(A)/2014- CBI/SCB/TVPM DATED 15-7-2014 BEFORE THE CBI COURT-I, ERNAKULAM. RESPONDENT ANNEXURES Annexure R3(a) TRUE COPY OF AO NO. 459/2022/KEPA DATED 08.12.2022 -24- Annexure R3(b) TRUE COPY OF DGO NO. 2466/2022/PHQ DATED 03.12.2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P6 True copy of the communication No. C.No.40720/2023 dated 05.01.2023 Exhibit P12 True copy of the communication dated 05.01.2023 Exhibit P7 The true copy of the leave application DATED 1- 12-2022 and the endorsement thereon by the Assistant Director (Administration) Exhibit P8 True copy of the application for leave enclosing the Medical Certificate Exhibit P9 True copy of the medical certificates dated 8-12- Exhibit P10 True copy of the medical certificates dated 22- 12-2022 Exhibit P11 True copy of the application for rejoining duty along with the fitness certificate dated 5-1-2023