Login
  • Bookmark
  • PDF
  • Share
  • CaseIQ

C BASTIN SABU v. UNION OF INDIA REPRE...

Central Administrative Tribunal
Dec 10, 2021
Judgment
Subsequent
References
CaseIQ
Case Information
CITATION CODES
citation codes
CASE NO.

O.A./527/2021

JUDGES

10/12/2021

ACTS

Rule 8(i)(iii) of the KPDIP & A Rules, 1968.

Rule 6 of KP DIP & A Rules, 1968

See more information ... Less ...
Smart Summary (Beta)

Structured Summary of the Tribunal Opinion (dated 10.12.2021)

Factual and Procedural Background

The applicant (Shri Bastin Sabu), a Circle Inspector in the Kerala Police, was initially subjected to a penalty of "increment bar for one year without cumulative effect" by the Inspector General of Police (IGP), North Zone by order dated 27.02.2006 (Annexure A-1) following a non-oral inquiry. On 07.07.2006 the Government of Kerala, Home Department, ordered an oral inquiry under Rule 6 of the KPDIP & A Rules (Annexure A-2). The IGP, North Zone later (24.10.2006) cancelled the disciplinary proceedings and the punishment (Annexure A-5), a copy of which was marked to the Director General of Police (DGP).

The applicant challenged the Government order before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in W.P.(C) No.33254/2006. The High Court, by its order dated 21.06.2016 (Annexure A-3), set aside the Government order dated 07.07.2006 on the ground that another inquiry could not be conducted after a punishment had been awarded in a finalized non-oral inquiry.

The State did not appeal the High Court's order. The State Government on 27.02.2017 issued an order (Annexure A-4) stating disciplinary action was dropped as the applicant had already been given punishment. Subsequently, after it was discovered that the IGP had earlier cancelled the punishment (Annexure A-5) — a fact the Government admitted not to have been aware of — the Government issued an order on 14.12.2017 (Annexure A-6) cancelling the IGP's cancellation and reinstating the increment-bar punishment.

The Accountant General (A&E), Kerala wrote on 12.03.2021 (Annexure A-7) that excess pay for 01.07.2006–30.06.2007 (Rs.5,016) be refunded because the increment bar penalty had now been effected; the applicant repaid that amount on 12.03.2021 (Annexure A-8).

The State submitted a proforma/penalty statement to the UPSC in relation to the Select List 2018 (Annexure R-1), which recorded the history (penalty imposed 27.02.2006; cancelled 24.10.2006; reinstated 14.12.2017; period shown as 01.07.2006–30.06.2007; amount Rs.5,016 paid 12.03.2021). The UPSC assessed the applicant as "Unfit" for the Select List 2018 and marked ACRs for 2014–2018 as "Unfit" due to the penalty. This O.A. seeks interim relief in relation to consideration of the applicant for inclusion in the Select List for promotion to the Indian Police Service from 2019 onwards.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the applicant's assessment as "Unfit" for the Select List (2018) and the marking of his ACRs as "Unfit" — apparently due to a recorded penalty — was justified in the light of the complex and inconsistent history of disciplinary orders, cancellations and reinstatements.
  2. Whether, on the date of consideration for the Select List, there were any disciplinary proceedings or an operative punishment against the applicant as required to be considered under the Selection Committee Guidelines and the IPS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955.
  3. Whether the State Government properly and transparently presented all relevant details (including cancellation and reinstatement of punishment) to the UPSC when forwarding the proposal for consideration by the Selection Committee, and whether any error in presentation should affect the candidate's eligibility/assessment.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant's Arguments

  • The applicant challenged the Government order which directed an oral inquiry (07.07.2006) in place of the earlier non-oral inquiry that culminated in punishment; the contention (as placed before the High Court) was that an oral inquiry could not be ordered after a non-oral inquiry had already been completed and punishment awarded.
  • The applicant also brought to the Government's attention later that certain dates were wrongly entered, which resulted in the Government revisiting the matter and discovering the earlier cancellation by the IGP (Annexure A-5).

Respondent (State Government of Kerala) — Position as Recorded

  • The State submitted that it forwarded the prescribed proforma/penalty statement to the UPSC for the Select List 2018 in the existing format (Annexure R-1) containing summarized details of penalties during the last ten years.
  • In that proforma the State recorded that a penalty was imposed on 27.02.2006, that the penalty had been cancelled on 24.10.2006, and that it was subsequently reinstated by Government order dated 14.12.2017; the proforma also recorded the period calculated (01.07.2006–30.06.2007) and the amount Rs.5,016 which was refunded on 12.03.2021.
  • The State's later explanation (as recorded) was that it became aware of Annexure A-5 only when certain corrections were sought by the applicant, and accordingly passed the detailed order of 14.12.2017 reinstating the penalty.

The opinion records that no detailed reply from the UPSC had been received at the time of this interim order.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Tribunal proceeded by carefully recounting the chronological sequence of administrative orders, the High Court judgment and subsequent Government action, and how these events were reflected (or not reflected) in the penalty proforma sent to the UPSC.

The Tribunal noted the following key strands in its reasoning:

  • There is a factual and administrative complexity: an initial punishment was imposed after a non-oral inquiry (Annexure A-1); subsequently the Government ordered an oral inquiry (Annexure A-2); the IGP cancelled the earlier proceedings and punishment (Annexure A-5); the High Court set aside the Government's oral-inquiry order (Annexure A-3); the State then issued an order seeming to drop disciplinary action (Annexure A-4); later, upon discovery that Annexure A-5 had cancelled the punishment earlier, the State cancelled Annexure A-5 and reinstated the original punishment by order dated 14.12.2017 (Annexure A-6).
  • The Tribunal observed that the proforma submitted to the UPSC was short and summarized. That abbreviated format appears to be the basis on which the UPSC assessed the applicant as "Unfit" for the Select List 2018 and marked his ACRs as "Unfit" for the years 2014–2018. The Tribunal identified that the proforma did not, in its view, adequately present the nuanced chronology and explanations now on record.
  • The Tribunal emphasised its awareness of the binding legal principle (as articulated by the Hon'ble Apex Court, and reiterated by the Tribunal in its own recent order dated 25.11.2021) that courts and tribunals should not re-examine the merits of Selection Committee findings except where clear malafide, bias or material error is shown. That principle constrained the Tribunal from substituting its view for the Selection Committee's assessment without the requisite showing.
  • Nevertheless, the Tribunal identified potential elements of administrative error on the part of the State Government and other authorities (for example, failure to follow up on the Government Order dated 07.07.2006 to appoint an Inquiry Authority, and possible failure of the DGP/Police Headquarters to bring the IGP's cancellation to the attention of the State Government). The Tribunal considered that such errors could have led to the incomplete or misleading summary placed before the UPSC.
  • Given the absence of a reply from the UPSC and lacking clarity whether the Selection Committee had before it all relevant details (including the effective currency of the punishment and whether disciplinary proceedings or a chargesheet were pending at the date of selection), the Tribunal concluded it could not adjudicate the main relief at the interim stage.
  • Accordingly, the Tribunal limited itself to issuing interim directions aimed at ensuring transparent presentation of full and detailed information by the State Government when forwarding the candidate's case for future Select List consideration, and at having the UPSC examine all such details afresh when assessing the applicant for inclusion in Select List 2019 onwards.

Holding and Implications

INTERIM DIRECTIONS ISSUED

The Tribunal's operative interim holding and directions are as follows:

  • The Tribunal declined to decide the primary relief (i.e., striking down the assessments for 2014–2018 and declaring the applicant eligible for selection from 2018) at this stage because the UPSC had not filed a reply and it was not clear whether the Selection Committee had all relevant details before it.
  • The Tribunal directed the State Government to disclose, in full and in a transparent manner, all relevant details and explanations when sending the proposal for Select List 2019 to the UPSC — including explanations for not following up on orders (for example Annexure A-2), why the DGP or Police Headquarters did not communicate the cancellation (Annexure A-5) to the Government, and any other facts relevant under the Selection Committee Guidelines and the IPS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955.
  • The Tribunal directed that the UPSC should consider all those aspects when making its assessment of the applicant, if he is eligible for consideration for Select List 2019.
  • The Tribunal invited the UPSC and the State Government to file detailed reply statements taking into account the Tribunal’s observations and listed the matter for further hearing on 20.01.2022.

Implications:

  • Direct effect on parties: The immediate effect is procedural — the State Government must prepare and forward a more detailed and transparent record to the UPSC for any future selection exercise involving the applicant, and the UPSC must re-examine the applicant's case in the light of those full details for Select List 2019 onwards.
  • No final determination on merit or entitlement: The Tribunal did not set aside the UPSC's prior assessment or declare the applicant eligible for promotion at this stage; it explicitly reserved the main relief for later consideration once replies are filed.
  • No new binding precedent: The order is an interim adjudication addressing process and disclosure; it does not purport to create new legal precedent or to substitute the Tribunal's judgment for the Selection Committee's findings absent a clear showing of malafide or material error.

Next procedural step recorded in the order: the UPSC and the State Government were directed to file detailed replies and the matter was listed for further hearing on 20.01.2022.

Annexures (as listed in the Opinion)

  1. Annexure A-1: Order No.A2/PR-20/05/NZ dated 27.02.2006 of IGP, North Zone.
  2. Annexure A-2: G.O.(Rt).No.1621/2006 Home dated 07.07.2006.
  3. Annexure A-3: Judgment dated 21.06.2016 in W.P. (C) No.33254 of 2006 — Hon'ble High Court of Kerala.
  4. Annexure A-4: G.O.(Rt) No.478/2017/Home dated 27.02.2017.
  5. Annexure A-5: Order No.A2/28366/2006/NZ dated 24.10.2006 of IGP, North Zone.
  6. Annexure A-6: G.O.(Ordinary) No.3338/2017 Home dated 14.12.2017 (and English translation).
  7. Annexure A-7: Proceedings of Accountant General Kerala dated 11.03.2021.
  8. Annexure A-8: Chalan dated 12.03.2021 for Rs.5,016.
  9. Annexure A-9: Zone of consideration 2019 dated 25.09.2020.
  10. Annexure A-10: Assessment Matrix by the 3rd respondent obtained by the applicant under RTI dated 27.08.2021.
  11. Annexure A-11: Minutes of the meeting dated 24.06.2021.
  12. Annexure R-1: Penalty Statement submitted to the UPSC as part of the Proposal for 2018 selection.

(This summary is confined strictly to facts, findings and directions as recorded in the provided Tribunal opinion and does not add or infer information beyond that text.)

Show all summary ...

Per : Mr.K.V.EAPEN, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER We are passing these orders on the interim relief sought for in the O.A by the applicant for consideration for selection to the IPS Select List for 2019 onwards. However, we deem it necessary to bring out the background of the case in some detail while passing these orders.

2. The applicant in this O.A, while working as a Circle Inspector under the Kerala Police, had been imposed with a penalty of punishment of 'increment bar for one year without cumulative effect' vide the order of the Inspector General of Police, (IGP), North Zone dated 27.02.2006, produced at Annexure A-1. This penalty was issued subsequent to a non-oral inquiry ordered against him. Later, on 07.07.2006, the Home Department in the Government of Kerala ordered an oral inquiry against the applicant on the same issue under Rule 6 of the KP DIP & A Rules instead of the Non oral Enquiry Ordered against him by the IGP, North Zone. It appears that the State Government was not aware that the said IGP had after going through the records already imposed a penalty as at Annexure A-1 or did not take this into account while ordering the Oral Enquiry. Further, as per a copy of this order produced at Annexure A-2, it appears from the Police HQ copy endorsement dated 06.10.2006 by the Director General of Police (DGP) that an instruction was also sent to Inspector General of Police, North Zone to cancel the earlier disposal of the PR minutes drawn up against the applicant on the similar issue and to issue proceedings immediately under intimation to the Home Department. By this endorsement the DGP also requested the IGP to suggest a competent officer for the conduct of the oral inquiry against the delinquent officer as also requested by the Home Department to the DGP in the main Order. The applicant then challenged this order passed by the Government of Kerala, Home Department before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala submitting that an oral inquiry against him was ordered under Rule 6 of KP DIP & A Rules, 1968 in place of a non-oral inquiry already ordered in which punishment was already awarded to him.

3. The Hon'ble High Court considered the matter and passed orders on 21.06.2016 in the W.P.(C) No.33254/2006 which is produced at Annexure A-3. It was noted in the said order that the respondents had not filed any counter affidavit and the interim order in the matter was continued. The Hon'ble High Court also observed that the direction to conduct an oral inquiry had been issued without noticing the fact that the disciplinary authority has already awarded the punishment after completing the non-oral inquiry ordered. (It is not clear, however, from the order whether the endorsement made by the Director General of Police indicated earlier was brought to the notice of the Hon'ble High Court). The Hon'ble High Court directed that, under the circumstances, the petitioner cannot be subjected to another inquiry after the punishment was awarded in finalization of the non- oral inquiry in respect of the very same incident. It was observed that there is no provision in the KPDIP & A Rules, which provides for an oral inquiry, once proceedings are completed culminating in a punishment by resorting to a non-oral inquiry. The Hon'ble High Court then set aside the order dated 07.07.2006 passed vide Annexure A-2.

4. It is significant that the State Government did not seek to review or appeal this order at Annexure A-3. On the other hand the Government of Kerala, Home Department passed another order dated 27.02.2017, produced in this OA at Annexure A-4, stating that the matter has been examined in detail and since the applicant (Shri Bastin Sabu, CI) has been given a punishment of increment bar of one year without cumulative effect further disciplinary action initiated in this regard vide Government Order was hereby dropped and the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Kerala complied with accordingly.

5. Further, from the details placed on record it appears that neither the Government of Kerala nor the applicant had brought to the notice of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala that pursuant to the PHQ Copy endorsement of the Director General of Police on the Annexure A-2 order dated 07.07.2006 (referred to earlier) the Inspector General of Police, North Zone, had already passed another order on 24.10.2006 wherein it was noted that the Government had examined the matter in detail and ordered an oral inquiry against the applicant vide the order at Annexure A-2 and thus, in obedience to the directions contained in the Police Headquarters (PHQ) letter in its endorsement dated 06.10.2006, the entire disciplinary proceedings initiated against the applicant was cancelled by the IGP, North Zone along with the punishment awarded vide order at Annexure A-1. This order is produced in this O.A at Annexure A-5. It is seen that a copy was marked to the DGP. It is not clear from the details as provided as to why the Director General of Police apparently did not bring this to the notice of the Government or, if he did, why on the other hand, the Government of Kerala did not follow up on the issue. Neither did the Government of Kerala follow up with the Director General of Police after it issued the orders at Annexure A-2 to Director General of Police to suggest a competent officer to conduct the oral inquiry against the applicant under Rule 8(i)(iii) of the KPDIP & A Rules, 1968. The Government's position is that it was only later that all the relevant details including the Annexure A-5 order were brought into the notice of the Government when an application was made by the applicant to correct certain dates which were wrongly entered in their references in the order passed by the Government at Annexure A-4, dropping the disciplinary action initiated by them. After this was brought to their notice, another detailed order was passed by the Government of Kerala on 14.12.2017, produced in the OA at Annexure A-6. In this order the Government admitted that it was not aware of the fact of the cancellation of the oral inquiry by the Inspector General of Police, North Zone along with the cancellation of the punishment, as per his order produced at Annexure A-5. It was further noted that the applicant had not included this fact in his Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High Court. Hence, it was noted that if the change was to be done as per Annexure A-4 and if the punishment awarded to him was to be cancelled, the result would be the presumption that there does not exists any departmental inquiry or punishment against Shri Bastin Sabu. It was also mentioned that it has to be considered that the punishment awarded to him was withdrawn only because of the decision of the Government to order an oral inquiry as per Annexure A-2. The Government therefore cancelled the order of the Inspector General of Police dated 24.10.2006 (at Annexure A-5) suspending the punishment imposed upon the applicant and reinstated the order which barred the increment of him without cumulative effect for one year in its order at Annexure A-6.

6. Thus, it appears from the wording of the above order at Annexure A-6 that the Government had discovered only after a long interval of time that the penalty was not actually imposed on the applicant. The penalty order at Annexure A-1 was passed but cancellation of the same vide Annexure A-5 by the Inspector General of Police, North Zone seems to have escaped the Government's attention, even though a copy of the same was marked to the DGP, Police Headquarters. The Hon'ble High Court suspended the operation of the Government Order at Annexure A-2 for an oral inquiry mainly on the ground that two inquiries could not be conducted on the same matter against the same incident, without apparent knowledge of the cancellation of the earlier order vide Annexure A-5. It also appears that, subsequent to the order at Annexure A-6, the Accountant General (A&E), Kerala sent a letter dated 12.03.2021 (Annexure A-7) to the State Police Chief with copy to the applicant stating that the excess pay and allowances drawn for the period from 01.07.2006 to 30.06.2007, amounting to Rs.5016/-, may be refunded as the punishment of increment bar for one year without cumulative effect has now been effected vide order dated 14.12.2017 (Annexure A-6) by barring the increment due on 01.07.2006. It is submitted that the applicant refunded this money on 12.03.2021 through a Treasury Chalan, copy of which is produced at Annexure A-8.

7. The above details needed to be presented to the UPSC in a proper manner to enable them to arrive at a reasoned perspective in the caser of the applicant. The respondents (State Government of Kerala) have submitted in a short reply given by them that they had sent the proposal to the UPSC for convening of the Selection Committee Meeting 2018 for preparation of the Select List for Selection of Indian Police Service Officers to the UPSC for the Kerala Cadre, in the prescribed format, as per existing guidelines. This proposal, inter alia, also contained details of penalties imposed on the eligible officers of the State Police Service during the last ten years shown as per the format prescribed. This proforma/format along with the filled in details has been produced at Annexure R-1. Against the applicant's name, at Serial No.23 of the format prescribed, it has been recorded that a penalty was imposed on him on 27.02.2006 for an increment bar for one year without cumulative effect. In the column headed Period of Currency of penalty and the date when the currency will be over, it has been recorded that the penalty of increment bar for one year without cumulative effect awarded on the officer on 27.02.2006 was cancelled on 24.10.2006 (something that the Government later claimed, as we have seen, it was not aware of). Subsequently, it is stated in the same column that it was reinstated by the Government vide letter dated 14.12.2017. It is also recorded in the same column that the penalty awarded to the officer was to be imposed for a period from 01.07.2006 to 30.06.2007 but was not implemented then. It is also recorded that the amount to be deducted for this above period has been computed as Rs.5016/- and the amount has been refunded by the officer on 12.03.2021 and the penalty stands implemented as on 12.03.2021. Further, in another column of the same proforma, in response to the heading Whether any appeal has been filed and if so whether there is any interim stay, the Government of Kerala has replied 'Yes' and that the Government has reinstated the punishment awarded to the officer vide its letter dated 14.12.2017.

8. It is our observation that this bland and undetailed information without the necessary elaboration which has been submitted in a prescribed proforma which forces details to be supplied in a purely summarized form to the UPSC, seems to be the basis on which the UPSC has assessed the applicant overall as 'Unfit' for the Select List of 2018 for promotion to IPS, as well as, for the assessment of his ACRs of the last five years (2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 & 2018) as 'Unfit'. We are of the opinion that this assessment could perhaps be required to be relooked at, in the light of the detailed information as brought out in the earlier paragraphs. We also note that in the minutes (produced at Annexure A-11) of the Selection Committee Meeting for the Select List 2018, at Page 9, that the currency of the penalty period against the applicant has not clearly been indicated. It is only indicated therein that the penalty of increment bar of one year without cumulative effect was imposed on 27.02.2006 but not implemented then. It is also indicated that the amount to be deducted was calculated as Rs.5016/- which was paid by the officer on 12.03.2021. The assessment of the applicant for the years 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018 overall assessment as Unfit is also footnoted in the minute as Unfit due to penalty.

9. For the purpose of this Interim Order in the absence of a reply statement from the UPSC or other information provided by the respondents, we are not issuing directions on the issue of whether this assessment was properly arrived at. We are not yet aware whether all relevant details were in front of the Selection Committee as we have brought out above. Further, we are also conscious about the Hon'ble Apex Court directions regarding the decisions taken by Selection Committees, which we have elaborately detailed in our recent order dated 25.11.2021 in O.A.No.180/528/2020 & O.A.No.180/444/2021. We were guided in our -10- findings therein by the directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, ie., that the Tribunals and Courts cannot sit on judgment over the findings of the Selection Committee unless a clear elements of malafide, error, bias etc. are brought out. It does appear to us from the details brought out above that there could have some elements of error on the part of the State Government in terms of not properly presenting all the required details to the UPSC. It is not clear to us, for example, whether the UPSC has considered properly the currency/effective period of punishment imposed on the applicant; whether the responsibility is primarily on the part of the State Government and not the applicant about the penalty not being implemented though it was imposed in 2006 and being implemented almost accidentally later in 2017 by a chance discovery through an application made by the applicant himself to the State Government for correction of an order relating to dropping of the inquiry initiated; whether there were mistakes on the part of the Police HQ (Director General of Police), the Controlling Officer of the applicant, in not informing the State Government about the dropping of the inquiry on receipt of the endorsement sent by the Inspector General of Police, North Zone etc., thus establishing that it cannot be purely the applicant's responsibility. Not only that, it appears that there was no follow up on part of the State Government about appointment of an Inquiry Authority, after it was recorded in the last paragraph of the Government Order dated 07.07.2006 at Annexure A-2 to the effect that the Director General of Police was to suggest a competent officer to conduct the oral inquiry etc. Further, it does not appear to us very clearly going by the -11- Guidelines for the Selection Committee and the IPS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 that disciplinary proceedings were actually pending against the applicant on the date of consideration of his case for the Select List 2018 as the penalty order had already been imposed vide Annexure A-1. The order of 14.12.2017 only seems to have confirmed this position. Further, it is also not clear whether any chargesheet was issued or pending against the applicant on the date of meeting of the Selection Committee as mentioned in the Guidelines for the Selection Committee. Essentially, the non implementation of the penalty seems to be due to errors committed by the State Government rather than the applicant himself.

10. As mentioned, however, we are not at present, considering the main relief sought in the O.A., which is to strike down the assessment for the period 2014 to 2018 and for a declaration that the applicant is eligible for consideration for selection and appointment to the Indian Police Service from 2018. As we noted, no reply statement has so far been received from the UPSC to enable us to draw any informed conclusions. Thus, we are at present, only considering whether his proposal and assessment for inclusion in subsequent Select Lists, such as Select List 2019 onwards for promotion to the Indian Police Service Kerala Cadre should be affected in the light of the above details. Given these details & concerns we only direct for the present that the State Government should bring out all the relevant details in a transparent manner while sending the proposal for Select List 2019 to the -12- UPSC on the lines as we have indicated above, giving their explanations in not following up for example on the orders at Annexure A-2, the failure of the State Police Chief to report to the State Government about the cancellation of the penalty order imposed by the Inspector General of Police, North Zone and all other relevant matters in light of our observations as well as the Guidelines as well as Regulations. The UPSC may then consider all these aspects while making its assessment of the applicant, if he is eligible to be considered, for the Select List 2019. (In passing we also observe that the UPSC may consider whether asking State Governments to give details regarding penalties etc. in a prescribed short format, which necessarily leads to summarised details and hiding of facts, is in the best interest of the candidates being considered for promotion.) The currency of the punishment which was related to the year 2006-2007 but was implemented due to inexplicable reasons only later in 2021, much of which as we have observed, seems due to mistakes on the part of the State Government, will also have to be considered by the Selection Committee of the UPSC in the light of the details. Thus, we are not in a position as of now to pass any further directions other than to once again direct the authorities both at the State Government level as well as in the UPSC to examine the whole matter in the light of all the required details in any future selection process to the IPS involving the applicant. Our interim orders are passed only to this extent. -13-

11. The UPSC as well as the State Government may now file a detailed reply statement in the O.A at an early date which can take into account these observations. List this case for further hearing on 20.01.2022. (Dated this the 10th day of December 2021) K.V.EAPEN P.MADHAVAN ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER -14- List of Annexures in O.A.No.180/00527/2021

1. Annexure A-1 : True copy of the Order No.A2/PR-20/05/NZ dated 27.02.2006 of Inspector General, North Zone, Kozhikode.

2. Annexure A-2 : True copy of the G.O (Rt).No.1621/2006 Home dated 07.07.2006.

3. Annexure A-3 : True copy of the Judgment dated 21.06.2016 in W.P. (C) No.33254 of 2006 of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala.

4. Annexure A-4 : True copy of the Order G.O.(Rt) No.478/2017/Home dated 27.02.2017.

5. Annexure A-5 : True copy of the Order No.A2/28366/2006/NZ dated 24.10.2006 of Inspector General, North Zone, Kozhikode.

6. Annexure A-6 : True copy of the G.O.(Ordinary) No.3338/2017 Home dated 14.12.2017 and English translation.

7. Annexure A-7 : True copy of the Proceedings of Accountant General Kerala dated 11.03.2021.

8. Annexure A-8 : True copy of the Chalan dated 12.03.2021 for Rs.5016.

9. Annexure A-9 : True copy of the Zone of consideration 2019 dated 25.09.2020.

10. Annexure A-10 : True copy of the Assessment Matrix by the 3rd respondent obtained by the applicant under the Right to Information Act dated 27.08.2021.

11. Annexure A-11 : True copy of the Minutes of the meeting dated 24.06.2021.

12. Annexure R-1 : True copy of the Penalty Statement submitted to the UPSC as part of Proposal for 2018 selection. _______________________

© 2026 Gauge Data Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

x

Alert

Please log in or sign up for a free trial to access this feature.
Sign Up Login
x