A.Selvaganesh, v. Site Director & Disciplinary

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT RESERVED ON : 28.06.2017 DELIVERED ON : 11.08.2017 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR W.P.(MD)No.6551 of 2015 and M.P.(MD) Nos.1 and 3 of 2015 A.Selvaganesh, Scientific Assistant (Dismissed), Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd., Kudankulam Nuclear Power Project, Kudankulam Post, Radhapuram Taluk, Thirunelveli District-627 126.

... Petitioner Vs.

1.Site Director & Disciplinary Authority, Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd., Kudankulam Nuclear Power Project, Kudankulam Post, Radhapuram Taluk, Thirunelveli District-627 126.

2.The Internal Complaints Committee, Represented by its Chairperson, Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd., Kudankulam Nuclear Power Project, Kudankulam Post, Radhapuram Taluk, Thirunelveli District-627 126.

... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the entire records connected with the impugned enquiry report of the 2nd respondent dated 10.02.2014, and consequential impugned order of dismissal passed by the 1st respondent vide No.NPCIL/KKNPP/2015/86, dated 02.03.2015, and quash the same and direct the 1st respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service as Scientific Assistant 'B' with continuity of service and all consequential attendant benefits.

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Anantha Padmanaban For Respondents : Mr.Krishna Srinivasan Senior Advocate for Mr.C.Muthusaravanan *****

O R D E R

The above Writ Petition has been filed to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the enquiry report of the second respondent, dated 10.02.2014, and the consequential impugned order of dismissal passed by the first respondent, dated 02.03.2015, dismissing the petitioner from service and consequentially to direct the first respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service as Scientific Assistant ('B') with continuity of service. 2.The petitioner is a diploma holder in Mechanical Engineering with first class. The petitioner applied for the post of Scientific Assistant ('B'), pursuant to the notification issued by the first respondent in the year 2007, and he was appointed as Scientific Assistant ('B'), and joined in service with effect from 18.08.2007.

According to the petitioner, he has been discharging his duty honestly and to the satisfaction of his Superior without giving any room for any complaint. The petitioner was promoted as Scientific Assistant ('C') in the month of July 2011. The petitioner states that while, he was in service, one Selvi.Ponmani, Data Entry Operator working on contract basis in the Civil Section gave a false complaint against the petitioner and his colleague Thiru.Oeikkattan, on 01.12.2013 and that a case was registered under Sections 354 and 509(ii) IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002.

3.The allegation levelled against the petitioner was that on 04.10.2013, at about 13.30 hours, in Room No.10 of Civil Block, second floor, Administrative Building, he hold her hand, hugged, kissed her and pushed her down and tried to outrage her modesty during office hours. Though the alleged incident took place on 04.10.2013, the complaint was given by that lady only on 01.12.2013. 4.In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the petitioner has narrated some events stating that before the complaint, the complainant, Selvi.Ponmani, was friendly with the petitioner and that later due to misunderstanding, she demanded the petitioner to marry her. It was contented that since, the petitioner refused to marry her, he was threatened by some of the relatives of Selvi.

Ponmani and the petitioner was therefore constrained to give a complaint against Selvi.Ponmani and her relatives to the Deputy General Manager (HR). It was further stated that one of the friends of the petitioner was also threatened and a complaint was also lodged by the wife of the petitioner's friend on 30.11.2013. It was on the next day, Selvi.Ponmani, gave the criminal complaint in Kudankulam Police Station. It appears that the petitioner obtained anticipatory bail on 10.12.2013. 5.The case of the petitioner is that, he was called over phone by his Superior one Jeyakrishan, on 28.12.2013, and directed to appear for an enquiry at 15.30 hours, without any details and particulars about the nature of enquiry.

the training hall, where he was informed orally that Selvi.Ponmani had given the copy of the First Information Report to the respondents and requested for a suitable action against the petitioner. Hence, it appears that without any written complaint from Selvi.Ponmani, the respondents constituted an Internal Complaints Committee to enquire the charges of sexual harassment alleged by the lady. It is stated that on 28.12.2013 itself, the Internal Complaints Committee consists of five members obtained statements from the complainant, namely, Selvi.Ponmani and the petitioner.

6.The petitioner further stated that on 13.01.2014, he was called over phone for an enquiry and that the four members of the Internal Complaints Committee once again enquired the petitioner and obtained a statement from the petitioner, without informing the petitioner that it is a domestic enquiry. It is the case of the petitioner that on 03.05.2014, a show case notice was issued, stating that the Internal Complaints Committee constituted under the provisions of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, has submitted a report and finding that the allegations of sexual harassment stands proved. In the notice, the petitioner was directed to make his further representation in writing within 15 days from the date of receipt of enquiry report.

7.A corrigendum to the notice dated 03.05.2014, was also issued on 07.05.2014. In response to the show cause notice, the petitioner gave a detailed representation on 19.05.2014. However, the first respondent, namely, the Disciplinary Authority, by order dated 02.03.2015, dismissed the petitioner from service. In the impugned order, it was stated that the petitioner is found guilty of specific Rules under the Provisions of NPCIL (Conduct) Rules, 1994. The petitioner has therefore filed the above writ petition, challenging the enquiry report as well as the order of dismissal from service. 8.The points raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner are as follows:

(i) The alleged incident occurred on 04.10.2013 and the First Information Report was registered on 01.12.2013. The complainant requested the first respondent to treat the First Information Report dated 01.12.2013 as a complaint. As per Section 9 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, an aggrieved woman is required to make a complaint in writing of sexual harassment at work place to the Internal Complaints Committee. however, the enquiry was based on the First Information Report that was registered on 01.12.2013. Hence, the whole proceedings initiated against the petitioner without any written complaint from the so called victim is liable to be quashed. (ii) The petitioner was not given sufficient opportunity as neither the copy of the First Information Report nor any other written complaint was furnished to the petitioner, so as to submit his effective objections or submissions in detail. The whole

proceeding is therefore in violation of principle of natural justice, in as much as, the petitioner did not have the opportunity to put forth his case in full.

(iii) The constitution of Internal Complaints Committee was improper and therefore the committee did not have the authority to enquire. The second respondent committee failed to conduct the enquiry as per Rule 7 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013. (iv) Based on the criminal complaint given by Selvi.Ponmani, the case was registered and taken on file in C.C.No.277 of 2014. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Valliyoor, after considering the entire evidence on records, discharged the petitioner from the criminal case specifically holding that the petitioner has not committed any offences as stated in the complaint. Hence, the disciplinary proceedings, which is purely based on surmises, is liable to be quashed.

(v) The petitioner did not even know the definite charge, on which the enquiry was conducted. As the petitioner was under the impression that the enquiry conducted was only a preliminary one, he therefore did not insist a copy of the complaint and other documents at that time. Since, the whole enquiry is conducted in violation of principle of natural justice, the impugned orders of the respondents 1 and 2 are liable to be quashed.

(vi) The relationship between the petitioner and the complainant, even after the alleged incident would clearly show that the version given by the complainant cannot be true. There is no eye witnesses to the alleged misconduct. The Internal Complaints Committee was biassed by accepting the edited telephonic conversation recorded by the complainant, without considering the evidence as a whole in this case. Since, the evidence produced by the complainant are unreliable and un-creditable, the whole enquiry report is liable to be quashed.

(vii) The incident, particularly registration of case given by the petitioner's friend's wife against the close relatives of the complainant was not considered. The findings of enquiry was based on surmises and conjecture and not on any legal principles or documents or evidence to prove the misconduct.

9.The Writ Petition was contested by the respondents by filing a detailed counter affidavit. As against the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents pointed out that the allegations are serious. Since, the alleged misconduct shows the harassment of a woman / co-worker at work place, the matter was enquired seriously. The petitioner was given sufficient opportunities to present his case. In such circumstance, there is no infirmity or illegality either in the report of the Enquiry Officer or in the order of the respondents removing the petitioner from service. 10.Since the Internal Complaints Committee has found the petitioner guilty of sexual harassment and the same was accepted by the disciplinary authority namely, the first respondent, having

regard to the nature of misconduct, the punishment of dismissal from service is appropriate. It was further submitted that in criminal proceeding the standard of proof is high, but in the department proceedings, findings can be based on preponderance of probabilities. Hence, merely on the basis that the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case, the findings of the Disciplinary Authority and the Internal Complaints Committee cannot be set aside. 11.Further, the learned senior counsel submitted that in the case of sexual harassment especially when the incident was not witnessed by anyone, the misconduct can be established by circumstantial evidence. In the present case the statement of the witnesses was examined by the Enquiry Committee and the recordings of the telephonic conversation and material evidence were relied upon by the Internal Complaints Committee. In such circumstances, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

12.The first issue is whether a complaint on sexual harassment can be entertained and enquired without a written complaint. For this said propose Section 9 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, requires an attention. Section 9 of the Act reads as follow: "9. (1)Any aggrieved woman may make, in writing, a complaint of sexual harassment at workplace to the Internal Committee if so constituted, or the Local Committee, in case it is not so constituted, within a period of three months from the date of incident and in case of a series of incidents, within a period of three months from the date of last incident:

Provided that where such complaint cannot be made_in writing, the Presiding Officer or any Member of the Internal Committee or the Chairperson or any Member of the Local Committee, as the case may be, shall render all reasonable assistance to the woman for making the complaint in writing:

Provided further that the Internal Committee or, as the case may be, the Local Committee may, for the reasons to be recorded in writing, extend the time limit not exceeding three months, if it is satisfied that the circumstances were such which prevented the woman from filing a complaint within the said period.

(2) Where the aggrieved woman is unable to make a complaint on account of her physical or mental incapacity or death or otherwise, her legal heir or such other person as may be prescribed may make a complaint under this section."

13.Section 9 of the Act certainly contemplates a complaint in writing to be given to the Internal Complaints Committee within three months from the date of incident. Even, if a complaint cannot be made for any reason, it is the duty of the Presiding Officer or any member of the Internal Complaints Committee, to render reasonable Assistant to the woman, for making a complaint in writing.

14.Section 9(ii) also contemplates that the written complaint shall be given by the legal heir or any other person, when the aggrieved woman is not able to make a complaint, on account of physical or mental capacity. In section 9 of the Act, the legislative intent is obvious that the complaint of sexual harassment at work place to the Internal Complaints Committee should be in writing.

15. The next question is whether the First Information Report can been taken or treated as a complaint in writing. The First Information Report is the information given to the police about the incident that allegedly occurred on 04.10.2013. The written information given to the police is registered in Crime No.301 of 2013. It was, thereafter, a registered copy of the complaint in the prescribed format is produced in this case. The First Information Report is in the handwriting of the officer in-charge of the police station and not signed by the de-facto complainant. The whole complaint as given by the de-facto complainant is recorded. 16.Having regard to the nature of the contents, it is in the form of the First Information Report, it cannot be termed or treated as a written complaint of the victim as required under Section 9 of the Act.

17.The specific case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was never given a copy of the First Information Report. Since, the petitioner stated that he was aware of the First Information Report registered against him, the Internal Complaints Committee proceeded to accept as a valid service of notice of complaint. No material is produced before this Court to show that at least the copy of the First Information Report was served on the petitioner. As, the delinquent is not made aware of all the contents of the complaint, the enquiry is in violation of principle of natural justice, as there is a denial of fair opportunity to file his objections in an effective manner.

18. The petitioner appeared before the enquiry only as per the telephonic communication to the petitioner. The petitioner though denied his allegations, the enquiry proceeded without even getting an explanation from the petitioner. The statement of the petitioner as well as the complainant and other witnesses were recorded by the Enquiry Officer, but in the enquiry proceedings, there is no indication about furnishing a copy of all the documents to the petitioner.

19.It appears that the recorded telephonic conversations were produced by the complainant. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the recorded conversations were only the edited version and that therefore the findings based on the recorded conversation cannot be accepted. It was submitted that though statements were obtained by the Internal Complaints Committee from

few witnesses, the contents of the statement given by them were not made known to the petitioner and that therefore the whole enquiry of the Internal Complaints Committee is illegal and liable to be quashed.

20.The enquiry report relied upon by the respondent is carefully perused. Six members of the Internal Complaints Committee was constituted under the provisions of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redreassal) Act, 2013, under the Chairperson of the Superior Officer namely, Smt.Lakshmi Gopidas.

21.From the reading of the report it can be seen that the complainant requested to treat the First Information Report as complaint, as she has nothing else to add. The relevant portions of the enquiry report, which requires serious attention, are as follows:

"ENQUIRY PROCEEDINGS:

3.1 Consequently, regular hearings were conducted on daily basis from 28.12.2013. Accordingly, Ms.Ponmani the complainant and Shri Selvaganseh, the respondent were called upon. In addition some more officials & contract labourers were called upon who are working in the respective sections, to know more about the incident. 3.2 The Committee enquired both of them separately and jointly in order to bring out the true facts of the incident occurred on 04.10.2013 as there were no eye witnesses. Even during the joint enquiry, they continued to maintain their original versions. Shri.Selvaganesh denied the allegations and Ms.Ponmani stood by her written complaint. During the enquiry, they have informed the committee that both of them visited each other's house on two or three occasions and they maintained a good friendly relationship until the incident took place.

3.3 Committee noted that after the incident took place, the complainant has persuaded the respondent for marriage. The SMS messages sent by complainant to the respondent in this regard were seen by the Committee. As the respondent did not agree for the marriage, the complainant has filed FIR.

3.4. As such, in order to ascertain the factual matrix of the issue, the committee enquired the persons listed in point 4.2 below.

3.5. On further enquiry, the complainant submitted two recordings of telephonic conversation between complainant and respondent as evidence to the incident. Details of these conversations are covered in points 5.0 below. 4.0 ENQUIRY OF PERSONS WHO WERE AWARE OF THE ISSUE:

4.1. During the enquiry proceedings the complainant and respondent informed about several persons who were aware of the issue and tried to resolve the issue amicably. However, the same could not materialize and the complainant has given the present complaint. 4.2 Shri Oeikatttan Technician F.(Emp No.19085180) Shri Ahilan, SA/C (Emp No.1908671) Shri Kalirajan ACE (CV-1) Emp.No.1900629, Shri Sivakumar SA/C Emp.No.1908371, Shri Bhaskar, Shri Manohar & Shri Antony, Contract Labour with M/s.Danile Projects and Smt.Muthulakshmi steno -2 (Emp.No.1905872)were enquired. During the enquiry it was observed that the person named above came to know about the incident either from the complainant / newspaper / FIR. During the enquiry it was brought out by the people enquired that both the complainant and the respondent maintained good relationship with each other before the incident. The statements in writing were obtained from the above officials and copies of the same are annexed to this report.

5.0 ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF VOICE RECORDING IN MOBILE:

5.1 On further investigation the complainant and the respondent have submitted voice recording of the respective mobile phones which were taken into consideration by the committee.

5.2 According to the voice recording's submitted by the complainant as evidence for the said incident it was observed that incident taken place for which the respondent, Shri Selvaganesh was seeking apology / sorry from the complainant, Ms.ponmani.

5.3 The respondent, after hearing the telephonic recordings of the complainant submitted two telephonic recordings between the respondent and the complainant. There was nothing directly related to the incident in the talk but it was observed that both the claimant and the respondent have maintained friendly relationship even after the incident.

6.0 ANALYSIS OF THE INCIDNET:

6.1 During the entire enquiry proceedings, the committee observed that the complainant and the respondent maintained friendly relationship which was not severed due to the incident, as reported by the Complainant. Even after the incident, the respondent happened to visit the Complainant's house and was given a warm welcome by the complainant. Further it was observed that for few days after the incident took place, neither the complainant nor the respondent has taken the matter seriously. The complainant initially tried to settle the dispute by persuading for marriage. The relationship worsened when

the respondent denied to marry the complainant even after persuading in several days. The delay of almost two moths in filing FIR was due to the perusal.

It is evident from the enquiry proceedings that the said incident has taken place and it amounts to sexual harassment, however, the same cannot be taken as a complainant in toto against the respondent due to the reason that the complainant is also responsible. 7.0 FINDINGS OF THE COMMITTEE:- The complainant and the respondent were given reasonable and fair opportunity in presenting the case during the entire enquiry proceedings. The respective statements in writing were also obtained from the complainant and the respondent.

The committee is of the opinion that the said incident occurred during the working hours and in the office premises of KKNPP. The said incident is in act of misconduct as specified under the provisions of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 as well as the observance of Corporation's Policy towards women.

22.The committee has recorded a finding that the petitioner and the complainant used to visit each others house and that they were maintaining good friendly relationship until the incident took place. The complainant herself admitted that both claimants and the petitioner maintained friendly relationship even after the incident. All the witnesses examined have admitted that they came to know about the incident either from the complainant, newspaper or First Information Report. The witnesses also stated that the petitioner and the complainant maintained very good relationship with each other before the incident took place. Except the voice recordings submitted by the complainant, to show that the petitioner was seeking apology from the complainant, in connection with some incident, there is absolutely no evidence in relation to the incident that happened on 04.10.2013. Absolutely there was no whisper about the contents of the recorded conversation so as to justify the conclusion that the apology was with reference to the alleged incident dated 04.10.2013.

23.Thus, the Internal Complaints Committee without an objective consideration recorded its conclusion. Strangely the committee itself has observed that the complainant and the respondent maintained friendly relationship, which did not severe due to the incident as reported by the complainant. Even, after the incident, the respondent happened to visit the complainant's house and he was given warm welcome by the complainant. It was also observed that for few days after the incident took place, neither the complainant nor the respondent has taken the matter seriously. The complainant initially tried to settle the issue. However, the committee

observed that the relationship worsened only when the respondent refused to marry the complainant, even after persuasion. 24.Strangely, the final conclusion was that some incident had taken place and that the complainant was also responsible. However, the incident had occurred during the working hours and in the office premises at Kudankulam Nuclear Power Project, the committee opined that incident was held as act of misconduct specified under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013. It is based on this enquiry report, the final order was passed by the first respondent dismissing the petitioner from service.

I have already noticed that the enquiry itself is vitiated, due to the procedural irregularity for not giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner, after getting a written complaint. It is to be noted that the First Information Report itself is not evidence, without actual proof of the allegations stated therein. In a case of this nature, the delinquent is not expected to produce negative evidence to prove his innocence. 25.In the present case, the conclusion reached by the Enquiry Committee is not even supported by the facts recorded. The Enquiry Committee has concluded drawaing inference purely based on surmises and conjectures.

While doing so, the Enquiry Committee could have at least adopted a process by which the petitioner is made known the specific allegation about him and furnishing the details of recorded conversation in compliance of principles of natural justice. However, that was not done in the present case. 26.Since, the findings are mere suspicion based on surmises it cannot be allowed to take the place of proof even in domestic enquiry. The conclusion should always be based on relevant materials. In the present case, the conclusion of the Internal Complaints Committee is so unreasonable and grossly unjust that no reasonable person can judicially arrive at that conclusion. Hence, this Court hold that the enquiry report is nothing but perverse.

In other words the findings of the Internal Complaints Committee outrageously defy logic so as to suffer from the vice of irrationality. Since, the finding, reached by the Internal Complaints Committee is based on no evidence and no prudent person would act upon it, the decision of the disciplinary authority based on the findings of the Internal Complaints Committee is illegal and liable to be set aside.

27.The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of Criminal Court in Crime Case No.277 of 2014 dated 20.04.2016 of Judicial Magistrate Court, Valliyoor. It is relevant to point out that in the Judgment several lacunae including the framing of charge sheet without even enquiring anyone, who is working in Kudankulam Nuclear Power Project were referred to some of the witnesses who were examined by the prosecution also turned hostile and ultimately, it was found that there was evidence to prove the allegations against the petitioner. The petitioner was of course honorarily acquitted. However, the legal position is that

the findings of the criminal Court is not binding on disciplinary authority.

28.The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of C.Jagan vs. Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd., (TASMAC), Chennai and others reported in 2014 5 MLJ 747, wherein, it has been held as follows :

11. From the impugned order it could be seen that one Godown Manager was appointed as Enquiry Officer. The records further reveal that the said Enquiry Officer, probably, was not aware of the procedure to be followed in disciplinary proceedings, more particularly, in the matter of holding domestic enquiry. Records reveal that he simply called the petitioner, recorded his statement and on considering the same submitted his report. This is not the enquiry which was meant in the order passed by this Court in the earlier writ petition. The enquiry cannot be an empty formality. It should be real, so as to satisfy the legal requirements. It is not explained to the Court as to why specific charges were not framed.

Similarly, it is explained to the Court as to why no witness was examined in support of the charges and it is not explained to the Court as to why the report of the Enquiry Officer was not furnished to the delinquent, calling upon further explanation from him. Thus, it is crystal clear that the impugned order has been passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and the procedure known to law relating to disciplinary proceedings. Therefore, this order cannot be allowed to sustain.

29.The learned counsel for the respondents also relied upon the few judgments of Honourable Supreme Court, wherein it has been held that the standard of proof in criminal proceeding is high and that in departmental proceeding findings can be on the basis of preponderance of probabilities. It was submitted that the criminal Court is neither binding nor can press into the service, even if the departmental proceedings are on the same set of facts. Though, the learned counsel for the respondents relied upon a few judgments for the said preposition, this Court is not inclined to refer to the same as this Court Court also subscribe to the view expressed by the Honourable Supreme Court in several cases. Hence, the learned counsel for the petitioner is not right in relying upon the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Valliyoor in the criminal case in Crime No.277 of 2014, where the petitioner was acquitted and discharged him from all the charges.

30.Having regard to the admitted facts that the petitioner was neither furnished with the copy of the First Information Report nor the complaint was made available to him, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the whole enquiry proceedings on the basis of FIR is vitiated and the whole enquiry report is liable to the quashed for violation of principle of natural justice and for other reasons stated earlier.

31.The learned counsel for the petitioner is right in making his submission, as his stand is supported by the judgements relied upon by him. However in the present case, no prejudice was alleged by the petitioner even after he was furnished with the enquiry report. In the present case, the petitioner did not whisper about the violation of the principles of natural justice, when the first respondent issued the show cause notices along with the copy of the report of the Internal Complaint Committee. Hence, this Court is not inclined to accept the whole argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner. However, having regard to the discussion in the earlier part of this judgment, the whole enquiry proceedings is vitiated for the reason stated above.

The impugned order dismissing the petitioner from service cannot be sustained, as the finding that the petitioner is guilty of the alleged sexual harassment is perverse and based on no evidence. Further the enquiry proceeding is without a complaint in writing is vitiated as pointed out earlier. Hence this Court has no other option but to allow this Writ Petition. The impugned enquiry report of the Internal Complaints Committee, namely, the second respondent dated 10.02.2014 and the impugned order dismissing the petitioner from the service, dated 03.03.2015 are quashed and consequently, the first respondent is directed to reinstate the petitioner in service as Scientific Assistant (C) with continuity of service and all consequential attendant benefits. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(T&P) /True Copy/ Sub-Assistant Registrar To 1.Site Director & Disciplinary Authority, Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd., Kudankulam Nuclear Power Project, Kudankulam Post, Radhapuram Taluk, Thirunelveli Dt 627 126. 2.The Internal Complaints Committee, Rep by its Chairperson, Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd., Kudankulam Nuclear Power Project, Kudankulam Post, Radhapuram Taluk, Thirunelveli Dt 627 126. +One cc to Mr.N.Ananthapadmanaban, Advocate, SR.no.72106 +One cc to mr.C.Muthusaravanan, Advocate, SR.No.72135 cmr/ia RL/5C/12P/KK/SAR2/18/8/2017 Order made in W.P.(MD)No.6551 of 2015 and M.P.(MD) Nos.1 and 3 of 201 11.08.2017