Summary:

The ministrys letters and internal note of 20.04.2010 and 14.11.2013 (totally 3 records in the last 4 pages)
expose the respondents indulgence both in perjury and forgery as shown below:

PERJURY:

1) "Tampering with the record of judicial proceedings and filing of false affidavit in a court of law has the
tendency of causing obstruction in the due course of justice. It undermines and obstructs free flow of the
unsoiled stream of justice and aims at striking a blow at the rule of law. The stream of justice has to be kept
clear and pure and no one can be permitted to take liberties with it by soiling its purity. [Apex court in
Mohan Singh v. Late Amar Singh through L.Rs., [1998] 6 SCC 686].

2) Even after issuing a promotion order to Dr Atmanand to the grade of Scientist-G under the guise of posts of
Director and Scientist-G were equivalents, the trio viz: Dr Shailesh Nayak, Dr Vasudha Gupta and Dr
Atmanand had been arguing in Madras High Court that these posts were not equivalent. This is clearly with
the vicious motive of concealing the deficiency of Dr Atmanand in meeting the requirements of Scientist-G.
This is a serious contempt of court under CRPC 340.

3) The List of Dates and Events in the following pages shows clearly that the Respondents were deliberately
and consciously making false affidavits to the judiciary with a view to divert the course of justice and
succeeded. Only the recent surfacing of these records has provided irrefutable evidences to fix the
respondents and their dubious acts. The Apex Court in Chajoo Ram v, Radhey Shyam & Anr., AIR (1971)
SC 1367, stated that where the offence relates to a court under Section 195 Cr.P.C. sanction of the court
should be obtained first and such sanction should be granted in those cases where the perjury appears to
be deliberate and conscious and the conviction is reasonably probable or likely.

FORGERY:
Following crimes seem obvious:
i. The letter F.No.MoES/18/06/2010-Estt. dated 14.9.2011 promoting Dr. M. A. Atmanand to the grade of
Scientist-G effective from 21.10.2009 befalls a FORGED DOCUMENT as provided by IPC 470.
ii. The internal note of 14.9.2011 makes a false declaration as if Dr Atmanand had all outstanding grades
to qualify for fast-track promotion. He did not have all outstanding grades as per the documents
submitted by the ministry to DOPT/ACC.
iii. Dr Shailesh Nayak, Secretary and Dr Vasudha Gupta, Director are responsible for making the false
document dishonestly or fraudulently without lawful authority as provided by IPC 464 attracting
punishment under IPC 465.
iv. Dr Atmanand cannot be ignorant of FCS rules for promotion. He was not even screened in for FCS
interview for promotion from 01.07.2009 and becomes eligible for reconsideration not before 1.7.2010.
Accepting a dubious promotion devoid of self-assessment, assessment by DPRC and approval of ACC
can only be construed as a bribe for some unknown consideration. His role especially as the only direct
beneficiary of this FORGERY cannot be ruled out.
v. The order has been issued despite a forewarning from the DOPT to ensure the minimum residential
period of 5 years in the grade of Scientist-F.
vi. As the document entails functioning under a public funded research institute, the despicable act is
amenable to IPC 466 also.
vii. Dr Shailesh Nayak has cited this document to substantiate his illicit goal of ensuring Dr Atmanand as
interim Director superseding legitimate senior scientists from 21.10.2014. This amounts to cheating as
provided by IPC 468 and IPC 471.
viii. Dr Atmanand has used this forged document to claim seniority over others in the institute, to assess the
performance and write confidential reports of fellow scientists and to draw a higher salary and perks
beyond his eligibility as a Scientist-F which is amenable to IPC 471 and IPC 474.
ix. Dr Atmanand by virtue of this forged document attempted to act as Disciplinary Authority to the applicant
though he is many years junior to the applicant.
x. The forged document in effect amends the earlier approval of the Appointments Committee of Cabinet
which approved the appointment in the scale equivalent to that of Scientist-G only for contract tenure of
only 5 years i.e. until 20.10.2014. This is effectively financial embezzlement. Amending the order of a
superior authority is a serious misconduct.
xi. The illegal approval for promotion of Dr Atmanand to Scientist-G grade is in contempt of court by the
trio viz: Dr Shailesh Nayak, Dr Vasudha Gupta and Dr Atmanand. Even after promoting Dr Atmanand to
the grade of Scientist-G under the guise of posts of Director and Scientist-G were equivalents, they
had been arguing in Madras High Court that these posts were not equivalent and that deficiency of Dr
Atmanand to meet the requirements of Scientist-G was not impediment to appoint him as Director. This
is a serious contempt of court under CRPC 340.
xii. The standard practice of notifying the promotion through Office Orders was not done to avoid publicity
and detection of the fraud.
 LIST OF DATES AND EVENTS

DATE EVENTS
08.09.2000 NIOT STAFF SERVICE RULES were approved by 19th GC Meeting held on
08.09.2000 and operationalized.
Rule 13 deals with the Designation, Internal functional designation and the Scale of
Pay of all the Scientific, Technical Support and Administrative Staff. Accordingly, the
nomenclature DIRECTOR is only an Internal Functional Designation of an otherwise
Scientist-G.
The rules covered in detail the requirements for scientists in various levels i.e.
Scientist-B to Scientist-F.
Government of India (Appointments Committee of Cabinet) approval is required for
Scientist-G level posts. In order to make GoI provisions applicable suo moto as and
when it is revised, a saving clause was introduced in the Service Rules as Rule 1.1
which read as: the National Institute of Ocean Technology shall adopt the rules and
regulations regarding service matters of its employees in general, as per the
Government of India Rules unless/otherwise modified in these Rules.

This means that candidate for the post of DIRECTOR should necessarily qualify
against the Recruitment Rules of Scientist-G.
2004 The applicant was selected as Director, NIOT against the first ever open
advertisement with requirements much more stringent than the then prevailing
Scientist-G rules. Disregarding the advertised norm, service rules and
recommendations of the selection committee he was offered 5-year tenure on
contract in lieu of until superannuation.
30.07.2007 DOPT by its order No. No.AB.14017/11/2004-Estt.(RR) of 30.07.2007 set a deadline
of 3 months to notify recruitment rules for all posts if it had not been done earlier.
NIOT did not issue fresh recruitment rules for the post of Director only because
Scientist-G rules were already in vogue and that the nomenclature Director was only
an internal functional designation.
2009 Discarding art 13(2) of the Constitution another open advertisement was made and
the applicant though had all OUTSTANDING track record was replaced by his junior
(Respondent-3) on 5-year contract concealing his deficiency in regard to Scientist-G
rules.
31.08.2009 Ministry (falsely) declared to the Appointments Committee of Cabinet that Scientist-G
[This record rules were followed during the selection as the post of Director was equivalent to that
was not of Scientist-G.
disclosed to
the judiciary]
20.04.2010 A screening committee of the ministry chaired by the Joint Secretary of the ministry
[This record recorded as: The committee noted that Dr. M.A. Atmanand, NIOT has become Sci. G
was hidden level (i.e. Director of NIOT) through open interview and with the approval of ACC.
from Therefore, there is no requirement for him to be considered. This view was accepted
judiciary] by the Respondent-1 also, though the screening committee had absolutely no
propriety in the matter as per the rules. Further, his selection as Director was on 5-
year contract basis and is reversible but the promotion under FCS is permanent one.
23.06.2010 Under the RTI Act Ministry confirmed that Scientist-G rules were applicable for the
post of Director, NIOT.
18.08.2010 Under the RTI Act Ministry confirmed that Scientist-G rules were applicable for the
post of Director, NIOT.
Oct. 2010 Applicant filed a writ of quo warranto against the appointment of Respondent-3 by
Respondents 1&2 in view of his deficiency with respect to recruitment rules amongst
other grounds.
04.03.2011 Under the RTI Act Ministry confirmed that Scientist-G rules were applicable for the
post of Director, NIOT and all other institutes under the ministry.
2011 All the three respondents filed counter-affidavits that the post of Director was not
equivalent to the post of Scientist-G and that Scientist-G requirements need not be
met by the Director.
14.11.2011
i. Noting the Screening Committees view on 20.04.2010, Respondent-1 issued an order
[This record that Respondent-3 was made Scientist-G effective from 21.10.2009 i.e. from the day
was hidden he assumed the office of Director. The standard practice of notifying the promotion
from
through Office Orders was not done to avoid publicity and detection of the fraud.
judiciary]
16.11.2011 The Ld. Single Judge of the Hon'ble High Court passed a common order in W.P. No.
23652 of 2010 and 9717 of 2011, thereby dismissing the Writ Petitions on the ground
that there were no violations in the absence of existing rules and regulations in force
and the 3rd Respondent possessed the requisite qualifications as per the
advertisement. As such he was rightly nominated as per the past practice. The post of
Director is not equivalent to Scientist-G and hence, NIOT Service Rules are not
applicable for the post of Director.
2011 The Petitioner preferred an Appeal being Writ Appeal No.2128 of 2011.
08.01.2013 The Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Madras vide its common judgment and order
dated 08.01.2013 dismissed the writ appeals upholding the judgment passed by the
Ld. Single Judge.
2013 Special Leave Petition was also dismissed in limine.
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. XXX OF 2015 IN
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 23652 OF 2010

In the matter under section:

Dr S. KATHIROLI, Age 58 years resident of

Dr.S.Kathiroli
-Vs.-
1) Government of India - Represented by the Secretary,
Ministry of Earth Sciences,
MahaSagar Bhavan, Block No.12, C.G.O. Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi 110 003.
2) National Institute of Ocean Technology,
(Rep. by its Chairman of Governing Council),
NIOT Campus, Velachery Tambaram Road,
Pallikkaranai, Chennai - 600 100.
3) Dr. M.A. Atmanand,
Director, National Institute of Ocean Technology,
NIOT Campus, Velachery Tambaram Road,
Chennai 600 100. .. .. .. Respondents
TO
THE HON. THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THIS HON. HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CHENNAI

THE HUMBLE APPLICATION OF THE APPLICANTS ABOVE-NAMED:

The applicant above named most humbly submits as under:-

1) That the Applicant, Dr S. Kathiroli filed a writ of quo warranto against the appointment of Respondent-3 in
2009 as the Director of National Institute of Ocean Technology, Chennai by the Respondents 1 and 2 which
was registered as W.P. 23652/2010. Prior to NIOT Governing Council approving and operationalizing NIOT
Service Rules in September 2000, the post of Director was deemed equivalent to the then Adviser (now
being called as Scientist-G) post of Government of India and the Director was selected accordingly. The
most important requirement in these rules was a minimum residency period of five years in the previous
grade (now being called as Scientist-F).

2) Amendment made to the Department of Ocean Development (Group-A Post) Recruitment Rules, 1996 and
the new rules were called the Group A posts (Scientist G, Scientist F, Scientist E, Scientist D and
Scientist C) Recruitment Rules, 2005.

3) The Petitioner was having unblemished career and so his performance ratings for 2004-2008 were all
Outstanding.
4) The Ld. Single Judge of the Hon'ble High Court passed a common order in W.P. No. 23652 of 2010 and
9717 of 2011, thereby dismissing the Writ Petitions on the ground that there were no violations in the
absence of existing rules and regulations in force and the 3 rd Respondent possessed the requisite
qualifications as per the advertisement. As such he was rightly nominated as per the past practice. The post
of Director is not equivalent to Scientist-G and hence, NIOT Service Rules are not applicable for the post of
Director.
5) The Petitioner preferred an Appeal being Writ Appeal No.2128 of 2011
6) The Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Madras vide its common impugned judgment and order dated
08.01.2013 dismissed the writ appeals upholding the judgment passed by the Ld. Single Judge.
(IMPUGNED ORDER)
7) Later Special Leave Petition was dismissed in limine.

THE RESPONDENTS NO. 1 TO 3 HAVE DELIBERATELY AND DISHONESTLY CONCEALED AND

8) In view of the above mentioned background and in these Facts and Circumstances, the Applicant is
approaching this Hon. Court by filing the present Application under Section 340 CrPC. There is no other
 alternate, speedy and efficacious remedy available to the Applicant than the present Application which is
filed on following amongst the other Grounds which are without prejudice to each other:

13.GROUNDS FOR INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 340 OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

(a) That the Respondents No.1 to 3 Deliberately filed the False affidavits to Fraudulently Misguide this Hon.
Court to obtain a favorable JUDGMENT. Hence the Applicant files this Application and Respondent No.1 to 3
and 4 and 5 are liable to be Prosecuted u/s 191, 192, 193, 196, 199, 200, 201, 217, 218, 219, 465, 466, (467,
468,)471, 474 read with 120(B) of Indian Penal Code for their Illegal acts.

(b) Section 340 CrPC reads as under:

(1)When, upon an application made to it in this behalf or otherwise, any Court is of opinion that it is expedient in
the interests of justice that an inquiry should be made into any offence referred to in clause (b) of sub- section
(1) of section 195, which appears to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in that Court or, as
the case may be, in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in that Court, such
Court may, after such preliminary inquiry, if any, as it thinks necessary,-

(a) record a finding to that effect;

(b) make a complaint thereof in writing;

(c) send it to a Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction;

(d) take sufficient security for the appearance of the accused before such Magistrate, or if the alleged offence is
non-bailable and the Court thinks it necessary so to do, send the accused in custody to such Magistrate; and

(e) bind over any person to appear and give evidence before such Magistrate.

(2) The power conferred on a Court by sub- section (1) in respect of an offence may, in any case where that
Court has neither made a complaint under sub- section (1) in respect of that offence nor rejected an application
for the making of such complaint, be exercised by the Court to which such former Court is subordinate within the
meaning of sub- section (4) of section 195.

(3) A complaint made under this section shall be signed,-

(a) where the Court making the complaint is a High Court, by such officer of the Court as the Court may appoint;

(b) in any other case, by the presiding officer of the Court.

(4) In this section," Court" has the same meaning as in section 195.
(c) That the Applicant states and submits that the filing False Affidavit or making False Statement on Oath is a
Serious Offence, the Hon. Apex Court, Hon High Courts discussed the said issue in following decisions;

(i) M/s A-One Industries Vs. D.P. Garg (Delhi High Court) reported in 1999 Cri. L J. 4743
B)Filing of False Affidavit Effect of It needs to be highlighted that filing a False Affidavit or giving a False
Evidence in Judicial proceeding is a serious matter Supreme Court in AIR 1995 SC 795 observed that
.filing of false affidavit or making false statement on oath in court aims at striking a blow at the Rule of
law and no court can ignore such conduct which has the tendency to shake public confidence in the
judicial institutions because the very structure of an ordered life is put at stake. It would be a great public
disaster if the fountain of justice is allowed to be poisoned by anyone resorting to filing of false affidavits
or giving false statements and fabricating false evidence in a court of law. The stream of justice has to
be kept clear and pure and anyone soiling its purity must be dealt with sternly so that no one can be
permitted to undermine the dignity of Court and interfere with due course of judicial proceedings or the
administration.

(ii) Pritesh Vs. State ofMaharashtra (SCC) reported in 2002 Cri. L. J. 548

(iii) AIR 1927 Allahbad 45 Full Bench

(iv) Kapol Co-op Bank Ltd. Vs.State of Maharashtra reported in 2005 Cr. L. J. 765

(d) That the Applicants state and submit that Respondents No. 1 to 3 made False Statements on oath and also
are trying to Prejudice this Hon. Court against the Applicant. Therefore it is also necessary to initiate Contempt
proceedings against Respondents No. 1 to 3.

(e) Hon. Supreme Court in the case of (2010) 3SCC (Cri) 574 UP Resident Employees Co-op Housing Society
and Ors Vs. New OkhlaIndustrial Development Authority and Anr held as follows:
A. Contempt of Court Act 1971 S.2(c) - Criminal Contempt Filing of False Affidavit intentionally
Held, amounts to Contempt of Court On facts held, P by making a False Statement on Affidavit with
the intention of inducing the Supreme Court not to pass any adverse order against Noida Authority had
committed Contempt of Court.(para 7)

B. Contempt of Court Act 1971 S.12 P filing Affidavit intentionally He submitting that apology
tendered should be accepted and/or in any event fine would suffice Held on facts. Apology tendered
only after it was worthless since it was not genuine and bona fide and was tendered only after it was
found that false statement had an attempt to get out of consequences of having been caught Hence
sentence of simple imprisonment for one week imposed (para 9 to 11)

(f) The Applicant has no other equally efficacious and alternative remedy than to approach this Hon. Court for
securing the ends of Justice and it is just fair and essential that Applicant and his Mother be relieved from the
clutches of irregular and futile litigation.
(g) No other petition except present petition has been filed by the Applicant either before this Hon. Court or
before any other Court in India in respect of the subject matter of the present petition.

14. PRAYERS:

Therefore the Applicant Prays that this Hon. Court be pleased to:

a. Admit and allow the present Application;

b. Record a finding that Respondents No. 1 to 3 have in connivance with each other filed filed false affidavit,
committed Forgery, Perjury, etc. before this Hon. Court to mislead the Court;

c. Initiate proceedings u/s 191, 192, 193, 196, 199,200, 201, 217, 218, 219, 465, 466, 471, 474, read with
120(B) of IPC as per provisions of section 340 of CrPC against Respondents No.1 to 5 and make a complaint in
writing and send it to the Magistrate of First Class having jurisdiction;

d. Send Respondents No. 1 to 5 to custody in view of section 340 (1) (d) of CrPC as the offence u/s 471 is non
bailable one;

e. Take suo moto cognizance of contempt of Court committed by Respondents No. 1 to 5 and proceed against
them under provision of contempt of Courts Act;

f. Grant a compensation of Rs. 5 Crore to the Applicant for the mental torture, annoyance, inconvenience
caused to the Applicant and his FAMILY due to filing False AFFIDAVITS.

g. Grant any other reliefs as this Hon. Court deems just, fit and proper;

h. Provide cost to the Applicants.

FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS AND JUSTICE APPLICANTS ASIN DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY.

Place: Chennai
Date: 5-3-2015

Applicant in Person Dr S. Kathiroli