FACT FILE
beta version
080923
updated 080928
The petitioner is a citizen of India by birth and domicile; a law abiding citizen at that, he never had any skirmishes with the law of the land, not even a case of traffic violation in his name, till date. He has a first class bachelor's degree in life sciences. He is an old student of Medical College, Trivandrum, has an M.B.,B.S., degree from the Kerala university and permanent registration with the travancore-cochin medical council.
The petitioner retired from Kerala Government Service on 30 April 2005 on superannuation at the age of 55 years. At the time of retirement the petitioner was holding the appointment of Lecturer in the Department of Physiology of Medical College Trivandrum.
The petitioner has no god, nor religious faith ("fundamentalism is like adolescence; atheism is when you arrive") He is not a member of any organization, political or other wise, and has no leanings towards any groups, political parties or ideologies. He does not believe in preaching and is a very private person who strictly minds his own business.
The petitioner left his ancestral home, for good, way back in 1975, and ever since, has been living alone. He has no family, was never married, and that way, there is no one whose prospects in life are dependent on the fortunes of the petitioner; and that means no one to stand by him through thick and thin . During the last thirty two years, the petitioner has faced every one of the terrible ordeals of his eventful life all alone, without any help whatsoever from any kith or kin . He per force had to find solace in himself.
If at all any one, on the pretext of being a "relative" or "friend" of the petitioner, is taking an interest in the petitioner's affairs at this stage in his life, the motives of such persons could be nothing but the welfare of the petitioner; the petitioner disowns any such person or persons and completely alienates himself from them and their actions.
The petitioner has served in the Indian Army as a short service commissioned officer in the Army Medical Corps from 23 march 1982 to 22 June 1992. The first five years of his army service was in the rank of a Captain. After that he was granted an extension for another five years and was made a field officer in the rank of Major; the petitioner, obviously, was not a misfit in the indian army and the army authorities did not think that granting him an SSC in the first place was a mistake. Except for a three year posting in a peace station during which time he was the lone medical officer in-charge of a 15 bed section hospital, the petitioner was on field service all through the remaining seven years. During his tenure in the army the petitioner had performed his duties as a medical doctor as well as an officer of the Indian army to the entire satisfaction of his superiors.
Being homeless, the petitioner, ever since his release from the army in 1992, has been living in rented houses. And being a loner with no kith or kin, he all through has been managing every thing, including the household chores , on his own. In the course of the last sixteen years the petitioner has lived initially in Chennai in Tamil Nadu for one year and Alleppey in Kerala for the next two years. In 1995 the petitioner shifted his residence to Thiruvananthapuram and, has been living in various rented houses in this place ever since.
In the context of the later happenings in Thiruvananthapuram, the petitioner would like to point out that there were no untoward incidents of any sort involving the petitioner while he was residing in Chennai or in Alleppey.
The petitioner, was given an appointment as Lecturer in Physiology in the Medical Education Service of the Government of Kerala in 1983, after being duly selected for the above post by the Kerala Public Service Commission. On release from the army after successful completion of the contractual period he joined duty as Lecturer in the Dept. of Physiology of T.D.Medical College, Alleppy in August 1993.
The petitioner spent an enjoyable and most rewarding period of nearly two years in the Govt. T.D.Medical College, Alleppy, teaching Human Physiology, both theory and practicals, to the first M.B.,B.S., students. Even though a complete novice at teaching, he had performed all the duties entrusted to him to the entire satisfaction of his superiors in T.D.Medical College, Alleppy; this in spite of the fact that in the initial stages there was only one other lecturer in the whole department.
T. D. Medical College, Alleppey was an institution under the director of medical education of the Kerala govt. and, during those days, it was the only institution other than Medical College, Trivandrum which prepared students for the MBBS degree examination of the Kerala university. In spite of a character like the petitioner being on the staff of the institution the students of T.D.Medical College, Alleppey in those days used to do better than those of Medical College, Trivandrum and top the Kerala university's I M.B.,B.S., examinations and used to produce better overall results than Medical College, Trivandrum.
While in T. D. Medical College, Alleppey there were no complaints about the petitioner refusing to do any work allotted to him; on the contrary, the Head of the Department of Physiology in due course, had started allotting more and more complicated lecture topics to him. He was given the privilege of setting up the questions for the terminal examinations and even evaluating the answer papers on the topics he had dealt with in his lecture classes.
The Head of the Department of Physiology or the Principal T.D.Medical College, Alleppey never noticed any behavioural disorders or mental instability in the petitioner during his tenure in the above institution. While in Alleppey the petitioner was putting up in rented houses, as usual, on his own. But unlike the "gentry" in Thiruvananthapuram the petitioner's neighbours nor other locals in Alleppey never raised any allegations against the petitioner and no one ever made a complaint to the local police that the petitioner was a public nuisance. And there was no question whatsoever of any one breaking into the petitioner's house as happened in Thiruvananthapuram.
While on the staff of T.D.Medical College, Alleppey, the petitioner took the entrance examination for post graduate courses in the medical colleges in Kerala, and based on his performance in the above examination he managed to get selection for the M.D., degree course in Physiology. Upon this the petitioner made a trip to Thiruvananthapuram and met the then Director of Medical Education, Kerala in her office. The Director was kind enough to assure the petitioner that, physiology being the subject that he was teaching, the petitioner was eligible for appointment as lecturer trainee on joining the MD course.
On the basis of the above assurance that the petitioner can work as lecturer and earn a salary and simultaneously do the post graduate course, the petitioner got himself relieved of his duties in T. D. Medical College, Alleppey to join the post graduate course. Alleppey did not offer post graduate course in physiology in those days.
After enrolling himself as a student for the M.D., course in the Department of Physiology of Medical College, Trivandrum in May 1995, the petitioner started his work in right earnest and had some remarkable successes to begin with.
The project mooted by the petitioner for the M.D., thesis work with the kind guidance of a research professor in a neighbouring institution was approved by two reviewing bodies of the Hon'ble Government of Kerala after scrutiny by experts in the field. The Science Technology and Environment Committee of the Hon'ble Government of Kerala was kind enough to award a research grant of rupees twenty five thousand to the petitioner for the above project. As far as the petitioner's information goes, it was the first time a postgraduate student in the department of physiology of medical college Trivandrum was awarded such a grant.
When, for once, after ages, the question of revamping the practical records in physiology for the first MBBS course came up, the work on one of the two practical records, the one in experimental physiology, was entrusted by the head of the department (HOD) to the petitioner who was one of the least experienced of all the lecturers in the department. And the HOD appreciated the result.
The confidential report (CR) on the petitioner for the year 1995, his first year as lecturer trainee in medical college Trivandrum by the head of the department of physiology, was a flattering one. Therein, the HOD commended the petitioner for his exemplary conduct and punctuality in all matters, praised his extraordinary proficiency in understanding new and difficult matters, his resourcefulness and originality in giving suggestions and pursuing them constructively and the petitioner's ability to get systematically to the root of the problems and for his consistently sound and well balanced judgment. Above all the HOD specifically mentioned the petitioner's keen interest in improving the standard of the practical classes.
Thus the petitioner was on course for obtaining his MD degree with the Head of the Department of Physiology due to be his examiner in a couple of years' time; and an MD in physiology would have guaranteed him immediate promotion as assistant professor. However this was not to be.
The petitioner had the first major shock when the Director of Medical Education (DME), Kerala who had promised initially that the petitioner will be given an appointment as lecturer trainee as soon as a vacancy arose, had, for reasons best known to the DME, a change of mind and refused to appoint the petitioner as lecturer trainee. As far as the petitioner was concerned, the lecturer trainee appointment was a prerequisite for doing the MD course, for the petitioner did not have the wherewithal to carry him through the three year course without a salary.
If the authorities in the Medical Education Service in Trivandrum had their way, the dreams of the petitioner of doing a post graduate degree course would have been over at this stage itself. However a senior IAS officer came to the petitioner's rescue. The then Health Secretary to the Government of Kerala, convinced of the facts of the case by the petitioner, over ruled the Director of Medical Education and issued orders directing the DME to appoint the petitioner as lecturer trainee, which the DME, after a certain amount of procrastination, did.
In sharp contrast to his experience in Alleppey, in the vicious atmosphere in Medical College, Trivandrum every thing goes topsy-turvy . The petitioner attributes this to a sharp difference in the basic ethos in the two establishments.
In T.D.Medical College, Alleppey the primary function of the Department of Physiology was to teach the students and the teachers get paid for doing the job; the petitioner was completely at home there. On the contrary, the primary function of the Department of Physiology in Medical College, Trivandrum was job generation for medical doctors.
For instance, in the mid nineties and there about, a whole allied department in Biophysics was existing in Medical College, Trivandrum, the sole function of which, as far as the humble knowledge of the petitioner goes, was to create five additional vacancies for the teaching staff in Physiology in Thiruvananthapuram. In order to justify the existence of the biophysics dept. the student hours used to be wasted on various pretexts. Neither in TD Medical college Alleppey nor any other medical college in kerala the first MBBS students had practical classes in biophysics. i used to tell the students that once they pass out they can write after their names M.B.,B.S.,(with biophysics) And many a time, the subject matter of the practical classes in biophysics for the first MBBS students in Thiruvananthapuram was "library visit" during which time they were made to sit in the central library of the very same college.
In the initial stages when the petitioner joined T.D.Medical College, Alleppey many a time the total number of teaching staff in the department of physiology used to be four or five made up of two lecturers and two or three professors. Medical College, Trivandrum all through had its full quota of ten professors and ten lecturers. In T.D.Medical College, Alleppey lecturers perforce had to take lecture classes over and above the normal routine of practical classes. In Trivandrum the petitioner never was allotted a lecture class even on a trial basis. there was no need or say there was no chance for according to the statistics available to the petitioner the work out put of an assistant professor and above in the department of physiology of medical college trivandrum in those days was 1½ hours of lecture classes in a month!
The result, the petitioner is afraid, was that the department of physiology of medical college trivandrum in effect had become the proverbial devil's workshop .
The petitioner believes in earning his salary and accepts that he is temperamentally unsuited to establishments like the department of physiology of medical college, Thiruvananthapuram. However he never interfered in other people's affairs nor tried to force his ideas on others. Unfortunately the petitioner, an "outsider" had "intruded" into their safe havens inadvertently as there was no M.D., course in Physiology in T.D.Medical College, Alleppey and the vested interests in Medical College, Trivandrum who were the direct beneficiaries of the peculiar situation in the establishment there, saw in the petitioner, with his uncompromising nature on matters of principle, a thorn in their flesh.
From the very beginning the petitioner was putting up with the most humiliating and embarrassing situations in the Department. The petitioner feels that the precedence given to the pg students in the department's attendance register, after that of the part time sweepers, was symbolic of the status of the pg students in the Department of Physiology of Medical college, Trivandrum.
The petitioner's ego was terribly hurt, when, in January 1996, an associate professor broke into a practical class being conducted by the petitioner and threw the students out. The petitioner kept his cool and put his protest in writing to the head of the department vide his letter no. MCT/021-a/96 dated 06 January 96 is produced herewith and marked EXHIBIT Pxx.
The Head of the Department of Physiology (HOD), Medical College, Trivandrum named the petitioner, a member of the faculty , a suspect when some OHP papers disappeared from her office in the mid nineties.
At a later date, a senior professor of the department told the petitioner that the HOD was going to come to his house to look for a text book that had gone missing from the department library. yes; i did retaliate this time and told the professor "whomsoever enters my house on such a pretext will be kicked out". the retort " this is not the way you talk about madam". my response "it is nothing personal ; i was making a generalized statement"
The petitioner all through had studied in Govt. schools and colleges and never had a private tuition in his life. As a teenager, in the early sixties, he used to walk (5+5) ten kilometers from his home village to his school in Mahe and back almost daily, for four years from age 11 to 15, to save the bus fare of (8+8) sixteen paise; this when his father was working in the registration department of the Kerala Govt. where at least during those days nobody ever demanded a pay raise. To the petitioner the allegations of petty thieving against him were rather painful.
In a sharp turn of events, the Head of the Department of Physiology, the reporting officer who had given a flattering report to the petitioner in the confidential report (CR) for the year 1995, gave an adverse report to the petitioner in the very next year 1996.
As a member of the teaching faculty the petitioner felt that his first responsibility was towards the students and he had done every thing possible within his limited means to improve the standards of teaching. The head of the department had herself accepted it in the petitioner's CR for 1995. Solely with this aspect in mind the petitioner had suggested changes in the functioning of the set up . However these suggestions were never taken in the right spirit. Like for example rather than twenty five students crowding around a lecturer in the practical class with the majority of them not able to see what is going on, the students be split into three or four groups and three or four demonstrations be held simultaneously by that many number of the lecturers. Of course this would have increased the number of classes any lecturer had to take and obviously was not acceptable to the others.
Another suggestion of the petitioner in those early days was that one or two batches in the practical classes may be entrusted t o one particular lecturer as a means of cultivating a sort of healthy competition amongst the lecturers. Again the suggestion was not accepted.
Human Physiology is a scientific discipline where there is no place for dogmas . The petitioner had given his students, full freedom to comment and criticize him, for he felt that was the way he could improve himself. In fact the petitioner had procured a voice recorder and used to record his classes and listen to them to detect any flaws.
Rather than follow the beaten track the petitioner had evolved his own style of teaching and the students used to appreciate it . But the unfortunate fact was that at the time of the practical examinations, where, in sharp contrast to the situation in Alleppey the petitioner never had any say and was just a spectator, those of the students who were following the petitioner's teachings used to be penalised though the methods were more scientific .
The petitioner had pointed out the fallacy in the logic in the way experiments were being carried out on stray dogs in the department of physiology of medical college Thiruvananthapuram. When the authorities refused to take cognizance of the facts, he brought the same to the notice of the principal Medical College, Trivandrum in june 1997 vide his letter no. mes/008-a/97 dated 13.6.97 copy of which is produced here with and marked EXHIBIT Pxx , this in view of the fact that the practice was unscientific and could have lead to fatalities. In the above context, photocopy of a news item in the english daily, the Hindu of a later date is produced herewith and marked EXHIBIT Pxx
The petitioners impression is that the powers that be in Medical College, Trivandrum, have a single track mind and even the slightest deviation will derail their train, as usually happens in case of first class use of third class brains.
Some time in mid 1997 the petitioner had refused to follow the practice of making the first year MBBS students fill foreign blood in the ESR pipettes by mouth suction in the course of the practical classes. Again this was done with the best interests of the students in mind.
It is a fact that the petitioner as well as most of the then staff members of the department of physiology of medical college Thiruvananthapuram during their student days had filled ESR pipettes in the above manner and invariably had sucked blood accidentally into their own mouths on occasions. Times have changed since and the current teaching is that all blood other than ones own are "to be treated" as infective. Again, before taking this decision the petitioner had made inquiries in the other departments of Medical College, Trivandrum and had come to know that trained technicians had long back given up the practice of mouth suction.
The petitioner took up the matter with the higher ups vide his letter No. mes/014-a/97 dated 03 October 97 addressed to the principal Medical College, Trivandrum copy of which is produced herewith and marked EXHIBIT P55. But the Thiruvananthapuram medical college authorities probably felt that it was below their dignity to change their ways on the suggestion of the petitioner who according to the intelligentsia of Thiruvananthapuram was an imbecile, and chose to ignore the facts even at the peril of the students. For the "elite" of the dept of physiology, in their selfishness, their ego was more important than the welfare of the students.
However all was not lost. During the next year when the petitioner represented the matter to the then Director of Medical Education, Kerala vide his letter No. mes/026-a/98 dated 21 july 98 copy of which is produced herewith and marked EXHIBIT Pxx and the lady ensured that the practice was stopped.
when some time in late September 1997, he was given the CR form for the year 1996 the petitioner made a casual reference to the circumstances in the department in the self assessment part of the confidential report. A copy of the petitioner's self assessment dated 23rd September 1997, is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit Pxx.
The end result was an adverse report in the petitioner confidential report for the year 1996 signed by the reporting officer (RO) in October 1997. This adverse report was written by the same reporting officer who had given a flattering report to the petitioner in 1995, the very previous year. This adverse report found its way to the dossier of the petitioner in the office of the Director of Medical Education, Kerala and was shown to the petitioner only in may 1998, a couple of days after 30 April 1998, the day the reporting officer retired from service.
The petitioner felt that the confidential report on him for the year 1996 did not reflect the correct state of affairs, but was made on account of intense prejudices and other reasons intended to spoil the entire career of the petitioner and made a representation on the matter as per rules in this regard to the Director of Medical Education, Kerala vide his No. mes/021-a/98 dated 22nd may 98 copy of which is produced herewith and marked Exhibit P1. The authorities obstinately refused to take any action one way or the other on the petitioner's representation for four years till the petitioner challenged the inaction in the Kerala High Court in a writ petition in the year 2002.
Some time in the year 2004, during the course of a writ petition in the High Court of Kerala, the petitioner came to know for the first time that the reporting officer who had certified that the petitioner was of exemplary conduct and excellent discipline in 1995 had in the CR for the very next year 1996 recommended that the petitioner be given behavioural therapy in the secret part of the CR on the petitioner for the year 1996. With hind sight the petitioner sees this remark as the first of a series of covert attempts at medicalising the petitioner and bringing him within the ambit of the mental health professionals, thereby silencing him and getting rid of him once and for all.
This was followed up by a slander campaign, the central plank of which was the "dementia hypothesis". It was an extremely difficult situation for the petitioner, teaching seventeen year old youngsters who had been told by none other than the members of the teaching staff that the petitioner, their teacher, was insane and is an ignoramus.
The petitioner faced the situation with fortitude and could carry on regardless thanks to the teenagers who did not take things in their own hands as, perhaps, the propagandists expected of them."ellam sarikku paranju tharunnuntallo; pinne entha ee parayunne?" "athokke veruthe paranjundakkunnatha" it was a bit of conversation between two students that the petitioner had over heard after he had finished a class : "he is explaining every thing well; then what is all that talk about ?" "that is all cooked up stories"
The situation in the department was extremely vicious and anybody could have said or done anything to the petitioner or about him and got away with it; not only that the authorities would have appreciated it. In fact a lecturer who had joined the pg course after the petitioner had once told him bluntly: "you have got a bad reputation and i think i can use it to my advantage" and he did.
In the department of physiology of T. D. Medical College, Alleppey the male as well as female lecturers had a common staff room. In Trivandrum the sexes were segregated and the male members of the teaching staff had no staff room. It was soon after his arrival, on the initiative of the petitioner that a staff room of sorts for male members of the teaching staff came into existence in the department; and every body made themselves comfortable there. However within no time the tide had turned and the petitioner had to move out of this staff room to a remote corner of the lab in order to avoid an altercation. Later the Head of the Department ordered that he should be moved from the corner he was occupying and from 1997 onwards the petitioner used to spend his time in the journal section of the college library and come to the department only to take classes.
The petitioner was aware of two cases of complaints by female medical doctors, of sexual harassment by male members of the staff in a neighbouring department of the same college; and as far as the petitioner's information goes nothing came out of those complaints. Being an unmarried middle-aged male, that too without any kith or kin and living alone, the petitioner was acutely aware of the delicacy of his situation in the above context.
The petitioner was at maximum risk when he had to enter the HOD's office for signing the attendance register and used to do the signing when no one was inside the room and get it done and get out as quickly as possible. In his panic, the attendance register, made of very flimsy government stationery, had occasionally got punctured by his ball point pen tip. To avoid this eventuality the petitioner later tried using felt tipped pens but the result was that, thanks to the quality of the paper used to make the attendance register, the ink started spreading. At a later date all these instances were taken as reason for "doubting the mental status of the subject" by Dr. G. Sujathan, a police surgeon specially entrusted by the then principal Medical College, Trivandrum, a psychiatrist, (i have absolutely no problem naming the "great" man, but the problem is that i am not very sure of the person's identity and there is no way i can clarify) with the job of framing the petitioner.
In January 2001, Prof. Dr. (Mrs.) K. Vijayalekshmi Menon the then Head of the Department of Physiology insisted that the petitioner had taken twelve days of casual leave in December 2000, and thereby exceeded the maximum number of days of casual leave allowed in a year. This was in spite of the fact that as per the attendance register the number of days were in fact ten only. When the petitioner pointed out this to Dr. Menon, the learned professor got two of her staff members to vouch for the fact that the number of days marked as leave in December 2000 added up to twelve and not ten. It was the petitioner, an ordinary mortal, all alone, single handed, against three of the intelligentsia of Thiruvananthapuram medical college. But the petitioner was not impressed and wanted to take the opinion of some of the students - Dr. Menon did not agree. Later in a written statement given in reply to the petitioner's written request for details of the casual leave availed in writing Dr. Menon back tracked. The petitioner had put the matter in the knowledge of the principal vide his letter No.mes/000C/01 dated 16 january 2001, copy of which is produced herewith and marked Exhibit P1.
The petitioner was at a loss to understand as to why the hod wanted to prove that ½ + ½ = 1½; but with hindsight he feels that this was by way of Dr. Mrs. Menon's contribution in the efforts to substantiate the "dementia hypothesis". It all sounds silly; but this was the situation the petitioner was actually facing in the department of physiology of Medical College, Trivandrum.
Being a word of mouth propaganda there was no way the petitioner could produce proof for slandering in a court of law; and being a complete loner with no kith or kin, no one would take up cudgels on behalf of the petitioner nor would any one want to rub the powers that be the wrong way and stake their future prospects in order to help the petitioner who has nothing to offer in return.
Some time later in 2001, Mr. Rajasekharan an insurance agent and a friend of the staff came and told the petitioner while he was standing on the varandah of the department : "madam paranju sarinu manda budhiyannu" ( madam told me that you are an idiot). This statement was made in the presence of dr. K. j. singh, one of the male lecturers of the department.
The petitioner, unlike some of the other staff members of the department was not a chum of this insurance agent and had nothing to do with him. This "gentleman" met the petitioner for the specific purpose of conveying what "the madam" had told him. It was just part of a concerted effort on the part of "the madam" to rub salt into the wound. The petitioner took it in his stride.
And in October 2001, immediately after Mr. Rajasekharan conveyed "the madam's" message, the petitioner made a complaint to the kerala state human rights commission copy of which is produced herewith and marked Exhibit Pxx . The above complaint was made under the impression that this time the petitioner would be able to bring out the truth by cross examining Mr. Rajasekharan and if necessary the lecturer who witnessed the episode.
There was no response from the authorities of Medical College, Trivandrum to the repeated summons from the commission for more than one year. It was then that the petitioner gave in writing to the Head of the Department of Physiology that it will not be possible for him to take classes till such time as the vicious atmosphere in the department is cleared.
In the course of a writ petition in the kerala high court in 2004 the petitioner came across an "inquiry report" that the Director of Medical Education, Kerala had produced as evidence in the court. A copy of the above enquiry report is produced herewith and marked Exhibit Px.
The above report, Exhibit P1, was cooked up by an unscrupulous police surgeon specially entrusted by the then principal Medical College, Trivandrum, a psychiatrist, with the job of framing the petitioner. The Thiruvananthapuram medical college authorities had not only flouted all the rules to be followed in the case of departmental enquiries but had thrown to the wind all the basic tenets of decency in their panic in view of the repeated summons from the kerala state human rights commission.
the enquiry officer has signed the report on 17.6.2002 but the petitioner first came across the enquiry report in 2004 in the reply filed by the DME in WP of 2004 of the kerala high court.
The petitioner was never given a copy of the report.
The enquiry officer claims that the above enquiry was conducted by him as per the orders of the principal medical college Thiruvananthapuram in response to a complaint made by the Head of the Department of Physiology to the principal.
The petitioner had no information about the above complaint by the HOD. He was never informed of the fact, that the principal had ordered an enquiry on him, though this was mandatory.
The "enquiry officer" Dr. G. Sujathan had never come any where near the petitioner in connection with the enquiry and the whole "enquiry" was carried out by remote control without ever bothering even to make an attempt to find out what the person being enquired upon has to say on the matter. That means there was no real enquiry and it is just a cooked up report - a fake. Though the supposed to be complaint of the Head of the Department of Physiology was about the petitioner not "engaging classes" the main finding of the enquiry officer is that he ( the enquiry officer, a Police surgeon ) "doubts the mental status of the subject".
The petitioner's impression is that the enquiry report served its purpose, that of bailing out the culprits in the petitioners complaint to the kerala state human rights commission. There was no response from the kerala state human rights commission for the repeated requests of the petitioner for a copy of the reply filed by the respondents.
The refusal of the kerala state human rights commission to provide a copy of the reply filed by the Thiruvananthapuram medical college authorities to the complainant, for all practical purposes, stopped him from proceeding further on the matter. This the petitioner feels was the first of a series of denial of the basic rights of the petitioner and considers it an instance of role reversal by a tribunal established for the very purpose of protecting human rights.
The insanity plank has been the trump card being used by all and sundry on the sly and in the open in efforts to neutralise the petitioner ever since and the above fake enquiry report , along with other similar documents, the petitioner is afraid, is being used successfully to "substantiate" the fact in all legal forums.
In the year 2002, the petitioner filed OP no. in the kerala high court challenging the adverse remarks in his CR for the year 1996. This was in view of the DME's refusal to give a decision one way or the other on the petitioner's representation on the adverse remarks in the CR. The petitioner had tried all the the other avenues and waited in vain for four years after making the representation before he approached the judiciary.
In response to the directions of the Hon'ble Court in the above OP, the DME issues orders rejecting the petitioner's representation. The pretext for the rejection was that he the director cannot give a decision on the matter without the confidential report for the years 2000 and 2001. This ridiculous decision of the DME was quashed by the Hon'ble high court in the second petition WP no. of 2003 which was prepared and presented by the petitioner in person. A copy of the above judgement is produced herewith and marked Exhibit P4.
This time again the DME gave a decision rejecting the representation. The petitioner responded promptly with WP no. of 2004 challenging the latest decision of the DME. The case was admitted and the Hon'ble Court ordered that notice be issued to the respondents. WP no. of 2004 of the Kerala High Court was the third writ petition on the same matter . The decision in the previous petitions had gone against the DME but the authorities were dragging their feet on the matter on false and flimsy pretexts and even at this stage was not ready to see reason .
Acutely aware of the fact that there is no way they can subdue the petitioner in a straight fight the authorities started foul play in earnest . Every effort was made from the very beginning to stall the proceedings. On march 3, 2004, immediately before the petitioner was to present WP no. of 2004 in the kerala high court his brief case containing the case files went missing. Later after the case the petitioner came to know that his brief case was with the "special branch" police and he collected it from office of this particular branch of police in Ernakulam.
The petitioner would like to bring to the notice of the tribunal that his briefcase went missing in the taxi stand of the Ernakulam junction of the southern railway, which was in the domain of the traffic police. Also, by what the petitioner takes to be a strange coincidence, the presiding judge specifically asked the petitioner at the time of the hearing whether he had the case files with him. The petitioner believes that it was not an accident but a "security operation" by the spy networks of the Indian police.
the notice issued to the respondents who all have their offices in trivandrum, which is only a few hundred kilometers from Ernakulam where the kerala high court is located, was not acknowledged by the respondents even after three months! Things got stuck and the petitioner had a difficult time putting things back on the rails! ultimately after more than four months, a counter affidavit was filed by the DME.
The petitioner came to know of the existence of the affidavit only in the court. when he demanded a copy the govt. pleader refused saying that it has been sent by post. copy of the counter affidavit was finally delivered to the petitioner on 12 July 04. Incidentally this legal document was sent by the govt. pleader under certificate of posting (and not by registered post) which means there is no record of the date of delivery and as to when it was delivered. in short the delivery may or may not be effected at the discretion of the police men "managing" the petitioner's affairs in trivandrum.
In listing the documents of the affidavit a number of alphabets h, i, j and k were missing - after letter "g" the next letter is "l". The petitioner, an ordinary mortal and not a learned lawyer, is not aware of the significance of this missing letters but finds this suspicious and in view of what followed later in the case, sees another spy model covert operation.
The petitioner filed a reply affidavit in august wherein over and above other things he has expressed serious doubts about the genuineness of the documents presented as exhibits and the veracity of the statements made by the DME suggesting that the respondent had committed perjury .
The hearing of the case was fixed for25th of September 2004 . His lordship, the presiding judge, himself told the petitioner that though 25th of September 2004 is a Saturday, the court was going to be in session on that day.
when the petitioner reached the kerala high court on September 25, 2004 on time, he was told that the case had already been taken up on the previous day, September 24, 2004. The petitioner feels cheated and rightly so.
The petitioner managed to hold on to his job by the skin of his teeth putting up with all sorts of humiliating situations for he could not have survived without a salary and there was no way he could have found alternate employment at his stage in life. However the authorities' efforts at preventing him from getting his MD degree and advancing further in his career did succeed. And in spite of his managing to procure a seat for the MD course on his own merits while in his mid forties he retired from service exactly where he started, as a lecturer, on April 30, 2005 on superannuation at the age of 55 yrs.
The petitioner paid the gratuity he received from the army with interest to the kerala government as per the orders of the DME in order to get his army service counted for pensionary benefits. However the DME refused to issue the nlc there by preventing him from collecting the gratuity due to him for no valid reason whatsoever. Ultimately the petitioner approached the honble lok ayukta of kerala on the matter.
The DME procrastinated with the help of cooked up stories and falsified documents, the hall mark of the above office, even after the hon'ble lok ayukta issued specific orders to release the gratuity amount to him. It was only the stern action and fear of the wrath of the honble lok ayukta that ultimately forced the DME to allow the petitioner to draw the gratuity rightly due to him including the amount on account of his army service.
Unfortunately for the petitioner retirement from government service did not bring an end to his ordeals. It was the proverbial out of the frying pan into the fire sort of situation that the petitioner has been facing.
Ever since his retirement from service the petitioner has been living in rented houses in Thiruvananthapuram as usual on his own, minding his own business. During the period from march 2002 to march 2005 the petitioner was putting up in a rented house no.403, bapuji nagar, Thiruvananthapuram-XI, PIN 695011.
On the night of february 14, 2006, one of the residents of a neighbouring house, along with an accomplice, broke into the petitioner's rented house at around 2100hrs, threatened the petitioner and showered vulgar abuses on him. A fist fight was avoided by the petitioner keeping his cool and refusing to respond to the taunts of the assailant, in spite of the acute provocation. After about half an hour of shouting abuses the assailants walked away threatening to beat the petitioner to death. A compact disk containing a picture of the assailant and a voice record of his threatening to beat the petitioner to death (in his mother tongue malayalam) is produced here with and marked EXHIBIT P.1
The petitioner is aware that the assailant is the resident of house No. BN 400, bapuji nagar, Thiruvananthapuram PIN 695011, the second house on the opposite side of the road in front of BN403, the petitioner's then residence. The petitioner never had any dealings of any sort, verbal or otherwise, what-so-ever with this assailant prior to the above incident. In fact, the first ever interaction between the petitioner and this "neighbour" of his for almost three years, was on that fateful night.
There is no reason what-so-ever for the above assailant, who is a perfect stranger as far as the petitioner is concerned, to take umbrage on the petitioner; nor would they have dared to commit such a crime but for the peculiar circumstances of the petitioner's existence.
An ex-service officer, and a service pensioner of the kerala government, the petitioner has no criminal record whatsoever and never had any brushes with the law of the land, not even a case of traffic rule violation, till date. All the same, the petitioner has been and still is at the receiving end of the criminal activities of a gang of plain clothes men from the spy net works of the government. The petitioner has been suffering the torture for more than a decade now.
The above gang of criminal elements from the spy net works of the government has all through been in hiding and carrying on their nefarious activities through their hired thugs from amongst the obliging populace of Thiruvananthapuram. All that is visible out side is a gang of decrepit and lidestitute old men who do the biddings of the spy and, the liipBirds let loose in the vicinity to scent mark the spy's territory. The grape vine has it that it is a police man who calls himself "cbi officer" and his stooges from the spy net works of the local police like the "special" branch who is behind these atrocities.
Every one of the basic fundamental rights of the petitioner guaranteed by the Indian Constitution are being trampled upon with impunity by the spies, abusing their tremendous clout with the officialdom including those from the judiciary. The atrocities perpetrated on the petitioner by these government "officers" are a disgrace to even the most primitive of societies and can never even be imagined in any civilized society.
The petitioner respects the law and not the whims of the policeman however mighty and influential. All through he has stood up to the covert criminal activities of the spy net works of the indian police.
The petitioner has strong reason to believe that the assailant of february 2006, the resident of house no.BN400, bapuji nagar thiruvananthapuram was acting on behalf of and on specific instructions from a senior member of the spy net work of the indian police who was parking himself during the nights, in the above assailant's house, no.BN400, where the "officer" was being dined, wined and entertained and from where he was directing the nefarious activities targeted at his hapless victim.
The attempted assault on the petitioner by the assailant from bn 400 was just one of the many efforts orchestrated by the spies to terrorise the petitioner and subdue him and make him submit to the demands of the police men.
The torture methods practised on the petitioner by the spies are on par or even worse than the blinding incidents in Bihar or with making human being eat human faeces said to have been done in the police lock ups in Kerala. The methods however are more sophisticated befitting the "standards" of the ace spies of the government.
The spy knows that murder is messy for various liiireasons and what is being aimed at is a "therapeutic murder" with the help of "specialists" in the field carrying out the execution using "sophisticated" techniques where there is no body to be disposed off.
The ghastliest of the criminal acts of these agents of the government happened on a february night in 2003. during this period, 2000 - 2003, the petitioner was putting up in a rented house in Kattela in Srikaryam in the outskirts of the city. This was in an effort to shake off the spies and get some peace and do some reading for the petitioner still believed that there was light at the end of the tunnel and was aspiring to get his MD degree.
One night in February 2003 the petitioner who was asleep in his bed room woke up at about 0300hrs in the early morning and found that his bed sheet was soaked in blood. A picture of the blood soaked bed sheet along with a picture of the mattress underneath which had soaked up the blood is produced herewith and marked EXHIBIT P00.
The blood was in the region of the bed where the waist would be. The first thing that occurred to the petitioner was that it could be from the urethra and he went to the toilet and tried passing urine. To his relief he found that the urine was clear. Obviously the blood had not originated from the urethra or, for that matter, from the anus. There were no visible wounds, neither fresh wounds nor old ones which could have gaped, or other injuries, as far as he could see on the visible part of the petitioner's body.
The petitioner does not suffer from any bleeding diathesis and never had an episode of such severe bleeding from his body before that black night in february 2003 and it never recurred. After this incident the petitioner used to not only ensure that he bolt his bed room door but lock it up as well from the inside where possible before going to sleep.
The petitioner has strong reason to believe that a highly invasive and potentially very dangerous and even lethal, diagnostic procedure was carried out on him after putting him out without his permission or his knowledge even.
The procedure carried out on that night in February 2003 on the petitioner could not have been performed by any one other than a medical doctor and taking into account the circumstances of this particular case, the most likely scenario is that at least one medical doctor trained in anaesthesia was involved in this crime which is against all ethical norms of the medical profession and a serious offence under the various sections of the indian penal code.
The petitioner has no idea whether there are specialist doctors appointed to the spy net works by the government to perform this sort of "operations" - like the ones who administer "truth serum" in this country and those who help in giving the lethal injections in certain "civilized" countries.
A practising anaesthetist is most unlikely to risk his career and practise and perform such a dastardly act which is not only against all ethical principles but is a despicable act of crime. The petitioner's presumption is that it could be some one who had worked in the anaesthesia department but could not make the grade to get into a post graduation or permanent posting and had perforce shifted to a non-clinical discipline. He could show off to the spies and if he nurses a grudge against the petitioner this will be the chance of a life time for him - this is the most humiliating situation the petitioner can visualise for himself.
the practice as the petitioner knows of it in the olden times is that after drilling a six centimeter deep hole in one's back cotton dipped in tincture benzoin is used to seal the hole to prevent infection and stop bleeding. But then there was a possibility of the petitioner coming to know of what had happened. The philanthropic physicians of Medical College, Trivandrum and the spies did not want to take this risk .
There was a possibility that the petitioner could have bled to death or could have developed other fatal complications but this could easily be taken care of by producing a "relative" and paying her off. The spy's only problem is the person of the petitioner.
A neighbour of his who was sent to the petitioner's gate a few days prior to this by the spies to provoke an altercation, had during the harangue told the petitioner that the plain clothes policemen were trailing the petitioner to "look after" (nokki natathan) him as per the orders of his mother. So the break in could not have happened without the knowledge of the "security personnel" and the petitioner firmly believes that whatever has happened under cover of darkness was stage managed by the spies trailing the petitioner.
There is no way the petitioner can identify the spies. The petitioner till today has the bed sheet preserved as it is, without washing, for the last five years for it could contain tell-tale DNA evidence; but under his present circumstance there is no way he could get the necessary investigations carried out.
The petitioner has strong reason to believe that the powers that be of the medical college Thiruvananthapuram in general and the dept of physiology in particular who were hand in glove with the spies in their various nefarious activities were actively involved in this particular atrocity as well.
Taking into account the time required to stage such an operation the incident happened immediately after the fake enquiry report, exhibit was cooked up. The petitioner has strong reason to believe that the then principal medical college Thiruvananthapuram, who as far as the petitioner's information goes was a practising psychiatrist, along with his chum the police surgeon and enquiry specialist, who jointly scripted the drama of the "enquiry" were the master minds behind this atrocity as well.
In the period immediately following on the bleeding incident, the then Head of the Department of Physiology of Medical College, Trivandrum, Prof. Dr. (Mrs.) K. Vijayalekshmi Menon, had stopped allotting classes to the petitioner. This, the petitioner feels was a sequel to the happenings in his bed room on that night in February 2003 and the then Dr. Menon, at the least was aware of the happenings and what followed.
Later another professor of the same department had made an effort to help the petitioner with his MD thesis work. She was stopped in her tracks by Dr. Menon probably after sharing the information gathered by the "security" operation on that night in February 2003.
The petitioner's conclusion is that the break in and the bleeding were the results of the attempts of the powers that be to substantiate the dementia hypothesis which is the main weapon in the arsenal of the spies.
The petitioner is not aware of any provision for ordering a break in and performing a procedure on a person without his knowledge or permission even if that person happens to be a raving lunatic as per the rules in vogue in this country in order to facilitate a policeman's collecting evidence or as a part of treatment by a medical doctor for that matter.
In a civilized society, no circumstance however complicated will justify this sort of dastardly action that amounts to torture . . . . . .
to be continued
updated 080928 * * *
PS. many of the documents referred to are available on the net
| home |
|---|
