Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
M. Karunakar And Another vs State Of A.P. And Others on 17 January, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2001(2)ALD18, 2001(1)ALT688
ORDER
1. The petitioners two in number who are working as Superintendent in the office of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Medchal and Deputy Tahsildar in the office of the DPAP, Ranga Reddy District, filed this writ petition questioning the orders passed by the 2nd respondent i.e., District Collector in Proceedings C2/9800/97, dated 27-1-2000 as confirmed by the 1st respondent in G.O. Rt. Nos.154 and 155, (B.C. Welfare (C-1) Department, dated 18-9-2000 wherein the Caste Certificates obtained by the petitioners to the effect that they belong to Vada Balija community which is included in the Group A of listed Backward Classes, (sic have been cancelled) as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the principles of natural justice.
2. By the order dated 18-1-2000 while admitting the writ petition, posted the same for Orders on 15-11-2000 duly directing the respondents to file their counters in the meantime. In the suspension petition i.e., WPMP No.24832 of 2000 while refusing to suspend the impugned proceedings, I directed the authorities concerned to keep any disciplinary proceedings proposed against the petitioners in abeyance till disposal of the writ petition. Subsequently, the complainant and the President and the General Secretary of A.P. Backward Classes Group A Protection Cell filed WPMP Nos.27645 and 29174 of 2000 under Rule 16-A of the Writ Rules seeking permission of the Court to get themselves impleaded as respondents 4, 5 and 6 respectively in the writ petition.
3. Arguments were heard on different dates during December, 2000 and the orders were reserved.
4. Both the petitioners herein claimed their social status as Vada Balija, which is included in Group-A of the listed Backward Classes and they seemed to have been appointed as Assistants following their selection in the Special Qualifying Test in the Revenue Department of Ranga Reddy District. While it is the case of the petitioners that though they claimed social status as BC-A, they were appointed in the Open Category following the Special Qualifying Test held in 1973 and their names stand at SI.Nos.178 and 170 respectively as per the Roaster, the case of the implead petitioners is that they were selected by the District Selection Committee in the year 1976 and were appointed under BC-A Category. However, the counter filed by the official respondents did not throw any light on this aspect.
5. The Counsel for the petitioners strenuously contended that as the petitioners did not claim any benefit under BC-A Category, even if the respondents come to the conclusion that the Certificates produced by the petitioners are not true, the respondents cannot take any action against them and they have to treat them as O.C. Candidates.
6. I am afraid I cannot agree with this contention for the simple reason that if the petitioners do not want to claim any privilege extended to the Backward Class people, there is no need for them to obtain false Certificates. Even assuming, without admitting, that the petitioners were appointed under Open Category, when the Seniority List was published by the District Collector in 1982, the both petitioners were shown as OCs., and immediately the petitioners filed representations stating that they belong to BC-A community and necessary corrections may be made in the Provisional Seniority List published by the 2nd respondent Acting upon their representations, the 2nd respondent corrected the entries in the Seniority List and in the Final Seniority List published the petitioners were shown as BC-A candidates and they were accordingly fit in the Roaster points. Further, under Rule 22-A of the A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, the reservations in favour of Constitutionally permissible Classes are over and above the persons selected in the Open Category. Hence, even if the petitioners were selected in the open competition on the basis of the marks obtained in the Special Qualifying Test, the fact that they claimed social status as BC-A candidates fraudulently will not wipe out. Hence, there is no gain saying in contending at this stage that the petitioners obtained the social status certificates without any purpose. Even assuming for argument sake that they did not claim any benefit on the basis of social status certificates obtained by them, if it is established in the inquiry that they do not belong to the caste they claimed, it is established beyond that they obtained the false Community Certificates with ulterior motive and they are liable to be punished for the same. Accordingly, this contention is rejected.
7. Coming to the merits of the case, one Mr. S. Gopal - 4th respondent, who is working in the Collectororate, Ranga Reddy District filed a representation before the Collector on 26-12-1997, followed by several reminders, stating that both the petitioners do not belong to Vada Balija community, but they belong to Veera Shaiva (Lingayat) community, which is a forward community and requested the Collector to stop further promotions to the petitioners and also refer the matter for enquiry on the bogus caste certificates obtained by them so that injustice would not cause to the genuine B.Cs. Perhaps, the implead petitioners having come to know of the bogus certificates obtained by the petitioners, filed a representation before the Hon'ble Chief Minister on 14-7-1998 to conduct an enquiry on the Caste Certificates obtained by the petitioners and to take action accordingly. Thereafter, the District Collector forwarded the representations to the Revenue Divisional Officers, Chevella, Vikarabad and Ranga Reddy (East) Division, in whose territorial jurisdiction the native villages of the petitioners are located and also keeping in view the fact that the 2nd petitioner migrated from Darur to Uppal area, for submitting reports after conducting enquiries, who in turn seemed to have forwarded the representation to the concerned Mandal Revenue Officers. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella on the basis of the report submitted by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Pargi sent a report to the District Collector on 26-11-1999, saying that the 1st petitioner belongs to Lingayat community. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy (East) Division in his report dated 30-11-1998 on the basis of the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Uppal stated that the 2nd petitioner did not produce any Caste Certificate, but the Office records indicate that himself and his other relatives belong to BC-A Group. At the same time, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Vikarabad on the basis of the information gathered by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Darur sent a report on 5-11-1999 stating that both the petitioners belong to Lingayat Community. In the light of the reports received in the preliminary enquiry, the 2nd respondent referred the matter to the District Level Screening Committee, Ranga Reddy District (hereinafter referred to as the 'Scrutiny Committee'), constituted under the provisions of A.P. (SC, ST & BCs) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1993 and the Rules framed thereunder in 1997 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' and 'the Rules'). Thereafter, the Scrutiny Committee issued notice in Form-V to the petitioner on 12-11-1999 asking them to appear before it on 26-11-1999 and at the request of the petitioners, the matter was adjourned to 2-12-1999 on which day the petitioners seemed to have asked for copies of certain documents and the Scrutiny Committee having furnished them, recording the statements of some of the individuals adjourned the matter to 9-12-1999. On 3-12-1999, Mr. S. Gopal - 4th respondent, requested the Scrutiny Committee to furnish copies of the documents filed by the petitioners and the copies seemed to have been furnished to the 4th respondent. Again on 9-12-1999, the Scrutiny Committee recorded the statements of some more persons and submitted its report on 12-1-2000. Basing on the said report, the 2nd respondent passed the orders cancelling the Certificates obtained by the petitioners and for issuance of notification accordingly in the State Gazette. Aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioners filed appeals under Section 7 of the Act. From the orders of the Government, it is seen that the petitioners were given a further opportunity to file any other additional documentary evidence in support of their claim, but they have not availed the said opportunity. In those circumstances, the Government issued G.O. Rt. No.154 in the case of the 1st petitioner and G.O. Rt. No.155 in the case of the 2nd petitioner, both dated 18-9-2000, dismissing the Appeals. Of course, the Government has considered the matter elaborately and passed the orders. Aggrieved by the said orders, the present writ petition is filed.
8. The first contention of the petitioners in this writ petition is that the respondents failed to observe procedural safeguards provided under the Act and the Rules and also on the ground of non-observance of the principle of audi-alteram partem and as such the impugned orders are violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The second contention of the petitioners is that the respondents failed to give any opportunity of making a representation against the proposed cancellation of the Certificates as required under Section 5 read with Rule 6 of the Act, which is mandatory. On this ground also, the impugned orders cannot be sustained in Law. The third contention of the petitioners is that they were not furnished with a copy of the report submitted by the Scrutiny Committee for making an effective representation and the same is violative of the principles of natural justice. The fourth contention of the petitioners is that the opinion of the District Collector being the jurisdictional spring board for cancellation of the Community Certificates and for the further consequential penal action contemplated under the Act like withdrawal of educational and employment benefits, which are of serious nature, he shall give reasons while passing the impugned orders apart from complying with duly following the principles of natural justice and the procedural fairness in the matter.
9. The Counsel appearing for the respondents tried to sustain the impugned orders contending that this Court cannot sit in appeal over the decision of the authorities constituted under the statute on merits, but in exercise of its power of judicial review, the Court has to see whether the procedural fairness is followed or not. He strenuously contended that in the light of Section 6 of the Act, as and when any enquiry is contemplated on the genuineness of the Community Certificate obtained by any individual, the onus lies on him to prove that he belongs to that community and hence non-observance of the principles of natural justice including non-furnishing of the report submitted by the Scrutiny Committee by the District Collector, do not vitiate the proceedings impugned in this writ petition. It is further contended that no personal hearing is contemplated either under the Act or under the Rules made thereunder. In fact, when the petitioners filed the appeals against the orders of the 2nd respondent before the 1st respondent, they were given ample opportunity to produce any evidence at their disposal to prove that they belong to BC-A community. But they have failed to do so. Hence, even if a notice was given, no difference would have been made on the admitted facts and only one view is possible in this matter. Hence, the learned Counsel for the respondents strenuously contends that the writ petition has to be dismissed as no interference is called for by this Court.
10. To appreciate the respective contentions, the circumstances under which the Act was passed and the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules have to be looked into.
11. It is a known fact that in the State of Andhra Pradesh several candidates belonging to forward communities were obtaining false Caste Certificates and claiming the privileges exclusively provided for the Constitutionally permissible Classes to the detriment of the real candidates for whom the State has provided various privileges to bring them on par with the advanced sections of the Society. As and when complaints are received on the bogus nature of the Certificates obtained by the individuals who are getting admissions into professional colleges or public employment, they were being enquired into by the Government on the basis of the executive instructions given by the State from time to time. In a case of similar nature in The Director of Tribal Welfare, Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Laveti Giri, AIR 1995 SC 1516, one Laveti Giri got admission into Engineering College claiming that he is an ST boy and the matter went upto Supreme Court and the Supreme Court having seen the dialatory tactics and hurdles that are being created in completion of the enquiries by the concerned, directed both the Central and the State Governments to stream-line the procedure for issuance of social status certificates, their scrutiny and approval and issue guidelines. By the time the judgment was delivered, the Act came into force with effect from 8-9-1993 pursuant to the directions given by this Court. But neither any Rules were framed under the Act nor the provisions of the Act were implemented. After the judgment i.e., nearly after three years, the Rules were framed in G.O. Ms. No.58, Social Welfare (J), dated 12-5-1997 and they are known as A.P. Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes - Issue of Community, Nativity and Date of Birth Certificates Rules, 1997. This very fact shows the sincerity and the commitment of the Stale in weeding out the bogus certificate holders from educational institutions and public employment. In fact, after going through the Rules, I have a feeling that the Rules are framed in such a way that they will help more the bogus certificate holders to drag on the proceedings for years together and they have even transgressed the provisions of the main Act itself. When the burden of proof lies on the person who obtains the Certificate, I do not know why such a cumbersome and vague procedure is prescribed in the Rules. In the aims and objectives of the Act, it is clearly stated that the Legislature enacted the Act"..... to curb effectively the evil practice of producing false community certificates by deriving a strict procedure for the issue of such certificates and prescribing deterrent punishment to those who produce false certificates". Under Section 3 of the Act, any person claiming the benefit of any reservation either for admission into educational institutions or public employment has to make an application in the prescribed form before the competent authority in Form No.1. The competent authority for issuance of Community, Nativity and Date of Birth certificates belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes is specified in Annexure-1 to the Rules of 1997. Under Section 4, the competent authority after verifying the claim as per the procedure prescribed under Rule 5 of the Rules about the genuineness or otherwise of the claim, either can issue the Certificate or reject the application for the reasons to be recorded in writing. Under Section 5(1), the District Collector may either suo motu or on a written complaint in person, call for the record of any person who obtained false Community Certificate either before or after the commencement of the Act and enquire into the correctness of such certificate. If the District Collector is of the opinion that the certificate was obtained fraudulently, he shall by notification cancel the certificate after giving the person concerned an opportunity of making a representation. Under Section 5(2), the powers of the District Collector can also be exercised by the Government. Under Section 6 of the Act, the burden of proof lies on the person who obtained the Community Certificate. Under Section 7, an appeal is provided to the District Collector on the orders of the competent authority and to the State Government on the order of the District Collector. Under Section 9, certain powers of the civil Court are conferred on the competent authority while holding an enquiry under the Act. Section 10 of the Act provides penalties. Under Section 11 the benefits secured on the basis of false Community Certificate are to be withdrawn. Section 12 deals with the penalties to be imposed on the persons who were elected to the elective offices on the basis of false Community Certificates. Section 13 deals with the penalty to be imposed on the person who issues a false Community Certificate. Section 14 deals with the penalty for abettors. Section 15 prescribes that the offences punishable under Sections 10, 11 and 12 of the Act are to be tried summarily. Under Section 16, the offences under the Act are declared to be cognizable and non-bailable, notwithstanding anything contained in the Criminal Procedure Code. Under Section 17, the jurisdiction of the civil Court is ousted. Under Section 18, the acts done in good faith and intended to be done in pursuance of the Act and the Rules are protected from vexatious prosecution. Under Section 19, the provisions of the Act are having overriding effect over any other Law for the time being in force. Under Section 20, the Government may by notification make Rules for carrying out all or any other purposes of the Act. Section 21 deals with transitional provisions i.e., any Community Certificate, issued by any authority competent shall, unless it is cancelled under the provisions of the Act, be valid and shall be deemed to have been issued under the Act.
12. In exercise of the Rule making power under Section 20 of the Act, Rules of 1997 (referred to supra) are framed by the Government and they came into force on 16-5-1997. Rule 3 deals with the Forms for making applications for issuance of Community, Nativity and Date of Birth Certificates. Rule 4 deals with the procedure for filing the applications. Rule 5 deals with the procedure for verification. Under Rule 7, State Level Scrutiny Committee is constituted. Under Rule 8, District Level Scrutiny Committee and the procedure to be followed for conducting inquiry was specified. Under Rule 9, the District Collector, either on a complaint from any person or otherwise has the reason to believe that the person concerned obtained a false Community Certificate, either for himself/herself or their children, has to refer to the District Level Scrutiny Committee for conducting an enquiry under Rule 8 and for sending its findings to him. Rules 10, 11 and 12 deal with Appeals, Review and Revision. Rule 13 deals with bar of jurisdiction of civil Courts. Under Rule 14, the powers of the civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure in summoning witnesses are conferred on all the authorities concerned who are to exercise their powers under the Act. Rule 15 deals with the penal action on persons who obtain false Community Certificates as per the provisions of Sections 10, 11 and 12 of the Act. Under Rule 16, the Certificate issued by the competent authority under the provisions of the Act and the Rules shall be a permanent one. Rule 17 deals with issuance of duplicate Community, Nativity and Date of Birth certificates. Rule 18 deals with complaints. Rule 19 deals with admission or appointment in case there is delay in finalising the enquiry and issuing Community Certificate etc., by the competent authority. Under Rule 20, all the executive instructions in force were repealed. Under Rule 21, the Community Certificates issued by the competent authorities prior to commencement of the Rules are treated as valid Certificates. Annexures-II deal with various Forms that have to be used for giving effect to the provisions of the Act.
13. In the instant case, as the action is initiated by the District Collector on the basis of the complaint received from the 4th respondent, the relevant provisions that have to be looked into at this juncture would be Sections 5 and 6 coupled with Rules 6, 8, 9, 15 and 18. Under Section 5 of the Act, the District Collector may either suo motu or on a written complaint by any person to the effect that a person not belonging to the Constitutionally permissible class having obtained a false Community Certificate either before or after commencement of the Act either for himself or to his children, gained entry into public service or an educational institution, he shall call for the record of such person to enquire into the correctness of such Certificate and if he is of the opinion that the Certificate was obtained fraudulently, he shall by notification cancel the same after giving the person concerned an opportunity of making a representation. Under Rule 18, whenever complaints are received regarding the Community Certificates produced by the employees at the time of entry into service or students at the time of admission into educational institutions, the appointing authority/ educational institution has to refer the matter to the District Collector of the District from where the competent authority issued the Certificate, who in turn has to get it verified by the Scrutiny Committee constituted at the District Level as per Rule 8 and the District Collector has to inform the final action to the appointing authority/educational institution within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of the complaint by him from the authorities concerned. From this, it is seen that as and when a complaint is received by the District Collector in whose territorial jurisdiction the competent authority existed has issued the Certificate, on the genuineness of the Certificate issued by him, either from the employer or the educational institution, he shall get it verified by the Scrutiny Committee constituted under Rule 8. In this case, the action was initiated by the 2nd respondent on the basis of the complaint made by the 4th respondent. The Counsel for the petitioners strenuously contends that as the notice was issued by the Scrutiny Committee in Form VI, the procedure contemplated under Rule 9 has to be followed, but the same has not been followed in the instant case. To appreciate the correctness of this contention, from the provisions of the Act it is seen that the enquiry with regard to the social status of an individual is contemplated in three different situations under Rules 5, 8(d) and 9(1) As and when an applicant files an application before the competent authority in Form-I for issuance of the Caste Certificate, (2) At the stage of admission into an educational institution or entry into public service and (3) When a complaint is received from any source that the person who availed the privileges meant for the constitutionally permissible classes either to himself or to his children by claiming a seat in an educational institution or appointment to a public service, really does not belong to that Class, but obtained the Certificate by playing fraud on the competent authority. Now, we have to see which of the procedures prescribed in the Rules has to be followed. The procedure for verification prescribed under Rule 5 is intended to verify the social status of the individual who made an application for issuance of a Caste Certificate.
Hence, I need not refer to that procedure except observing that under Rule 5(i), the competent authority, if he entertains any doubt on the claim of the individual, he shall refer the matter to the Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee formed at the District Level under Rule 8 and on receipt of the recommendations of the Scrutiny Committee, the competent authority shall accordingly confirm or reject the claim of the applicant. Under Section 6 as well as under Rule 6 of the Rules, the burden of proof lies on the person who claims that he belongs to a particular caste by producing necessary evidence, both oral and documentary. Rule 8(a) refers to the constitution of the Scrutiny Committee at District Level. Under Rule 8(b) the Scrutiny Committee shall meet atleast once in a month or as often, depending on the cases referred to it. Under Rule 8(c) the presence of three members will form the required quorum for the meetings of the Scrutiny Committee. Under Rule 8(d)(1) elaborate procedure for conducting enquiry by the Scrutiny Committee is prescribed. As and when the matter is referred to the Scrutiny Committee either by the competent authority or the appointing authority, it has to conduct an enquiry by giving notice in Form VI to the applicant. As the other details of this sub-rule are not germane, I am not referring the same. Under Rule 8(d)(2), in case the applicant is a minor, notice has to be served on the parent/ guardian in Form-V. Under Rule 8(d)(3) if the person who receives the notice fails to respond, the Scrutiny Committee may finalise its recommendations based on the material/documents/evidence made available to the Committee by the competent authority. Under Rule 8(d)(4), the Scrutiny Committee while causing enquiry shall follow the due process of law to verify the genuineness or otherwise of the information or recorded from such persons who are summoned in the enquiry. It shall also cause to collect documentary evidence or any other related evidence about the correctness or otherwise of the information furnished or objections raised by any person during the enquiry. Under Rule 8(d)(5), the Scrutiny Committee shall examine the School Records, Birth Registration Certificates, if any produced in the enquiry. It may also examine any other person who may have knowledge of the Community of the applicant. In case of Scheduled Tribes, it may examine the anthropological and ethnological traits, deity, rituals, customs, mode of marriage, death ceremonies/method of burial of dead bodies etc., of that particular Tribe, to finalise its recommendations to the competent authority. Under Rule 8(d)(6), the Scrutiny Committee should give reasonable opportunity to the applicant to produce evidence in support of the claim. A public notice is also contemplated by beat of drum or any other convenient mode in the village or the locality of the applicant, and if any person or association opposes such claim, opportunity to produce evidence in person before the Scrutiny Committee may be given to him or her. After giving such opportunity to that person, the Scrutiny Committee may make such enquiry as it deems expedient and finalise its recommendations with brief reasons in support thereof to the competent authority. Under Rule 8(d)(7), the Scrutiny Committee shall also examine the report of enquiry conducted by the Revenue Department furnished to it by the authorities concerned and it may also call for the expert opinion from the Commissionerate of Social Welfare/Tribal Welfare in case of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes if deemed necessary and on comparing the evidence collected by it with the expert opinion the Scrutiny Committee has to finalise its report as to whether the Community claim of the applicant is genuine or false. Under Rule 8(e), the Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee shall send recommendations of the Committee to the competent authority on the claim of the applicant with reasons within 45 days from the date of receipt of the case referred to it by the competent authority. While doing so, reasonable opportunity should be given to the applicant to produce evidence in support of their claim and by the persons opposing the claim.
14. From the above it is seen, while conducting enquiry, the Scrutiny Committee has to verify the genuineness or otherwise of the information furnished to it or recorded by it from such persons who have given the evidence, both oral and documentary and consider the objections raised by any person during the enquiry by following the due process of law. It shall also examine the School Records, Birth Registration Certificates, if any furnished and also examine any other person who is having knowledge of the community of the applicant. Then the Scrutiny Committee is expected to compare the evidence produced before it, both in favour and opposition of the claim, with the report of the enquiry conducted by the Revenue Department furnished to the competent authority before sending its final recommendations. Under Rule 9, where the District Collector receives a written complaint from any person or has otherwise reason to believe that any individual has obtained a false caste certificate either for himself or for his children, he shall refer the case to the Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee to enquire into the matter and send its findings. The Scrutiny Committee has to follow the procedure laid down under Rule 8(d)(1) to (7), except that it shall serve the notice in Form-VI on the person involved in the case. Under Rule 9(3), after receipt of the case, the Scrutiny Committee shall cause enquiry by the Protection of Civil Rights/ Vigilance Cell, who in turn shall investigate the social status claimed by the person by sending the inspector of Police to the local place of residence of that person where he/ she usually resides. The Inspector should personally verify and collect all the facts about the Community claim of the person or the guardian or the parents, as the case may be. Under Rule 9(4), if the person on whom the notice is served in Form-VI fails to respond, the Scrutiny Committee may finalise the findings based on the material made available by the District Collector. Under Rule 9(5), the Scrutiny Committee shall compare the enquiry reports of the Revenue Department furnished to the District Collector with the reports received from the Protection of Civil Rights/Vigilance Cell and the report of the Expert or Officer of the Research Organisation and then finalise its findings on the genuineness or otherwise of the Certificate issued. Under Rule 9(6), the Scrutiny Committee shall furnish its findings within 60 days from the date of receipt of the reference. Under Rule 9(7), after receipt of the findings from the Scrutiny Committee, the District Collector shall take a decision within one month and if he finds that the Certificate was obtained fraudulently, he shall pass an order cancelling the Certificate and shall issue a notification to that effect to be published in the District Gazette and shall communicate the cancellation of the Certificate to the authorities concerned, besides taking action on the persons who obtained the false Certificate and the competent authority who has issued the Certificate under Rule 15. Under Rule 9(8), in case of Bariki S.C. Community, the complaints received by the District Collector shall be referred to the Government for enquiry and finalise the action. Under Rule 9(9), the District Collector or the Government may either suo motu or on a written complaint by any person or on the request by an employer/educational institution, shall enquire into the correctness of any Community Certificate etc., already issued, and if it is found that the Certificate is obtained fraudulently, then the District Collector or the Government, as the case may be, shall cancel the Certificate as per Section 5 of the Act.
15. From the above it is seen that as and when an enquiry is initiated on the false Community Certificate obtained by an individual, apart from the procedure contemplated under Rule 8(d)(1) to (7), the Scrutiny Committee shall get the case enquired by the Protection of Civil Rights/ Vigilance Cell and shall get the social status of the person enquired by sending the Inspector of Police to the original place of residence of the applicant and the Inspector has to verify and collect all the facts about the Community claim of the person. Thereafter, it shall compare the reports of the Revenue Department furnished to the District Collector with the reports submitted by the Protection of Civil Rights/ Vigilance Cell and finalise its findings and submit the same to the District Collector concerned within 60 days and the District Collector is expected to finalise the follow up action on the basis of the Scrutiny Committee's report within one month thereafter.
16. At the outset, I have a strong feeling that the procedure contemplated under Rule 9 for conducting enquiry on a false Community Certificate obtained by an individual, is so complicated, confusing and vague, apart from traversing beyond the scope of the principal Act itself, and is likely to result in failure of observance of procedural fairness by the authorities who are entrusted with the investigation of the fraudulent cases. This procedure is more helpful to the persons who receive unlawful gains by obtaining false Community Certificates for dragging on the proceedings endlessly by approaching one forum after the other upto the Supreme Court and in the meantime, the man may retire from the service or complete his education. I am really astonished to see the procedure prescribed in enquiring into the cases of false Community Certificates. When Section 6 of the Act clearly fixed the burden of proof on the person who claims that he belongs to a particular community to prove his case. Though Rule 18 does not contemplate any enquiry to be conducted by the District Collector as and when he receives a complaint. I can understand the action of the District Collector in ordering the preliminary enquiry to find out the truth or otherwise of the complaint in the light of the language employed in Section 5 of the Act and to arrive at a decision whether the matter has to be referred to the Scrutiny Committee or not. But, I am not able to understand why there should be an enquiry by an Inspector of Police attached to the Protection of Civil Rights/Vigilance Cell and why he should personally verify and collect the facts from the village about the community claim of a person when the enquiry is being conducted on the basis of a complaint received by the authorities concerned in that regard when the burden lies on the person who claims the social status, to prove the same. Apart from the enquiry to be conducted by the Inspector of Police attached to the Protection of Civil Rights/Vigilance Cell, as contemplated under Rule 9(3), the other procedure prescribed for enquiring into the cases of this nature is as contemplated in Rule 8(d)(1) to (7). The procedure prescribed under Rule 8(d)(1) to (7) has taken sufficient care for observance of due process of law and procedural fairness, as stated supra. The procedure contemplated under Rule 9(3) is redundant and involves time consuming process, apart from the fact that it will not serve any purpose as the enquiry is being conducted in the presence of the applicant/ claimant as well as the persons opposing the claim and they will be in a better position to adduce both oral and documentary evidence, both for and against the claim. Hence, I hold that Rule 9(3) of the Rules runs counter to the provisions of the Act and the Rule making authority exceeded its powers in providing an inquiry that frustrates the very objective of the Act. Hence the same is declared as ultra vires of the powers of the Rule making authority and the inquiry contemplated under Rule 9(3) is declared otiose. Likewise, Rule 18 and Rule 9(9) are overlapping and Rule 9(9) will not serve any purpose as Rule 18 has taken care of the complaints to be inquired into.
17. Nextly, under Rule 8(d)(1), it is staled that a notice in Form-VI has to be given to the applicant and notice in Form-V to the parent or guardian in case the applicant is a minor, by the Scrutiny Committee while conducting an enquiry in cases of doubtful claims referred by the competent authority. Rule 9(2) says that the Scrutiny Committee has to follow the procedure listed in Rule 8(d)(1) to (7), except that it shall serve notice in Form-VI on the person involved in the case. I have seen both the Forms i.e., Form-V and Form-VI. Notice in Form-V has to be given in case an enquiry is being conducted by the Scrutiny Committee at the instance of a competent authority and notice in Form-VI has to be given when an enquiry is initiated on the basis of a complaint that the individual concerned obtained a false Community Certificate. At the same time, Rule 8(d)(2) says that the notice in Form-V has to be given to the parent or guardian, in case the applicant is a minor. From the Forms given in the Annexures, it is seen that none of them are intended to be served on the parent/guardian.
18. From the above discussion on the Rule position, I have no option, except to hold that the procedure contemplated for enquiry into the doubtful claims as well as the complaints on the Certificates already obtained, are one and the same, except the enquiry to be conducted by the Inspector of Police attached to the Protection of Civil Rights/Vigilance Cell which was declared as otiose and there is no much difference in these two enquiries and they are in fact repetitive, except for that provision.
19. Now, it is seen that while conducting enquiry in such cases, the Scrutiny Committee has to follow the due process of law and also give an opportunity to produce evidence in favour and in opposition of the claim. Further, under Section 9 read with Rule 14, ail the parties who are empowered to conduct enquiry under the Act are empowered to exercise the power of a civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure in summoning the witnesses, production of documents, enforcing the attendance of the persons and examining them on oath, issuing commissions for examination of witnesses or documents, making local enquiry and inspections etc. Hence, it can be safely held that the authorities are exercising quasi-judicial powers while discharging their functions under the Act and the Rules made thereunder and they are expected to follow the procedural fairness and the due process of law. In other words, the Scrutiny Committee is expected to furnish the material placed before it to the person who is charged with the offence of obtaining a false Certificate and shall not only give an opportunity to rebut the evidence collected by the Scrutiny Committee or the District Collector while conducting the preliminary enquiry or the complainant, but it should also give an opportunity to both the parties concerned to cross-examine the witnesses to the either side of the dispute. If the Scrutiny Committee receives the evidence in the form of an affidavit, it should furnish copies of the affidavit to the person against whom an enquiry is being conducted and find out whether he intends to cross-examine any witnesses, apart from stating his own case with documentary evidence and vice versa.
20. In this case, the District Collector, after obtaining the preliminary report from the Revenue Divisional Officers concerned, referred the case for enquiry to the Scrutiny Committee. However, the Scrutiny Committee neither furnished the copies of the preliminary reports submitted by the concerned Revenue Divisional Officers, nor furnished the material collected by it to the petitioners before proceeding further with the case. Likewise, the Scrutiny Committee while recording the statements of the individuals, did not afford an opportunity to the petitioners to cross-examine them. In the light of the language employed in Section 5 of the Act i.e., " ..... he shall by notification, cancel the Certificate after giving the person concerned an opportunity of making a representation", I am of the view that the District Collector has to furnish a copy of the findings of the Scrutiny Committee to the petitioners and give them an opportunity of making a representation before passing the impugned orders. This is what the Supreme Court stated in guideline No.6 in Laveti Giri's case (supra). Further a Division Bench of the Madras High Court also in D. Illamaran v. Government of India, represented by Chief Engineer, All India Radio and Television, Southern Zone, Madras, 1996 Writ LR 482, has taken a similar view which was followed in G. Muthulakshmi v. The Collector, Madurai District and others, 1999 II MLJ 147 and the relevant portion is extracted below :
"Whenever the question arises, as to whether a person belongs to a particular community recognised as the Scheduled Tribe or Scheduled Caste, decision has to be taken by the Collector, of the District, after holding due enquiry and in such case, he may himself hold an enquiry or direct the Revenue Divisional Officer to hold an enquiry and submit a report. In the event the Collector adopts the latter course, he has to make available a copy of the report submitted by the Revenue Divisional Officer to the concerned person and given him an opportunity to file his objections and adduce evidence, if any and then decide the matter after hearing the aggrieved person, in the instant case the petitioner ..... A copy of the report made by the Revenue Divisional Officer should be furnished to the petitioner and thereafter the petitioner should be given time to file his objections and adduce evidence, if any, and then the Collector shall decide the matter after hearing the petitioner, as to whether the petitioner belongs to Konda Reddy community or not. In the event it is held that the petitioner does not belong to Konda Reddy community, the Collector shall cancel the Community Certificate issued to the petitioner by the Tahsildar that he belongs to Konda Reddy community and intimate to respondents."
21. The fact that the appellate authority has given opportunity to the petitioners to produce additional evidence, if any, to prove their case, will not cure the inherent defect in the procedure followed by the Scrutiny Committee as well as the District Collector, more so in the absence of furnishing a copy of the report submitted by the Scrutiny Committee, even at that stage.
22. Hence, I have no option except to hold that the impugned orders suffer from the vice of non-observance of due process of law and procedural fairness. Accordingly, the orders of the 2nd respondent as confirmed by the 1st respondent are quashed and the matter is remitted back to the Scrutiny Committee to follow the Rules of procedure while conducting the enquiry as indicated above and submit its findings to the District Collector, who in turn shall pass orders one way or the other after giving an opportunity to the petitioners to make a representation on the findings of the Scrutiny Committee.
23. Though there is some substance in the contention of the respondents, I am not dealing with those contentions as the same may result in prolonging the legal proceedings for over decades and I would like to put a quietus to the issue at the earliest possible time.
24. Keeping in view the menace of obtaining false Certificates by spurious persons not belonging to the reserved Communities to which they are intended and in knocking away the benefits intended to the Constitutionally permissible Classes, I would like to give a time schedule to complete the process of enquiry in this case.
25. As I have declared Rule 9(3) as obsolete and otiose and no purpose will be served by deputing the Inspector of Police attached to the Protection of Civil Rights/ Vigilance Cell, the Scrutiny Committee, shall immediately furnish copies of the preliminary reports submitted by the concerned Revenue Divisional Officers along with the documentary evidence that was filed by the complainant and the statements recorded by them during the enquiry on 2-12-1999 and 9-12-1999 to the petitioners and ascertain whether the petitioners would like to cross-examine any of the persons whose statements were recorded by the Scrutiny Committee and if they want to cross-examine any of them, a firm date shall be fixed for their cross-examination and thereafter complete the enquiry as contemplated in the Act and the Rules duly rectifying the procedural defects committed by it previously as pointed out herein and submit its report to the District Collector as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, not exceeding two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the findings of the Scrutiny Committee, the District Collector shall furnish a copy of the findings of the Scrutiny Committee to the petitioners and give them an opportunity of making a representation if they wish and thereafter pass orders within four weeks.
In the event the decision of the District Collector going against the interests of the petitioners, and if any appeal is filed against the orders of the District Collector the Government is directed to dispose of the same within four weeks thereafter after affording an opportunity of hearing. It is made clear that at that stage giving an opportunity to produce additional evidence in the matter does not arise. Any deviation in the time schedule fixed above would be viewed seriously.
26. In the light of the above discussion, the impugned order of the District Collector dated 27-1-2000 as confirmed by the Government are quashed and the matter is remitted back for fresh disposal as per the observations made in this writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs.
27. Copy marked to the Law Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Hyderabad, to amend the Rules as indicated in the judgment. He is also directed to communicate the judgment to all the District Collectors and Chairmen of the Scrutiny Committees dealing with the issuance of false Community Certificates for observance of due process of law.