Karnataka High Court
Sri S L Sathyanarayana Rao vs The State Of Karnataka on 28 September, 2018
Author: H.B.Prabhakara Sastry
Bench: H.B.Prabhakara Sastry
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY
WRIT PETITION No.8931 OF 2016 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
Sri. S.L. Sathyanarayana Rao
S/o K. Lingappa,
Aged about 58 years,
Presently residing at #704,
Premier Height,
Ananthnagar, Manipal,
Udupi-576101. ...Petitioner
(By Sri. Vishwajith Shetty S., Advocate)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka
Represented by Basavanagara Police,
Davanagere City Circle,
Davanagere-577002.
2. The Inspector of Police
Civil Rights Enforcement Directorate,
Davanagere Tq & District. ...Respondents
(R-2 amended as per vide court order dated:23.01.2017)
(By Sri. Chetan Desai, HCGP for R-1;
Sri. C. Jagadish, Advocate for R-2)
WP No.8931/2016
2
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C
praying to quash the entire proceedings pending before the
court of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Davanagere in
Special Case [SC & ST] No.2/2015 for the offence punishable
under Section 198, 420 of I.P.C read with Section 3(1)(9) of
SC and the ST (Prevention of Attrocities) Act, 1989 vide
Annexure-A.
This Writ Petition having been heard and reserved for
orders on 20.09.2018, this day the Court made the following:
ORDER
In this writ petition the petitioner has sought for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the entire proceedings against him in the Court of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Davanagere in Special Case (SC & ST) No.2/2015 (henceforth for brevity referred to as "the Court below") for the offences punishable under Sections 198 and 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1908 (henceforth for brevity referred to as "IPC") r/w Section 3(1)(ix) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 [henceforth for brevity referred to as "SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989"]. WP No.8931/2016 3
2. The summary of the case as could be gathered from the materials placed before the Court is that the Police Sub-Inspector of Civil Rights Enforcement Directorate, Davanagere lodged a complaint with the first respondent - police station on 24.03.2014. The summary of the complaint is that the present petitioner giving false information to the Tahsildar of Davanagere obtained a false caste certificate on 01.09.1995 showing that he (petitioner) belongs to a caste by name 'Kadu Kuruba'. Based on the said false certificate, he secured an appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer in Public Works Department. Presently, he is working as Assistant Executive Engineer in the City Municipal Corporation at Udupi. It is further stated in the complaint that when Civil Rights Enforcement Directorate conducted enquiry, it was revealed that the petitioner / accused belongs to a caste by name Kuruba WP No.8931/2016 4 coming under the Category 2A. The Tahsildar at Davanagere subsequently on 01.04.2006 has cancelled the caste certificate issued in favour of the petitioner showing him as belonging to 'Kadu Kuruba', a Scheduled Tribe. He has deceived the people belonging to Schedule Tribe and also to the Government and further, he has committed atrocity against the Scheduled Tribe. The Additional Director General of Police, Civil Rights Enforcement Directorate, Bengaluru has accorded sanction to prosecute the petitioner. With this, the complainant has requested the first respondent to take appropriate action against the petitioner. The said complaint was registered in the first respondent - police station against the petitioner in the Station Crime No.38/2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 196, 198, 420 of IPC and under Section 3(1)(ix) of SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989.
WP No.8931/20165
3. After investigation, the respondent - police filed charge sheet against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 198 and 420 of IPC and under Section 3(1)(ix) of SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989. The charge sheet was received and the case was numbered as Special Case (SC & ST) No.2/2015 in the Court below. It is the said proceedings, the petitioner has sought for quashing in this writ petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the contention of the petitioner taken up in his memorandum of writ petition submitted that the service record of the father of the petitioner, as well, the school record of the petitioner shows that they belong to 'Kadu Kuruba' caste, falling under the Scheduled Tribe category. Further, Government of Karnataka vide Order No.SWD 713 SAD 93, Bengaluru dated 11th March 2002 has ordered that the benefits of reservation obtained by WP No.8931/2016 6 the persons like the petitioner in education and employment, based on their wrong certificate by the authorities as Scheduled Tribe and which have become final, shall not be disturbed, as such, the appointment obtained by the petitioner and the promotion to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer given to him considering him as a person belonging to 'Kadu Kuruba' caste is protected under the said Government Order.
5. Learned counsel also submitted that, in that regard, the Secretary, Public Works Department, Bengaluru has submitted to the Lokayuktha, the opinion of the Government to close the case against the petitioner, by virtue of which, the Lokayuktha has closed the complaint filed by one Sri.Shekara Nayak, as such, on the same contention and on the very same set of facts and allegations, the criminal action cannot be initiated.
WP No.8931/20167
6. Learned counsel for the second respondent in his argument submitted that by the order of the State, the right vested under Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution of India, cannot be diluted and cannot be taken away. In that regard, he relied upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Smt.Shoba Lakshmi Vs. Divisional Commissioner and another in WA No.530/2007 (GM-CC) dated 31.07.2012. He also submitted that the said judgment was confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which dismissed the special leave petition filed by the petitioner Smt.Shoba Lakshmi therein, in SLP No.138/2013 by its order dated 28.01.2013. He further submitted that the Lokayuktha has got no power to enquire into or deal with the matter of false caste certificate and it would be only the Directorate of Civil Rights Enforcement which has got the power under the Karnataka SC/ST & Other BC WP No.8931/2016 8 (Reservation of Appointments, Etc.) Rules, 1992 [henceforth for brevity referred to as "SC/ST(Reservation Rules)"].
7. Admittedly, the caste certificate said to have been issued by the Tahsildar on 01.09.1995 in favour of the petitioner has stood cancelled by the very same Tahsildar on 01.04.2006. According to the complainant / respondent No.2, the petitioner belongs to 'Kuruba' community coming under category 2A, but, not under the caste of 'Kadu Kuruba', which is a Scheduled Tribe. Even the main contention of the petitioner is that by virtue of the Government Order dated 11.03.2002, the benefits of reservation obtained by him though is alleged to be under a wrong caste certificate, cannot be disturbed. Further, the Government has ordered that the enquiries pending before the various Departmental Committees stands abated or dropped.
WP No.8931/20169
8. By taking such a contention, as at this stage, it can be observed that the petitioner is taking shelter under the said Government order dated 11.03.2002 for seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings against him.
9. In Smt.Shoba Lakshmi's case in WA No.530/2007 (supra) a Division Bench of this Court was pleased to observe as below:
"It is clear that the appellant cannot contend that in view of the order of the Government dated 11th March, 2002, the appellant's appointment has been saved because the Parliament has not declared 'Maaleru' as Scheduled Tribe to save the appointment of the appellant based on the order of the State of Karnataka. In addition to that, by the order of the State a right vested under Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution of India cannot be diluted and cannot be taken away."
WP No.8931/201610
10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave Petition preferred against the said judgment by Smt.Shoba Lakshmi in SLP No.138/2013, in its order dated 28.01.2013, was pleased to dismiss the said writ petition. Thus, the observation given by the Division Bench of this Court in Smt.Shoba Lakshmi's case (supra) holding that by the order of the State, a right vested under Articles 341 and 342 under the Constitution of India, cannot be diluted or cannot be taken away has reached its finality. Therefore, merely because the State Government has issued an order dated 11.03.2002, holding that the persons who have obtained their employment on the wrong caste certificate, would not be disturbed or that enquiries pending before the various Departments against them stands abated or dropped would not come in the way of the Directorate of WP No.8931/2016 11 Civil Rights Enforcement Cell initiating the appropriate legal action against the present petitioner.
11. The second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that since the Lokayuktha has closed the complaint, on the very same set of facts and allegations once again a criminal action cannot be initiated.
12. A perusal of the material placed in this matter go to show that based upon a complaint said to have been lodged by one Sri.Shekara Nayaka claiming him to be the District Leader of Farmers Association, Channasamudra, Davanagere Taluk. The Lokayuktha had sent the copies of the complaint to the respondent for submitting its comments and also to the Secretary to Public Works Department for submission of the report. The respondent submitted his comments denying the allegations. The Government submitted its report along WP No.8931/2016 12 with its order dated 11.03.2002 requesting for the closure of the matter along with the copy of the complaint. In view of the Government Order dated 11.03.2002, the Lokayuktha by its order dated 21.05.2004 closed the complaint.
13. It is the argument of learned counsel for respondent No.2 that Lokayuktha had got no power to look into the allegation of producing false caste certificate by a person and securing an employment or promotion and that the said aspect can be only considered under the SC/ST(Reservation Rules) by the Directorate of Civil Rights Enforcement.
14. Rule 7-A of the SC/ST(Reservation Rules) reads as below:
"7-A Prosecution for obtaining false caste certificate- (1) The Caste Verification Committee or the Caste and Income Verification Committee, as the case may be WP No.8931/2016 13 and the Divisional Commissioner, shall send a copy of the order rejecting claim of the applicant for grant of Validity Certificate or, as the case may be, a Copy of the order in appeal rejecting such claim, to the Directorate of Civil Rights Enforcement.
(2) The Directorate of Civil Rights Enforcement shall take steps to prosecute such claimant who has obtained a false Caste Certificate."
A reading of the said Rule go to show that it is for the Directorate of Civil Rights Enforcement Cell to take steps to prosecute the person who has obtained a false caste certificate, as such, in the instant case, it is the said Civil Rights Enforcement Directorate has lodged the complaint.
15. A Division Bench of this Court, in the case of J.Madegowda Vs. Additional Directorate of Civil Rights Enforcement Cell and others in WA WP No.8931/2016 14 No.16698/2011 (S-DIS) dated 29.11.2012, in a similar matter refused to interfere with the order of dismissal of the writ petition by the learned Single Judge after relying upon another Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Smt.Geethanjali Vs. The Canara Bank and Others in WP No.46548/2004 disposed of on 16.07.2012, wherein this Court has held that after promulgation of the SC/ST (Reservation Rules) 1992, it will only the DCVC which is the Competent Authority to look into the genuiness or otherwise of any caste certificate even if it be had been issued by the Tahsildar in the previous legal regime as it was then prevailing.
16. In view of the above judgment, more particularly, in view of Rule 7-A of the SC/ST (Reservation Rules), which empowers only the Directorate of Civil Rights Enforcement, to take steps to prosecute WP No.8931/2016 15 such person who has obtained a false caste certificate, merely because the Lokayuktha has closed the complaint before it, filed by an independent person, the same would not come in the way of the Court below proceeding further in the matter in Spl. Case (SC/ST) No.2/2015 pending before it, as such, I do not find any merit for allowing writ petition.
Accordingly, writ petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE GH