Madras High Court
G.Gnaneswaran vs The State Level Scrutiny Committee on 27 November, 2014
Author: M.Jaichandren
Bench: M.Jaichandren, Aruna Jagadeesan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on : 3.11.2014
The date of decision : 27.11.2014
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE ARUNA JAGADEESAN
W.P.No.27623 of 2014
G.Gnaneswaran ... petitioner
Vs.
1. The State Level Scrutiny Committee
rep by its Chairman
Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department
Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009
2. The Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited
rep by its Chairman cum Managing Director
Corporate Office
Block 1, Neyveli Township
Neyveli 607 801 Cuddalore District .. Respondents
Prayer: Petition filed seeking for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records from the file of the 1st respondent made in proceedings No.20864/ADW5/2010-11 dated 4.9.2014 and quash the same.
For petitioner : Mr.Su.Srinivasan
For respondents : Mr.R.Ravichandran
AGP for R1
Mr.N.A.K.Sharma for R2
O R D E R
M.JAICHANDREN,J.
Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties concerned.
2. This Writ Petition has been filed praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for and quash the proceedings of the first respondent, dated 4.9.2014, and consequently to direct the second respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service.
3. The petitioner has stated that he belongs to Hindu Uraly community, which is a Scheduled Tribe community, as per the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950. It has been further stated that the petitioner's fore fathers were hailing from Nagiyampatti village, Atur Taluk, Salem District. They belonged to Uraly community. Based on the educational qualifications of the petitioner, he had been appointed as a Graduate Engineer Trainee, on 17.12.1990, by the second respondent, under the quota reserved for Scheduled Tribes. While so, the second respondent had referred the community certificate furnished by the petitioner, for verification, based on certain anonymous complaint. The Tahsildar, Atur, had conducted a discreet enquiry, during the year, 1993. Thereafter, the second respondent had initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and had terminated his service, on 21.2.1995. Challenging the said order of termination, the petitioner had preferred a Writ Petition, in W.P.No.4121 of 1995. By an order, dated 30.08.2000, this Court had held that the service of the petitioner cannot be terminated, unless the community certificate issued in his favour is cancelled by an appropriate authority. Thereafter, the community certificate of the petitioner had been cancelled, by an order, dated 31.5.2014, based on an enquiry conducted by the District Level Vigilance Committee.
4. The petitioner has further stated that he had challenged the cancellation of the certificate, by way of a writ petition, in W.P.No.16241 of 2004. This Court had allowed the writ petition, by its order, dated 26.7.2005, stating that the two member District Level Vigilance Committe had no authority to pass an order cancelling the community certificate issued in favour of the petitioner. Following the said order, a notice had been served on the petitioner during the year, 2007, by the District Level Vigilance Committee, Tiruchirapalli. The said notice had been challenged by the petitioner, in W.P.No.3412 of 2007. An order had been passed by the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, directing the disposal of the matter, by a three member committee. The State Level Scrutiny Committee, had issued a notice to the petitioner, on 29.9.2009, asking him to appear for an enquiry. As the petitioner was unwell, he had requested the Committee to grant some time for submitting the original documents relating to the claims made by him and to appear for an enquiry. Based on the records of the District Level Vigilance Committee and based on the report of the first respondent, the service of the petitioner had been terminated, by the second respondent, vide proceedings, dated 25.10.2010. As the respondent had passed exparte proceedings, the petitioner had approached this court in W.P.No.22540 of 2010. This court had passed an order granting an opportunity to the petitioner to file all the necessary documents before the State Level Scrutiny committee, on or before 18.10.2010, and had directed the State Level Scrutiny Committee to pass orders thereon, within the specified time limit. In spite of a detailed explanation having been submitted and the necessary documents having been filed, no order had been passed by the first respondent. Therefore, the petitioner was constrained to file the writ petition, in W.P.No.21495 of 2013.
5. It has been further stated that this Court had disposed of the said writ petition by an order, dated 23.10.2013, with certain observations. The first respondent had been directed to call the petitioner for an enquiry, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order and to pass order, on merits, within a period of four weeks, thereafter. It had also been observed that the order of termination issued by the second respondent, terminating the service of the petitioner, could be reviewed by the second respondent, if the State Level Scrutiny Committee decides that the community status of the petitioner is in his favour. However, the second respondent did not return some of the original documents belonging to the petitioner. Further, the enquiry conducted, in respect of the community status of the petitioner, was not proper as it had not been conducted by the appropriate authority. In spite of the detailed representation given by the petitioner, along with the necessary documents, the first respondent had rejected the claims made on behalf of the petitioner, stating that he does not belong to Hindu Uraly Scheduled Tribe community and that the community certificates issued by the Tahsildar, Atur Taluk, Salem District, on 10.3.1979, and 30.6.1982, by the District Backward Classes and Minorities Welfare Officer, Pudukkottai, on 10.12.1990, are not genuine in nature. Accordingly, the said community certificates had been cancelled by the first respondent Scrutiny Committee.
6. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner had preferred the present writ petition, before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant had submitted that the first respondent Scrutiny Committee had not followed the norms and guidelines prescribed for the issuance of the community certificate, as per the Judgment of the Supreme Court in KUMARI MADHURI PATIL Vs. ADDL. COMMISSIONER (1994 SCC (6) 241). The community certificates issued in favour of the petitioner had not been verified by the Vigilance Cell. In fact, the verification had been done by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Trichy District. Whereas, the relevant authority to conduct the verification ought to have been the Revenue Divisional Officer, Salem District. The copy of the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer had not been furnished to the petitioner before a final order had been passed by the first respondent Scrutiny Committee. Therefore, the termination order passed by the second respondent, on 25.10.2010, cannot be sustained in the eye of law.
8. It had also been stated that the first respondent Scrutiny Committee had not considered the explanation submitted by the petitioner, dated 18.12.2010, as directed by this Court, in W.P.No.22540 of 2010, by an order dated 1.10.2010 and the directions issued by this Court, by an order, dated 23.10.2013, in W.P.No.21495 of 2013.
9. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had also stated that the statement of the witnesses and the report of the Anthropologist had not been furnished to the petitioner before the final orders were passed rejecting his claims. Further, the order passed by the first respondent Scrutiny Committee is a non-speaking order, as it is mechanical in nature. No spot verification had been done at the native place of the petitioner before the impugned order had been passed by the first respondent Scrutiny Committee. Hence, the impugned order of the first respondent Scrutiny Committee is invalid in the eye of law and therefore, it is liable to be set aside.
10. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent had submitted that the order passed by the first respondent Scrutiny Committee cannot be said to be invalid, as it has been passed after verification of all the records and after conducting a proper enquiry, in accordance with the principles and the norms prescribed for such an enquiry. The impugned order of the first respondent, dated 4.9.2014, is a speaking order. The said order had been passed after considering all the relevant records, including the reports submitted by the Anthropologist and the other authorities, who had conducted a detailed enquiry, with regard to the community status of the petitioner. The directions issued by this Court in the earlier writ petitions filed by the petitioner had been followed strictly. Therefore, the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner cannot be accepted.
11. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent had submitted that all the relevant documents relating to the petitioner had been given to him. The second respondent does not have any original documents, as claimed by the petitioner. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner that the second respondent had not furnished the relevant original documents belonging to the petitioner is incorrect.
12. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the petitioner, as well as the respondents, and on a perusal of the records available, it could be noted that the first respondent Scrutiny Committee had passed the impugned order, after carefully analysing the documents furnished by the petitioner and based on the enquiry reports submitted to him by the relevant authority, including the report of the Anthropologist.
13. It is also noted that the first respondent Scrutiny Committee had given clear reasons for rejecting the claims made by the petitioner. It could also be noted that the claim made by the petitioner that the original documents relating to the community status of the petitioner had not been returned by the second respondent cannot be sustained.
14. It could also be noted that the first respondent Scrutiny Committee had given cogent reasons for rejecting the claims made by the petitioner. Unless the findings given by the State Level Scrutiny Committee, the first respondent herein, is perverse or based on no evidence, this Court would be reluctant to interfere with its findings, by invoking its power vested in it, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As such, the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner cannot be countenanced. In such circumstances, we are of the considered view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason to interfere with the findings of the first respondent Scrutiny Committee in its order, dated 4.9.2014. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Connected M.P.No.1 of 2014 is closed.
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No (M.J.J.) (A.J.J.)
csh/lan 27.11.2014
To
1. The State Level Scrutiny Committee
rep by its Chairman
Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department
Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009
2. The Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited
rep by its Chairman cum Managing Director
Corporate Office
Block 1, Neyveli Township
Neyveli 607 801 Cuddalore District
M.JAICHANDREN,J.
AND
ARUNA JAGADEESAN,J.
Csh/lan
W.P.No.27623 of 2014
27.11.2014