Kerala High Court
P.S.Vijayan vs State Of Kerala on 1 January, 2013
Bench: K.Hema, P.S.Gopinathan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE K.HEMA
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE. P.S.GOPINATHAN
TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JANUARY 2013/11TH POUSHA 1934
MFA.No. 56 of 2005
-----------------------
APPELLANTS:
1. P.S.VIJAYAN, S/O.P.SANKARANKUTTY,
WORKING AS TAX ASSISTANT,
INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, KASARAGOD,
RESIDING AT INCOME TAX RESIDENTIAL
QUARTERS B-3, VIDYANAGAR, KASARGODE.
2. P.RAJESH, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.P.SNKARANKUTTY,
WORKING AS HAVIDAR, 3633, HEAD QUARTERS
COMPANY, KAP 2ND BATTALLION, MUTTIKULANGARA
PALAKKAD RESIDING AT DB POLICE, QUARTERS, PALAKKAD.
3. P.HARSHAKUMAR, AGED 37 YEARS,
S/O.P.SANKARANKUTTY, WORKING AS MOTOR DRIVER,
CMFRI, TATA PURAM KOCHI AND NOW WORKING AT
KRISHI VIGJANA KENDRAM, NARAKKAL.
4. MINI.P. AGED 33 YEARS, D/O.P.SANKARAN KUTTY,
W/O.A.R. SADAIVAN, WORKING AS L.D.C.
SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, AGALI, ATTAPPADI,
RESIDING, AT SHOBANA MANDIRAM, POST OFFICE
AGALI, MANNARKKADU, ATTAPPADI-678 581.
5. MANOJ.P. AGED 30 YEAR, S/O.P.SANKARANKUTTY,
COOKING ATTENDER, K.T.D.C., MALAMPUZHA,
RESIDING AT SP LINE, QUARTER NO.15/4
MOTTELI, MALAMPUZHA.
BY ADVS.SRI.M.P.KRISHNAN NAIR
SRI.S.BIJU (KIZHAKKANELA)
SMT.RAJESWARI KRISHNAN
RESPONDENTS:
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2. THE CHAIRMAN, SCRUTINY COMMTTEE FOR
VERIFICATION OF COMMUNITY CERTIFICATES &
PRL.SECRETARY (SC/ST) DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHPAURAM 695 001.
3. MOHANKUMAR, VIGILANCE OFFICER,
VIGILANCE CELL, DIRECTORATE OF KIRTADS,
KOZHIKODE 17.
4. DIRECTOR OF SC & ST DEPARTMENT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
5. DISTRICT TRIBAL WELFARE OFFICER, PALAKKAD.
6. REVENUE INSPECTOR, AGALI VILLAGE.
7. TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, MANNARKKADU.
8. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, OTTAPPALAM.
9. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOCHI.
10. COMMISSIONER, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT,
NEW DELHI.
11. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY SECRETARY,
FINANCE DEPARTMENT, NEW DELHI.
12. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY DIRECTOR GENERAL,
INDIAN COUNCIL FOR AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH,
KRISHI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI.
13. DIRECTOR, CENTRAL MARINE FISHERIES RESEARCH
INSTITUTE, BEHIND HIGH COURT OF KERALA. KOCHI 31.
R12 & 13 BY ADV. SRI.P.JACOB VARGHESE, SC, RBI
R11 BY ADV. SRI.FRANCIS JOSEPH KURISINKAL, ADDL.CGS
R1 TO R10 BY SPL.GOVT. PLEADER SMT.P.K.SANTHAMMA
R11,12,13 BY ADV. SHRI.GEORGE ZACHARIA, CGC
THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01-01-2013,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
K.Hema & P.S.Gopinathan, JJ.
----------------------------------
M.F.A.No.56 of 2005
----------------------------------
Dated this the 1st day of January, 2013
JUDGMENT
Hema, J.
Can a community certificate issued by the competent authority be cancelled, under Section 11 of the Kerala (Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1996 ('the Act' for short) on the mere finding that the person in whose favour the certificate was issued does not belong to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community? What are the factors to be looked into by the scrutiny committee before cancelling a false community certificate under Section 11 of the Act? These are the main questions that arise for consideration in this appeal in the following factual matrix.
2. Appellants, five in number, filed this appeal under Section 12(3) of the Act challenging the order of the Scrutiny Committee which is as follows:
"The committee therefore orders to cancel all Scheduled Tribe community certificates issued to the claimants and their siblings and the caste entries in their school records corrected as Paniyakkal OEC".MFA 56/05 2
3. The proceedings against appellants were triggered by a representation dated 06.09.1994 made by the Secretary, Girijan Sevak Samithi, Agali, Attappadi to Government. As per the allegations in the representation, Sri.Sankarankutty and his children, who are appellants 2 and 3, secured community certificate showing that they belong to 'Paniyan' (Scheduled Tribe) through unlawful means and that on the strength of such certificates, they are enjoying various benefits from Government which are meant only for members of Scheduled Tribes.
4. As per the representation, a request was also made to cancel the appointment of fourth appellant, who was working as a teacher in Adivasi School and to recover all unmerited favours which they enjoyed from Government and also to take prosecution steps against them. The Government forwarded the above representation to District Collector who enquired into the matter and found that the entries in the service register of the fourth appellant is shown as 'Paniyan', Scheduled Tribe.
5. It was also found by the District Collector that her brothers also enjoyed benefits of Scheduled Tribe, by declaring that they belong to Hindu Paniyan Scheduled Tribe community. MFA 56/05 3 The fourth appellant's father Sri.Sankarankutty belongs to 'Barber' community and her mother Santha belongs to 'Vilakkithala Nair' community. The District Collector reported the matter to the Director, Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe Development Department, Thiruvananthapuram (4th respondent) for a detailed enquiry on the tradition, customs and practices of the individuals.
6. The Government referred the case to the Vigilance Cell of KIRTADS ('Expert Agency' under the Act) for an enquiry and after the enquiry, the 'Expert Agency' found that the facts stated by appellants regarding the real caste status to the respective departments are contrary to truth. According to vigilance report, appellants do not belong to Paniyan Scheduled Tribe community but they are members of 'Paniyanakkal' community.
7. The matter was hence placed by the Government before the Scrutiny Committee The Scrutiny Committee issued show cause notices to the appellants. They filed replies. The scrutiny committee found that none of the claimants have trades of 'Paniyan' community. Relying upon the documents furnished by KIRTADS, the Scrutiny Committee came to the conclusion that MFA 56/05 4 appellants do not belong to Paniyan community (Scheduled Tribe) as claimed by them, but they belong to Paniyanakkal community which is included in OEC list. The Scrutiny Committee was ordered to cancel all Scheduled Tribe community certificates issued to Sri.Sankarankutty and his children. It was also ordered that the caste entries made in their school records be corrected as "Paniyanakkal OEC". The said order is challenged in this appeal.
8. Heard both sides. Perused the records.
Sri.M.P.Krishnan Nair, learned counsel for appellants strenuously argued that Section 11 of the Act requires the Scrutiny Committee to find out whether a particular certificate was obtained fraudulently, but the scrutiny committee has not looked into whether community certificates were obtained by the appellants fraudulently. A community certificate can be cancelled, only if it is found that it was obtained fraudulently. But, no enquiry was conducted by the Scrutiny Committee as to whether any certificate was obtained by the appellants or any other person fraudulently.
MFA 56/05 5
9. It was also argued that the scrutiny committee committed a serious error in not looking into the various documents produced by the appellants to show that the caste status of their father was accepted and recognised by the Government. The documents produced by the appellants before the Scrutiny Committee reveal that appellants' father was included as a member in the District Advisory Committee for Harijan Welfare. Appellants' father's name was included in the committee as a member by the Government itself, accepting his caste status as Scheduled Tribe.
10. The letters issued by the District Collector himself to appellants' father were produced before the Scrutiny Committee Those letters were issued as early as in the year 1974. Various other documents were also produced (vide Annexures-A2 and A7) to show that Government had recognised the caste status of appellants' father as Scheduled Tribe and he was inducted as member of various committees.
11. It was also submitted that a registered sale deed, which is of the year 1928, also shows that appellants' grandfather belongs to 'Paniyan' community which is a Scheduled MFA 56/05 6 Tribe, but the Scrutiny Committee did not properly consider any of these contentions raised, but, rejected them without sufficient reason and cancelled the certificates.
12. Smt.P.K.Shanthamma, learned Special Government Pleader strongly argued that the Expert Agency (KIRTADS) reported that appellants do not belong to Paniyan community and that they are not members of Scheduled Tribe. The Expert Agency conducted an enquiry, on a reference made by the Scrutiny Committee After making a thorough study on various aspects and on collecting various documents, it was found that appellants belong to Paniyanakkal community which is not a Scheduled Tribe but it falls under OEC. There is no reason to reject the report of the expert agency, it was strongly argued.
13. It was also submitted by learned Special Government pleader that appellants failed to produce any document to substantiate their claim. Various documents, which were looked into by the scrutiny committee and the Expert Agency reveal that appellants and their close relatives belong to various other communities like Thiyya, Mukkuva, Araya, Vilakkithala Nair, etc. It is also pointed out that Paniyan is the singular form of MFA 56/05 7 Paniyanakkal and appellants are exploiting this situation under which their caste name was written in various documents, as Paniyan.
14. The appellants actually belong to Paniyanakkal community which is totally different from Paniyan community and the burden of proof that they belong to Scheduled Tribe is on the appellants, as laid down in Section 10 of the Act, it is argued. Appellants having failed to establish that they belong to Scheduled Tribe, an order under challenge may not be interfered with, it is submitted.
15. On hearing both sides, we find that a reading of Section 11 of the Act is necessary to resolve the controversy. Section 11 of the Act reads as follows:
"Cancellation of false community certificate.- (1) Where, before or after the commencement of this Act, a person not belonging to any of the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes has obtained a false community certificate to the effect that either himself or his children belongs or belong to such Caste or the Tribe, the Scrutiny Committee may either suo motu or on a written complaint or report by any person or authority, call for the records and enquire into the correctness of such certificate and if it is of the opinion that the MFA 56/05 8 certificate was obtained fraudulently, it shall, by order, cancel the certificate after giving the person concerned an opportunity of making a representation, if any.
(2) The powers of the nature referred in sub-section (1) may also be exercised by the Government.
(3) The Scrutiny Committee while performing its functions fro verification and cancellation of community certificates shall follow such procedure as may be prescribed."
16. Even a plain reading of Section 11 of the Act shows that a false community certificate can be cancelled by the Scrutiny Committee, only if the person concerned has obtained fraudulently, such certificate that either himself or his children belong to Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribe. The first and foremost requirement to be satisfied to cancel a false community certificate under Section 11 of the Act is the opinion formed by the Scrutiny Committee that the certificate was "obtained fraudulently".
17. Section 11 of the Act also reveals that the Scrutiny Committee is bound to call for records relating to the false community certificate and enquire into the correctness of the particular certificate which is sought to be cancelled. It is clear MFA 56/05 9 from Section 11 of the Act that the committee can exercise power under Section 11 and cancel a false community certificate either suo motu or on a written complaint or report by any person or authority. But, before cancelling such certificate, Scrutiny Committee has to form an opinion that it was obtained fraudulently. This is an inevitable requirement under Section 11 of the Act, to cancel a false Community Certificate.
18. Therefore, it is not sufficient if a certificate is issued to a person showing incorrect or false details or that such person does not belong to a Schedule Caste or Schedule Tribe. The scrutiny committee can cancel a false Community Certificate, only if it is of the opinion that the certificate was "obtained fraudulently" by the person concerned. Therefore, before cancelling a Community Certificate, the Scrutiny Committee is bound to give an opportunity to the person concerned who obtained a false Community Certificate for himself or his children to make a representation and conduct an enquiry into the relevant facts, from which it can enter a finding that such person obtained fraudulently.
MFA 56/05 10
19. The word "fraudulently" connotes fraud, deception and intention to cheat. What is concept of "fraud" and "obtained fraudulently" are considered by the Supreme Court in Shrisht Dhawan (Smt) V. Shaw Bros (10092) 1 SCC 534. To obtain a false community certificate fraudulently, the person concerned must have played fraud on the competent authority or defrauded such authority. The Scrutiny Committee must be convinced about such fact and also form an opinion to that effect.
20. Learned Special Government Pleader in another context submitted that for issuance of a community certificate even prior to commencement of this Act, a procedure was followed. An application will have to be filed before the competent authority and an enquiry will be conducted by the authority and then only certificates are issued. Therefore, it is clear that it is only after due enquiry of the caste status that a community certificate will be issued by the competent authority. Therefore, some materials will be available before the competent authority which will reflect the circumstances under which the false certificate is obtained.
MFA 56/05 11
21. The application and the documents, if any, produced along with the application and also report of the enquiry may reveal whether applicant had deliberately showed any false details relating to his caste to defraud the authorities concerned. It is likely that false details may be given in the application so as to mislead the authority concerned or to defraud it. This can be verified only on a perusal of the application and documents which the person concerned produced. If any statement is recorded, during enquiry, that will also reveal if the person concerned stated anything to defraud the authorities.
22. So, on verification of such documents, it can be seen whether there is any element of fraud in obtaining a false certificate. Likewise, fraudulent representation may be made before the authorities concerned to mislead them and to obtain false certificate. Even if the application may not be available after lapse of time, evidence can be collected to show whether the person concerned had played any fraud on the authority by making false representation to it for obtaining the community certificate, containing false details about his caste. MFA 56/05 12
23. Even if direct evidence is not available, the Scrutiny Committee can place reliance upon the circumstances, if any, relating to the fraudulent intention, conduct etc., to form the relevant opinion. At any rate, without making any enquiry into the relevant aspects, the Scrutiny Committee cannot form an opinion from vacuum that false community certificate was obtained fraudulently. There must be application of mind to this important requirement under Section 11 of the Act and it cannot be totally ignored, since Section 11 makes it abundantly clear that cancellation can be made only if the committee forms an opinion that the community certificate was obtained fraudulently.
24. In this regard it is also relevant to look into the relevant provisions in the Kerala (Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Rules ('the Rules' for short). As per Rule 8, an application for verification of community certificate shall be in Form IV addressed to the Chairman of the scrutiny committee and Form IV provides for columns relating to name and address of the applicant, name and address of the person in whose favour the certificate was issued, number and date of certificate, the authority by whom the MFA 56/05 13 certificate was issued, the purpose for which the certificate was issued, details of records, if any, produced along with the application etc.
25. This indicates that the name and address of the applicant, the number and date of the certificate, the details of the records produced along with the applicant etc. are all relevant, while considering whether a certificate is to be cancelled or not. But, the Scrutiny Committee did not even bother to consider who obtained the relevant certificate and whether such person was guilty of defrauding the authority concerned. Without ascertaining who obtained the certificate, it will not be possible to find out whether any fraud was committed by such person in obtaining the certificate.
26. Any way, if community certificate is cancelled without complying with the provision contained in the Act, it has to be treated as valid, under Section 30 of the Act. Section 30 of the Act reads as follows:
"30. Transitional Provision.- a community certificate issued by any authority competent to issue the same under the relevant rules or orders before the commencement of this Act, shall unless it is MFA 56/05 14 cancelled under the provisions of this Act, be valid and shall be deemed to have been issued under the provisions of this Act."
27. Section 30 of the Act lays down that a false Community Certificate which is issued prior to the commencement of the Act will be valid and it shall also be deemed to have been issued under the provisions of this Act, unless it is cancelled in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The only provision under which a "false" Community Certificate can be cancelled is under Section 11 of the Act. (Of course, Section 8A of the Act also deals with cancellation of Community Certificate).
28. But, what can be cancelled under Section 8A is not a false certificate. As per Section 8A, only "bogus" or fake certificate which is not genuine can be cancelled. There is difference between "bogus" and "false" certificates. A community certificate which is issued by a competent authority and which contains false or incorrect details is a "false" community certificate. But, a "bogus" community certificate may be a fake or falsely created certificate which is not genuine. MFA 56/05 15
29. No body has a case that the community certificate involved in this case is not issued by the competent authority is a bogus one or that it. The definite case is that the community certificate involved in this case is issued by the competent authority but it is a "false" one. Therefore, the only provision which applies for cancellation of the false community certificate is Section 11 of the Act. If the false community certificate is not cancelled, in accordance with the provisions of the Act, by entering a finding that it is obtained fraudulently, it shall be treated as valid.
30. A false community certificate which is not cancelled in accordance with Section 11 of the Act without entering into a finding that such certificate is obtained fraudulently will have to be treated as valid by virtue of Section 30 of the Act. A false community certificate may be issued under various circumstances. It may be issued due to a genuine or inadvertent mistake of the competent authority, it may be due to a mistake in showing relevant details by the applicant in the application for community certificate due to a genuine belief or a wrong impression about his caste. Thus, a false certificate may be MFA 56/05 16 issued not merely due to any fraud committed by the person concerned.
31. Therefore, the crucial aspect to be considered under Section 11 of the Act is not whether false community certificate is issued, but the question is whether such false community certificate was obtained by the person concerned fraudulently. Learned Special Government Pleader submitted that the appellants obtained various benefits using the false community certificates which are actually due to the members of a Scheduled Tribe. Therefore, the certificate was rightly cancelled. This argument cannot be accepted. What is crucial under Section 11 of the Act is whether the applicant "obtained" the community certificate fraudulently and not whether it was "used" for obtaining any benefit.
32. What is to be considered under Section 11 of the Act is whether the applicant committed any fraud in obtaining the false community certificate from the authority concerned and not whether he defrauded any authority for obtaining a job. There is difference in obtaining a community certificate fraudulently and in using it thereafter, for obtaining a job. In obtaining the certificate MFA 56/05 17 and also in using the same, after the issuance, fraud may be played by the person concerned. But both these stand on different footings. The relevant period during which fraud is committed for obtaining a certificate and obtaining a job or admission also will differ.
33. Obtaining a false community certificate and using the same for procuring a job constitute different acts. The consequences of such acts may also differ. It is also to be borne in mind that applicant of a community certificate may be different from the person who uses the certificate for a job or an admission. Therefore, the committee has to find out first, who applied for the false community certificate and who obtained it. As pointed out by learned counsel for appellants, the details and particulars of the certificate which is cancelled are not revealed from the order.
34. On going through the entire file, it is not clear which was the certificate cancelled in this case or who obtained it. The Scrutiny Committee generally ordered to cancel the community certificate, without making reference to any particular certificate. From the scheme of Section 11 of the Act, this is not legal. It is MFA 56/05 18 not seen from the file as to who applied for the community certificate and who obtained it fraudulently. The Scrutiny Committee did not apply its mind to any of such crucial factors. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that there is absolutely no whisper in the impugned order that the certificate which is stated to be cancelled was obtained fraudulently.
35. On an entire reading of the impugned order, it is clear that the Scrutiny Committee has not looked into the most crucial aspect under Section 11 nor did it form any opinion whether the community certificate was obtained fraudulently. That itself is sufficient to set aside the order. The impugned order also shows that all what has been looked into is whether appellants were members of the Scheduled Tribe or not. The alleged falsity of the claim made by appellant alone has been looked into by the committee.
36. But the mere fact that the person to whom the community certificate was issued does not belong to Scheduled Caste or Tribe is not a ground under Section 11 of the Act. Section 11 of the Act does not lay down that a community certificate can be cancelled if the person who obtained the false MFA 56/05 19 community certificate does not belong to a Schedule caste or Schedule Tribe. The committee seems to be under an impression that a false claim that a person does not belong to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe will be sufficient to cancel the certificate. This impression is not correct, in the light of Section
11.
37. The fact that the person who obtained the false community certificate belongs to a Scheduled Tribe or Scheduled Caste is only one of the facts to be looked into, while proceeding with the enquiry under Section 11 of the Act. But a reading of Section 11 of the Act makes it abundantly clear that the Scrutiny Committee must be satisfied that apart from being a person not belonging to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, such person must have obtained a false community certificate fraudulently, to cancel such certificate. On a mere finding that a person is not a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe the community certificate cannot be cancelled.
38. As rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the appellants, official acts are presumed to be performed regularly under Section 114 of Evidence Act and the Scrutiny Committee MFA 56/05 20 has to be satisfied that the certificate was obtained fraudulently and it was not a mere genuine mistake on the part of the authority in issuing a false community certificate. Therefore, for the mere reason that the person concerned is not a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe is not sufficient to cancel the community certificate issued to a person.
39. None of the relevant factors were to be looked into by the Scrutiny Committee while cancelling the certificate. There is nothing in the impugned order to show which is the certificate cancelled. It is essential to know this because, only the certificate which is obtained fraudulently can be cancelled. But, without applying the mind to any of the relevant details, the Scrutiny Committee cancelled the certificate. Such cancellation is not consistent with the provisions contained in the Act and hence, not legal.
40. It is also relevant to note that the Scrutiny Committee cancelled "all Scheduled Tribe community certificates issued to the claimants and their siblings", without even verifying whether any such persons obtained false community certificate and whether each such certificate was obtained fraudulently. Section MFA 56/05 21 11 of the Act does not permit cancellation, without giving opportunity to the person concerned to make representation. This, again, is illegal and reflects total non-application of mind to the requirements of Section 11 of the Act.
41. To sum up, cancellation of a false community certificate, the Scrutiny Committee must apply its mind to the following facts and enter a finding on such facts:
i) that a false community certificate was issued by the competent authority to a person, not belonging to a Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe, that such person belongs to a Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe.
ii) that such person obtained fraudulently a false community certificate either for himself or for his children that they belong to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe.
iii) that before cancelling the false community certificate the person concerned (the person who obtained the false community certificate or the person in whose favour such certificate was issued) is given opportunity of making a representation to the Scrutiny Committee.
42. In this case, it is not considered whether the false community certificate was obtained fraudulently by the person concerned. The scrutiny committee has only gone into the details MFA 56/05 22 given by the Expert Agency in its report to confirm that appellants do not belong to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. The Scrutiny Committee has not considered the contentions raised by appellants that various documents were issued in favour of appellants' father by the Government recognizing his caste status as Scheduled Tribe. The Scrutiny Committee has brushed aside such contentions by simply observing that it was all erroneous.
43. The documents revealed that the term of office of appellants' father as a member of the State Advisory Committee and District Advisory Committee was extended by the Government. He was taken as a member taking into account his caste status as Scheduled Tribe. But, in the impugned order, the Scrutiny Committee observed thus "G.Os extending the term of State advisory committee and District Advisory committee. The committee came to the conclusion that this had been done erroneously."
44. The contention of the appellants ought not to have been disposed of by just one-line observation that "this was done erroneously". It was also observed by the Scrutiny Committee MFA 56/05 23 that the photo copy of the certificate from District Welfare Officer, Palakkad dated 16.01.1981 in which the caste name of Sankarankutty was shown as 'Paniyan' is not reliable. This observation was made based only on the vigilance enquiry report in which it was reported that Sankarankutty is 'Paniyanakkal' by caste.
45. It is needless to say that authorities of the Government were blowing hot and cold by treating appellant's father as a member of the Paniyan community for some purpose and later, he was treated as "Paniyanakkal". It appears that certain certificates were also issued by the authorities themselves showing the appellants as 'Paniyan'. The Scrutiny Committee has also observed in the impugned order that the claimants could not adduce any evidence to substantiate their claim as 'Paniyan' by caste.
46. Learned counsel for appellants submitted that the appellants had filed a petition for calling for documents and also for examining the witnesses which include the person who made a representation based on which the entire enquiry was commenced. But, the Scrutiny Committee did not allow the MFA 56/05 24 appellants to examine any of the witnesses by summoning them. It is also pointed out that the documents which are referred to in the vigilance report also refers the caste of the relatives of the appellants as 'Paniyan' and this is not a case where all the certificates and documents produced along with the vigilance report referred the caste as Paniyanakkal.
47. It is pointed out by learned counsel for appellants that the representation which forms the basis for entire enquiry was sent as early as in 1994 and the proceedings commenced only in 1996 by the District Collector. Thereafter, long years have elapsed and first appellant has already retired from service and third appellant has already filed an application for voluntary retirement, which are not being considered because of the pendency of the appeal.
48. On an overall appreciation of the contentions raised and on going through the impugned order, we find that the impugned order is unsustainable for all the reasons already stated. Consequently, the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee to correct the school records in respect of the caste entires as "Paniyanakkal OEC" also cannot be sustained as per MFA 56/05 25 law. Hence, the impugned order is set aside.
This appeal is allowed.
(K.Hema, Judge) (P.S.Gopinathan, Judge) tkv/ps