Karnataka High Court
Reserve Bank Of India, Bangalore vs C.S. Satya Kumari on 12 March, 1993
Equivalent citations: ILR1993KAR1167, (1993)IILLJ900KANT
ORDER
K.A. Swami, AG. C.J.
1. When Writ Appeal No. 181 of 1993 came up for preliminary hearing, it was found necessary to hear Writ Petition No. 15449 of 1991 along with the writ appeal because the writ appeal arises out of the interim order passed in the writ petition. Accordingly, Writ Petition No. 15449 of 1991 has been posted today along with Writ Appeal No. 181 of 1993. Hence, we have heard both the matters together.
2. In the writ petition, the petitioner who is the respondent in the writ appeal, has sought for quashing the show-cause notice dated June 12, 1991, bearing No. 1431/156 (C.S. 205) 90/91, issued by the respondent in the writ petition, produced as Annexure-A. The petitioner has also sought for a declaration that Clause XVI of the Memorandum dated February 11, 1982, produced as Annexure-B, is illegal, void and inoperative. The show-cause notice, Annexure-A, is issued for the purpose of determining as to whether the petitioner belongs to Kadu Kuruba Community. It may be pointed out that the petitioner secured the appointment on a representation to the respondent-Bank and on producing a caste certificate that she belongs to Kadu Kuruba community. Therefore, she is entitled to be considered for appointment to the post reserved for Scheduled Tribe. On that basis, she has been appointed as a Coin Examiner.
3. It is contended by Sri L. G. Havanur, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and the respondent in the connected writ appeal, that Annexure-A is not a mere show-cause notice because it records categorical findings against the petitioner. Therefore, it is clear that the respondent without notice to the petitioner and without affording any opportunity to the petitioner, on the basis of the enquiry held by it behind the back of the petitioner, has come to the conclusion that the certificate obtained and produced by the petitioner is a fraudulent one. Therefore, even if the petitioner appears before the respondent and puts forth her case, it would be only an empty formality as the respondent has already recorded categorical findings in the show-cause notice.
4. Sri. S. G. Sundaraswamy, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondent in the writ petition and the appellant in the connected writ appeal, submits that whatever may be the statement contained in the show-cause notice, it is only a show-cause notice intended to hold an enquiry as it clear from paragraph 4 of the show-cause notice. Therefore, the petitioner would be entitled to full opportunity and adduce evidence. Thereafter, after hearing the petitioner, the respondent would determine as to whether the petitioner belongs to Kadu Kuruba community or not. If what is stated in paragraph 4 would have been only a statement which forms part of Annexure-A notice, there would have been no difficulty whatsoever for us to accept the contention of the learned Senior counsel Sri S. G. Sundaraswamy. But the show-cause notice records categorical findings as is evident from paragraph 2 of the show-cause notice. Paragraph 2 of the show-cause notice reads thus :
"2. By submitting the said declaration as also another certificate dated February 20, 1982 issued by the Additional special Tahsildar, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore, you have categorically represented that you belong to Scheduled Tribe. On receipt of credible information that you belong to Halumath Caste but have produced a false caste certificate, an enquiry was conducted by the Office of the Inspector General of Police, C.R.E. Cell, Bangalore. The C.R.E. Cell has confirmed that you belong to Halumath Caste but have misrepresented that you belong to Kadu Kuruba Caste and obtained a caste certificate from the Special Tahsildar, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore, to this effect. Thus, it is clear that you do not belong to Scheduled Tribe as claimed by you, but you had obtained a caste certificate and submitted the said caste certificate and secured an employment in the Bank fraudulently. In the circumstances, your appointment is invalid as initio"
5. From the underlines portion of paragraph 2 of the show-cause notice it is clear that the respondent had recorded categorical findings on the basis of the evidence it had collected behind the back of the petitioner. Therefore, it is not possible to accept that Annexure 'A' is a mere show-cause notice. Hence, it is not possible to permit the enquiry to be held on the basis of the show-cause notice as per Annexure-A issued by the respondent.
6. As far as the contention relating to the validity of Clause XVI of the Memorandum, dated February 11, 1982, under which the petitioner has been appointed, is concerned, we are of the view that there is nothing wrong with Clause XVI. The power under Clause XVI can be exercised by the respondent only after due enquiry and opportunity of putting forth her say, adducing evidence and of hearing is afforded to the petitioner and a finding is recorded that the petitioner does not belong to Kadu Kuruba community. Till then the power under the clause cannot be exercise. It is also apparent from the words contained in that clause. It says that "if any declaration, statement or information given by him/her is at any time found to be false or untrue or if any material particular is suppressed, his/her services are liable to be terminated forthwith without any notice or compensation in lieu thereof." Therefore, from the words "found to be false or untrue or if any material particular is suppressed", it is clear that the power under Clause XVI of Annexure-B can be exercised only after due enquiry in conformity with the principles of natural justice, such a finding is arrived at and not otherwise. Therefore, we are of the view that the 3rd prayer made in the writ petition to declare Clause XVI of Annexure-B as illegal, void and inoperative and restrains the respondent from invoking that clause cannot be granted.
7. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is allowed in part. The show-cause notice dated June 12, 1991, bearing No. 1431/156 (C.S. 205) 90/91, produced as Annexure-A, is quashed. Clause XVI of the Memorandum dated February 11, 1982, produced as Annexure-B, is held valid and the prayer to declare it as illegal and void is refused Liberty is reserved to the respondent to issue a show-cause notice in the light of the observations made in this order and hold an enquiry, decide the question as to whether the petitioner belongs to Kadu Kuruba community is true or not and take action on the basis of the findings recorded in the enquiry. The respondent has to furnish the copies of the records which it wants to rely upon and which are against the petitioner during the course of enquiry or send them along with the show-cause notice.
8. In the light of the order passed in Writ Petition No. 15449 of 1991, Writ Appeal No. 181 of 1993 does not survive because the interim order passed in the writ petition comes to an end by reason of the final disposal of the writ petition. Hence, Writ Appeal No. 181 of 1993 is disposed of as having become infructuous.