Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
D. Sudershan vs Govt. Of A.P. And Ors. on 11 October, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2002(3)ALD678
Author: S.B. Sinha
Bench: S.B. Sinha
JUDGMENT
S.B. Sinha, CJ
1. These two writ petitions being inter-connected were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. Whether a caste certificate granted by the competent authority can be cancelled without fulfilling the conditions laid down under A.P. Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes issue of Community, Nativity and Date of Birth Certificate Rules, 1997 is the question, which arises for consideration in these writ petitions.
FACTS:
3. One Sri D. Sudershan who was working as Tradesman 'B" in Nuclear Fuel Complex (NFC) in the Department of Atomic Energy, Government of India is the petitioner in these writ petitions. According to him, on the basis of entries in the educational record such as Transfer Certificate etc., the Tahsildar, Rajendra Nagar issued Caste Certificate bearing No.R.Dis.No. A3/3438/85 dated 15-5-1985 certifying him as belonging to Scheduled Tribe Community (Lingadhari Koya). Based on such certificate, he was appointed as Tradesman 'A' in NFC on 5-10-1993 and subsequently promoted as Tradesman 'B'. Pursuant to a complaint given by the NFC Scheduled Tribe Employees' Association alleging that some of the employees joined the organisation obtaining false caste certificates, the caste certificate issued to the petitioner was referred to the Commissioner of Tribal Welfare, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad for verification, who, alleged to have sent a report on 18-11-1996 stating that the certificate was not issued in accordance with the instructions, check list and guidelines issued under G.O. Ms. No. 138 SW(J1) Department dated 29-1-1991 and therefore the certificate issued to the petitioner certifying him as belonging to 'Lingadhari Koya' is void, consequently, his appointment in NFC in a post reserved for S.T. community is invalid.
4. Thereafter, the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District issued a show-cause notice dated 17-11-1997 directing him to show-cause as to why the certificate issued to him should not be cancelled, allegedly, acting on the report of the Commissioner of Tribal Welfare to which the petitioner had submitted his explanation on 19-12-1997. The Joint Collector, without considering his explanation cancelled the ST certificate by order dated 7-10-1998 in exercise of the power under Section 5(1) of the Andhra Pradesh (SC, ST and BCs) Regulation of issue of Community Certificates Act, 1993 (Act 16 of 1993) for short 'the Act'). It may be noted herein that under Section 5 of the Act, it is only the District Collector who is empowered to cancel a false community certificate in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the rules framed thereunder. On appeal, the Government in its Memorandum dated 6-5-1999 set aside the order of the Joint Collector under Section 7(2) of the Act on the ground that the District Collector was only the competent authority to cancel the caste certificate and the Joint Collector has no jurisdiction to cancel the same and directed the District Collector to conduct a fresh enquiry into the social status of the petitioner as per the rules issued in G.O. Ms. No.58, Social Welfare Department dated 12-5-1997. It is interesting to note that even before the Government cancelled the order of the Joint Collector dated 7-10-1998, the District Collector again issued show-cause notice dated 21-4-1999 calling the explanation of the petitioner, evidently, basing on the report of the Commissioner of Tribal Welfare dated 18-11-1996. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 18-5-1999 and the Collector by the proceedings dated 6-1-2000 cancelled the caste certificate issued to the petitioner in exercise of the power under Section 5(1) of the Act. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 16356 of 2000.
5. The main contention of the petitioner is that the Government in exercise of the power conferred under Sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Act issued rules in G.O. Ms. No.58, Social Welfare (J) dated 12-5-1997 known as Andhra Pradesh (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes) "Issue of Community, Nativity and Date of Birth Certificates Rules, 1997 (for short 'the Rules') prescribing detailed procedure to make an enquiry into the cases of false community certificates before cancelling the same and such procedure had not been followed before cancelling the certificate dated 15-5-1985 issued to him.
6. This Court by order-dated 20-10-2000 in WPMP No.20805 of 2000 directed interim suspension of the order of the District Collector.
7. The other writ petition - WP No. 18470 of 2001 relates to the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner by the NFC. It is alleged that on the basis of the letter of the Commissioner of Tribal Welfare dated 18-11-1996, the Chief Administrative Officer, NFC, Hyderabad issued memorandum dated 14-12-1996 proposing to hold an inquiry on the charge that he produced a false caste certificate at the time of his recruitment to the post of Tradesman 'A' claiming as belonging to Scheduled Tribe community and thereby exhibited lack of integrity. Not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the enquiry was proceeded with and ultimately the charge was held to be proved. The first respondent in WP No.18470 of 2001 by order-dated 14-7-2000 inflicted the punishment of compulsory retirement. The petitioner questioned the same in OA No. 1077 of 2000 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench and the Tribunal by order dated 8-8-2000 directed the 3rd respondent to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. However, the appeal could not be disposed of in view of the interim orders passed by this Court on 20-10-2000 suspending the operation of the order of the District Collector cancelling the caste certificate. The petitioner again filed OA No. 1569 of 2000 in not disposing of the appeal preferred by him. While the matter stood thus, the appellate authority by order dated 31-10-2000 differed with the disciplinary authority and proposed to enhance the punishment of compulsory retirement to that of removal or dismissal from service and without prejudice to the right of the Government to prosecute him and directed to show-cause for the same. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 15-11-2000 and thereafter the matter was deferred in view of the pendency of WP No.16356 of 2000. The Tribunal dismissed OA No.1569 of 2000 on 24-8-2001 again directing the appellate authority to dispose of the appeal within 45 days. Questioning the orders of punishment dated 14-7-2000 and the orders of the Tribunal; petitioner filed the second writ petition.
SUBMISSIONS:
8. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that Rule 9 of the Rules contemplates a detailed procedure to be followed by the Scrutiny Committee constituted under the rules and the District Collector having not conducted the enquiry in accordance with the said procedure, the cancellation of the caste certificate is illegal and cannot be sustained. He would further urge that the order of the Collector was only based on the alleged enquiry report of the Commissioner of Tribal Welfare and no enquiry independent of the report of the Commissioner was conducted in accordance with the rules. He would also submit that even the enquiry officer also relied upon the report of the Commissioner of Tribal Welfare only and there was no evidence to show that he does not belong to ST community.
9. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents supported the orders issued by the respective authorities and would urge that no illegality had been committed in issuing the impugned orders.
Statutory Provisions:
10. The matter relating to issuance of community certificates relating to persons belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Clauses are governed by the A.P. (SC, ST and BCs) Regulation of issue of Community Certificates Act, 1993. Section 5 of the said Act deals with cancellation of the false community certificate. It empowers the District Collector either suo motu or on a written complaint by any person to call for the record and enquire into the correctness of the certificate and if he is of the opinion that the certificate was obtained fraudulently, an order of cancellation thereof may be passed by way of notification. Such an order, however, can be passed only upon giving an opportunity of making a representation.
11. Section 20 of the Act provides for rule making power. In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 20 of the said Act, the State issued G.O. Ms. No.58 Social Welfare (J), dated 12-5-1997 making rules known as A.P. (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes) issue of Community, Nativity and Date of Birth Certificates Rules, 1997. Rule 5 provides for verification of social status etc. Rule 5(i) empowers the competent authority to refer the cases of doubtful claims to the Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee formed at the District Level under Rule 8 of the committee has to make recommendations after conducting an enquiry and based upon such recommendations, the competent authority may reject or confirm the claim of the applicant. Rule 7 provides for constitution of Scrutiny and Review Committees at State level whereas Rule 8 provides for constitution of Scrutiny Committee at District level. The District Level Committee shall consists of Joint Collector as Chairman, District Revenue Officer, Deputy Director (Social Welfare), Deputy. Director (Tribal Welfare)/ District Tribal Welfare Officer and Deputy Director (Backward Classes Welfare)/District Backward Classes Welfare Officer, Officer of the Research Organisation in the Commissionerate of SW/TW nominated by the concerned Heads of the Departments and Officer representing the PCR Vigilance Cell in the district as members. The District Revenue Officer is the Convenor of the Committee. Such scrutiny committees are required to conduct an enquiry into the cases referred to it by the competent authority under Rule 5(i) of the Rules for verification as to the genuineness or otherwise of the certificates.
12. Clauses (1) to (7) of Sub-rule (d) of Rule 8 provides the procedure for making scrutiny of the certificates. Clause (1) provides that a notice in Form VI shall be issued to the applicant. Under Clause (4), the committee shall cause enquiry following the due process of law to verify the genuineness or otherwise of the information furnished or recorded from such persons as called 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 Clause (5) the Committee was empowered to examine the school records, birth registration certificates, if any, furnished by the persons during the enquiry. The committee was also empowered to examine any other person who may have knowledge of the community of the appellant. Clause (5) clearly provides that with reference to the claims 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. Clause (6) provides that the committee should give reasonable opportunity to the applicant to produce evidence in support of his claim. It also provides that a public notice by beat of drum or by any other convenient mode, may be published in the village or locality of the applicant and if any person or association opposes such a claim, opportunity to produce evidence in person before the committee shall be given to him or her. It is only after giving such opportunity to that person, the committee may make such enquiry as it deems expedient and finalise its recommendations, with brief reasons in support thereof, to the competent authority. Under Clause (7) the Scrutiny Committee shall examine the report of enquiry conducted by the Revenue Department furnished to it by the competent authority. If necessary, the committee may also obtain expert opinion from the Commissionerate of Social Welfare/Tribal Welfare through the officers of the Research Organisations of the Commissionerates who are the members of the Scrutiny Committee. Thereafter, the enquiry reports have to be compared and then the committee shall finalise the recommendations as to whether the community claim of the applicant is found to be false or genuine clearly indicating the reasons thereof within forty five days from the date of the receipt of the case referred to it by the competent authority.
13. Rule 9 deals with fraudulent claims. Under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 9 where the District Collector receives a written complaint from any person or has otherwise reason to believe that a person not belonging to SC or ST or BC has obtained a false community, Nativity and Date of Birth Certificate, he shall refer the same to the Chairman, Scrutiny Committee constituted under Rule 8 to enquire into such cases and send its findings to the District Collector. Sub-rule (2) provides that the procedure contemplated under Rule (d) (1) to (7) shall be followed in such cases by serving notice in Form VI on the person involved in the case. Under Sub-rule (3) the committee shall also cause enquiry by the Protection of Civil Rights/Vigilance Cell i.e., through the officer representing the Protection of Civil Rights/Vigilance Cell as the member of the committee. The Protection of Civil Rights/Vigilance Cell should investigate the social status claimed by the person by sending the Inspector of Police to the local place of residence of that person and where he/she usually resides or in case of migration to the town or city from which he/she originally hailed from. The Inspector should personally verify and collect all the facts about the community claim of the persons or the guardian or the parent, as the case may be. Under Sub-rule (5) the committee shall compare the enquiry reports of the Revenue Department furnished by the District Collector, the reports of Protection of Civil Rights/Vigilance Cell and the reports of the Expert or Officer of the Research Organisation of the Commissionerate of Social Welfare/Tribal Welfare and then finalise its findings whether the Community, Nativity and Date of Birth Certificate given to the person or his/her children is genuine or otherwise, Sub-rule (6) provides that the committee shall furnish its findings to the District Collector within 60 days. Under Sub-rule (7) the District Collector shall then decide whether the certificate is genuine or fraudulent and in case if it is found that it was obtained fraudulently, the District Collector shall pass an order cancelling the certificate issued within one month from the date of receipt of the findings of the Scrutiny Committee and shall issue notification to that effect to be published in the District Gazette.
14. Sub-rule (9) provides that the Collector of Government, either stto motu, or on a written complaint by any person or on request by a employer/educational institution/appointing authority shall enquire into the correctness of any community 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.
FINDINGS:
15. Admittedly, the case of the petitioner falls under Rule 9 of the Rules as detailed above. An elaborate procedure had been prescribed in relation to conduct of an enquiry specified in Sub-rules (2) to (5) referred to above. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 9 categorically states that an enquiry has to be conducted by the Scrutiny Committee in terms of the procedure laid down under Rules 8(d)(2) to 7. No enquiry as contemplated under the aforesaid rules had at all been followed herein. The District Collector merely proceeded on the basis of the report of the Commissioner of Tribal Welfare who is not the competent authority under the Act and the rules to enquire into the matter. It may be under Sub-rule (7) of Rule 8 he may give his expert opinion on a requisition from the Scrutiny Committee for comparison of the various reports. But, ultimately, it is the Scrutiny Committee, which is empowered to enquire into the matter and furnish its findings with brief reasons in support thereof to the District Collector and thereafter only the District Collector under Sub-rule (7) of Rule 9 was empowered to decide whether the certificate is genuine or fraudulent and to pass an order in case it is found to have been obtained fraudulently.
16. Further, to the show-cause notice issued dated 21-4-1999 issued by the District Collector, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 18-5-1999 stating:
I respectfully submit that, pending disposal of my appeal on the file of the Government, the Notice No. C2/8335/97 dated 21-4-1999 issued by the Collector, Ranga Reddy District was received by me on 8-5-1999 is not maintainable under law since the Collector has issued the notice on the same proceedings under which the caste certificate issued to me was cancelled by the Joint Collector, aggrieved by which I have filed an appeal before the Government of Andhra Pradesh which is pending for consideration, therefore, issuing of show-cause notice by the District Collector, on 21-4-1999 received by me on 8-5-1999 for the same cause of action would amounts to res judicata and double jeopardy.
17. The Collector in the aforementioned situation could have asked him to furnish the explanation on merits in the event he was of the opinion that the matter is not covered by the earlier proceedings. But, admittedly, no further opportunity had been granted to the petitioner nor the matter was referred to the Scrutiny Committee for enquiry. Further, we may notice that though the appeal of the petitioner against the order of the Joint Collector dated 7-10-1998 cancelling the certificate was pending, the Collector again issued show-cause notice dated 21-4-1999, obviously, realising that Joint Collector was not empowered to cancel the certificate under the rules. Further, the show-cause notice dated 21-4-1999 issued by the Collector was almost repetition of the earlier show-cause notice issued by the Joint Collector on 17-11-1997. Even the final order passed by the Collector on 6-1-2000 is almost similar to the order passed by the Joint Collector. No mention has been made about the reference of the case to the Scrutiny Committee as required under Rule 9 of the Rules for a detailed enquiry. We are unable to comprehend how the District Collector could contravene the rules issued by the State, which specifically provided for an elaborate enquiry in cases where certificates are alleged to have been obtained fraudulently.
18. Cancellation of Community Certificate has a serious civil consequence. As noticed hereinbefore, rules provides as to how and in what manner enquiries are required to be conducted. It is trite that 'he who carries the procedural sword must perish with it'. The Legislature of the State and the Executive Government having enacted the statute and having framed rules thereunder laying down the procedure as to how a Community Certificate already issued should be cancelled, cannot act in contravention thereof. In a case of this nature, the doctrine of ultra vires shall come into play. The Collector may have jurisdiction to pass appropriate final order. But, such final order could be passed only when he exercises his jurisdiction in the manner laid down under the Act. The Collector while exercising the jurisdiction, therefore, has committed a jurisdictional error. Referring to 'ouster clauses' employed in the statutes, HWR Wade and CF Forsyth in their Seventh Edition on 'Administrative Law' at page 734, observed:
The law as now settled by the House of Lords is that these ouster clauses are subject to exactly the same doctrine as the older no certiorari clauses, namely, that they do not prevent the Court from intervening in the case of excess jurisdiction. Violation of the principles of natural justice, for example, amounts to excess of jurisdiction, so that where a minister refused an application for citizenship without giving the appellant a fair hearing the Privy Council invalidated his decision notwithstanding a statute providing that it 'shall not be subject to appeal or review in any Court'.
19. Referring to Anisminic Ltd. v. Foreign Compensation Commission, (1969) 2 AC 147, it was observed :
Wide as the doctrine of ultra vires is, the House of Lords has made it even wider for the purpose of minimising the effect of ouster clauses. This they did in the leading case of Anisminic Ltd v. Foreign Compensation Commission. That case was a high-water mark of judicial review. But for Judges in after cases it presented an acute dilemma.
20. As admittedly, no enquiry was done by the Scrutiny Committee as envisaged under the said rules, we are of the opinion that the order of the District Collector dated 6-1-2000 cannot be sustained. Section 21 provides that unless a community certificate issued by any authority competent to issue the same under the relevant rules or orders before the commencement of the Act is cancelled in accordance with the provisions of the Act, the community certificate issued by such authority shall be valid and the same shall be deemed to have been issued under the provisions of the Act.
21. In P. Kranthi v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, , one of us V.V.S. Rao, J., had an occasion to deal with the rules in question. It was held that the Commissioner of Tribal Welfare has no role to play in cancelling the certificating excepting making a complaint if it is obtained fraudulently. In J. Anuradha v. Government of A.P., Social Welfare Department and another, , again V.V.S. Rao, J., held that issuance of show-cause notice by District Collector for cancellation of the certificate without conducting inquiry in accordance with the Act and the rules cannot be sustained.
22. I n J. Krishnam Raju v. Commissioner of Tribal Welfare Department, A.P., Hyderabad, , this Bench held that after coming into force of the Act on 16-5-1997, the Commissioner of Tribal Welfare is not competent authority to enquire into the correctness of Community Certificates nor cancel the same and it is only the District Collector who is competent under Section 5 of the Act to do so.
23. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State, however, has placed strong reliance upon the decision of this Bench in M. Balakrishna Rao v. Joint Collector, Hyderabad District, . The question, which arose for consideration, in that case was as to whether a copy of the enquiry report was required to be furnished. In the facts and circumstances of the said case and having regard to the materials produced before this Court, it was held that the petitioner therein had failed to discharge his initial burden. In the aforementioned situation, this Court relying upon a decision of the apex Court in Director of Tribal Welfare, Government of A.P. v. Laveti Giri, , held:
Thus, even accepting that a copy of the enquiry report had not been furnished, although such a stand had not been taken by the appellant earlier, evidently, the same cannot be relied upon particularly having regard to the fact that the statements made in paragraph 4 of the writ affidavit have not been verified. It has not been denied that the aforementioned report is based upon the evidence of the villagers Kondamadugu village. The appellant even did not examine his father who, upon investigation, was found to be belonging to Velama caste. The principles of natural justice in a case of this nature, cannot be said to have been violated as ex-fade the certificate granted by the Tahsildar could not have been acted upon as the said authority did not have any personal knowledge as regards the fact as to whether the appellant is a member of the Scheduled Tribe or not. In any event, as the appellant had failed to discharge the initial burden, it is not necessary to go into the said question.
24. The said decision in the facts and circumstances of this case cannot be said to have any application whatsoever.
25. On an analysis of the provisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder, we are of the view that the order of the District Collector is illegal and clearly without jurisdiction and thus cannot be sustained in the eye of law. The Collector under the provisions of the Act and rules was duty bound to refer the matter to the Scrutiny Committee for enquiry in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the rules.
26. Since we have taken the view that the order of the District Collector suffers from jurisdictional error, as a logical corollary, the orders passed by the disciplinary authority must also be liable to be set aside. The entire disciplinary proceedings were initiated only on the basis of the report of the Commissioner of Tribal Welfare, A.P., Hyderabad who has no role to play in the matter of cancellation of Community Certificates except making a complaint to the authority concerned. Evidently, at the relevant time, the certificate was issued by the Tahsildar, Rajendranagar who was competent to issue the same. As already noticed hereinbefore under Section 21 of the Act, unless the certificate issued by any competent authority before the commencement of the Act is cancelled in accordance with the provisions of the Act, the same shall be deemed to have been issued under the Act. Unless the certificate is cancelled in accordance with the procedure laid down under the rules, the same is valid in law and has to be acted upon. The report of the enquiry officer doesn't indicate that any evidence has been brought on record to show that the petitioner does not belong to ST community. The entire findings of the enquiry officer were based upon the letter of the Commissioner of Tribal Welfare. The relevant portion of the enquiry report reads thus :
The Commissioner of Tribal Welfare Department, Government of A.P., vide his letter (PE-2) has intimated that the CO does not belong to ST-Lingadhari Koya and the Caste Certificate (PE-1) issued to him by Tahsildar is void. Similarly the Joint Collector, R.R. Dist. Also conducted a detailed enquiry into the social status of Shri Sudershan and intimated vide Proc.No.C.5/ 8335/97, dated 7-10-1998 (PE-4) that the Caste Certificate (PE.l) obtained by Shri Sudershan is false and he does not belong to Lingadhari Koya, ST community as reported by Commissioner of Tribal Welfare Department. Therefore, the Joint Collector, R.R. Dist. In exercise of the powers vested in him, has cancelled the Caste Certificate. Both the authorities mentioned above are empowered to conduct enquiry on the social status when there is a complaint about veracity of the Caste Certificate. They have come to the conclusion only after investigation of the documents and explanations submitted by the CO in his defence. Hence, there is no question of disputing the authenticity of their decision.
The Caste Certificate submitted by the CO in respect of his father, brother, wife etc. (PE-2 to PE-11) cannot be considered as a proof in his defence since the same is also doubtful when the Caste Certificate issued to the CO is found to be void and cancelled after detailed enquiry by the Joint Collector.
In view of the above, the undersigned, has come to the conclusion that the charge framed against Shri D. Sudershan, T/B, EC 5481, CFFP(P) has been proved.
27. From the above, it is clear that no enquiry conducted by the disciplinary authority independent of the one alleged to be conducted by the Joint Collector and the Commissioner of Tribal Welfare. If the order of the District Collector is in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the rules and is sustainable in law, there cannot be any two opinions that the findings of the enquiry officer can be sustained as once the District Collector who is competent to cancel the certificate passes an order in accordance with law, the person who got employment on the basis of such fraudulent certificate is not entitled to derive the benefit thereof. However, the findings were based purely on the report of the Commissioner of the Tribal Welfare and the earlier cancellation order of the Joint Collector dated 7-10-1998 who are not competent to pass the orders under Section 5(1) of the Act. Therefore, the order of removal of the petitioner from service based on such findings cannot be sustained. Unless the certificate issued to the petitioner is cancelled by the District Collector in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the rules, the same has to be acted upon and any order passed on the basis of an order, which suffers from jurisdictional error, cannot also be sustained. Consequently, the order of the appellate authority dated 31-10-2000 seeking to enhance the punishment of compulsory retirement from service to that of removal or dismissal from service cannot also be sustained. However, the authorities would always be at liberty to proceed with the matter after an order is passed by the District Collector in accordance with the procedure laid down under the rules as regards the fraudulent nature or otherwise of the certificate issued in favour of the petitioner by the then Tahsildar, Rajendranagar.
28. For the reasons aforesaid, we pass the following orders :
WP No. 16356 of 2000:
29. The impugned order of the District Collector dated 6-1-2000 is set aside. The District Collector is hereby directed to give an opportunity to the petitioner to submit his explanation and thereafter refer the matter to the Scrutiny Committee for enquiry in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Rules 8 and 9 of the Rules. The petitioner must submit his explanation within two weeks from the date of communication from the District Collector. The Scrutiny Committee may thereafter take such action in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the rules. After the Scrutiny Committee furnished its findings, the District Collector shall decide the matter under Sub-rule (7) of Rule 9 of the Rules and may take other consequential steps as is required under the rules and law.
WP No. 18470 of 2001 :
30. The impugned order of punishment of dated 14-7-2000 of the 1st respondent and the order of the appellate authority-3rd respondent dated 31-10-2001 are set aside. However, they are at liberty to proceed with the matter after appropriate orders are passed by the District Collector.
31. The writ petitions are allowed accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.