Karnataka High Court
Sri. Satyanarayana R.S vs Additional Director General Of Police on 2 December, 2020
Author: P.B.Bajanthri
Bench: P.B. Bajanthri
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 02ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BAJANTHRI
WRIT PETITION NO.53633/2014(GM-CC)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO.53632/2014(GM-CC)
IN W.P.NO.53633/2014
BETWEEN:
SRI. SATYANARAYANA R.S
46 YEARS, S/O LATE SUBRAMANYA,
OCCUPATION: SENIOR TELECOM
OPERATING ASSISTANT (P)
BSNL, OFFICE OF GENERAL
MANAGER TELECOM,
CHIKKAMAGALUR - 577 101. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. P.A. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
CIVIL RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE
PALACE ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
DIRECTORATE OF CIVIL
RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT (CRE)
3RD FLOOR, MUDA BUILDING,
URVA STORES,
MANGALORE - 575 006.
2
3. CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER TELECOM
KARNATAKA TELECOM CIRCLE,
NO.1, SV ROAD, HALASURU,
BANGALORE: 560 008.
4. GENERAL MANAGER TELECOM,
BSNL, BELT ROAD,
CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 101. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. C. JAGADISH, SPL GOVT ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2.
SRI. Y. HARIPRASAD, CGSC FOR R3 & R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY R2, SUPERINTENDENT OF
POLICE CRE MANGALORE IN HIS NOTICE DT.12.11.14. ANN-
W AFTER HOLDING THAT SUCH EXERCISE OF POWER BY
THE SAID AUTHORITY IS IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 14 OF
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND ETC.,
IN W.P.NO.53632/2014
BETWEEN:
SRI. T.S. RAMACHANDRA,
62 YEARS, SON OF LATE
T. SHANKARANARAYANA,
RETIRED WHILE OFFICIATING
AS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER,
O/O GENERAL MANAGER TELECOM,
CHIKMAGALUR: 577 101
RESIDING AT 'SHARADHI',
2ND CROSS, JAYANAGAR,
CHICKMAGALUR: 577 101 ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. P.A. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR
GENERAL OF POLICE
CIVIL RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT
DIRECTORATE, PALACE ROAD,
BANGALORE: 560 001
2. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
DIRECTORATE OF CIVIL
3
RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT(CRE),
3RD FLOOR, MUDA BUILDING,
URVA STORES,
MANGALORE: 575 006
3. CHIEF GENERAL
MANAGER TELECOM
KARNATAKA TELECOM CIRCLE,
NO.1, S.V. ROAD HALASURU,
BANGALORE: 560 008
4. GENERAL MANAGER TELECOM
BSNL, BELT ROAD,
CHIKKAMAGALURU: 577 101
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. C. JAGADISH, SPL GOVT ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2.
SRI. Y. HARIPRASAD, CGSC FOR R3 & R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY R2 IN HIS NOTICE DT.12.11.14.
ANNEX-E AFTER HOLDING THAT SUCH EXERCISE OF
POWER BY THE SAID AUTHORITY IS IN VIOLATION OF
ARTICLE 14 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND ETC.,
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING - B GROUP PHYSICAL HEARING / VIDEO
CONFERENCING HEARING (OPTIONAL), THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
In these two petitions, petitioners have questioned the validity of the enquiry notice dated 12.11.2014 issued by the second respondent-CRE Cell. Both the petitioners stated to have claimed that they belong to 'Maaleru' caste which fall under 4 schedule tribe. Based on such schedule tribe certificate they were the beneficiary of the employment with the BSNL organization. On 11.03.2002, State Government issued an order in respect of preventing non-schedule tribe from availing benefit meant for schedule tribe. One of the caste is with reference to 'Maaleru' caste. Pursuant to the Government Order dated 11.03.2002, District Social Welfare Officer, Chikkamagaluru communicated to the appointing authority of the petitioners-Chief General Manager and Telecom, Bengaluru to take note of the fact that petitioners and others are treated as general category persons from the date of issuance of Government Order dated 11.03.2002. Thus, petitioners were treated as general category persons with the BSNL organization. Petitioners- Sri.R.S.Satyanarayana and Sri.T.S.Ramachandra had attained the age of superannuation and retired from service. In this back drop, second respondent-CRE Cell proceeded to initiate proceedings against the 5 petitioners by issuing an enquiry notice on 12.11.2014. The petitioners feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid enquiry notice presented this petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that second respondent-CRE Cell and State Government are part and parcel of Government of Karnataka. By virtue of order dated 11.03.2002, Social Welfare Department of Government of Karnataka evolved a policy decision in order to prevent non-schedule tribe from availing benefit with reference to Apex Court decision in Civil Appeal No.2294/1986 decided on 28.11.2000 while treating such of those persons who have obtained false certificate and they were treated as general category while proceeding to cancel the caste certificate or surrendering caste certificate. In the present case, District Social Welfare Officer, Chikkamagaluru had communicated to the appointing authority of the petitioners with regard to treating the petitioners as general category. Thus, matter was resolved. 6 Therefore, at this distance of time, initiation of proceedings relating to caste certificate obtained by the petitioners are impermissible.
3. The learned special counsel for State cited Apex Court decision viz., Shobha Lakshmi Vs. Div. Commissioner and others in Civil No.138/2013 decided on 28.01.2013 and decision of this Court in the case of Smt.Jayashree Vs. The Director Collegiate Education in W.P.No.101462/2018 (S-KAT) decided on 11.12.2018 are not applicable to the facts of the present case.
4. Per contra, learned State counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2, Sri.C.Jagadish submitted that the order dated 11.03.2002 of the State Government in respect of surrendering of false certificate stated to have been obtained by such of those persons and asking them to surrender and they may be treated as general category has been interpretated by the Apex Court in the case of 7 Smt.Shobha Lakshmi wherein in the aforesaid decision it is held that State Government has no power to issue order in terms of Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution of India. Further, he relied on decision in the case of Smt.Jayashree of this Court in W.P.No.101462/2018 (S-KAT) decided on 11.12.2018 (paragraph 13). Thus, there is no infirmity in taking action by the CRE cell against the petitioners. He has also pointed out Rule 7A of the Karnataka SC/ST and other Backward Caste (Reservation and Appointments etc.,) Rules, 1992 (for short, 'Rules 1992') relating to prosecution for obtaining false caste certificate.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
6. Undisputed facts are that petitioners had obtained caste certificates with reference to caste as 'Maaleru' and they had the benefit of service with the BSNL organization under reservation of schedule tribe. State Government issued an order dated 8 11.03.2002 in respect of surrendering of false certificate stated to have been obtained by such of those persons and asking them to surrender and they may be treated as general category. This was processed by the District Social Welfare Officer, Chikkamagaluru and informed to the BSNL organization-appointing authority of the petitioners. In this back drop, second respondent-CRE Cell with reference to Rule 7A of Rules, 1992, proceeded to take action against the petitioners. Thus, petitioners have presented this petition.
7. Question for consideration in the present petition is "Whether second respondent-CRE Cell action in initiating proceedings under Karnataka SC/ST and other Backward Caste (Reservation and Appointments etc.,) Act, 1990 and Rules, 1992 vide enquiry notice dated 12.11.2014 is in order or not?"
Government Order dated 11.03.2002 directing the petitioners to surrender caste certificate of 9 schedule tribe and further, treating them as general merit has been taken note by the Apex Court in the case of Smt.Shobha Lakshmi cited supra. Extract of the order reads as under:-
"The petitioner challenged the orders of the Deputy Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner in Writ Petition No. 47454 of 2002. The learned Single Judge considered the documents produced by the parties and concluded that the caste certificates obtained by the petitioner cannot clothe her with the right to be appointed against the vacancy earmarked for Scheduled Tribe. The writ appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court by recording the following observations:
"Be that as it may, there was certain confusion in regard to treating 'Maleru' and 'Maaleru' as Scheduled Tribe. The said fact has been settled stating that 'Maleru' alone belongs to Scheduled Tribe and not 'Maaleru'. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 4023/2004 and other connected writ appeals has decided that 'Maaleru' does not belong to Scheduled Tribe and that such candidates cannot claim the benefit of Scheduled Tribe and therefore, the said question is no more a res- integra. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant in Union of India vs. H.Ramakrishna is also not helpful to the appellant in view of the subsequent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court which are relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant. When the order of the State Government cannot be extended to the central Government Employees as ruled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Addl. General Manager-10
Human Resource, Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd., vs. Suresh Ramkrishna Burde [(2007) 5 SCC 336]. 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."
We have heard Shri S.N. Bhat, learned counsel for the petitioner for some time and carefully perused the record.
In our view, the findings recorded by the Deputy Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner that Tahsildar, Shimoga and Tahsildar, Bangalore, North Taluk did not have the jurisdiction to issue caste certificates in favour of the petitioner so as to enable her to secure appointment against the vacancy reserved for Scheduled Tribe were based on correct analysis of the documents produced before them and the High Court rightly declined to interfere with the orders passed by them.
With the above observations, the special leave petition is dismissed.
Ordinarily, we would have saddled the petitioner with exemplary cost, but refrain from doing so because in view of the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner, she will not be entitled to continue in service."
11
8. Rule 7A of the Karnataka SC/ST and other Backward Caste (Reservation and Appointments etc.,) Rules, 1992 reads as under:-
"7A. Prosecution for obtaining false caste Certificate:-
(1) The Caste Verification Committee or the caste and income verification Committee.
As the case may be 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."
9. This Court in the case of Smt.Jayashree cited supra in paragraph 13 held as under:-
"13. On going through the above said paragraph, therein it has been specifically observed that, if a person obtains a false certificate and gets an appointment, it would be like allowing a thief to retain the stolen property. In that light also the contention taken up by the learned counsel for the petitioner does not hold any water. When the petitioner has taken the benefit on a false certificate, then it cannot be held that the said candidate is fit to hold the post which is reserved for the said category. Even the cancellation of the Caste Certificate has attained finality and even the said order has not been challenged. Under the said facts and circumstances, the contention of the petitioner that she ought not to have been 12 terminated and the benefit of the circular or an order of the appointment could have been given is not acceptable."
In view of the aforesaid two decisions read with Rule 7A of Rules, 1992, any benefit extended to the petitioners under the Government Order dated 11.03.2002 is only for the purpose of service benefits and so also petitioners have attained the age of superannuation and retired from service. For obtaining false certificate, they are liable for prosecution under Rule 7A of Rules, 1992. If the petitioners are disputing that they have not obtained any false certificate by making any false representation to the concerned authority and so also if they have not suppressed, it is a matter of an enquiry and representation with reference to Rule 7A of Rules, 1992. Government Order dated 11.03.2002 is only for conversion from Reserved Category to that of General Category for the purpose of extending service benefits with effect from 11.03.2002. Government Order dated 11.03.2002 has no over 13 riding effect over the Act, 1990 and Rules, 1992, since Government Order is only Executive Order. Thus, petitioners have not made out case so as to interfere with the enquiry notice dated 12.11.2014. Accordingly, writ petitions stand dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE KPS