Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
D Indrasen vs M/O Railways on 31 August, 2021
OA No.405/2021
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCH
OA/021/00405/2021
HYDERABAD, this the 31st day of August, 2021
Hon'ble Mr. Ashish Kalia, Judl. Member
Hon'ble Mr.B.V.Sudhakar, Admn.Member
D. Indrasen, S/o. D.Venkat Ramaiah,
Aged 43 years, Occ: Mail Guard (Group 'C'),
O/o.The Station Manager, Kacheguda Railway Station,
South Central Railway, Hyderabad. ...Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr.KRKV Prasad)
Vs.
1.Union of India represented by
The General Manager,
South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam,
Secunderabad.
2.The Divisional Railway Manager,
South Central Railway, Hyderabad Division,
Hyderabad Bhavan, Secunderabad.
3. The Senior Divisional Operations Manager,
South Central Railway, Hyderabad Division,
Hyderabad Bhavan, Secunderabad.
4. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer,
{also known as Divisional Railway Manager (Personnel)},
South Central Railway, Hyderabad Division,
Hyderabad Bhavan, Secunderabad.
5.The Railway Recruitment Board,
Represented by its Secretary, Mettuguda,
Secunderabad. ....Respondents
(By Advocate : Mrs. A.P.Lakshmi, SC for Rlys)
---
Page 1 of 16
OA No.405/2021
ORAL ORDER
(As per Hon'ble Mr. B.V.Sudhakar, Administrative Member) Through Video Conferencing:
2. The OA is filed against the action of the 3rd respondent in issuing the charge memo dt. 8.6.2021, alleging false declaration of caste by the applicant.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant was appointed as a Probationary Commercial Clerk in 1997 by the respondents after submission of his original ST community certificate. Thereupon, applicant's services were regularized as Commercial Clerk and later, he was selected as Goods Guard in 2005 under Departmental Quota on the basis of the ST caste certificate submitted once again. Applicant was further elevated to the positions of Passenger Guard and Mail Guard in 2007 & 2018 respectively. On receipt of an anonymous complaint, applicant was directed to submit the caste certificate/ school leaving certificate and as the caste certificate was misplaced, he could not submit the same resulting in issue of charge memo dated 8.6.2021. Aggrieved, the OA is filed.
4. The contentions of the applicant are that as per Railway Board order vide RBE No.75/2016 dated 23.6.2016, respondents need to approach the State authorities for verification of the caste certificate under AP (SC, ST & BCs) Regulation of Community Certificates Act,1993 (for short "CC Act of 1993"). Applicant has put in 24 years of service and issue of Charge Memo belatedly is nullity in law. This Tribunal in OA 478/2013 dated 6.9.2018 has held that unless the caste certificate is cancelled by the Page 2 of 16 OA No.405/2021 competent authority, no penalty can be imposed. judgment of Hon'ble A.P. High Court in D.Sudershan v. Govt. of A.P & Ors, 2002 (3) ALD 678 (DB) was cited in support of the contentions made.
5. Respondents, while confirming the entry of the applicant into the respondents organization and his promotions over a period of time, submit that a complaint was received stating that the applicant belongs to the UR community and that he got appointment by submitting a bogus ST community certificate of Lambada community. Consequently, applicant was given several opportunities over a period of 2 years, to submit the original caste certificate, lest he was cautioned that disciplinary action would be taken. Applicant did not comply and hence charge memo dated 8.6.2021 was issued. As per Section 6 of the CC Act of 1993 and Rule 6 of Rules, 1997 framed under the said Act, applicant has to prove that he belongs to a particular caste. Further, Railway Board vide letter dated 28.6.1996 has directed to report cases of false caste certificates to local police and the District Magistrate for taking necessary action as well as dismiss such employees (Annexure R-2). Similar orders were issued vide Railway Board order dated 4.8.1998 (Annexure R-3) and hence, disciplinary action was accordingly initiated.
Applicant filed a rejoinder wherein he asserts that the complaint received by the respondents was anonymous and as per CVC letter dated 7.3.2016, no action need to be taken on such complaints. Rules cited under the CC Act of 1993 by the respondents relate to the inquiry to be conducted by the State Civil authorities and not for departmental disciplinary inquiries. The caste certificate was verified by the respondents while Page 3 of 16 OA No.405/2021 appointing and later while granting promotions. Railway Board letters cited by the respondents do not specify that after rendering decades of service charge memo is to be issued to an employee for non- submission of the caste certificate.
6. Heard both the counsel and perused the pleadings on record.
7. I. The dispute is in regard to the alleged submission of a bogus ST certificate by the applicant to secure employment in the respondents' organization as probationary Commercial Clerk. The facts reveal that the applicant has been recruited through Railway Recruitment Board in 1997 as probationary Commercial Clerk on the strength of the ST community certificate submitted by him. Later, applicant was selected as Goods Guard in 2005 once again on the submission of the ST caste certificate. Thereon, applicant was also elevated as Passenger Guard and Mail Guard in 2007 & 2018 respectively. Based on an anonymous complaint alleging that the applicant submitted a bogus ST Lambada community certificate, respondents directed the applicant to submit the original caste certificate and since he could not submit the same, charge memo dated 8.6.2021 was issued. Applicant claims that the caste certificate was misplaced and that he would approach the State authorities for securing a duplicate caste certificate for due submission vide his representations dated 31.1.2020/12.1.2021. Applicant is aggrieved that the respondents have not followed the proper procedure under CC Act 1993 to allegedly declare that the caste certificate submitted was not genuine. Hence issue of Charge memo cited is illegal. In this nexus, we are of the view that taking disciplinary action at the relevant point of time, is the prerogative of the Page 4 of 16 OA No.405/2021 respondents and more so in sensitive matters pertaining to submission of false caste certificates to curb such heinous malpractice since genuine cases should not be deprived of the reservation benefit provided for under the Constitution. Therefore, the applicant's contention that belated issue of the charge sheet would make it null and void is no ground to let off the applicant from the hook, but what really would come to his rescue is as to whether the respondents were procedurally accurate in issuing the charge sheet under reference. The issue to be delved upon in its entirety is as to whether the respondents have verified with the competent authority as per CC Act 1993 to declare that the caste certificate submitted was false. It is this aspect which comes under judicial review. Accordingly, we proceed to unearth as to whether the decision of the respondents to issue a charge memo on 8.6.2021 is in resonance with rules and law.
II. To resolve the dispute, it would be beneficial to refer to para 2 of the offer of the appointment issued to the applicant on 25.4.1997 (8.5.1997) (Annexure A-3) by the respondents, as extracted hereunder:
"2. You must bring with you your ORIGINAL HIGH SCHOOL RECORD BOOK/ SCHOOL TRANSFER CERTIFICATE, university/ College certificates showing your Date of Birth, Qualifications, CASTE etc. for verification. You should bring with your certified copies of all the certificates. Xerox copies should be attested by a Gazetted officer. If your belong to Scheduled Caste/ Tribe you will have to produce ORIGINAL CASTE CERTIFICATE in the PRESCRIBED PROFORMA (enclosed to this office) issued by the District Magistrate, Addl. Magistrate, Collector/ Dy. Commissioner, Sub Divisional Magistrate or Taluq Magistrate or the concerned MRO of your District. Two copies of your receipt passport size photographs may also be brought along with."
It requires no reiteration that the respondents have the responsibility to get the certificates verified before issue of final appointment orders. The respondents have directed submission of the original caste certificate for Page 5 of 16 OA No.405/2021 verification as per the offer of appointment cited supra. On granular scanning of the reply statement, we do not find any submission as to whether the respondents have discharged this onerous responsibility of getting the caste certificate verified. Silence in this regard on part of the respondents would imply admission of their failure in getting the certificate verified at the time of the initial appointment as per the appointment order, referred to above. Even when the applicant was selected as Goods Guard in 2005 under Departmental Quota, the caste certificate was directed to be submitted and on submission of the same, the respondents went ahead and appointed the applicant. The respondents, as it appears from the reply statement, have not got verified the caste certificate even on the second occasion too. Thus, we have no hesitation to observe that the respondents have not primarily discharged the basic responsibility of verifying the caste certificate of the applicant at the time of his initial appointment or even at later stage, on changing his career path as Goods Guard. This is a serious flaw, which unfortunately went unexplained by the respondents in the reply statement.
III. As can be seen from the material papers respondents did instruct the applicant on several occasions over a period of 24 months to submit the original caste certificate and for failure to submit the ST caste Certificate, charge memo dated 8.6.2021 was issued. The article of charge reads as under:
"ARTICLE-I That the said Sri D. Indrasen, Mail Guard/ KCG, has committed serious misconducted in that, he entered into Railway Service by falsely declaring himself to be belonging to 'ST' (Lambada) while securing appointment as Pro. Commercial Clerk through RRB/SC.Page 6 of 16 OA No.405/2021
Thus, the said Sri D. Indrasen, Mail Guard/ KCG, has committed gross misconduct in as much as he failed to maintain absolute integrity, acted in a manner of unbecoming of Railway Servant and failed to maintain high ethical standards and honesty thereby contravened Rule No.3.1 (i), 3.1 (iii) & 3.1 (vi) of Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966."
The respondents are alleging that the applicant has falsely declared his community as ST. The question that arises is that as to whether the respondents are competent to make such an assertion. In this regard we need to observe that the CC Act 1993 has been specifically legislated to regulate the issue of community certificates relating to persons belonging to SC, ST and BC and matters related thereto. Section 5, extracted hereunder, vividly indicates that the authority empowered to cancel a false community certificate is the District Collector and that too, after following the prescribed procedure. Whereas, in the instant case, respondents jumped the gun by issuing the charge memo dated 8.6.2021 alleging that the applicant has falsely declared himself to belong to ST community. Without verifying the genuineness of the caste from the concerned District Collector, it is premature on part of the respondents to allege that the applicant has made a false declaration about his community and thereby the charge memo issued would not have legal sanctity.
"5. Cancellation of the false community certificate - (1) Where, before, or after the commencement of this Act a person not belonging to any of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes or Backward Classes has obtained a false Community Certificate to the effect that either himself or his children belongs to such Castes, Tribes or Classes, the District Collector may either suo-motu or on a written complaint by any person, call for the record and enquire into the correctness of such certificate and if he is of the opinion that the certificate was obtained fraudulently, he shall, by notification, cancel the certificate after giving the person concerned an opportunity of making representation."Page 7 of 16 OA No.405/2021
Issue of charge memo to the applicant without taking up with the District Collector for verification as provided under the CC Act of 1993, is thus a hasty decision on part of the respondents. Any action which is contrary to the provisions of the CC Act of 1993 in the context of verification of caste certificate would not be sustainable. Indeed, the CC Act of 1993 provides for appeal as well as review petition in cases where the caste certificate is cancelled by the District Collector. Hence, it is evident that an elaborate procedure has been prescribed to arrive at the conclusion as to whether the caste certificate obtained is genuine or otherwise. Respondents have short circuited the procedure laid down which cannot be thus upheld under any count.
IV. Respondents have cited Section 6 of the CC Act 1993 to assert that the burden of proof lies on the applicant to establish that he belongs to a particular community. To make things clear, Section 6 of the Act is reproduced hereunder.
6. Burden of Proof- Where an application is made to the competent authority under section 3 for the issue of a community certificate in respect of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes or Backward Classes or in any enquiry conducted by the competent authority or the authority empowered to cancel the community certificate or the appellate authority under this Act or in any trial or offence under this Act, the burden of proving that he belongs to such Caste, Tribe or Class shall be on the claimant.
As is clear from above, only when an application is made for issue of a community certificate under Section 3 of the CC Act of 1993, or when it is proposed to cancel the certificate by due inquiry as per the provisions of Act, then the burden of proof lies on the person to prove that he belongs to a particular caste and not in a disciplinary case initiated by the respondents. Page 8 of 16 OA No.405/2021 RS (D&A) Rules 1968, under which the charge memo in question was issued, does not have a provision similar to Section 6 of the CC Act of 1993 for the respondents to claim that the burden lies with the applicant to prove his caste. Only when an inquiry is initiated under the CC Act 1993 by the competent authority, at that juncture the applicant bears the burden to prove his caste credentials. The said stage has not been arrived at, since the respondents have not even moved the State Authorities as required under the CC Act of 1993 till date. Therefore, the submission of the respondents that the applicant has the burden to prove his caste is misplaced and inconsequential.
V. In addition, the Railway Board order vide RBE dated 23.6.2016 (Annexure A-6) has made it explicit that the instructions of DOPT vide letter dated 8.10.2015 have to be scrupulously followed in regard to verification of claims affirming to belong to SC/ST and Backward classes. Para 4 is of crucial significance to the case, wherein it was stated as under:
"4. It is, therefore, reiterated that in the situation where a candidate belonging to a Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and other Backward Classes is unable to produce a certificate from any of the prescribed authorities, he/ she may be appointed provisionally on the basis of whatever prima facie proof he/ she is able to produce in support of his/ her claim subject to his/ her furnishing the prescribed certificate within a reasonable time and if there is genuine difficulty in his/ her obtaining a certificate, the appointing authority should itself verify his/ her claim through the District Magistrate concerned."
It is common knowledge that obtaining a caste certificate from the State Authorities is a Herculean task. With the ongoing corona pandemic, things have become much more difficult. The DOPT appreciating the practical difficulties encountered, it appears, has made it lucid that the appointing Page 9 of 16 OA No.405/2021 authority should get the caste claim verified from the District Magistrate concerned. Railway Board has instructed to follow this guideline vide its letter cited supra. We are surprised that the respondents have failed to follow their own orders. Respondents have not made any iota of effort to detail the reasons as to why they could not adhere to the instructions of the latest Railway Board orders dated 23.6.2016 and instead quoted Railway Board orders dated 28.6.1996 and 4.8.1998 which can be acted upon only when it is established that the applicant has submitted a bogus caste certificate. The competent authority has not cancelled the caste certificate of the applicant under the relevant Act of 1993 and hence the allegation that the applicant made a false declaration about his community stands unsubstantiated. Therefore, the Railway Board memos relied upon by the respondents lack relevance and cannot be banked upon to act against the applicant, until the caste certificate submitted is cancelled by the competent authority under the CC Act, 1993.
VI. One another aspect which has been glossed over by the respondents is that with the advent of the Public Interest Disclosure & Protection of Informers' Resolution - 2004 (PIDPI), the Central vigilance Commission has created a mechanism for handling complaints where identity of the complainant is kept secret and the complainant is provided protection. This has been endorsed and operationalized by the Central Government with the approval of the competent authority. Consequently, CVC has issued the Circular No.12/09/20 dated 24.9.2020 directing Ministries/ Departments to not to act on pseudonymous and anonymous complaints. In fact, the letter has adduced that a serious view would be taken against those concerned, if Page 10 of 16 OA No.405/2021 anonymous letters are acted upon. However, in the instant case, as the respondents have a bounden duty to verify the caste certificate submitted to secure employment, they need to follow the procedure prescribed for taking any action required. Employment is a hyper sensitive matter and any irregularities committed in getting employed ought to be gone into within the framework of rules and law.
VII. To sum up, it can be safely concluded that the respondents have not taken proper steps, as required under the rules, to verify the caste certificate of the applicant on two occasions ie while inception of the applicant into the service as probationary Commercial Clerk and secondly, while selecting him as Goods Guard under Departmental Quota. Had they verified, the truth would have come to the fore at that instant of time. Even, after the receipt of the anonymous complaint due procedure under the CC Act of 1993 to verify the caste certificate submitted was not followed. Instead respondents have indulged in colorable exercise of power by directing the applicant to submit the caste certificate and on his failure to do so, issued the charge memo, blissfully ignoring their responsibility of getting the certificate verified by the competent authority under the CC Act of 1993/ Railway Board orders spoken of. Thus, the mistake squarely lies at the door of the respondents. Therefore, the respondents having made a mistake, attempting to rub off their mistake to the applicant after rendering 24 years of service and that too, without following procedure prescribed under the CC Act of 1993/ relevant rules, is not lawful. Hon'ble Apex Court has observed in a catena of judgments that the mistake of the department should not recoil on to the employees as under: Page 11 of 16 OA No.405/2021
The Apex Court in a recent case decided on 14.12.2007 (Union of India vs. Sadhana Khanna, C.A. No. 8208/01) held that the mistake of the department cannot recoil on employees. In yet another recent case of M.V. Thimmaiah vs. UPSC, C.A. No. 5883-5991 of 2007 decided on 13.12.2007, it has been observed that if there is a failure on the part of the officers to discharge their duties the incumbent should not be allowed to suffer. (iii) It has been held in the case of Nirmal Chandra Bhattacharjee v. Union of India, 1991 Supp (2) SCC 363 wherein the Apex Court has held "The mistake or delay on the part of the department should not be permitted to recoil on the appellants."
Thus, the respondents having failed to verify the caste certificate as per procedure under the CC Act of 1993 and pressuring the applicant to submit the caste certificate against Railway Board/DOPT orders referred to in preceding paras, is undoubtedly their mistake and the said mistake should not recoil on to the applicant, as observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court supra.
VIII. On receipt of an anonymous complaint, respondents have initiated action against the applicant, in violation of the Railway Board instructions dated 23.6.2016/ DOPT memo dated 8.10.2015 and predominantly infringing the provisions of the CC Act of 1993 cited supra. Any action which is not as per rules is to be curbed and snubbed as per the directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, in a cornucopia of cases as under:
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in T.Kannan and ors vs S.K. Nayyar (1991) 1 SCC 544 held that "Action in respect of matters covered by rules should be regulated by rules". Again in Seighal's case (1992) (1) Supp 1 SCC 304 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has stated that "Wanton or deliberate deviation in implementation of rules should be curbed and snubbed." In another judgment reported in (2007) 7 SCJ 353 the Hon'ble Apex court held " the court cannot de hors rules".
Therefore, the action of the respondents to issue the charge memo under reference has to be curbed as per the Hon'ble Apex Court directions as at above, since its issuance was not as per prescribed norms discussed in above paras.
Page 12 of 16 OA No.405/2021 IX. Further, this Tribunal had an opportunity to deal with an identical case in OA 478/2013 dated 6.9.2018 wherein it was observed as under, by taking support of the Hon'ble Principal Bench judgment in OA 1816/2012 dated 18.3.2013:
"9. The case is well covered by the order of the Principal Bench of this Tribunal in OA No. 1816/2012, dated 18.03.2013, wherein it has been held as follows:
"The genuineness or correctness of the Caste Certificate cannot be gone into by the appointing authority/ disciplinary authority in a disciplinary proceedings. He can, of course, ask the issuing authority or the District Collector to verify whether the certificate as issued to the applicant could still be valid or not. However, it is only if the Certificate is cancelled, the disciplinary authority can proceed against the employee for having furnished the false certificate. The cancellation of the caste certificates has its own prescribed procedure and it is for the competent authority to follow it."
10. In view of the above, the OA full succeeds. Hence, the respondents are directed to consider release of regular pension and other terminal benefits that are due to him from the date of his retirement as per the terms and conditions of service of the respondents organization, within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It is open to the respondents to take action as is deemed fit after verification of the caste certificate of the applicant by the competent authority, as per law. MA No. 485/2018 stand disposed of. No order as to costs. "
X. Above all, the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. in D. Sudarshan v Govt.
of A.P. [2002 (3) ALD 678 (DB)] dated 11.10.2001 has emphasized and discussed the need to follow the procedure prescribed in regard to conduct of the inquiry to verify caste certificates. Relevant paras are extracted hereunder:
"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.
xxx
14. Admittedly, the case of the petitioner falls under Rule 9 of the Rules as detailed above. An elaborate procedure had been Page 13 of 16 OA No.405/2021 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.
xxx
17. 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. xxx Xxxx
24. 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."
Recently, this Tribunal dealt with a similar case in OA No. 66/2021 vide order dt. 24.02.2021. Relevant observations of this Tribunal are as under:
"III. Further, when the District Collector, Prakasham has issued show cause notice to the applicant in regard to his caste, based on a complaint received, the Hon'ble High Court in WP No.21078/2020 has directed the applicant to reply to the show cause notice and the matter is now pending with the District Collector. Till the genuineness or otherwise of the certificate is established as per Page 14 of 16 OA No.405/2021 Rules prescribed under the AP (SC, ST & BCs) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1993 and due process of law, the applicant continues to belong to 'ST' community. More particularly when the Second Appeal against the observations of the Principal Jr. Civil Judge, Chirala as confirmed by the Sr. Civil Judge are under adjudication before the Hon'ble High Court and the process of verification of the caste certificate has commenced as per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court in WP No.21078/2020. Therefore, in these circumstances, issue of the Rule 14 charge sheet on the ground of suppression of information is premature. When the question is raised as to what information has been suppressed, it boils down to the caste certificate which is under process due to the judicial developments referred to above. Hence proceeding with the Rule 14 charge sheet at this stage is premature.
IV. When the matter is under investigation by the District revenue authority it would take time for the applicant to re submit a fresh certificate. Dictating a time period in the given circumstances may not be fair. However, to comply with the orders of the respondents, applicant has submitted the certificates of his father and brother, which he had readily, more as a circumstantial evidence. In a family, usually different members would not have different castes. However, respondents have to await the outcome of the orders of the State Govt/ judicial fora in the matter as referred to above. Statement given by the applicant before the ASP (PF) would be a part of the investigation process and judicial scrutiny. However, before the process could be completed, the respondents have jumped the gun. When the orders of the Hon'ble High Court are in vogue, they have to be carefully followed. Law requires every fact of relevance to be evaluated before a final view is taken. Indiscretion has no place in law. Other averments made by the respondents have been gone through and found them to be irrelevant.
V. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the respondents are directed to defer further action in the Rule 14 charge sheet issued on 6.1.2021 till the validity of the caste certificate of the applicant is decided as per relevant rules under the Act cited supra, in accordance with due process of law and keeping in view the orders that may be issued by the Hon'ble High Court while disposing Second Appeal referred to above.
With the above directions, the OA is disposed of with no order as to costs."
Respondents in the reply statement have not submitted reasons as to why they could not adhere to the observations of the Hon'ble High Court in D. Sudershan's Case, as at above. Action contrary to the observations of the superior judicial fora will not hold ground and have to be construed as unlawful.
Page 15 of 16 OA No.405/2021 XI. Therefore, viewed from any angle, we find that the respondents have not followed the rules or law in deciding to issue the charge memo dated 8.6.2021. Any action which is not in consonance with rules and law, is illegal and hence, we quash and set aside the charge memo dated 8.6.2021. The respondents are granted liberty to proceed against the applicant, if they so desire, in regard to submission of ST caste certificate by taking up with the concerned District Magistrate for due verification and depending on the outcome, appropriate action can be taken, but definitely not before completing the said exercise as envisaged under the CC Act of 1993. XII. With the above direction, the OA is disposed with no order as to costs.
(B.V.SUDHDAKAR) (ASHISH KALIA)
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
evr
Page 16 of 16