The Division Bench of Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Krishna Murari of the Apex Court in the case of R Sundaram Vs The Tamil Nadu State Level Scrunity Committee & Ors held that where the validity of a community certificate is put to question, keeping in mind the importance of the document and the effect it has on people’s rights, the proceedings questioning the document cannot, except in the most exceptional circumstances, be done ex-parte.
It was also opined that the right to pensionary benefits is a constitutional right and as such cannot be taken away without proper justification.
Brief Facts:
The Appellant was appointed as a Clerk-Cum-Shroff in the Respondent Bank based on a community certificate. The Appellant retired as a scale 3 officer after serving for 38 years; however, two days before his superannuation, he received a cessation order on the grounds that his caste certificate was fake and all of his retirement benefits aside from PF were denied to him.
Aggrieved by this, the Appellant filed a Writ Petition before the High Court and the High Court remanded the matter back to the Tamil Nadu State Level Scrutiny Committee (Respondent No. 1) to conduct a fresh enquiry. However, they didn’t comply and this resulted in the Appellant’s retirement without realization of his retirement benefits.
Thereafter, the Appellant filed the Writ Petition before the High Court seeking retirement benefits, and the same was disposed of by the High Court. Furthermore, the SLP was filed and during the pendency of the SLP, an interim order was passed directing the Appellant to appear before Respondent No.1 for enquiry. The SLP was withdrawn.
Respondent No.5 submitted a report with a finding that the Appellant didn’t belong to the Konda Reddy Community and a show-cause notice was issued to the Appellant. The Appellant again filed the Writ Petition which got remanded to the scrutiny committee. The report submitted by the scrutiny committee was challenged before the High Court by way of filing a writ petition, however, the Petition got dismissed. Hence, the present case.
Contentions of the Appellant:
It was contended that the reasonable opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and copies of all the documents on which Respondents relied should have been provided to the Appellant. Further, no investigation against the Appellant was ongoing at the time of the cessation order and he had been harassed throughout the entire process for approximately 19 years.
Contentions of the Respondents:
It was argued that when the notice was served to the Appellant, he did not appear and it happened several times which is why an ex-parte decision was passed.
Observations of the Court:
The Hon’ble Court opined that the right to pensionary benefits is a constitutional right and as such cannot be taken away without proper justification.
It was observed that before applying for the position reserved for ST candidates, the Appellant provided all the documentation needed to substantiate his claim to be an ST candidate and had it checked and accepted. Nonetheless, the re-evaluation of the validity of the Appellant's documents has been left open after receiving work for 19 years, “dangling over his head like a sword.”
The Appellant received his cessation order without any due inquiry two days before his superannuation after 38 years of service to the Respondent Bank.
The Hon’ble Apex Court noted that the process of verifying the community certificate must be completed quickly. Yet, in the present case, there has been an excessive and unexplained delay of 19 years, which is a length of time that falls outside the ambit of "reasonable time".
It was furthermore noted that the natural justice principle of "Audi Alteram Partem," which provides for giving all parties an opportunity to be heard, has also been violated by denying the Appellant an opportunity to speak. The Appellant must be given the opportunity to be heard and the right to cross-examine the witnesses in proceedings where the integrity of membership in a community is in doubt because the nature of the proceedings involves issues that go beyond his employment and touch on the very essence of who he is, i.e., his identity.
It was expounded that where the validity of a community certificate is put into question, keeping in mind the importance of the document and the effect it has on people’s rights, the proceedings questioning the document cannot, except in the most exceptional circumstances, be done ex-parte.
Based on these considerations, the Supreme Court held that the Appellant was entitled to the post-retirement benefits accrued to him by way of his 38 yearlong services. The Respondent bank was directed to grant all post-retirement benefits to the Appellant.
The decision of the Court:
With the above directions, the Top Court set aside the impugned orders passed by the High Court and accordingly allowed the appeal.
Case Title: R Sundaram Vs The Tamil Nadu State Level Scrunity Committee & Ors
Citation: 2023 Latest Caselaw 224 SC
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Aniruddha Bose and Hon’ble Justice Krishna Murari
Case No: Civil Appeal No. of 2023 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. /2023 Diary No.15448 /2020)
Advocates for the Appellant: Advs. Mr. R. Balasubramanian and Mr. S. Prabakaran
Advocate for the Respondent: Advs. Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan and Mr. Joseph Aristotle
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :