THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI
WRIT APPEAL No.170 of 2023
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)
Heard Mr. Thoom Srinivas, learned Standing Counsel
for Telangana State Road Transport Corporation for the
appellants; Mr. Zulfaquar Alam, learned counsel for the
first respondent/writ petitioner; and Mr. P.Ram Prasad,
learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare for respondents No.2 and 3.
2. This intra-court appeal has been preferred against the order dated 05.12.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge disposing of W.P.No.34049 of 2021 filed by the first respondent as the writ petitioner.
3. First respondent had filed the related writ petition assailing the legality and validity of G.O.Ms.No.44, dated 05.06.2021, upholding the order passed by the District Collector, Warangal (Rural) District, dated 16.10.2019 2 whereby the caste certificate of the first respondent was cancelled.
4. It may be mentioned that first respondent claimed that he belongs to the Scheduled Tribe (Erukala) Community which is recognised as a scheduled tribe in the State. He was appointed as driver in the establishment of the first appellant in the quota earmarked for scheduled tribe way back on 09.04.1993. At the relevant point of time on account of promotion etc., he was serving as Deputy Superintendent of Traffic-2. At that stage, a complaint was lodged that the first respondent had obtained employment in the establishment of the first appellant by producing a bogus scheduled tribe certificate. It was thereafter that the District Collector, Warangal (Rural), conducted enquiry and vide the proceedings dated 16.10.2019 cancelled the scheduled tribe certificate of the first respondent. It was held that the first respondent does not belong to the Erukala scheduled tribe community.
5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the first respondent preferred appeal before the Principal Secretary, Tribal 3 Welfare Department under Section 7(2) of the Telangana (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes) Regulation of Issuance of Community Certificates Act, 1993.
6. Principal Secretary who is arrayed as the second respondent herein had passed the impugned G.O.Ms.No.44, dated 05.06.2021, dismissing the appeal and upholding the order dated 16.10.2019 passed by the District Collector, Warangal (Rural) District.
7. Assailing the aforesaid orders, the related writ petition came to be filed by the first respondent.
8. Learned Single Judge held that the enquiry report of the District Level Scrutiny Committee was not supplied to the first respondent though the impugned orders were passed on the basis of such enquiry report. This being in violation of the principles of natural justice, learned Single Judge held both the orders dated 16.10.2019 and 05.06.2021 to be unsustainable in law. Accordingly, both the orders were set aside. However, liberty has been 4 granted to the appellants to take action in accordance with law after furnishing a copy of the enquiry report of the District Level Scrutiny Committee to the first respondent. Learned Single Judge further held that since the impugned orders have been set aside, the first respondent was entitled to reinstatement in service. Accordingly, appellants were directed to reinstate the first respondent in service and to consider his claim for consequential benefits.
9. On 06.02.2023, this Court while issuing notice stayed the aforesaid direction of the learned Single Judge.
10. It is true that the document on the basis of which an adverse finding is rendered is required to be furnished to the affected party. Non-furnishing of such a relevant document would amount to violation of the principles of natural justice. In the instant case, the very foundation of the orders dated 16.10.2019 and 05.06.2021 was the enquiry report of the District Level Scrutiny Committee. Therefore, it was incumbent upon the authority to have furnished the said enquiry report to the first respondent and given him an opportunity to contest the same. Non- 5 furnishing of the enquiry report, therefore, amounted to violation of the principles of natural justice.
11. Till this far we are in full agreement with the views expressed by the learned Single Judge. However, it is the consequential direction of the learned Single Judge which we find problematic. The impugned orders have not been set aside on merit. Those have been set aside on the ground that fair procedure was not followed. If this be so, then the proceedings would have to start afresh from the stage of giving a copy of the enquiry report to the first respondent. Because the impugned orders were set aside on the ground of non-furnishing of enquiry report, the same cannot ipso facto lead to automatic reinstatement of the first respondent.
12. We, therefore, direct the District Collector, Warangal (Rural) District to furnish a copy of the enquiry report of the District Level Scrutiny Committee to the first respondent within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, whereafter first respondent would be entitled to question the said enquiry 6 report before the District Collector. The District Collector shall conclude the proceedings within a period of two months from the date of furnishing a copy of the enquiry report to the first respondent. Depending upon the outcome of such proceedings, the appellants would have to do the needful. If the allegation of the appellants is found to be not correct, appellants would be duty bound to reinstate the first respondent in service with all consequential benefits.
13. Writ Appeal is accordingly disposed of.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
______________________________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ ______________________________________ N. TUKARAMJI, J 03.03.2023 vs