Karnataka High Court
Sri N Shivashankar vs The Director on 5 July, 2023
Bench: K S Hemalekha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 05TH DAY OF JULY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
WRIT PETITION No.6424/2018 (GM-CC)
BETWEEN:
SRI N. SHIVASHANKAR
S/O. NARAYANASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
WORKING AS D-GROUP EMPLOYEE,
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF ACCOUNTS (POSTAL),
GENERAL POST OFFICE BUILDING,
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE - 560 001.
AND RESIDING AT NO.17,
I MAIN ROAD, 2ND CROSS,
MUNINANJAPPA GARDEN,
BANGALORE - 32.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI M. SUBRAMANYA BHAT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DIRECTOR,
SCHEDULED TRIBAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT
AND THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY,
2ND FLOOR, KRISHI BHAVAN,
BANGALORE - 01.
2. THE DISTRICT CASTE VERIFICATION
COMMITTEE, REPRESENTED BY ITS
MEMBER-SECRETARY,
CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT - 571 313.
-2-
3. THE TAHASILDAR,
KOLLEGAL TALUK,
CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT - 571 313.
4. DIRECTOR OF ACCOUNTS (POSTAL)
AND THE DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY,
G.P.O., KARNATAKA CIRCLE,
VIDHANA VEEDHI,
BANGALORE - 01.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI C. JAGADISH, SPL. COUNSEL FOR R-1 TO R-3;
SRI B. PRAMOD, CGC FOR R-4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE
RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE CASE OF THE PETITIONER; QUASH
THE ORDER DATED 10.02.2014 PASSED BY R-2 VIDE ANNEXURE-
C; QUASH ORDER DATED 04.07.2014 PASSED BY R-3 VIDE
ANNEXURE-D; QUASH THE ORDER DATED 16.5.2017 PASSED BY
R-4 VIDE ANNEXURE-K; QUASH ORDER DATED 23.12.2017
PASSED BY R-1 IN APPEAL NO.6/2014-15 VIDE ANNEXURE-N;
QUASH THE ORDER DATED 2.2.2018 PASSED BY R-4 VIDE
ANNEXURE-P AS THE SAME ARE VIOLATIVE OF THE PRINCIPLES
OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND ALSO IN VIOLATION OF THE
PROVISIONS OF 1990 ACT AND 1992 RULES, BESIDES
OFFENDING ARTICLES 14 AND 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
INDIA AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
ON 09/06/2023 FOR ORDERS AND COMING FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
ORDER
The present petition is preferred by the workman
assailing the following orders/memorandum:
(i) Order No.G SA K A:D5: PR:254:2013- 14 dated
10.2.2014 passed by respondent No.2 (Annexure-C)
whereby the District Caste Verification Committee
passed an order directing the respondent to cancel
the petitioner's caste certificate;
(ii) Memorandum No.SA:JAATHI/CR/54/2014-15 dated
4.7.2014 issued by respondent No.3(Annexure-D);
(iii) Order No.246/Admn/Per.V/NS/Rule 14/2014 dated
16.5.2017 passed by respondent No.4 (Annexure-K)
ordering removal of the petitioner from service;
(iv) Order dated 23.12.2017, passed by respondent No.1
in Appeal No.CR 6/2014-15 (Annexure-N) rejecting
the appeal preferred by the petitioner and
(v) Order No.3884/Admn/Per.V/NS/Rule 14/2014 dated
2.2.2018 passed by respondent No.4 (Annexure-P)
for removal of petitioner from service.
2. The brief facts of the case are that, the
petitioner was issued with a caste certificate in Form No.1
that he belonged to "Kaniyan" caste (ST) notified
Scheduled Tribe Community and on the basis of the caste
certificate, the petitioner got appointed as a Group "D"
employee in the Postal Department under respondent
No.4. It appears that one Gowrishankar a Clerk in the
General Post Office ("GPO") made a complaint to the
Director of Accounts (Postal) G.P.O. against the petitioner,
alleging that the petitioner had obtained a false caste
certificate. On the basis of the complaint, an enquiry was
conducted by the Superintendent of Police, Directorate of
Civil Rights Enforcement Cell ("DCRE Cell" for the sake
brevity) and a report was submitted that the petitioner
belonged to "Kaniyar" Backward Tribe and not "Kaniyan"
Scheduled Tribe. Based on the said report, respondent
No.2-the District Caste Verification Committee ("DCVC" for
short) conducted the proceedings relying on the report
submitted by the said DCRE Cell and DCVC passed an
order directing respondent No.3 to cancel the petitioner's
caste certificate, pursuant to which, respondent No.3 - the
Tahsildar cancelled the caste certificate.
3. Subsequently, the DCRE Cell sent a letter to the
Director of Accounts - respondent No.4 recommending to
take disciplinary action against the petitioner. Charge
sheet was issued to the petitioner and the Enquiry Officer
submitted a report holding that the petitioner is guilty of
the charge. In the meanwhile, petitioner preferred appeal
No.6/2015-16 before respondent No.1 against the order
passed by respondent No.2 - DCVC canceling the caste
certificate. This being the state of affairs, the writ petition
was filed in W.P.No.59033/2015 before this Court on the
ground that respondent No.1 has not considered the
appeal and this Court disposed of the appeal directing
respondent No.1 to pass appropriate orders and dispose of
the appeal within four months and not to precipitate the
matter till the disposal of the appeal.
4. In the meanwhile, respondent No.4 removed
the petitioner from his services and against which the
petitioner preferred writ petition in WP.No.22498/2017.
Later, the petitioner withdrew the writ petition with liberty
to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal ("CAT").
However, an appeal in OA.No.277/2017 has been preferred
before the CAT and the same was withdrawn since the CAT
refused to entertain the appeal due to the availability of
alternative remedy on departmental appeal. Since there
was an interim order granted in W.P.No.59033/2015,
respondent No.4 issued a memorandum dated 07.07.2017
by keeping the order of dismissal dated 16.05.2017 passed
against the petitioner in abeyance and accordingly, the
petitioner was reinstated. However, the petitioner filed
memo seeking withdrawal of the said petition, which came
to be accepted by this Court. In the meanwhile,
respondent No.1 passed an order rejecting the appeal.
Aggrieved by the order of dismissal of the appeal, the
present petition has been preferred.
5. Respondent No.4 has filed statement of
objections inter alia contending that the petitioner was
appointed as a Group "D" employee Multi-Tasking Staff
("MTS" for short) on 16.10.1990 based on the caste
certificate issued by respondent No.3 that he belongs to
"Kaniyan" under Scheduled Tribe and that the said post
was reserved for Scheduled Tribe. Subsequently, the
competent authority of the office of the DCVC - District
Caste Verification Committee, Chamarajanagar District, on
completion of complete verification found that the
petitioner belonged to "Kaniyar' which comes under
backward community and not Scheduled Tribe category.
Accordingly, respondent No.3 has cancelled the "Kaniyan"
ST caste certificate vide Order dated 04.07.2014 at
Annexure-D.
6. It is further stated that the disciplinary action
was initiated against the petitioner under Rule 14 of the
Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal)
Rules, 1965 and issued a memo bearing
No.768/Admn/PerV/NS/Rule 14/2014 dated 19.08.2014 for
having secured a job by producing a false caste certificate
and thereby acted in a manner unbecoming of a
Government Servant in contravention of Rule 3(1)(iii) of
the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. It is further stated that
the petitioner has been removed from the service and not
dismissed and the said order is passed after enquiry that
the charges against the petitioner have been proved.
Further, the department initiated proceedings in
accordance with law and the charges in the enquiry were
proved and obtaining of the Caste Certificate that he
belongs to "Kaniyan" community under the ST category.
On the said basis, the employment was obtained is
apparent on the face of it has been established and in light
of this, the orders passed by the authorities is just and
proper and the same does not call for any interference by
this Court and hence sought to dismiss the petition.
7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned counsel for the respondents.
8. Sri. M. Subramanya, learned counsel for the
petitioner would contend that the proceedings initiated
against the petitioner is on the basis of the report
submitted by the Superintendent of police, DCRE Cell to
respondent No.2 and such a proceeding is contrary to the
mandate of Rule 7(4) inasmuch as the DCRE can be
requested to conduct investigation only if the DCVC is
unable to decide the claim of the applicant as to the
validity of the caste certificate issued to him after holding
an enquiry under sub-rule (2)(iii) of Rule 7 and in light of
this, it is contended that the procedure adopted is illegal
and contrary to the provisions of law. That respondent
No.2 could have initiated validation proceedings in relation
to the caste certificate under Section 4(e) of the Act by
duly applying the procedure laid down in Rule 7 of the
Rules. That the order passed by respondent No.2 is
without affording any opportunity to the workman. The
order of removal of the petitioner from the service by
- 10 -
respondent No.4 is in view of cancellation of the certificate
issued by the DCVC which is on the basis of the report
submitted by the DCRE which itself is one without
jurisdiction and accordingly, the disciplinary action taken
by respondent No.4 also needs to be set aside on the face
of it, stating these grounds, the petitioner seeks for
allowing the petition. In support of his contention, learned
counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in
the case of Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan vs. State of
Maharashtra & others [(2013) 4 SCC 465]
[Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan]; Kavita Solunke vs.
State of Maharashtra & others [(2012) 8 SCC 430]
[Kavita Solunke]; Shalini vs. New English High School
Association & others [(2013) 16 SCC 526] [Shalini];
State of Maharashtra vs. Milind & others [(2001) 1
SCC 4] [State of Maharashtra] and a Co-ordinate Bench of
this Court in the case of Sri Anappa vs. The Oriental
Insurance Company Ltd., [W.P.No.49692/2016
disposed on 13/06/2018] [Sri Anappa] and the
- 11 -
judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of
T.S. Ramachandra vs. Additional Director General of
Police [W.A. No.36/2021] [T.S. Ramachandra].
9. Per contra, Sri. C. Jagadish, learned Special
counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 would
contend that the false certificate has been obtained by the
petitioner and the initiation of proceedings by respondent
Nos.1 to 3 is in light of obtaining of false caste certificate.
Learned counsel would further contend that the orders
passed by the respondents is by following the procedure as
contemplated under the Act and the same does not call for
any interference. In support of his contention, learned
counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court in W.P.No.5815/2020 in the case of
P. Bharathi Murthy vs. The Commissioner of Social
Welfare Department [P. Bharathi Murthy] to contend
that the Superintendent of Police DCRE though is not
competent to initiate the proceedings and the entire
- 12 -
proceedings though vitiated and the impugned order
deserves to be set aside, however, liberty should be
afforded to the employer to seek validation of the caste
certificate of the petitioner submitted by the petitioner
while seeking employment. Reliance is placed on another
judgment in W.A.No.100367-100374/2017 in the case
of Peerappa vs. The State of Karnataka & others
disposed of on 19.07.2019 [Peerappa] to contend that
the said order has been confirmed by the Division Bench of
this Court. Learned counsel has also relied upon the
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Chairman and
Managing Director, FCI and Ors vs. Jagdish Balaram
Bahira [AIR 2017 SC 3271] [Jagdish Balaram Bahira].
10. Sri. B. Pramod, learned Central Government
Counsel appearing for respondent No.4-Corporation
reiterating the statement of objections would contend that
the petitioner was appointed as a Group "D" employee on
obtaining the false caste certificate and the said post was
- 13 -
reserved for Scheduled Tribe. In fact, the petitioner
belonged to "Kaniyar" Community which belongs to the
backward and not the Scheduled Tribe category and the
DCRE Cell after conducting enquiry has rightly come to the
conclusion that the false certificate has been issued and
accordingly, respondent No.3 has cancelled the caste
certificate issued in favour of the petitioner. Consequently,
respondent No.4 has taken action in accordance with law.
11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties
and on perusal of the material on record, the following
points arise for consideration:
(i) Whether the proceedings initiated by DCRE
Cell is vitiated?
(ii) Whether the petitioner has made out a case
to interfere with the order of dismissal passed
by the Disciplinary Authority in the peculiar
facts and circumstances of the case?
12. This Court has carefully considered the rival
contentions urged by the learned counsel for the parties
and perused the material on record.
- 14 -
13. Rule 7 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes (Reservation
of Appointments) Rules, 1992 is relevant for the purpose
of deciding the controversy involved in this petition. Rule
7 of the said Rules reads as under:
"7. Issue of Validity Certificate.-(1)
After getting a report on a reference made under
Rule 6-A, the Caste Verification Committee and
the Caste and Income Verification Committee shall
hold an enquiry after giving opportunity to the
parties concerned.
(2) The Committee may examine school
records, birth registration certificate if any, and
such other relevant materials and may also
examine any other person who has the knowledge
of the community of the applicant:
Provided that in case of an applicant who
belongs to the Scheduled Tribes, the Committee
may also examine the anthropological and
ethnological traits, deity, rituals, customs, mode of
marriage, death ceremonies, method of burial of
dead bodies and such other matters.
- 15 -
(3) If on such enquiry the Committee finds
that the applicants claim is genuine it may issue
the certificate sought for, in Form I-A, but where
the committee finds that the applicant obtained
the Caste Certificate or Income and Caste
Certificate by making a false representation, it
shall pass an order rejecting the application
indicating the reasons therefore for such refusal.
An order under this sub-rule shall be passed within
one month from the date of receipt of the
application.
(4) Where the Committee even after the
enquiry referred to in sub-rules (2) and (3) finds
that the claim is doubtful, and is not in a position
to come to a conclusion it shall refer the matter to
the Directorate of Civil Rights Enforcement for
detailed investigation and report. On receipt of the
report from the Directorate of Civil rights
enforcement, the Committee shall dispose off the
case on merit, after holding such enquiry as it
deems fit and after giving the applicant an
opportunity of being heard. An order under this
sub-rule shall be made within one month from the
date of receipt of the application.
- 16 -
(5) Any person aggrieved by an order of
the Caste Verification Committee or Caste and
Income Verification Committee may appeal to the
Divisional Commissioner. The Divisional
Commissioner shall after giving an opportunity of
being heard to both the parties pass such order as
he deems fit within forty-five days from the date
of filing of such appeal.
7-A. 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."
14. The Division Bench of this Court in
W.A.No.100375/2017 vide order dated 17.08.2020 has
dealt with the said issue and held that the Deputy
- 17 -
Superintendent of Police (DCRE) has no authority to
initiate proceedings with regard to the veracity of the caste
certificate and the aforesaid issue has been answered in
para Nos.10 and 11. The perusal of Rule 7 of the Rules
makes it evident that the Director of Civil Rights
Enforcements has to take steps for prosecution against the
person, who has obtained the caste certificate only on the
basis of the report submitted by the District Caste
Verification Committee and not otherwise. Under Similar
circumstances, this Court in W.A.No.36/2021 in the case
of Sri. T.S.Ramachandra stated supra has held that the
enquiry conducted by the Director of Civil Rights
Enforcement is invalidated and the said enquiry can be
initiated only on the reference made by DCVC. The
relevant para No.9 of the judgment of the Division Bench
reads as under:
"9. Thus, in the instant case, the enquiry had
not been initiated on a reference made by District
Caste Verification Committee but on the basis of a
complaint made by the complainant namely R
- 18 -
Ravichandra. The initiation of proceeding against
the appellant is de hors the procedure prescribed in
Rule 7 of the Rules. The impugned notice is per se
without jurisdiction and therefore, cannot be
sustained in the eye of the law. The appellant has
superannuated from service on 31.07.2003 and
after 2007, he has been treated as a general
category candidate and all retirement benefits has
been settled. It is pertinent to note that the
appellant in the writ petition before the learned
Single Judge, had sought the following reliefs:
"a) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari
or any other order or direction quashing the
proceedings initiated by R-2 Superintendent of
Police CRE Mangalore in his notice bearing
No.JaVi/17/NaHaJaNi/2014 dated 12.11.2014
Ann-E after holding that such exercise of
power by the said authority is in violation of
Article 14 of Constitution of India.
b) Pass any other order or direction that
this Hon'ble Court deems it fit and necessary in
the facts and circumstances of the case and in
the interest of justice and equity."
- 19 -
15. In light of the law declared by the Division
Bench of this Court in W.A.No.100375/2017 dated
17.08.2020 and the decision of the Division Bench of this
Court in the case T.S.Ramachandra, the impugned order
passed by the DCRE Cell is invalidated and needs to be set
aside and the order of removal of the petitioner from the
service by respondent No.4 is in view of cancellation of the
certificate issued by the DCVC which is on the basis of the
report submitted by the DCRE Cell, which itself is one
without jurisdiction and such an enquiry conducted by the
DCRE Cell is invalidated and accordingly, the initiation of
enquiry against the petitioner is one without jurisdiction
and the order of removal passed by respondent No.4 also
deserves to be set-aside and the points framed for
consideration is answered in favour of the petitioner and
accordingly, this Court pass the following:
ORDER
(i) Writ petition is hereby allowed.
- 20 -
(ii) The impugned order dated 10.2.2014 passed by
respondent No.2 (Annexure-C), memorandum dated
04.07.2014 passed by respondent No.3 (Annexure-
D), Order dated 16.05.2017 passed by respondent
No.4 (Annexure-K), Order dated 23.12.2017 passed
by respondent No.1 (Annexure-N) and Order dated
02.02.2018 passed by respondent No.4 (Annexure-P)
are hereby set aside.
SD/-
JUDGE
S*
