Karnataka High Court
Sri.K.Channaiah vs Central Power Research Institute ... on 20 September, 2023
Bench: N S Gowda
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:33858
WP No. 29350 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
WRIT PETITION NO. 29350 OF 2013 (S-TR)
BETWEEN:
SRI.K.CHANNAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
TECHNICAL ATTENDANT GRADE-4
QUARTER No.8, TYPE-II
CPRI COLONY, SADASHIVANAGAR POST,
NEW BEL ROAD, BANGALORE-560 012.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.H.MUNISWAMY GOWDA.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. CENTRAL POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE ®
MINISTRY OF ENERGY,
DEPARTMENT OF POWER,
GOVERNMENT OF INIDA,
PROF. C.V.RAMAN ROAD,
Digitally
SADASHIVANAGAR POST,
signed by BANGALORE-560 080
PANKAJA S
REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR
Location:
HIGH AND DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
2. DIRECTOR GENERAL AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY
C.P,R.I (CENTRAL POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE)
SADSHIVANAGAR POST,
BANGALORE-560 080.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.M.R.C.RAVI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SMT.SUNITHA SRINIVAS, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
QUASH THE DISMISSAL ORDER DATED:29.03.2011, AS AT
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:33858
WP No. 29350 of 2013
ANNEXURE-U, PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR &
DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY THE R-1 & ALSO QUASHING THE
ORDER DATED:13.06.2011, AT ANNEXURE-Y, PASSED BY THE
DIRECTOR GENERAL & APPELLATE AUTHORITY I.E., R-2
ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER, ETC.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 29.08.2023, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. This writ petition is filed challenging an order of
dismissal passed against the petitioner, which was also
confirmed in appeal.
2. The facts are as follows:
3. On 16.07.1987, the petitioner was appointed to the
post of Technical Assistant Grade - I in the respondent -
Central Power Research Institute (for brevity, referred to
as "the CPRI") against 'Scheduled Tribe' quota. This
appointment was made through the Employment
Exchange where the petitioner had registered himself as a
candidate belonging to the Schedule Tribe.
NC: 2023:KHC:33858
WP No. 29350 of 2013
4. The CPRI on the premise that the Government of
India had issued a direction in the year 2005 for
verification of Caste Certificates submitted by the
employees who had been recruited against reservation
quota under Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe, proceeded
to take up the matter of verifying the genuineness of the
caste of the petitioner.
5. They addressed a letter dated 20.09.2005 to Bruhath
Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) in relation to the
Transfer Certificate of the petitioner which indicated that
he belonged to 'Scheduled Tribe'. In response to the
request of CPRI, the BBMP addressed a letter dated
21.09.2005 stating that in the original Transfer Certificate
issued by the school, the caste of the petitioner had been
shown as 'Adi Andhra Scheduled Caste'.
6. On the basis of this endorsement, CPRI proceeded to
address a communication dated 22.09.2005 to the Deputy
Commissioner vide Annexure-AA. The contents of this
NC: 2023:KHC:33858
WP No. 29350 of 2013
letter would be relevant and therefore, the same are
extracted as under:
"Ministry of Power, Govt. of India under whose
Administrative Control this Institute is functioning have
directed that all the original ST-certificates may be got
verified from the concerned District Authorities for
implementation of the directions of the Hon'ble High
Court of Delhi in CWP No.5976/03 regarding securing
employment in the Govt. of India and NCT of Delhi and
their agencies on the basis of forged/fake Scheduled
Tribe Certificates.
At the time of joining service, Shri K Channaiah,
had submitted a Transfer Certificate bearing No.4149
issued on 13-11-1980 issued by the Head Master,
Corporation High School, Tasker Town,
Bangalore 560 051 wherein in Column 9 of the said
Certificate, it had been mentioned that he belong to
"Scheduled Tribe (Meda)" Community (Annexure I). Shri
K Channaiah, had also enclosed Scheduled Tribe
Certificate dated nil issued by the Tahsildar, Bangalore
South Taluk, Bangalore (Annexure II) wherein it was
stated that he belongs to Scheduled Tribe (Meda)
Community.
The matter regarding the genuineness of the
Transfer Certificate of Shri.K.Channaiah, was taken up
with the concerned School authorities. The Principal,
Corporation PU College, Tasker Town,
Bangalore 560 051, vide his letter dated 21-09-2005 has
NC: 2023:KHC:33858
WP No. 29350 of 2013
intimated that as per the Transfer Certificate No.4149
dated 13-11-1980 issued by Corporation High School,
Tasker Town, Bangalore 560 051, that Shri K Channaiah
belongs to Scheduled Caste (Adi Andra) (Annexure III).
In this connection, the undersigned is directed to
forward herewith copies of related documents along with
a photocopy of Scheduled Tribe Certificate dated nil
issued by Tahsildar, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore,
in favour of Shri K Channaiah who has secured
employment as Technical Attendant against the Quota
reserved for Scheduled Tribe in the scale of pay of
Rs.750-940 in this Institute for verification of the
genuineness of the Certificate.
It is therefore requested that the genuineness or
otherwise of the Certificate issued in favour of Shri K
Channaiah may please be authenticated. This may please
be accorded Top Priority since a report has to submitted
to Govt. of India to enable them file a report before the
Hon'ble Court."
7. The Revenue Authorities took up the matter and the
Tahsildar, in fact, issued a show-cause notice to the
petitioner calling upon him to appear along with the Caste
Certificate and subsequently, the Deputy Commissioner on
the basis of the report of the Tahsildar dated 27.02.2006
NC: 2023:KHC:33858
WP No. 29350 of 2013
addressed a letter dated 17.04.2006 to CPRI in the
following terms:
"Reference is made to your letter dated:
22-09-2005 regarding the verification of MEDA
Scheduled Tribe Certificates issued by the Tahsildar
South Taluk Office, Bangalore to Sri.K.Channaiah S/o Sri
Penchalaiah, resident of K.R.Pura, Bangalore (Karnataka)
dated:27-8-88.
The certificate issued on date 27-8-88 has been
verified by the Tahasildar, Bangalore South Taluk has
confirmed that this certificates has been issued from his
office vide.MSC/(K.R)/1379/88-89 AND IS genuine."
8. Thus, as per this correspondence, CPRI had caused
the verification of the Schedule Tribe Certificate that the
petitioner had produced, and the Deputy Commissioner
confirmed that the Caste Certificate issued in favour of the
petitioner in the year 1988 had been verified and had also
confirmed that the said Caste Certificate was genuine.
Thus, as on 2006, the doubt that was raised by CPRI
regarding genuineness of the Caste Certificate was belied
by the Deputy Commissioner by the issuance of a letter
dated 17.04.2006.
NC: 2023:KHC:33858
WP No. 29350 of 2013
9. However, the matter did not rest there and five years
thereafter, on 17.02.2011, CPRI proceeded to issue a
letter to the Headmaster of the Corporation High School
requesting him to provide Transfer Certificate and the
Cumulative Record of the three candidates including that
of the petitioner. Four days thereafter, on 21.02.2011, a
show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner as to why
the proceedings should not be initiated and a penalty
should not be imposed for furnishing a manipulated
Transfer Certificate.
10. To this show-cause notice, the petitioner submitted a
reply dated 02.03.2011 vide Annexure-J, stating that the
Caste Certificate that he had produced had already been
validated by the Deputy Commissioner and a clear finding
had been recorded by him that the Caste Certificate was
genuine and therefore, the proceedings that was sought to
be initiated against him were illegal.
11. Despite the reply, the 1st respondent proceeded to
issue the article of charges on 04.03.2011 and the
NC: 2023:KHC:33858
WP No. 29350 of 2013
petitioner also proceeded to give a reply on 14.03.2011 to
the said charge memo, whereby he denied all the charges.
An Enquiry Officer was appointed on 17.03.2011 and a
notice dated 21.03.2011 was sent fixing the date of
preliminary hearing on 28.03.2011.
12. The daily order sheet of the enquiry proceedings
dated 28.03.2011, which is produced as Annexure-S, has
a noting that the petitioner has denied all the charges
framed against him and that he was standing by his reply
dated 02.03.2011. It was also recorded that he had not
submitted any document in respect of his defence in order
to prove that the document shown by the Presenting
Officer was wrong.
13. On the following day, i.e., on 29.03.2011, an order
was passed stating that the Enquiry Officer had come to
the conclusion that the article of charges against the
petitioner had been proved and the Disciplinary Authority
was satisfied with the report of the Enquiry Officer since
the evidence was objectively assessed by him. The
NC: 2023:KHC:33858
WP No. 29350 of 2013
Disciplinary Authority accordingly proceeded to impose the
punishment of dismissal from service with effect from the
date of the order.
14. It is, therefore, apparent from this that an enquiry
was conducted on 28.03.2011 and on the very following
day, an order of dismissal from service has been passed.
It also becomes apparently clear from this that neither the
enquiry report was furnished to the petitioner, nor was he
given an opportunity to show-cause as to why the report
should not be accepted.
15. The petitioner, thereafter, preferred an appeal on
11.05.2011 and the Appellate Authority by an order dated
13.06.2011 dismissed the appeal. It is as against this
order of dismissal, the present writ petition has been filed.
16. The petitioner has produced a copy of the judgment
passed in C.C.No.11505/2012, in which, he had been
arrayed as accused of the offences punishable under
Sections 420, 465, 468 and 471 of IPC. The judgment that
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC:33858
WP No. 29350 of 2013
is produced indicates that CPRI had also formally lodged a
complaint against the petitioner alleging that he belonged
to Scheduled Caste and in order to secure a job at CPRI,
he had forged the Transfer Certificate to indicate that he
actually belonged to Scheduled Tribe - Meda Community
and he had produced a forged document knowing fully well
that it was forged and had secured an employment at
CPRI and he was, therefore, guilty of offences punishable
under Sections 420, 465, 468 and 471 of IPC. The
judgment also indicates that the specific allegation against
the petitioner was that he had tampered the Transfer
Certificate to indicate that he belonged to Scheduled Tribe
- Meda Community.
17. The learned Magistrate, after considering the entire
evidence and taking into consideration the fact that the
petitioner had got himself registered in the Employment
Exchange as a person belonging to Scheduled Tribe, came
to the conclusion that the allegations made against the
petitioner could not be substantiated and had, therefore,
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC:33858
WP No. 29350 of 2013
not been proved. The learned Magistrate observed that the
employment would be granted on the basis of the Caste
Certificate and not on the basis of the Transfer Certificate
and since the original of the Transfer Certificate had also
not been produced, the petitioner was entitled to be
acquitted.
18. In this writ petition, the petitioner has also filed an
application seeking to produce additional documents. The
documents that are sought to be produced include the
proceedings which had been initiated against the petitioner
by the Civil Rights Enforcement Cell for obtaining a Caste
Certificate on false pretences. The enquiry report produced
along with the said application indicates that the allegation
that the petitioner's Caste Certificate was not genuine had
already been examined and has been confirmed as
genuine by the Deputy Commissioner and therefore, there
was no justification for initiating proceedings at the behest
of CPRI and therefore, the proceedings were required to
be closed.
- 12 -
NC: 2023:KHC:33858
WP No. 29350 of 2013
19. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that this
was a classical case where the petitioner has been
persecuted solely because he was a union leader and was
raising issues which made the Management of CPRI
uncomfortable. He sought to highlight the fact that the
entire proceedings against the petitioner came to be
initiated in the month of July, 2010 when the union had
raised serious objections to certain transfers made by the
Management and in order to suppress the petitioner's
voice and to crush the union activities, proceedings had
been initiated against the petitioner by seeking for a
Transfer Certificate. He submitted that though the
authenticity of the Caste Certificate was gone into in the
year 2005 and the Deputy Commissioner had reported
that the Caste Certificate was genuine, nevertheless, after
a period of six years, this issue was once again sought to
be raised, which by itself proved that vindictiveness was
the main motive for the Management.
- 13 -
NC: 2023:KHC:33858
WP No. 29350 of 2013
20. Learned counsel also pointed out that the article of
charges came to be issued on 04.03.2011 and the
petitioner had furnished his reply on 14.03.2011 i.e.,
within ten days. It was also submitted that the fact that on
17.03.2011, an Enquiry Officer was appointed, and
preliminary hearing date was fixed on 28.03.2011 and on
28.03.2011, no enquiry of any kind was conducted but
only the statement of the petitioner that he was denying
the charges was recorded and on the very next day, the
order of dismissal was passed, by itself made it abundantly
clear that the entire process was completely flawed and
was illegal.
21. It was contended that the fact that no enquiry as
required under the Rules was conducted and no witnesses
were examined, or documents were admitted in evidence
and the further fact that not even an enquiry report was
furnished to the petitioner would clearly indicate that the
enquiry conducted against the petitioner was a complete
farce.
- 14 -
NC: 2023:KHC:33858
WP No. 29350 of 2013
22. Learned counsel also contended that the enquiry had
started with the issuance of article of charges on
04.03.2011 and the same was concluded within 25 days
and this was the testimony to the fact that there was a
predetermined outcome that the petitioner would suffer a
punishment. He submitted that since this was a case of
clear victimization, the order of dismissal was required to
be set aside and the petitioner should be granted all
consequential benefits.
23. Sri M.R.C.Ravi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for
the CPRI, on the other hand, contended that this was a
case in which production of a tampered certificate was in
fact admitted and having regard to the fact that the
tampering of certificate was not in dispute, the findings
recorded by the Enquiry Officer that the charges had been
proved would be completely acceptable.
24. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the fact that
the Transfer Certificate issued by the School which was
secured by the CPRI indicated that the petitioner belonged
- 15 -
NC: 2023:KHC:33858
WP No. 29350 of 2013
to Scheduled Caste and the Transfer Certificate which the
petitioner had produced indicated that he belonged to
Scheduled Tribe, clearly exposed the tampering and in the
light of this documentary evidence, the only possible
conclusion was that the petitioner was guilty of tampering
and consequently, the enquiry report and the subsequent
punishment would also be proper.
25. In the light of the above arguments, the question
that arises for consideration in this petition is:
Whether the CPRI was justified in imposing a
punishment of dismissal from service against the
petitioner for allegedly producing the tampered
Transfer Certificate?
26. The indisputable facts in the present case are that
the petitioner had got himself registered in the
Employment Exchange and he had got his name registered
as a person belonging to Scheduled Tribe and the
Employment Exchange had forwarded his name to the
CPRI and the CPRI had appointed him on the basis that he
- 16 -
NC: 2023:KHC:33858
WP No. 29350 of 2013
belonged to Scheduled Tribe and the post, to which the
petitioner was appointed, was admittedly reserved for
Scheduled Tribe category.
27. After appointing the petitioner in the year 1987, the
authenticity of the Caste Certificate was raised by CPRI for
the first time in September, 2005 and the reason for
raising this question was because of the fact that the
Transfer Certificate as verified indicated that the petitioner
belonged to 'Adi Andhra', whereas the Transfer Certificate
that the petitioner had produced indicated that he
belonged to Scheduled Tribe - Meda Community.
28. It is to be noticed at this juncture itself that the
appointment given to the petitioner was obviously on the
basis that he belonged to Scheduled Tribe category and in
order to come to this conclusion, the only document upon
which CPRI relied upon was obviously only the Caste
Certificate.
- 17 -
NC: 2023:KHC:33858
WP No. 29350 of 2013
29. An employment to a person under a reserved
category can never be granted on the basis of a Transfer
Certificate. This fact becomes apparent in the light of the
communication produced at Annexure-AC, in which, it is
clearly stated that the petitioner had submitted a Transfer
Certificate and he had also enclosed a Scheduled Tribe
Certificate issued by the Tahsildar and this anomaly was
required to be resolved.
30. The CPRI, in the year 2005, was fundamentally
desirous of ascertaining as to whether the petitioner did
belong to Scheduled Tribe or not and it is for this reason,
notwithstanding the entry made in the Transfer Certificate,
a report was called for from the Deputy Commissioner
regarding the authenticity of the Caste Certificate of the
petitioner.
31. The Deputy Commissioner, in turn, directed the
Tahsildar to hold an enquiry and on the basis of the report
submitted by the Tahsildar, a communication dated
17.04.2006 was addressed by the Deputy Commissioner
- 18 -
NC: 2023:KHC:33858
WP No. 29350 of 2013
to the Director of CPRI categorically stating that the Caste
Certificate produced by the petitioner at the time of
securing employment had been verified by the Tahsildar
and was found to be genuine.
32. Obviously, on receipt of this communication of the
Deputy Commissioner dated 17.04.2006, the CPRI was
satisfied about the authenticity of the Caste Certificate,
and this becomes clear from the fact that from 2006 till
2010, there was absolutely no action taken or any
correspondence entered into with the authorities regarding
the caste of the petitioner.
33. The entire dispute appears to have arisen after the
petitioner, as a representative of the union of CPRI
employees, started objecting to the transfer orders made
on 20.07.2010, which is evident from the Office Order
dated 20.07.2010 passed by the CPRI vide Annexure-D
and the representation given by the union on 27.07.2010
vide Annexure-E. The other document dated 09.12.2010
which is produced at Annexure-F also indicates that the
- 19 -
NC: 2023:KHC:33858
WP No. 29350 of 2013
Senior Administrative Officer had addressed a
communication stating that there was no recognized
union, and no correspondence would be entertained at the
behest of the union. These documents clearly indicate that
there was a definite sense of distrust and hostility between
the petitioner who represented the union and the
Management of the CPRI.
34. The fact that within about two months thereafter, the
CPRI proceeded to address a communication to the BBMP
authorities to provide Transfer Certificate of three
candidates including that of the petitioner indicates that
the spark for the entire process of conducting an enquiry
against the petitioner was obviously the opposition raised
by him towards the order of transfers made in July, 2010
and the demand made by him in December, 2010 calling
upon the Management of the CPRI to negotiate a way to
resolve the issues raised with regard to the employees.
35. The further fact that CPRI addressed a letter to the
Head Master of the Corporation High School on
- 20 -
NC: 2023:KHC:33858
WP No. 29350 of 2013
17.02.2011 vide Annexure-R4 and within four days of the
said letter, it also proceeded to issue a show-cause notice
dated 21.02.2011 vide Annexure-H, indicates that there
was an unseemly haste in proceeding against the
petitioner.
36. The ultimate proof that the entire process was
vitiated by malafides becomes rather clear when it is
noticed that within two days of the petitioner giving his
reply to the show-cause notice, the article of charges was
issued on 04.03.2011 and within three days of the
petitioner giving a reply, an Enquiry Officer was appointed,
who in turn, fixed the date of hearing as 28.03.2011 and
an order of dismissal was passed on 29.03.2011.
37. The conclusive proof of victimization can be seen
from the fact that the enquiry was conducted on a single
day i.e., 28.03.2011 on which day, neither was any
witnesses examined nor were any documents marked, but,
yet, on the very next day, the Disciplinary Authority has
stated that the Enquiry Officer had come to the conclusion
- 21 -
NC: 2023:KHC:33858
WP No. 29350 of 2013
that the article of charges had been proved and on the
basis of this, he proceeded to dismiss the petitioner from
service.
38. It is to be noticed here that the order of dismissal
does not even indicate whether any enquiry report was
submitted and whether it was in fact furnished to the
petitioner. The fact that the respondents have chosen to
not even produce the said report, if any, of the Enquiry
Officer, fundamentally proves that the entire process of
holding the enquiry and imposing punishment was
predetermined and designed to harm the petitioner. It is,
therefore, clear that the punishment imposed on the
petitioner is wholly illegal and unsustainable.
39. The Appellate Authority has merely confirmed the
findings of the Disciplinary Authority and has not
examined any of the contentions advanced by the
petitioner and this, therefore, makes it clear that its order
cannot be sustained.
- 22 -
NC: 2023:KHC:33858
WP No. 29350 of 2013
40. It is also to be noticed here that the CPRI went an
extra mile to ensure that the petitioner would be put to
more difficulty. The CPRI, apart from initiating the enquiry
proceedings, also proceeded to lodge a criminal complaint,
on the basis of which, a charge sheet had been laid
against the petitioner in the Criminal Courts. Fortunately
for the petitioner, the learned Magistrate, on assessment
of the evidence produced before him, has recorded a clear
finding that the petitioner had not been guilty of securing
the employment on the basis of a false Caste Certificate.
41. It is to be borne in mind that the CPRI undertook all
these proceedings despite the admitted fact that way back
in the year 2005, the authenticity of the Caste Certificate
had been established by the Deputy Commissioner himself
and this was based on the report of the Tahsildar who
himself had issued the Caste Certificate. The fact that the
CPRI also proceeded to ensure that reference was made to
the Civil Rights Enforcement Cell also indicates the
hostility that it has against the petitioner. The fact that the
- 23 -
NC: 2023:KHC:33858
WP No. 29350 of 2013
Civil Rights Enforcement Cell has also concluded that the
petitioner did belong to Scheduled Tribe and the entire
proceedings were required to be closed is also the proof of
the fact that the petitioner had been victimized by the
CPRI.
42. In the light of the above discussions, I have no doubt
in my mind that the order of punishment and its
confirmation in appeal are illegal and they are, therefore,
quashed.
43. As a consequence, the petitioner would have to be
reinstated into service forthwith and he would also be
entitled for continuity of service and all consequential
benefits.
44. As far as backwages are concerned, having regard to
the fact that the petitioner has been unfairly victimized
and has been subjected not only to departmental, but also
a criminal proceeding at the instance of CPRI, despite the
fact that the authenticity of the Caste Certificate that he
- 24 -
NC: 2023:KHC:33858
WP No. 29350 of 2013
had produced was established way back in the year 2005,
in my view, it would be appropriate to award 25%
backwages to the petitioner.
Writ Petition is accordingly allowed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
PKS
