Madras High Court
Mr.P.Rajendran vs The State Level Scrutiny Committee-Iii on 28 March, 2024
Author: S.S.Sundar
Bench: S.S.Sundar
W.P.No.16304 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 28.03.2024
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR
W.P.No.16304 of 2020
Mr.P.Rajendran .. Petitioner
v.
1. The State Level Scrutiny Committee-III
Adi Dravidar and
Tribal Welfare (CV-4) Department
Secretariat, Fort St.George
Chennai 600 009
2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police
Adi Dravidar and Tribal Vigilance Cell
Villupuram District
Villupuram
3. The Chairman
Chennai Port Trust
Rajaji Salai
Chennai 600 001 .. Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the
records of the 1st respondent's impugned proceedings in No.6799/CV-
____________
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.16304 of 2020
6/2017-7 dated 04.09.2020 (received on 19.10.2020) and quash the same
and direct the 1st respondent to conduct the enquiry afresh in accordance
with law after giving due opportunity to cross examine the witnesses in
terms of the Apex Court judgment.
For Petitioner :: Mr.L.Chandrakumar for
Mr.N.Naganathan
For Respondents :: Mr.P.Kumaresan
Additional Advocate General
assisted by
Mrs.V.Yamuna Devi
Special Government Pleader
for R1 & R2
Mr.R.Karthikeyan for R3
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by S.S.SUNDAR,J.)
This writ petition is filed challenging the impugned proceedings of the
first respondent dated 04.09.2020, holding that the petitioner does not
belong to Hindu Mudugar (ST) community.
2. The petitioner, on the basis of his claim that he belongs to Hindu
Mudugar community, which is a Scheduled Tribe community notified under
the Scheduled Tribes Order, 1950, secured employment with the third
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
respondent. It is the case of petitioner that his father belongs to Hindu
Mudugar community (ST) and his mother belongs to Gramani community
(BC). On the basis of an anonymous complaint from the Scheduled Castes
Association, it appears that the third respondent has requested the State
Level Scrutiny Committee to verify the community status of the petitioner.
The petitioner participated in the enquiry. The first respondent, after
referring to the documents relied upon by the petitioner and after holding
enquiry, came to the conclusion that the petitioner belongs to Gramani
community (BC) and not Hindu Mudugar, which is a Scheduled Tribe
community. Challenging the same, the above writ petition is filed.
3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the State Level Scrutiny
Committee relied upon the anthropologist's report, which was not prepared
and submitted after enquiring the petitioner. The other ground taken by the
petitioner is that the petitioner was not furnished with a copy of the report of
the Vigilance Cell and that therefore there is violation of principles of natural
justice.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court have repeatedly held
that at the time of enquiry into the community status of an individual, the
individual, who is likely to be affected, should be given a fair opportunity.
Every document which may be relied upon by the State Level Scrutiny
Committee, which is adverse to the employee, should be supplied with a
copy of the report. In the present case, the order impugned does not refer to
the service of copy of the report of Vigilance Cell on the petitioner during or
before the enquiry. Even though the petitioner's documents may not be
sufficient, the reasons for rejecting the claim of the petitioner as to his
community status is by relying upon the report of anthropologist as well the
report of Vigilance cell. The petitioner has enclosed the report of Vigilance
cell as well the report of anthropologist. Even in the counter affidavit, it is
not indicated as to whether the reports were furnished to the petitioner
before passing order. The report of Vigilance cell according to the first
respondent was forwarded to Government vide letter dated 24.12.2019. In
the absence of any evidence to show that the petitioner was supplied with
the copy of the report of the Vigilance Cell, this Court finds that the
impugned order is in violation of the principles of natural justice.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted once
again to the State Level Scrutiny Committee to cause fresh enquiry. The
first respondent shall consider the documents and evidence after giving a fair
opportunity. The petitioner has now produced before this Court the report of
Vigilance Cell as well the anthropologist's report. Hence he is now
permitted to raise his objection to the report within thirty days from the date
of receipt of a copy of this order. The first respondent shall pass appropriate
final orders, after giving a fair opportunity to the petitioner, within a period
of sixteen weeks from the date of receipt of the objection, if any, from the
petitioner. The writ petition stands allowed. Consequently,
W.M.P.Nos.20400, 20401 of 2020 & 8430 of 2021 are closed. No order as
to costs.
Index : yes/no (S.S.S.R.,J.) (N.S.,J.)
Neutral citation : yes/no 28.03.2024
ss
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1. The State Level Scrutiny Committee-III
Adi Dravidar and
Tribal Welfare (CV-4) Department
Secretariat, Fort St.George
Chennai 600 009
2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police
Adi Dravidar and Tribal Vigilance Cell
Villupuram District
Villupuram
3. The Chairman
Chennai Port Trust
Rajaji Salai
Chennai 600 001
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.S.SUNDAR,J.
AND
N.SENTHILKUMAR,J.
ss
28.03.2024
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
