Madras High Court
P.Chandiran vs The Director General on 3 September, 2024
Author: N.Anand Venkatesh
Bench: N.Anand Venkatesh
WP.No.25779 of 2024
In the High Court of Judicature at Madras
Reserved on : Delivered on :
20.9.2024 24.9.2024
Coram :
The Honourable Mr.Justice N.ANAND VENKATESH
Writ Petition No.25779 of 2024
& WMP.No.28153 of 2024
P.Chandiran ...Petitioner
Vs
1.The Director General, Central
Industrial Security Force,
CGO Complex, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi.
2.The Deputy Inspector General,
Central Industrial Security Force,
RTC Arakonam, Suraksha Campus,
Ranipet District-63152.
3.The Commandant, Central
Industrial Security Force,
RTC Arakonam, Suraksha Campus,
Ranipet District-63152.
4.The Tahsildar, Omalur Taluk.
(R4 - suo motu impleaded as per
order dated 03.9.2024 by NAVJ) ...Respondents
PETITION under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying
for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to
the Memorandum and Article of Charges issued in proceedings No.V-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/19
WP.No.25779 of 2024
15014/ KAUSUB/ KSPK(A)/ ANU/ Major-06/ PC/ 2024/ 3245 dated
22.8.2024 on the file of the 3rd respondent and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Doraisamy
For R1 to R3 : Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, ASG-I
assisted by
Mr.K.Ramanamoorthy, CGSC
For R4 : Mr.S.Balamurugan, GA
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the Memorandum
containing the Article of Charge issued by the third respondent dated
22.8.2024.
2. The case of the petitioner is as follows :
(i) The petitioner belongs to Kuruman's community, which comes
under the scheduled tribe (ST) category. He obtained a community
certificate from the fourth respondent namely the Tahsildar, Omalur on
11.12.1986 in this regard. At a later point of time, he joined the
Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) in the year 1987 and his
selection was based on the said community certificate issued to him.
The petitioner had put in service at various stations without any
blemish.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(ii) The grievance of the petitioner is that the third respondent,
through the impugned memorandum containing the article of charge
dated 22.8.2024, initiated disciplinary proceedings against the
petitioner questioning the authenticity of the community certificate
that was issued in favour of the petitioner. The said memorandum
containing the article of charge has been put to challenge in this writ
petition.
3. When the matter came up for hearing on 03.9.2024, this
Court passed the following order :
"The Tahsildar, Omalur Taluk is suo motu added
as the 4th respondent in this writ petition.
2. Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, learned Additional
Solicitor General takes notice on behalf of respondents 1
to 3.
3. Mr.S.Balamurugan, learned Government
Advocate takes notice on behalf of the impleaded 4th
respondent.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner shall
serve the copy of the typed set to the learned
Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the 4th
respondent. The learned Government Advocate shall
take specific instructions from the Tahsildar, Omalur as
to whether the Caste Certificate that is found at Page
No.24 of the typed set of papers was issued in favour of
the petitioner. This clarity will take care of the grievance
expressed by both sides.
5. The learned Additional Solicitor General
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
appearing on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 submitted
that respondents 1 to 3 are not intending to go into the
validity of the Caste Certificate that was given in the
name of the petitioner and the same can only be tested
before the State Level Committee. However, the limited
ground on which the proceedings have been initiated
against the petitioner is that no such Caste Certificate
was given in favour of the petitioner and that the Caste
Certificate that was produced by the petitioner is a
concocted document. The charge memo has been issued
to the petitioner only on this ground.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that the Caste Certificate was given
in favour of the petitioner during the year 1986 and if
the relevant records are not available before the
concerned Tahsildar office, that does not automatically
result in coming to a conclusion that the Caste
Certificate is a concocted document. The learned counsel
submitted that the respondents 1 to 3 cannot go into the
issue of testing the validity of the Certificate and that is
something to be tested by the State Level Committee as
per the judgment of the Apex Court in Kumari Madhuri
Patil's case.
7. The written instructions that are going to be
given by the 4th respondent in this case will resolve the
issue in the present writ petition. Hence, the learned
Government Advocate shall follow up with the 4th
respondent and get clear written instructions before the
next date of hearing.
8. Post this case at the end of the motion list on
18.09.2024. In the meantime, the departmental
proceedings shall be kept in abeyance."
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. The said order dated 03.9.2024 passed by this Court gives a
clear understanding about the background of this case and the actual
issue that is involved in this case.
5. Pursuant to the said order dated 03.9.2024, the fourth
respondent issued written instructions dated 10.9.2024 to the learned
Government Advocate. The relevant portions from the said written
instructions are extracted as hereunder :
"Nryk; khtl;lk;> XkY}h; tl;lk;>
tl;lhl;rpah; mYtyf 1986 Mk; Mz;bw;fhd
rhjpr; rhd;W Fwpj;j gjpNtNlh kw;Wk; jpU.
re;jpud;> j.ng. ngUkhs; vd;gtUf;F toq;fg;
gl;ljhf njhptpf;Fk; ,e;J - FUkd;];
rhjpr;rhd;W njhlh;ghd NtW Mtzq;fNsh
Nfhg;GfNsh VJk; ,t;tYtyfj;jpy; ,y;yhj
epiyapy; rhjprhd;wpd; cz;ikj;jd;ik
Fwpj;jhd tptuk; fz;lwpa ,aytpy;iy.
rhjpr;rhd;W cz;ikj;jd;ik NfhUk;
jpU.re;jpud;> j.ng. ngUkhs; vd;gtUf;F
toq;fg;gl;ljhf njhptpf;Fk; rhjpr;rhd;wpy;
Fwpg;gplg;gl;Ls;s fztha;GJ}h; fpuhkkhdJ
jw;NghJ fhilahk;gl;b tl;lj;jpy;
mike;Js;sJ. fhilahk;gl;b tl;lhl;rpauhy;
Nkl;^h; rhh; Ml;rpah; mth;fSf;F mDg;gg;gl;l
fbj e.f.816/2024/m4 ehs; : 25.6.2024 ,d; gb
Nkw;gb kDjhuhpd; ,Ug;gplkhd fhilahk;gl;b
tl;lj;jpYk; kDjhuh; trpg;gpl fpuhkj;jpYk;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
,e;J - FUkd;]; (ST) tFg;igr; rhh;e;jth;fs;
vtUkpy;iy vd njhptpj;Js;shh;fs;.
vdNt> Nryk; khtl;lk;> fhilahk;gl;b
tl;lk;> fztha;GJ}h; fpuhkk; vd;w
Kfthpiar; rhh;e;j jpU.re;jpud;> j.ng.
ngUkhs; vd;gtUf;F 1986k; Mz;bw;fhd
rhjpr;rhd;wpjo; toq;fg;gl;ljhf njhptpf;Fk;
gjpNtNlh> gpw Mtzq;fNsh Nfhg;GfNsh
vJTk; ,t;tYtyfj;jpy; ,y;yhj epiyapid
fUj;jpy; nfhz;Lk;> Nkw;gbahhpd; trpg;gpl
fpuhkj;jpNyNa ,e;J - FUkd;]; (ST)
tFg;ig rhh;e;jth;fs; vtUkpy;iy vd;w
fhilahk;gl;b tl;lhl;rpahpd; mwpf;ifapd;
mbg;gilapYk; jpU.re;jpud;> j.ng. ngUkhs;
vd;gtuhy; rkh;gpf;fg;gl;Ls;s rhd;W
nka;jd;ikAilajy;y vd;gij njhptpj;Jf;
nfhs;fpNwd;."
6. When the matter came up for hearing on 18.9.2024, the
learned counsel for the petitioner wanted to file an additional affidavit
along with additional typed set of papers in order to clarify the doubts
that have arisen pursuant to the written instructions given by the
fourth respondent. Accordingly, this Court adjourned the matter and
posted the case for hearing on 20.9.2024.
7. When the matter was taken up for hearing on 20.9.2024, the
learned Government Advocate appearing for the fourth respondent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
once again produced another written instructions dated 19.9.2024
given by the fourth respondent, the relevant portions of which are
extracted as hereunder :
"i. kDjhuUf;F 1986k; Mz;by; ,e;J -
FUkd;]; (ST) rhjpr;rhd;wpjo; toq;fg;gl;ljhf
njhptpj;J rkh;g;gpf;fg;gl;Ls;s rhjpr;rhd;wpjopd;
cz;ikj; jd;ikapid cWjp nra;af;$ba
gjpNtNlh> Nfhg;GfNsh vJTk; XkY}h;
tl;lhl;rpah; mYtyf gjptiwapy; ,y;iy.
ii. fhilahk;gl;b tl;lhl;rpahpd;
mwpf;ifahdJ> fhilahk;gl;b tl;lj;jpYk;>
kDjhuh; trpg;gplkhf njhptpj;j fztha;GJ}h;
fpuhkj;jpYk; ,e;J - FUkd;]; (ST) vd;w
tFg;igr; rhh;e;j r%fj;jpdh; vtUkpy;iy
vd;gij nka;gpf;fpwJ.
iii. mry; rhjp rhd;W xUthplk;
,Uf;Fk; Neh;tpy; kl;LNk rhjp rhd;wpid
mbg;gilahf itj;J Njitf;fhf
mt;tg;NghJ gbt tbtkhf rhd;nwhg;gkpl;L
toq;fg;gl;L tUtJ tof;fkhFk;. kDjhuh;
khz;gik nrd;id cah;ePjpkd;wj;jpy;
rkh;gg
; pj;Js;s rhd;whdJ rhjp rhd;Nw my;y.
iv. tl;lhl;rpauhy; toq;fg;gLk; mry;
rhd;whdJ kDjhuh; epue;jukhf gad;gLj;j
VJthf ml;il tbtpYk;> tl;lhl;rpah;
ifnahg;gj;jpw;F mUfhikapy; jkpo;ehL
murpd; NfhGu Kj;jpiu gjptpl;Lk; toq;FtNj
eilKiwahFk;. ve;j fhyfl;lj;jpYk;
jghy;fSf;F ,lg;gLk; Njjp Kj;jpiu
rhd;WfSf;F gjptpLk; eilKiw
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
,Ue;jjpy;iy."
8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned
Additional Solicitor General-I assisted by the learned Central
Government Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and
the learned Government Advocate appearing for the fourth
respondent.
9. The main ground that was urged by the learned counsel for
the petitioner is that the third respondent, under the guise of
conducting disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, is
attempting to go into the genuineness of the community certificate
issued to him by the Competent Authority and test the contents
therein, which is beyond the power and jurisdiction of an employer and
that the report submitted by the fourth respondent to the effect that
none at Kanavaipudur Village belongs to Kuruman's community, is
erroneous and unsustainable. To substantiate the said submission, the
learned counsel relied upon various community certificates that were
issued to various persons by the Tahsildar, Omalur and the Sub-
Collector, Mettur for the period from 1987 to 2024. In fact, the learned
counsel pointed out that the Sub-Collector, Mettur namely
Mrs.N.Ponmani, who had given an adverse report to the employer of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the petitioner, had issued three community certificates in the year
2024 to three persons belonging to Kuruman's community.
10. In order to further substantiate his submissions, the learned
counsel for the petitioner relied upon a portion of the judgment of a
Division Bench of this Court in the case of The New India Assurance
Co. Ltd., rep.by its Regional Manager and Senior Divisional
Manager-cum-Disciplinary Authority, the New India Assurance
Co. Ltd. Vs. R.Venkataraman [reported in 2005 (1) MLJ 72] and
contended that even the revenue officials cannot go into the
genuineness of the community certificate issued by them, that at best,
they can forward a complaint to the Government with a request to
place it before the State Level Scrutiny Committee as per the
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil Vs.
Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and Others
[reported in AIR 1995 SC 94] and that the disciplinary proceedings
can be initiated only if the State Level Scrutiny Committee ultimately
finds that the community certificate relied upon by the employee is not
genuine.
11. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon an
order passed by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Minor
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
G.Bharanidharan rep.by father & natural guardian
D.Gurumurthy Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer, Mettur Dam,
Salem District, Salem [W.P.No.21093 of 2011 dated
06.8.2013].
12. The relevant portion in the said order dated 06.8.2013
passed by the Division Bench of this Court is extracted as hereunder :
"6. It is not disputed that the father and mother
of the petitioner were issued with community certificates
in the year 1978 and 1986 respectively that they belong
to 'Konda Reddi' Community. The stand taken by the
learned Additional Government Pleader is that no
reliance can be placed on those certificates since they do
not contain the serial number and register number. After
having given a reply under the RTI Act that no records
are available with them with regard to the number of
community certificates issued to Scheduled Tribes
during the year 1950 to 1989, we are unable to
understand as to how this stand taken by the learned
Additional Government Pleader that those certificates
cannot be acted upon and that they are fabricated can
be accepted. Even assuming that they are fabricated
certificates, what action has been initiated by the
respondent in this regard is not brought to the notice of
this Court. The only answer given is that there is no
serial number and no register number in the said
certificates. In that case, a duty is cast upon the
respondent to prove whether in 1978, register numbers
and serial numbers were assigned to the community
certificates issued during that period. In the absence of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
records with them, we are not able to understand as to
how the respondent has come to this conclusion. Yet
another aspect to be noted is that with regard to the
petitioner's cousin's community certificate, the stand
taken by the learned Additional Government Pleader
before this Court is that he is having the original records
with him. Under the RTI Act, the answer given is no
records are available with regard to the community
certificates issued from 1950 to 1989 and that reply was
given in February, 2013. Now, the learned Additional
Government Advocate has submitted before this Court
that he is having the original records in respect of the
community certificate issued to the petitioner's cousin.
We are not able to understand as to how, after giving
such a reply to the query raised under the RTI Act,
original records are available to be produced. This stand
of the learned Additional Government Pleader would
only mean that the information given under the RTI Act
is not correct."
13. Per contra, the learned Additional Solicitor General-I
appearing on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 submitted that the third
respondent is not intending to go into the validity of the community
certificate issued in favour of the petitioner, that he is also not
intending to go into the contents of the community certificate issued in
favour of the petitioner and that the disciplinary proceedings is now
confined only to the issue as to whether the community certificate
relied upon by the petitioner is a genuine document or it is a forged
and fabricated document.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
14. The learned Additional Solicitor General-I further submitted
that the employer can always question the genuineness of a
certificate, which has nothing to do with going into the validity or the
contents of the community certificate, that if, ultimately, the
community certificate itself is found to be a fabricated document, the
employer can always proceed further with the disciplinary proceedings
against an employee, that none of the judgments relied upon by the
learned counsel for the petitioner will apply to the facts of this case
and that this Court cannot assume the role of a Disciplinary Authority
while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of The Constitution of
India and conduct an inquiry as to the genuineness of the community
certificate since such inquiry has to be left in the hands of the
employer. He ultimately sought for dismissal of this writ petition.
15. This Court has carefully considered the submissions of the
learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on
record and more particularly the impugned memorandum containing
the article of charge.
16. The short issue that arises for consideration in this writ
petition is as to whether the impugned memorandum containing the
article of charge is liable to be interfered by this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
17. In order to question the scope of inquiry that is going to be
carried out by the third respondent, this Court must carefully look into
the article of charge that was issued to the petitioner.
18. The article of charge specifically stated that the petitioner
fraudulently obtained employment in a reserved quota under the ST
category by placing reliance upon a community certificate, which was
not issued by the Competent Authority in favour of the petitioner. In
brief, the scope of inquiry in this case is confined only to find out as to
whether a community certificate was actually issued in favour of the
petitioner or the petitioner has made use of a forged and fabricated
community certificate to secure employment in the reserved quota
under the ST category.
19. It is now too well settled that an employer cannot go into the
genuineness or correctness of the contents of a community certificate
issued by a Competent Authority in favour of a person. The community
certificate will continue to be treated as a genuine document and the
contents therein will be treated as correct unless and until the
community certificate is cancelled in a manner known to law. The role
of the employer kicks in only when the State Level Scrutiny Committee
ultimately cancels the community certificate and the same may give
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
rise to a cause of action to initiate the disciplinary proceedings.
20. If the employer entertains any doubt about the validity of a
community certificate, he can only forward a complaint to the State
Level Scrutiny Committee and wait for its final decision. Till a final
decision is taken by the State Level Scrutiny Committee, the employer
has to necessarily act upon the community certificate and he cannot
initiate any disciplinary proceedings nor harass an employee on the
ground that the community certificate has been forwarded to the State
Level Scrutiny Committee for verification. There is a small window
available to an employer to verify the genuineness of the community
certificate and that is by verifying from the concerned Competent
Authority as to whether a community certificate was actually issued in
favour of the employee.
21. In other words, an employer can always counter check as to
whether the community certificate relied upon is a genuine document
or is a forged and fabricated document. If, ultimately, it turns out to
be a forged and fabricated document, such a community certificate
becomes non est in the eye of law and therefore, the employer can
always initiate the disciplinary proceedings against the employee for
making use of a fabricated and forged document to secure
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
employment in the reserved quota under the ST category.
22. The learned Additional Solicitor General-I appearing on
behalf of respondents 1 to 3 made it abundantly clear that the inquiry
now contemplated is confined only to find out as to whether the
petitioner relied upon a forged and fabricated community certificate.
This doubt was entertained in the mind of the employer based on a
report that was received from the Sub-Collector concerned. He further
made it clear that the third respondent is not intending to go into the
validity or the correctness of the contents of the community certificate
standing in the name of the petitioner.
23. Having narrowed down the scope of the controversy, this
Court must go into the last issue as to whether this Court can conduct
an inquiry to find out the genuineness or otherwise of the community
certificate. In other words, can this Court sit in the chair of the
Disciplinary Authority and conduct an inquiry or it has to be left open
to the Disciplinary Authority to make an inquiry.
24. The High Court, exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226
of The Constitution of India, is vested with limitless power in order to
render substantial justice. However, the judicial pronouncements have
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
brought in self imposed restrictions while exercising the writ
jurisdiction. This has been done only to ensure that there is some
consistency in exercising the writ jurisdiction and that the Courts do
not become an unruly horse.
25. In service jurisprudence, the employer must be given some
elbow room while dealing with the employee. This Court, exercising
jurisdiction under Article 226 of The Constitution of India, should not
throttle the employer and start interfering with every action that is
proposed to be taken by the employer. This is subject to the condition
that the action is not tainted with mala fides and the action is taken by
an Authority vested with such power and jurisdiction.
26. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed certain
materials before this Court to substantiate that several community
certificates were issued at Kanavaipudur regularly by the Competent
Authority till this year. He also relied upon the report given by the
fourth respondent wherein it has been stated that the relevant records
are not available in the office.
27. If this Court relies upon all these materials and renders a
finding, then this Court will be virtually adorning the role of a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Disciplinary Authority, which should never be done while exercising the
jurisdiction under Article 226 of The Constitution of India. All the
grounds that were raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner can
always be put forth before the employer and the concerned Authority
belonging to the Revenue can always be summoned and questioned
regarding the report submitted in this behalf. Ultimately, the petitioner
can always establish that the community certificate that has been
issued to him is a genuine document and that it is not a forged and
fabricated document as is sought to be projected by the respondents.
28. After completion of the inquiry, if the employer ultimately
finds that the community certificate is a forged and fabricated
document, the disciplinary proceedings can be proceeded further. On
the other hand, if it is found that the community certificate was, in
fact, issued by the Competent Authority or if the Competent Authority
is not in a position to exactly conclude as to whether the community
certificate is genuine or otherwise due to non availability of the
records, the third respondent must necessarily stop the inquiry.
Thereafter, the third respondent can only forward the complaint to the
State Level Scrutiny Committee to go into the genuineness and validity
of the community certificate.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
29. A mere doubt or a strong suspicion, by itself, will not be a
ground to initiate the disciplinary proceedings and the inquiry must
necessarily result in a firm conclusion that the community certificate is,
in fact, a forged and fabricated document. Unless that happens, the
third respondent cannot proceed further with the disciplinary
proceedings. The above clarification is given by this Court since this
Court is intending to permit the third respondent to conduct an inquiry
within the limited scope that has been explained supra. Hence, the
third respondent shall keep in mind the above observations made by
this Court and proceed further with the inquiry.
30. In the light of the above discussions, this Court is not
inclined to interfere with the impugned memorandum dated 22.8.2024
containing the article of charge. It is left open to the third respondent
to proceed further with the inquiry in the light of the observations
made by this Court in this order.
31. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of in the above
terms. No costs. Consequently, the connected WMP is closed.
24.9.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
N.ANAND VENKATESH,J
RS
To
1.The Director General, Central
Industrial Security Force,
CGO Complex, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi.
2.The Deputy Inspector General,
Central Industrial Security Force,
RTC Arakonam, Suraksha Campus,
Ranipet District-63152.
3.The Commandant, Central
Industrial Security Force,
RTC Arakonam, Suraksha Campus,
Ranipet District-63152.
4.The Tahsildar, Omalur Taluk.
WP.No.25779 of 2024&
24.9.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
