P.Srinivas, Nellore District v. APSRTC rep by its M. D., and Others

Order

Petitioner assails action of 2nd respondent in refusing to grant back wages and increments for the period of termination from service, to be illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, and consequently, for a direction to the respondents for payment of the back wages and necessary increments for the subject period.

#2. Petitioner was appointed as Kalasi in the respondent Corporation, which was earmarked for B.C.-A category. Petitioner being ‘Vada Balija’, claimed to be belonging to B.C.-A category, basing on the said caste certificate, he came to be appointed. After putting about six years 2 CGR, J. W.P.No.13930 of 2007 in service, he was served charge memo, dated 21.01.1998, alleging that the caste certificate, produced by him claiming to be belonging to BC-A category, for the purpose of securing employment, was false and bogues, and therefore, disciplinary proceedings came to be initiated. Petitioner contested the charge-memo, however, ultimately, by proceedings, dated 19.06.1998, his services came to be terminated, holding that the caste certificate so produced was found to be false and

bogus. The same came to be eventually challenged in W.P.No.36001 of 1998. After contest, the writ petition has been allowed by order, dated

29.11.2001. This Court, having noted the factum that the disciplinary proceedings came to be initiated based on the alleged report of Mandal Revenue Officer, which concluded that petitioner belonged to ‘Balija’ caste, which was included in forward community, and that the caste certificate then issued in favour of petitioner stating to be ‘Vada Balija’ to be false, which report, in turn, was forwarded by District Collector, Nellore to the respondent Corporation, inasmuch as the procedure so adopted was clearly being contrary to Section 5 the A.P. (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1993 (for short, “the Act”) read with Rule 8 of the A.P. (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes) Issue of Community, Nativity and Date of Birth Certificates Rules, 1997 (for short, “the Rules”) has set aside the termination order 3 CGR, J. W.P.No.13930 of 2007 and relegated the enquiry to the District Level Screening Committee (for short, ‘the DLSC’) headed by District Collector to enquire into the caste certificate produced by the petitioner whether to be genuine or not, within a period of six months, and in turn, the respondent Corporation to proceed with the enquiry thereafter. In view of setting aside the termination order, the respondent Corporation was directed to reinstate petitioner into service forthwith. The respondent Corporation had, thereafter, preferred Writ Appeal No.325 of 2002, assailing aforesaid order of the learned single Judge. By interim order, dated 23.09.2002, the Hon’ble Division Bench directed the respondent Corporation to reinstate the petitioner as the enquiry before the DLSC could not be concluded within the time stipulated. In compliance thereof, petitioner came to be reinstated back into service on 17.10.2002. The DLSC, having concluded the enquiry, submitted its report, dated 16.04.2005, holding that the initial certificate produced by the petitioner was valid and legal and that petitioner belonged to B.C.-A category. Eventually, even the Writ Appeal also came to be dismissed, by judgment, dated

10.06.2005, by taking note of aforesaid report of the DLSC. Further, the respondent Corporation was also directed to reinstate petitioner into service forthwith. Accepting the same, 2nd respondent herein issued proceedings, dated 06.02.2006, reinstating petitioner into service with continuity of service, however, without back wages for fixation of his pay 4 CGR, J. W.P.No.13930 of 2007 and drawal of subsequent increments. Petitioner immediately made representation, dated 29.03.2006, claiming for back wages and also increments for the period from 19.06.1998 to 16.10.2002. As there was no further action forthcoming, he preferred present writ petition.

#3. The respondent Corporation filed counter-affidavit, inter alia, stating that inasmuch as the District Collector, Nellore, by proceedings, dated 09.11.1997, brought to the notice of the respondent Corporation that the caste certificate produced by petitioner, on verification by concerned M.R.O., found to be false certificate, rather petitioner’s caste ‘Balija’ falls under O.C. category, after due enquiry, he has been terminated from service, by proceedings, dated 19.06.1998, eventually, in view of the judgment and order, in W.P.No.36001 of 1998 and the interim orders in W.A.No.325 of 2002, petitioner came to be reinstated into service, therefore, petitioner was not justified in claiming for back wages and drawal of the subsequent increments. It is also denied that petitioner’s removal from service was illegal, therefore, respondent Corporation tried to justify their action in denying back wages and extending the benefit of increments.

#4. Heard Sri Madhava Rao Nalluri, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Aravala Rama Rao, learned standing counsel for APSRTC, appearing for the respondent Corporation. 5 CGR, J. W.P.No.13930 of 2007

#5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that when once the termination of services of petitioner is declared to be illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Act and the Rules, which determined the procedure for enquiry, in case of the genuineness or otherwise of caste certificate, and that as petitioner on oath has pleaded that he was not gainfully employed elsewhere during the period of termination, he is entitled to be reinstated with continuity of service and back wages, which is the normal rule. But for the illegal termination, he has been deprived of working during the subject period, therefore, for no fault of his, the back wages and the increments cannot be denied. In support of the said contentions, reliance has been placed on the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya 1 and Maharashtra SRTC v. Mahadeo Krishna Naik2.

#6. Per contra, learned standing counsel for respondent Corporation, opposing above submissions, vehemently contended respondent Corporation has not initiated disciplinary proceedings suo moto, rather it only on account of the letter, dated 09.11.1997, addressed by the District Collector, Nellore, which suggested that the caste certificate issued in favour of petitioner was false and bogus, such