THE HONOURABLE MR v. The District Collector

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 6.1.2009CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ELIPE DHARMA RAOANDTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.TAMILVANANWrit Appeal No.1282 of 1999,Writ Petition No.37118 of 2004, C.M.P.No.12126 of 1999,WPMP.Nos.44559 & 44560 of 2004W.A.No.1282 of 1999:T.R.Vijayanandan... Appellant/PetitionerVs.1.The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai.2.The Zonal Officer, Southern Zonal Office, Life Insurance Corporation of India, P.B.No.2450, Chennai-600002.... Respondents/RespondentsW.P.No.37118 of 2004:T.R.Vijayanandan... PetitionerVs.1.The State Level Scrutiny Committee on Community Verification, rep.by its Chairman, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare (ADW.II) Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-9. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2.Disciplinary Authority Secretary (INT AUDIT), Life Insurance Corporation of India, Southern Zonal Office, LIC Building, Anna Salai, Chennai-2.... Respondents* * *Writ Appeal No.1282 of 1999 has been preferred under Clause 15 ofthe Letters Patent as against the order of the learned single Judge ofthis Court dated 13.7.1999, made in W.P.No.15496 of 1991. PetitionPresented to this court under Article 226 of the constitution of India toissue a writ of certiorari to call for records from the 1st respondentrelating to the file on his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.9869/89 Adhi 8 dated10.10.1991 and quash the same. W.P.No.37118 of 2004 has been filed under Article 226 of theConstitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call forthe records relating to the orders of the 1st respondent dated 27.10.2004in Proceedings No.21759/ADW-II/2003 and the order of dismissal dated4.10.2001 on the file of the 2nd respondent and quash the same.* * *For appellant in: Mr.L.Chandrakumar forWA and for the: Mr.R.Rajaram in WA.1282/1999petitioner in WP and for Mr.V.Elangovan in WP.37118/2004For R.1 in boththe WA and WP: Mr.P.Subramanian, AGPFor R2 inWA.1282/1999: Mr.M.VaidyanathanFor R2 in: Mr.S.Silamban forWP.37118/2004: M/s.Silamban Senior Counsel Associates* * *COMMON JUDGMENTELIPE DHARMA RAO, J. The petitioner has obtained two community certificates, one fromthe Tahsildar, Usilampatti and the other one from the Tahsildar, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Mylapore-Triplicane Taluk as if belonging to 'Konda Reddy' community, aScheduled Tribe community and based on the said community certificates,he joined the services of Life Insurance Corporation of India as Typistand was later promoted as Stenographer. Subsequently, the communitycertificates of the petitioner were referred by the LIC to the Collectorof Madurai and the Collector of Chennai and on the basis of the reportsubmitted by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Usilampatti, the Collectorof Madurai, by order dated 10.10.1991, had cancelled the communitycertificate of the petitioner. Aggrieved, the petitioner had filedW.P.No.15496 of 1991, which was dismissed by the learned single Judge bythe order dated 13.7.1999, resulting in filing of W.A.No.1282 of 1999 bythe petitioner.2. In the meantime, the Government of Tamilnadu, has constitutedthe District Level Scrutiny Committee and the State Level ScrutinyCommittee. The District Vigilance Committee, Chennai District, conductedthe enquiry during the year 2000 and passed an order in its proceedingsNo.P5/2457/89 in the month of October, 2000, cancelling the communitycertificate issued to the petitioner by the Tahsildar, Mylapore-Triplicane Taluk. During the pendency of the enquiry, the petitioner hasfiled W.P.No.17536 of 2000, praying to forbear the LIC from taking anyaction against him by initiating any proceeding for termination of hisservice and this Court, by the order dated 17.10.2000, has directed theZonal Manager, LIC, Chennai-2, not to take any proceeding against thepetitioner for termination for a period of six weeks, during which time,the petitioner can move the appellate authority for suitable relief, ifthe order of the District Vigilance Committee goes against him.Thereafter, the petitioner has filed his appeal before the State LevelScrutiny Committee. It has been stated on the part of the petitionerthat on 24.7.2001, he had appeared before the State Level ScrutinyCommittee and requested for time to produce more documents and it isalleged that the Committee refused to give time and compelled thepetitioner to sign a statement prepared by the Committee to the effectthat no further evidence is to be adduced. It is seen that on the sameday, the petitioner had filed W.P.No.13799 of 2001, seeking for adirection to the State Level Scrutiny Committee not to pass final orderson the basis of the statement prepared by it. The said writ petition wasdismissed by this Court, with an observation that it would be open to thepetitioner to take appropriate steps after passing of any order by theState Level Scrutiny Committee. Thereafter, by the order dated20.9.2001, the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by theState Level Scrutiny Committee, with a copy marked to the LIC, based onwhich, the LIC terminated the services of the petitioner. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3. From the materials placed on record, it is further seen thatas against the said order passed by the State Level Scrutiny Committeeand the consequential order of dismissal passed by the LIC, thepetitioner had filed W.P.No.19523 of 2001 and a learned single judge ofthis Court has allowed the said writ petition with the followingobservations:"7. For all these reasons, I am inclined to quash the orderpassed by the District Level Vigilance Committee as well as theState Level Scrutiny Committee and direct that the mattershould be examined by the State Level Scrutiny Committee inaccordance with law. Opportunity should be given to allconcerned to adduce further evidence and to produce documents.If there is any doubt regarding authenticity of the documentsrelied upon by the petitioner, the State Level Committee maysend such documents for scientific examination by an expert.The fresh enquiry should be concluded within a period of eightmonths from the date of communication of the order.8. The order of termination by Life Insurance Corporation ofIndia is based upon the conclusion reached by the State LevelScrutiny Committee. If ultimately the State Level ScrutinyCommittee comes to a conclusion that the petitioner belongs toKonda Reddy community, the order of dismissal would become non-operative and it would be deemed as the petitioner is inservice and he would be entitled to all consequential benefitsincluding payment of backwages and increment for the entireperiod from the date of the order of dismissal. On the otherhand, if the State Level Scrutiny Committee comes to aconclusion that the petitioner did not belong to Konda Reddycommunity, the order of dismissal would stand confirmed."4. Aggrieved over the above said order passed by the learnedsingle Judge, in not quashing the consequential order of terminationpassed by the LIC, the petitioner has preferred Writ Appeal No.2221 of2003 before this Court, along with WAMP.No.3202 of 2003 for interimdirection. This Writ Appeal was dismissed by a Division Bench of thisCourt by the judgment dated 8.12.2003, observing that the learned singleJudge has directed the State Level Scrutiny Committee to hold freshenquiry in respect of the same subject matter consistent with theprovision of law and if the petitioner succeeds in the fresh enquiry,certainly, the order of termination becomes non-operative and therefore,the order of the learned single Judge is confirmed. Thereafter, thepetitioner has approached the State Level Scrutiny Committee and appearedbefore it on 12.1.2004. The said Committee, by its order dated27.10.2004, has rejected the claim of the petitioner and consequentlycancelled the community certificates issued to the petitioner an*d to his https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ family members, further instructing the authorities concerned to removethe petitioner from service forthwith, if he was recruited in the placemeant for Scheduled Tribe and also directed the District Collector,Chennai to ensure that criminal case is booked against the petitioner forhaving furnished false information, in obtaining ST communitycertificate. Challenging the said order passed by the State LevelScrutiny Committee, the petitioner has filed W.P.No.37118 of 2004. Sinceboth the above matters are interconnected with each other, they both aretaken up for a joint hearing and are being disposed of by this commonjudgment.5. Mr.L.Chandrakumar, the learned counsel appearing for thepetitioner has argued at length and has repeatedly submitted before usthat the State Level Scrutiny Committee has not afforded sufficient andreasonable opportunities to the petitioner to prove his case and thateven though the learned single Judge has directed the Committee to sendthe documents relied upon by the petitioner for scientific examination byan expert if there is any doubt regarding their authenticity, thedocuments were not sent for expert opinion on the ground that thedocuments are laminated and this is nothing but a clear violation of thedirections issued by this Court. He has further submitted that thoughthe petitioner has submitted 38 documents, all of them were notconsidered and only 25 documents were taken into consideration and theentire reasoning of the State Level Scrutiny Committee is against law andwould pray to allow the writ appeal and writ petition.6. On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Pleaderappearing on behalf of the Governmental authorities would submit that itis not a case of lack of opportunity, since at each and every stage, thepetitioner has been afforded sufficient and reasonable opportunities andthe State Level Scrutiny Committee has considered all the facts andcircumstances of the case, after affording sufficient opportunities tothe petitioner and therefore, would pray to dismiss both the writ appealand the writ petition.7. On the part of the LIC, the learned counsel would submit thatsince the petitioner was appointed as against a ST vacancy, based on thecommunity certificates produced by him, as if is belonging to STcommunity, and when the same are found to be spurious, they got everyright to proceed against the employee, which has been promptly done inthe case on hand, slapping an order of dismissal on the petitioner andwould submit that there is no illegality in their action.8. Regarding the aspect of lack of opportunity urged before us bythe learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, we are not in aposition to affix our seal of approval for the same, since the material https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ on record would speak contra. From the very many litigations initiatedby the petitioner, we are able to see that at every point of time, he israking up the similar plea, even though many opportunities were affordedto him by the authorities concerned, to substantiate his case. Even inthe case on hand, from the voluminous material available on record, weare able to find that after the order passed by the learned single Judge,the petitioner approached the State Level Scrutiny Committee on12.1.2004. He was summoned to appear before the Committee on 23.2.2004and on 8.3.2004. On 8.3.2004, the petitioner appeared before the StateLevel Scrutiny Committee along with his counsel and also adduced hisevidence, which has also been properly recorded. The witness produced bythe petitioner by name T.G.Raghupathy Reddy was also present and headduced his evidence on 8.3.2004 itself. The other witness produced bythe petitioner was T.N.Govindasamy, whose deposition was recorded on23.3.2004. Besides this, the petitioner has also produced documentaryevidence in support of his claim and was throughout assisted by hiscounsel. The petitioner was further summoned on 5.7.2004 and he appearedbefore the Committee along with his counsel and adduced his furtherevidence. When the petitioner was given such opportunities not only toexamine himself, but also to adduce oral and documentary evidence insupport of his case, which he has also availed that too in the presenceof his counsel, what does he mean to say that he was not affordedsufficient opportunity is a question, which has not been answered by thelearned counsel for the petitioner, except repeatedly urging that he maybe granted one more opportunity. When all sufficient and reasonableopportunities have been afforded to the petitioner by the Committee, wehave no hesitation to hold that the petitioner somehow wants to prolongthe matter and seems to have taken a vow to fight such losing battles andsomehow pressurise the authorities to accede to his illegal demand, bycomplaining that he is deprived of a reasonable opportunity. At the costof repetition, we held that the petitioner has been afforded withsufficient and reasonable opportunities by the Committee and he is notentitled for any further opportunity.9. Regarding the contention of the petitioner that even though hehas filed 38 documents, the State Level Committee has taken intoconsideration only 25 documents, on a careful perusal of the order passedby the State Level Committee and the materials placed on record, we areable to see that the State Level Committee has taken into considerationall the relevant materials available on record and the documentswhereupon the petitioner is placing reliance, accusing the State LevelCommittee of bereft of consideration, are nothing but sale deeds. Inwhat way the sale deeds help the case of the petitioner to prove that hebelong to 'Konda Reddy' community, in the absence of any other authenticproof submitted by him to substantiate the same, has not been explainedby him. Sale deeds confer only title regarding immovable properties on https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the purchaser and the reference of the caste name therein of any of theparties cannot be a conclusive or authentic proof to decide their socialstatus, in the absence of any other proof to establish their socialstatus. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the sale deeds,filed by the petitioner in support of his claim, in no way augment hiscase.10. Coming to the other argument of the learned counsel for thepetitioner that in spite of a specific direction by the learned singleJudge of this Court that the documents may be sent for expert opinion, incase of any doubt regarding their authenticity, the same were not sent bythe Committee for expert opinion on the ground that all the documents arelaminated, even though we are unable to find any such observation in thelengthy order passed by the State Level Scrutiny Committee, we are ableto see that all the relevant documents have been properly appreciated bythe Committee in the manner known to law. Therefore, we find noillegality or irregularity in not referring the documents to the expert,since it is not compulsory or mandatory, but only advisory direction thathas been given by the learned single Judge.11. Coming to the main aspect of the case, regarding the socialstatus of the petitioner, the State Level Vigilance Committee, hasdeputed an Anthropologist to conduct a detailed study in specific areasat Katpadi and Vellore Taluk in Vellore District, who has submitted hisreport to the Committee on 22.5.2004, after conducting a study in threevillages in Vellore District viz. (1) Thondanthulasi Village of KatpadiTaluk, (2) Paleya Thondanthulasi village of Katpadi Taluk and (3)Thuttipattu village of Vellore Taluk. The Anthropologist has evenfurnished the genealogy of the petitioner. From the report furnished bythe Anthropologist, it is seen that the petitioner married a womanbelonging to Reddiar community and after her death, he married anotherwoman belonging to Naidu community. The field level detailed studyconfirmed the fact that the cultural characteristics of the petitioner'sfamily are having similarities only with the Reddiar community and notwith the community characteristics of Kondareddi tribal community.12. At this juncture, it is worth mentioning that in the SchoolAdmission Register extract furnished by Fathima Matriculation HigherSecondary School in respect of the sister of the petitioner, by nameT.R.Renukadevi, the Religion of the individual was mentioned as Hindu andcaste as Brahmin. However, another School TC has been furnished by thesame school authorities with No.3 admission No.952 wherein the word'Brahmin' has been expunged and substituted by the word 'Konda Reddy',but it is not known who has substituted the word 'Brahmin' with the word'Konda Reddy' and based on what document. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

13. The petitioner while joining the LIC, has produced the SchoolLeaving Certificate issued on 13.3.1979, where the community has not beenmentioned as ST or SC, even though, according to the petitioner, he hasobtained the community certificate as belonging to 'Konda Reddy'community from the Tahsildar, Mylapore-Triplicane on 18.4.1978 itself,which shows the mala fide intention of the petitioner to hide a knownfact, so as to twist the same for his own benefit at a future date. Evenin his deposition before the State Level Scrutiny Committee, thepetitioner has admitted that there was no entry in the school register orAdmission Register or School Certificates to the effect that he belongsto ST community. 14. On a thorough scrutiny of the entire materials placed onrecord, we are able to see that neither the petitioner nor his ancestorsbelong to the Konda Reddy community and it seems the father of thepetitioner (who is reported to be no more) has orchestrated the entireepisode of creating false community certificates for the benefit of hischildren. While the school certificate of the petitioner's sister showsthat she belongs to Brahmin community, the petitioner's certificates aresilent about the community. Even from the fact that the petitioner hadchosen a lady from the Reddiar community to marry and on her deathmarried another lady from Naidu community, it is crystal clear that thepetitioner has produced spurious and false community certificate andjoined the services of LIC as if he is belonging to ST community. Whilefor the sake of social status, he wanted to maintain as a Reddy, for thesake of his individual benefit he is claiming as if he is belonging to'Konda Reddy' community, solely with a view to deceive the authoritiesand to snatch away the benefits extended to such underprivilegedcommunities by the Constitution.15. The Constitution of India has guaranteed equal rights andafforded reservations for the communities, which are oppressed forgenerations together and the persons like the petitioner, who belong toan upper class community, are falsely claiming the benefits extended tooppressed communities, wrongly claiming as if they belong to anunderprivileged community, sole with a view to reap the benefits extendedto such underprivileged community people, at the cost of the welfare ofsuch people. The considerations for specifying a particular caste ortribe or class for inclusion in the list of Scheduled Castes/ScheduledTribes or backward classes would depend on the nature and extent ofdisadvantages and social hardships suffered by that caste, tribe orclass. In the case on hand, the irresistible evidence available onrecord would show that the cultural characteristics of the petitioner'sfamily are having similarities only with the Reddiar community and notwith the community characteristics of Kondareddi tribal community. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Further, the material available on record would clearly show that thepetitioner and his deceased father have attempted to play fraud on theConstitution, taking advantage of the fact of similarity between thewords 'Reddy' and 'Konda Reddy' and if people of this type are let outfreely without being prosecuting and punishing, it, in our consideredview, would amount to raping the Constitution, further shaking theconfidence of the people.16. The State Level Scrutiny Committee has considered all thefacts and circumstances of the case in their proper perspective and hascorrectly arrived at the conclusion of rejecting the claim of thepetitioner, further ordering to initiate criminal proceedings against thepetitioner, wherein we find no illegality or irregularity of whatsoeverand we find no merits in the above Writ Appeal and Writ Petition and bothare, accordingly, dismissed. The District Collector, Chennai is directedto implement the directions of the State Level Scrutiny Committee withintwelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.Consequently, C.M.P.No.12126 of 1999 and WPMP.Nos.44559 and 44560of 2004 are closed.RaoSd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarTo1.The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai.2.The Zonal Officer, Southern Zonal Office, Life Insurance Corporation of India, P.B.No.2450, Chennai-600002.3.The District Collector, Chennai. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4.The Chairman, State Level Scrutiny Committee on Community Verification, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare (ADW.II) Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-9.5.The Disciplinary Authority Secretary (INT AUDIT), Life Insurance Corporation of India, Southern Zonal Office, LIC Building, Anna Salai, Chennai-2.+ 3 ccs to Mr. V. Elangovan, Advocate SR No. 449+ 1 cc to Mr. M. Vaidyanathan, Advocate SR No.285+ 1 cc to the Government Pleader, SR No.226Common Judgment in WA.1282/99 and WP.No.37118/2004SR(CO)SR/5.2.2009