DIRECTOR BANGALORE COMPLEX Vs. G. SATHYA MURTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal assails the Order dated 17.04.2002 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.38606/1995, by which the dismissal Order of the petitioner was quashed and his reinstatement with all consequential benefits was ordered.

(2.) THE petitioner [Respondent No.1 before us] is G. Sathya Murthy and he has been represented by his brother G. Dayananda Murthy, an Advocate, all through. We mention these names for the reason that G. Dayananda Murthy, Advocate, had himself initiated several legal proceedings on the very question which is focal for our decision i.e. whether the claim made by the petitioner for Scheduled Tribe status was fraudulent or was not justified.

(3.) THE petitioner had on an earlier occasion filed Writ Petition No.7910/1989, 9698/1989 and 15581/1991 against the Appellant [Indian Telephone Industries Limited, Bangalore] all of which came to be decided by the learned Single Judge in the Judgment dated 21.11.1994. Those proceedings related to an Enquiry initiated against the petitioner for his having dishonestly furnished false information regarding his caste by stating that he belongs to 'Jenu Kuruba' tribe and his deliberately suppressing the fact that he belongs to the 'Kuruba' caste which is not a Scheduled Tribe, and that thereby he fraudulently secured employment in the appellant industry. THE learned Single Judge, in those earlier writ petitions had recorded that neither the father of the petitioner nor any of his siblings had claimed the status of Scheduled Tribe even though certain scholarships were available to them; that 'Jenu Kuruba' was not a sub -caste of Kuruba; and that fraud vitiates everything, and if established, no equities can come in the way. However, in view of the fact that the Enquiry report had not been furnished to the petitioner prior to his dismissal, the dismissal was held to be not legal. It was further opined therein that "THE question that arise for consideration is whether other members in the family of the petitioner claimed benefits belonging to Jenu Kuruba Tribe while in fact he is not a Jenu Kuruba at all but only Kuruba. If he, by mistake and not as a result of fraud claimed to belong to Schedule Tribe, his case will have to be considered whether he would be eligible to be appointed under any other category? . . . . . . Non furnishing of the report denied an opportunity to the petitioner to effectively represent his case . . . . . . THE Disciplinary Authority shall decide the question of extension of the period of suspension and on culmination of the renewed enquiry question of reinstatement or any action thereof." As such, reinstatement was ordered together with continuance of further enquiry.