STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. M. PRATAP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal is against the order dtd. 31/1/2023 passed in W.P.No.13709/2022(S-RES) by which the writ petition filed by the respondent No.1 herein seeking quash of the order dtd. 22/12/2021 (Annexure-J) passed by respondent No.3 therein and also the order dtd. 4/7/2022 (Annexure-M) passed by the appellant- bank was allowed further directing the appellant herein to reinstate the respondent No.1 forthwith and to pay 25% of the basic and admissible dearness allowance to the respondent No.1 for the period from the date of termination till date of reinstatement as back wages and also to allow continuity of services with all service benefits.

(2.) Respondent No.5 had filed a complaint before the respondent No.2 alleging respondent No.1 obtaining false caste certificate. It appears a report was filed by the respondent No.2 stating that the respondent No.1 indeed belong to Rs.Kaniyan' a Scheduled Tribe Community. Aggrieved by the said report respondent No.5 had approached respondent No.3 under the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointment etc.) Act, 1990 (for short Rs.Act 1990'). Thereupon respondent No.3 passed the impugned order dtd. 22/12/2021 (Annexure-J) holding that the respondent No.1 had obtained false caste certificate.

(3.) The issue involved in the matter is with regard to the manner of adjudication by the respondent No.3 - Committee. Learned Single Judge on hearing learned counsel for the parties on various grounds referred to Sec. 4C of the Act, 1990 providing for Rs.Verification of Caste Certificate and Income and Caste Certification' and also Rule 6A and 7 of the Rules 1992 which set out elaborate procedure to be followed by Verification Committee. Sec. 4C(2) of the Act, 1990 refers to persons who may initiate verification process regarding validity of the said certificate as provided in the Rules. It is necessary to note that the impugned order came to be passed at the instance of respondent No.5 who is stated to be the sister of respondent No.1. Appellant being the employer has not made any such application.