PRADEEP KUMAR Vs. E.K.PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These original petitions are filed, challenging the order in T.A.No.7592 of 2012 of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, by which the Tribunal set aside Ext.P15 Government order. By Ext.P15, the Government found the applicant to have obtained employment by producing bogus certificate to the effect that he belongs to the Schedule Tribe Oorali Community. The brief facts leading up to the issuance of Ext.P15 are narrated hereunder, describing the parties as per their status in the original application:-

(2.) As per Ext.P1, applications were invited from eligible SC/ST candidates for appointment to the post of Under Secretary in the Finance Secretariat of the Government. The applicant participated in the selection process and on being successful, was appointed under Ext.P3 order dated 29.04.1985. In order to prove his caste status, the applicant had produced Ext.P4 caste certificate issued by the Tahasildar, certifying him to be a member of the Hindu Oorali Tribe, and Ext.P2 certificate issued by the Tribal Development Officer to the effect that the community Mala Oorali and Oorali are one and the same. In the year 1995, the applicant was served with a notice dated 30.10.1995 issued by the Vigilance Officer of the KIRTADS, requiring the applicant to attend an enquiry relating to his caste status. The applicant attended the enquiry as directed and submitted necessary documents to sustain his claim of being a member of the Schedule Tribe Oorali Community. Later, the applicant was served with a notice issued by the Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee constituted under the Kerala (Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates) Act , 1996 (hereinafter called 'the Act 11 of 1996'), alleging that the applicant had falsely claimed to be a member of the Oorali community and proposing to cancel the Schedule Tribe certificate thus secured by the applicant and to take consequential action. The applicant appeared and made submissions before the Scrutiny Committee and thereafter, by order dated 7.3.1998 issued by the Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee, the Scheduled Tribe claim of the applicant was rejected and he was declared to be a member of the Kuravan Community (Scheduled Caste).

(3.) The report was submitted before the Government for further follow up action, thereupon the applicant filed O.P.No.11925 of 1998 challenging the proceedings of the KIRTADS and the proposal to terminate him from service. The original petition was considered and decided under Ext.P7 judgment dated 27.5.2002. In Ext.P7, it was found that the report of the Vigilance Officer, which was the basis for the decision of the Scrutiny Committee, was prepared in gross violation of the principles of law, inasmuch as no opportunity was given to the applicant to cross-examine the persons whose statements were adverted to and relied on in the report. It was also found that the Scrutiny Committee did not give reasonable opportunity to the applicant to challenge the statements relied on by the Vigilance Officer. It was held that the Scrutiny Committee did not follow a fair procedure in accordance with the principles of natural justice. Even though it was observed that the jurisdictional precondition for taking action under Section 11(1) of the Act 11 of 1996 is that the false community certificate should have been fraudulently obtained by a person who did not belong to any of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes and that no action is contemplated under the Act against the members of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes, since the provisions of the Act are not meant for dealing with the case of a member of the Scheduled Caste claiming Scheduled Tribe status or vice versa, the issue was left unanswered. It was finally held that no one had a case that the applicant had acted fraudulently and that it was an admitted fact that the family of the applicant had been claiming to be the members of the Oorali Community from the time of his grandfather and therefore, the applicant cannot be accused of having obtained the caste certificate fraudulently. Based on the said findings, the original petition was allowed and the proceedings against the applicant quashed and at the same time, it was declared that the findings in the report of the Vigilance Officer, KIRTADS will not bind the applicant, but at the same time, it will not stand in the way of the Government using the materials contained in the report, in accordance with law, to launch any fresh action against the applicant, if legally permissible.