C. LAKSHMINARAYANAN Vs. THE CHAIRMAN, STATE LEVEL SCRUTINY COMMITTEE AND PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT ADI DRAVIDAR AND TRIBAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.

(2.) The facts in brief, as projected by the petitioner, giving rise to this writ petition are that he belongs to Konda Reddy (ST) community. On the strength of such community certificate dated 09 September 1980 issued by the Deputy Tahsildar, Saidapet, his appointment as Technical Assistant/Demonstrator -Class III in the second respondent -department vide order dated 28 August 1980, was also confirmed. On his reaching the age of superannuation, he was relieved on 04 August 2014. While so, on the basis of the complaint made by his daughter to the second respondent to the effect that he does not belong to Konda Reddy community, a copy of which was not even furnished to him, the first respondent, viz., State Level Scrutiny Committee, directed him to appear for enquiry to verify the genuineness of his community certificate. Subsequently, the matter was referred by the State Level Scrutiny Committee to the Vigilance Cell vide order dated 31 July 2014. The Vigilance Cell eventually came to the conclusion that his community certificate is not genuine. Thus, the State Level Scrutiny Committee, relying on the information provided by the District Collector, Kancheepuram, that no Konda Reddy community certificate was issued to the petitioner, which was based on the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tambaram and also placing reliance on the report of the Vigilance Cell to the effect that the petitioner's community certificate is not genuine, cancelled the community certificate issued to the petitioner vide the impugned proceedings dated 30 June 2015. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court.

(3.) The prime contention of the petitioner is that the enquiry was done in a discreet manner and he was not supplied with a copy of the enquiry report and thus, he was deprived of the opportunity of putting forth his defence.