K NAVAJOTHI Vs. DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER CMR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE material facts essential for disposal of this writ petition are as follows:1. i. THE Petitioner is working as Computer Operator in the respondent bank. She belongs to Konda Reddy community which is a Scheduled Tribe as per the constitution of Scheduled Tribes Order 1950. On 9.6.1979 the Tahsildar, Saidapet, issued a Certificate to her stating that she belongs to 'Konda Reddi' community. She was appointed as Shroff cum Clerk on 24.06.1982 in the first respondent's bank and on 24.12.1982 her services were confirmed. She has completed24 years of service.1. ii. By means of the proceedings dated 17.12.2005, the District Level Vigilance Committee, Thiruvallur (hereinafter referred to as 'Committee') cancelled the above said certificate, on the strength of the reports by RDO Ponneri and Adi Dravida Welfare Officer, Trichy, who conducted enquiries, however, without notice to the petitioner. THE petitioner preferred appeal before the State Level Scrutiny Committee on 16.02.2006. In the meanwhile she filed W.P.No.251 of 2006 before this Court and on 04.01.2006 an interim injunction was granted for a period of 12 weeks, restraining the respondents to take action on the basis of the proceedings dated 17.12.2005. On 27.03.2006 the State Level Scrutiny committee informed the petitioner that her appeal was remitted back to the three member District Level Vigilance committee for fresh consideration. Since she had preferred appeal before the State Level Scrutiny Committee and the same having been remitted back to the 'Committee', she withdrew W.P.No.257 of 2006 on 19.4.2006, resulting in the dismissal of writ petition.1. iii. But to her surprise on 27.12.2006 she was served with an order of termination by the first respondent bank in which it was stated that pursuant to the decision taken by the 'Committee' dated 17.12.2005, she was terminated from service. Since the matter is pending before the 'Committee', the action of the first respondent bank in dismissing her service could not be justified. Hence the Writ Petition is filed to quash the proceedings dated 27.12.2006 by the first respondent.

(2.) IT is the main grievance of the petitioner that she was not at all enquired by the concerned authorities before cancellation of the community certificate by the 'Committee'. However, it transpires from records that after the enquiries were undertaken by the Revenue Authorities, she was called for an enquiry and she was examined. From the proceedings of the 'Committee', it comes to light that the close circle of relatives of the petitioner were examined as to her community. The said report may be stated to be an exhaustive one as far as conduct of various enquiries are concerned. One Natarajan, Maternal uncle of the petitioner had stated that she belongs to 'Konda Reddy' community. The Village Administrative Officer of Sirukavanur has reported that the said Natarajan belongs to 'Reddiar' community and on the basis of which the District Collector also sent a report as such.

(3.) WE have gone through the contents in the proceedings dated 17.12.2005 and we are of the considered view that since the matter is presently pending before the 'Committee', it is not appropriate for this Court to render any opinion as to the community to which the petitioner belongs. In so far as the present plight of the petitioner is concerned, it is to be seen whether she is to be reinstated. As per the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in (2007)12 Supreme Court Cases 796 = (2008) 1 MLJ 125 (SC) [G.M., Indian Bank vs. R.Rani and Another] when the matter is pending before the State Level Committee for consideration on the basis of the reports of the Revenue Authorities afresh, reinstatement could be ordered, consequent upon the proceedings of the impugned proceedings. The operative portion of the said Judgment goes thus:".10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants lastly submitted that the High Court should not have passed the order of reinstatement. This point in squarely concluded by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Sudhakar Vithal Kumbhare in which on the ground of very same infirmity in the constitution of the committee the direction was given by this Court to reinstate the government servant till the matter was decided by the committee afresh. As such we do not find any substance in this submission as well.".