K.SUGANTHI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Writ Petition is filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the Tamil Nadu State Level Scrutiny Committee in Proceedings No.2907/CVIII/2014-17, dated 12.02.2018 (received by the petitioner on 10.03.2018) on the file of the second respondent and quash the same.

(2.) The facts culled out from the affidavit and other materials placed before this Court, are: (a) The petitioner belongs to Konda Reddis Community, which is a Scheduled Tribe Community. She obtained a Community Certificate from Tahsildar, Musiri on 23.05.1972. After completing her studies, she got appointed as Transmission Executive in the All India Radio (AIR) through Staff Selection Commission. Presently, she is working in the same post and place. But till date, her service was not regularised. While so, the Collector of Tiruchirappalli District, in his proceedings, dated 06.08.1990, passed an order cancelling the Community Certificate, dated 23.05.1972 issued by the Tahsildar, Musiri. Challenging the same, the petitioner herein filed W.P.No.4758 of 1991 before this Court and by order dated 05.10.1998, this Court dismissed the said Writ Petition holding that the District Collector, Tiruchirappalli has passed the order only after following the procedures. (b) Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed Writ Appeal in W.A.No.1412 of 1998. This Court, by order dated 26.10.1998, while admitting the above Writ Appeal, passed an order of status-quo. Subsequently, when the Writ Appeal came up for hearing on 18.04.2007, a Division Bench of this Court allowed the Writ Appeal holding that the issue involved is squarely covered by the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Madhuri Patil Vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development, reported in AIR 1995 SC 94 and also G.O.Ms.(2-D).No.18, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, dated 01.04.1997, and hence, it was observed by the Division Bench that cancellation of Community Certificate of the writ petitioner cannot be sustained. Thus, the Community Certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Musiri on 23.05.1972 became genuine and valid. (c) However, the third respondent did not pass any order regularising the service of the petitioner on her appointment in the post of Transmission Executive. The employer of the petitioner was insisting upon production of the original Community Certificate issued by the Tahsildar, dated 23.05.1972. Hence, the petitioner has made representations to the Collector, Tiruchirappalli and the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), Musiri, to return her original Community Certificate, which she had produced during the course of enquiry before the RDO. Finally, the employer of the petitioner, i.e. AIR, Government of India, on 18.02.2013, has directed the petitioner to produce the original Community Certificate, dated 23.05.1972 within 45 days to enable them to regularise her service with effect from 22.04.1992. (d) It is stated by the petitioner that when once the Division Bench of this Court held that the cancellation of Community Certificate is wrong and set aside the cancellation, the petitioner is entitled for return of her Community Certificate. She made a request under the Right to Information Act on 04.02.2013 as to whether her Community Certificate is available or not in the Office of the RDO, Musiri. The RDO has sent his reply, dated 26.02.2013 stating that the files relating to 1989 and 1990 were destroyed and the Community Certificate of the petitioner is not available. (e) Hence, the petitioner has filed a Writ Petition before the Madurai Bench of this Court in W.P.(MD).No.3543 of 2013 to direct the RDO Musiri, to return the petitioner's Community Certificate. After hearing the parties, the Madurai Bench of this Court has passed an order dated 06.06.2013 directing the RDO to return her Community Certificate, dated 23.05.1972 and in case the original records are not available, to issue a fresh Community Certificate to the petitioner, since her rights are already determined in the abovesaid Writ Appeal filed by the petitioner, and necessary orders be passed within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. A copy of the said order was obtained by the petitioner on 19.06.2013. On 20.06.2013, the petitioner communicated a copy of the order to the RDO, Musiri, which was received by him on 24.06.2013. (f) Though the RDO, Musiri has received the said order, no Community Certificate was issued till date. Hence, the petitioner has filed Contempt Petition in Cont.P.(MD).No.906 of 2013 before the Madurai Bench of this Court. When the Contempt Petition came up for hearing, the RDO produced only a xerox copy of the Community Certificate stating that the petitioner submitted only xerox copy and the same is being returned. On that basis, the Contempt Petition was closed on 02.01.2014. The RDO has given a false statement as if the petitioner has produced only xerox copy of the Community Certificate during the course of enquiry. (g) Before handing over the xerox copy of the Community Certificate, the RDO, Musiri, had referred the xerox copy of the Community Certificate to the Tamil Nadu Forensic Science Laboratory, Madurai, to compare the signature of the Tahsildar. However, on the influence of the RDO concerned, the Forensic Science Laboratory gave a report that the signature found in the xerox copy is different from the admitted signature of the Tahsildar. On the basis of the above report, the RDO, Musiri gave a complaint to the Inspector of Police, Musiri, which was registered in Crime No.486 of 2013 for the alleged offences under Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC, as if the petitioner has produced a forged signature of the Tahsildar and the same is pending investigation. (h) In the meanwhile, the RDO, Musiri wrote to the Station Director of the AIR, Tirunelveli, which was forwarded to the third respondent to take disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner filed W.P.No.4643 of 2014, in which, by order dated 17.03.2014, this Court directed the third respondent herein, i.e. Deputy Director General of AIR, Chennai, to refer the matter relating to the Community Certificate of the petitioner to the second respondent herein, namely State Level Scrutiny Committee, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Further, the second respondent-Committee was directed to consider the matter afresh and pass appropriate orders after making necessary enquiry and after giving an opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner, within twelve weeks thereafter. (i) Thereafter, the third respondent referred the matter to the second respondent-State Level Scrutiny Committee for verification. The second respondent, on 20.11.2017, called upon the petitioner to give an explanation to the report of the Vigilance Cell Officer, dated 10.11.2017. As per G.O.Ms.No.106, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, dated 15.10.2012 and also as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil's case (cited supra), the enquiry by the Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) should contain the Anthropologist report and unless the report of the Anthropologist is obtained, the enquiry report is incomplete. The Vigilance Cell Officer, in his report, dated 10.11.2017, has stated that he has not received the report of the Anthropologist and after receipt of the Anthropologist report, he will send his final report to the second respondent. (j) Hence, the petitioner wrote to the second respondent on 04.12.2017 stating that she will send her explanation after receipt of the final report. The Vigilance Cell Officer has not given any opinion. But however, without considering her explanation, the second respondent issued notice to the petitioner to appear for the enquiry on 24.01.2018. Again, the petitioner represented to the second respondent on 19.01.2018 stating that the State Level Scrutiny Committee can proceed with the enquiry only on receipt of the final report of the Vigilance Officer and requested the second respondent-Committee to postpone the above enquiry till then. However, the second respondent- Committee passed an order in complete non-application of mind, cancelling the Community Certificate of the petitioner, by order dated 12.02.2018. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition has filed by the petitioner for the relief stated supra.

(3.) The respondents 1 and 2 have filed counter affidavit, inter-alia stating that the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Social Justice and Human Rights Commission, Trichy District, furnished enquiry report in respect of the petitioner, who is an employee of AIR, through the Director, Tribal Welfare, vide letter dated 20.11.2017, in which it is reported that the petitioner does not belong to Konda Reddis Scheduled Tribe Community. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner by the Director, Tribal Welfare, vide letter dated 20.11.2017 so as to furnish a reply with a period of 15 days against the report of the Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP). The reply had not been received from the petitioner. The State Level Scrutiny Committee had instructed the petitioner to attend the enquiry of the Committee to be held on 24.01.2018 to take a final decision regarding the genuineness of the Scheduled Tribe Community Certificate of the petitioner, but she did not attend the enquiry, instead, she submitted a letter stating that she could not attend the enquiry without the enquiry report of the DSP. It is further stated in the counter that the RDO, Musiri, has reported, vide proceedings, dated 08.01.1990 based on the enquiry conducted by him that the petitioner belongs to "Reddiar" Community and does not belong to "Konda Reddis" Community. He further stated that the photocopy of the Community Certificate which was produced by the petitioner, was sent for forensic examination and it was opined that the Tahsildar's signature found in the photocopy of the Community Certificate does not tally with that of the original and it was a forged one.