T R VIJAYANANDAN Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has obtained two community certificates, one from the Tahsildar, Usilampatti and the other one from the Tahsildar, Mylapore-Triplicane Taluk as if belonging to 'Konda Reddy' community, a Scheduled Tribe community and based on the said community certificates, he joined the services of Life Insurance Corporation of India as Typist and was later promoted as Stenographer. Subsequently, the community certificates of the petitioner were referred by the LIC to the Collector of Madurai and the Collector of Chennai and on the basis of the report submitted by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Usilampatti, the Collector of Madurai, by order dated 10.10.1991, had cancelled the community certificate of the petitioner. Aggrieved, the petitioner had filed W.P.No.15496 of 1991, which was dismissed by the learned single Judge by the order dated 13.7.1999, resulting in filing of W.A.No.1282 of 1999 by the petitioner.

(2.) IN the meantime, the Government of Tamilnadu, has constituted the District Level Scrutiny Committee and the State Level Scrutiny Committee. The District Vigilance Committee, Chennai District, conducted the enquiry during the year 2000 and passed an order in its proceedings No.P5/2457/89 in the month of October, 2000, cancelling the community certificate issued to the petitioner by the Tahsildar, Mylapore-Triplicane Taluk. During the pendency of the enquiry, the petitioner has filed W.P.No.17536 of 2000, praying to forbear the LIC from taking any action against him by initiating any proceeding for termination of his service and this Court, by the order dated 17.10.2000, has directed the Zonal Manager, LIC, Chennai-2, not to take any proceeding against the petitioner for termination for a period of six weeks, during which time, the petitioner can move the appellate authority for suitable relief, if the order of the District Vigilance Committee goes against him. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed his appeal before the State Level Scrutiny Committee. It has been stated on the part of the petitioner that on 24.7.2001, he had appeared before the State Level Scrutiny Committee and requested for time to produce more documents and it is alleged that the Committee refused to give time and compelled the petitioner to sign a statement prepared by the Committee to the effect that no further evidence is to be adduced. It is seen that on the same day, the petitioner had filed W.P.No.13799 of 2001, seeking for a direction to the State Level Scrutiny Committee not to pass final orders on the basis of the statement prepared by it. The said writ petition was dismissed by this Court, with an observation that it would be open to the petitioner to take appropriate steps after passing of any order by the State Level Scrutiny Committee. Thereafter, by the order dated 20.9.2001, the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by the State Level Scrutiny Committee, with a copy marked to the LIC, based on which, the LIC terminated the services of the petitioner.

(3.) MR.L.Chandrakumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued at length and has repeatedly submitted before us that the State Level Scrutiny Committee has not afforded sufficient and reasonable opportunities to the petitioner to prove his case and that even though the learned single Judge has directed the Committee to send the documents relied upon by the petitioner for scientific examination by an expert if there is any doubt regarding their authenticity, the documents were not sent for expert opinion on the ground that the documents are laminated and this is nothing but a clear violation of the directions issued by this Court. He has further submitted that though the petitioner has submitted 38 documents, all of them were not considered and only 25 documents were taken into consideration and the entire reasoning of the State Level Scrutiny Committee is against law and would pray to allow the writ appeal and writ petition.