K SUGUMAR Vs. TAMILNADU STATE LEVEL SCRUTINY COMMITTEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has come forward with this writ petition challenging the order dated 02.03.2018 of the fifth respondent, wherein and whereby, the fifth respondent refused to disburse the terminal benefits payable to the petitioner on his retirement on 28.02.2017, pending final orders to be passed by the first respondent in the enquiry contemplated with respect to the communal status of the petitioner.

(2.) As per the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner was appointed as Lower Division Clerk in the office of the third respondent on 05.02.1976 in the reserved quota meant for Schedule Tribe candidate. The service of the petitioner was regularised and he was also promoted to the post of Upper Division Clerk on 23.08.1983. On 30.04.1988, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant and on 26.06.1994, he was further promoted to the post of Superintendent Grade-II. Subsequently, on 13.01.1999, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Superintendent Grade I (Group B Gazzetted) which is also the feeder category post to the entry grade post of Pondicherry Civil Services. On 28.02.2017, the petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. According to the petitioner, while he was working as Superintendent Grade-I a petition was submitted against him by the Pondicherry State SC/ST Employees Welfare Association based on which a vigilance enquiry was conducted. The report of the Vigilance Officer dated 27.09.2002 was furnished to the petitioner and he has also submitted his explanation on 25.09.2003 denying that he had produced bogus community certificate at the time of his appointment. Inspite of such explanation, the respondents 2 to 5 did not proceed further for about 13 years. However, on 10.05.2014, the fourth respondent passed an order dismissing the petitioner from service. Challenging the order of dismissal dated 10.05.2014, the petitioner filed O.A. No. 731 of 2014 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai. Initially, the Tribunal granted an interim order on 28.05.2014. However, since the petitioner was not reinstated in service pursuant to the interim order of the Tribunal, he filed a Contempt Application No. 86 of 2014. However, the Original Application itself was allowed on 10.03.2015 on the ground that unless and until the community certificate of the petitioner is cancelled by a competent authority, the respondents 2 to 5 has no jurisdiction to take any disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. As the Original Application filed by the petitioner itself was allowed, the petitioner withdrew the Contempt Application No. 86 of 2014. Pursuant to the order passed by the Tribunal, the petitioner was reinstated in service on 24.07.2015. However, the petitioner was denied promotion by citing the enquiry pending against him before the first respondent. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 05.08.2016 to confer him promotion, but there was no action taken thereof. The petitioner therefore once again filed O.A. No. 1256 of 2016 seeking for a direction to the respondents 2 to 5 to consider his representation dated 05.08.2016. After filing O.A. No. 1256 of 2016, the representation dated 05.08.2016 of the petitioner was rejected on 23.09.2016. Therefore, the petitioner once again filed O.A. No. 1701 of 2016. During the pendency of O.A. No. 1701 of 2016, the petitioner reached the age of superannuation and he was also permitted to retire from service on 28.02.2017. However, after his retirement, the respondents did not settle the terminal benefits payable to him, therefore, he submitted a representation dated 10.05.2017 to the third respondent to disburse the terminal benefits. As there was no response, the petitioner once again filed O.A. No. 1062 of 2017 before the Central Administrative Tribunal and the Tribunal, by order dated 10.07.2017, directed the respondents 2 to 5 to consider the representation dated 10.07.2017 of the petitioner within two months. Thereafter, on 02.03.2018, the fifth respondent passed the order dated 02.03.2018 rejecting the representation dated 10.07.2017 of the petitioner by citing the pendency of enquiry before the first respondent. Hence, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

(3.) When the writ petition is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner is a native of Tindivanam and he belong to "Kattu Nayakkan" community which is recognised as Schedule Tribe caste. The petitioner was also issued with a community certificate by the Tahsildar, Tindivanam on 23.12.1975, which the petitioner had produced at the time of his appointment as Lower Division Clerk. The said community certificate is validly obtained and it has not been cancelled as on this date. Further, the complaint, based on which disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner, was lodged after 23 years of the petitioner joining the service. Even though the complaint was lodged in the year 2003, till this date, the enquiry with respect to his communal status has not been completed. For the delay attributable on the part of the authorities concerned, the petitioner should not be made to suffer. Even though the respondents disbursed minimum pension to the petitioner after his retirement, the terminal benefits payable to him have been withheld. In any event, causing a verification into the communal status of the petitioner, after forty years of issuance of such certificate, is not warranted especially after the retirement of the petitioner from service. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondents 2 to 5 did not initiate any disciplinary proceedings against him and he was also allowed to retire from service. While so, withholding the terminal benefits payable to the petitioner is unjust and arbitrary. The learned counsel for the petitioner therefore prayed for allowing the writ petition.