* THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY + Writ Petition No.394 of 2004 % 23.09.2010 # Adapa Bennayya … Petitioner Vs. $ Mandal Revenuue Officer, Paderu, Visakhapatnam District and others. … Respondents ! Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri P.B.Vijay Kumar, Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP for Social Welfare Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Sri K.Srinivasa Murthy < Gist: > Head Note: ? Cases referred: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.394 of 2004 ORDER: The petitioner was employed as Marine Casual Labour Visakhapatnam Port Trust in the year 1980 against a vacancy reserve Scheduled Tribe. Thereafter, he was re-designated or promoted as La He was issued charge sheet, dated 07.01.1988, alleging that the C Certificate produced by him at the time of his appointment, and attestation in that regard are found to be not genuine and he was requi explain as to why his services be not terminated. The petitioner subm his explanation and enquiry was conducted thereafter. Based upo findings in the enquiry, a show-cause notice dated 19.02.1990, was is and the petitioner submitted his explanation. On a consideration o same, the second respondent imposed punishment of removal from se against the petitioner, through proceedings, dated 16.03.1990. That was confirmed in appeal, on 02.07.1990. The petitioner filed W.P.No.1495 of 1991 before this challenging the order of removal. The writ petition was dismisse 05.06.2002 holding that as long as the genuinity of the Caste Certificate not proved, the order of removal cannot be found fault with. It was left to the petitioner to assail the proceedings, dated 25.11.1987, issued b Mandal Revenue Officer-the first respondent stating that the C Certificate relied upon by the petitioner is not genuine. Hence, thi petition challenging the proceedings, dated 25.11.1987. The petitioner contends that the first respondent did not issue notice before issuing the impugned proceedings, and in that view o matter, it is violative of principles of natural justice. He contends that in it has come to the notice of the first respondent that there is any defe infirmity in the Caste Certificate, he ought to have issued notice conducted enquiry. No counter affidavit is filed by the respondents. Sri P.B.Vijay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submit the impugned proceedings are ex-facie illegal since the petitioner wa put on notice, before issuing the same. He contends that unil observations were made and the result is that the petitioner los employment. The learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare for the respondent and Sri K.Srinivasa Murthy, learned counsel for the se respondent, on the other hand submit that the necessity to issue notice petitioner would have arisen, if a Certificate issued by a competent aut sought is to be cancelled. They submit that when no certificate at al issued to the petitioner, the question of issuing notice to mention tha does not arise. The petitioner secured employment as Marine Casual Lab against a vacancy reserved in favour of Scheduled Tribe. He produc Caste Certificate said to have been issued by the Mandal Revenue O Paderu. After the petitioner was appointed, the second respo addressed letter, dated 03.01.1987, to the first respondent with a requ verify and inform whether the Caste Certificate produced by the petitio the effect that he belongs to Konda Kapu is genuine or not. On receivin same, the first respondent conducted enquiry and addressed the impu letter, dated 25.11.1987. It reads as under: “in the reference cited, it was requested to verify the records and inform whether the caste certificate produced by Sri Adapa Bennayya, S/o.Kalyanam of Paderu Village as Konda Kapu Caste is genuine or not. Accordingly I have made discrete enquiries in the matter and my enquiry reveals that there are no Adapa families in Paderu Mandal of Paderu (V) was belong to Konda Kapu Caste. The local enquiry reveals that no person by name Adapa Bennayya, S/o.Adapa Kalyanam either side in Paderu. As such the Caste Certificate produced by the said individual is not genuine. Further the seal of the office and signature of the Officer are not genuine and they appear to be faked thing which require investigation by the Department.” It is no doubt true that the first respondent did not issue any not the petitioner before he addressed the impugned letter. Obviously on basis, the petitioner contends that the same is violative of principl natural justice. Reference is made to the order, dated 19.01.2001, pass W.P.No.8163 of 1990 by a learned Single Judge of this Court. The application of principles of natural justice is firmly implant the administrative exercises and is settled beyond any pale of doubt tha order passed by the administrative authority in violation of principl natural justice, cannot be sustained in law. As a matter of fact, va Statutes and the supporting legislations incorporated this principle. where they are silent the Judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Sup Court, and High Court make it mandatory. Reference to them in detail w amount to stating the opinions. In this regard, a subtle distinction needs to be kept in mind. If a c is issued a Caste Certificate by a competent authority and at a later po time, the very authority proposes to cancel it on coming to know tha obtained by playing fraud or making misrepresentation, the authority w certainly be under obligation to follow the principles of natural justice, notice and conduct enquiry. Any deviation in this regard would le annulment of the proceedings. Where, however, the authority has not issued any proceedin Certificate at all and an individual has brought that into existence o own, a different view needs to be taken. If on a request made by an agency, who acted upon such a testimonial, the authority, who is comp to issue it, replies that it has not issued any certificate at all, communication does not partake the character of an order determini affecting the rights of the person concerned. To put it differently, wh Certificate did not emanate from the office of the competent autho cannot be required to conduct enquiry or issue notice when he just s that his office did not issue it, in reply to a query. In fact, any enquiry in cases would not only be futile and superfluous, but also would le begging the question. It would be difficult to frame the question, upon w the individual concerned can be required to answer. Therefore, princip natural justice do not get attracted when an authority does nothing more giving a reply to the effect that he or his office did not issue certificate or orders and the one brought to his notice is not genuine. It is not as if the affected individuals are without any remedy, in cases. They can institute a suit for declaring that the Certificate held by is genuine and the burden would upon them to prove that it is genuine a case, the defendants in such a suit fail to counter the plea of the plainti other relevant facts are proved, a declaration can certainly ensue. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order costs. ______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDD Date:23.09.2010 Note: LR copies be marked. (b/o) VGB