IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 22..08..2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. MURUGESAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S. PALANIVELU Writ Petition No.586 of 2007 and M.P.No.1,2,4 & 5 of 2007 K. Navajothi ... Petitioner vs. 1. The Deputy General Manager (CMR) Bank of Baroda Ist Floor, 90, C.P. Ramasamy Road, Alwarpet, Chennai 600018. 2. The Collector and Chairman District Level Vigilance Committee, Thiruvallur District. 3. The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Adi Dravida and Tribal Welfare Dept., Fort St. George, Chennai 600009. (R2 and R3 impleaded as per order dated 13.3.2008 in WMP.No.3/07 in W.P.586/07 by DMJ and VPKJ) ... Respondents Writ petition filed under Section 226 of the Constitution of Indian for issuance of Writ of Certiorari Mandamus by calling for the proceedings of the respondents in its No. RO:CMR:HRM:42/4475 dated 27.12.2006 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential and attendant benefits. For Petitioner :: Mr. V. Vijay Shankar For Respondents :: Mr. A.R. Nagarajan [for R-1] Mr. A. Arumugam Additional Government Pleader [for R-2 and R-3] https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ O R D E R S. PALANIVELU,J. 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 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 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. RDO, Ponneri was also directed to send a report, who stated that two addresses were traced. One is Padi and other is Kollankudi Village, Musiri Taluk, in Trichy District. After the said Examination of the RDO, discreet enquiry was also conducted. The mother of the petitioner by name Ponnammal was examined who has also supported the version of the petitioner. While the Village Administrative Officer of the Sirukavanur, villagers of Sirukavanur and family members of the petitioner were examined, they appear to have stated that the petitioner belongs to 'Hindu Reddiar' community. However, in the proceedings dated 17.12.2005, it is stated that while the family habits were looked into, the petitioner does not appear to have followed the customs in 'Konda Reddy' community. 4. The petitioner produced two records, however they were rejected by the said 'Committee'. They are, i) Unregistered lease of the year 1960 in favour of Ponnammal (petitioner's mother) and Natarajan (maternal uncle), in which it is mentioned that they belong to 'Konda Reddy' community. ii) Sale Deed in the name of Tr. Natarajan under Sale Deed No.798 of 1979. Both the documents were simply rejected on the ground that they are not ancient documents. We are not entering into the discussions as to the propriety of the rejection order of the 'Committee' for the reasons that the competency to verify the proof of those documents are within the domain of the Revenue Authorities concerned after due enquiry. 5. 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 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 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." 6. The order of reinstatement by the High Court was justified by the above said decision since the crucial matter was yet to be decided by the committee. In this case also, the proceedings of the 'Committee' was taken before the State Level Scrutiny Committee in appeal and the same has been remitted back to the 'Committee' for fresh consideration and the earlier proceedings dated 17.12.2005 was not final and conclusive, in view of the order of the remand by the State Level Scrutiny Committee. Hence the authorities concerned are precluded from acting upon the proceedings dated 17.12.2005 by means of which, the Community Certificate issued to the petitioner was cancelled. In such view of the matter, we deem it appropriate to pass an order of reinstatement of the petitioner in service, pending disposal of the matter before the 'Committee', which follows the quashing of the impugned order. 7. We find considerable force in the contention of the writ petitioner as far as the present stage of the matter is concerned and to allow this petition by quashing the impugned proceedings. 8. In fine the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the first respondent in its No. RO:CMR:HRM:42/4475 dated 27.12.2006 is quashed. The first respondent is directed to reinstate the petitioner forthwith, pending disposal of the matter by the District Level Vigilance Committee. The final decision of the said committee will govern her continuation in service. Consequently, connected M.P. Nos.1,2,4 and 5 of 2007 are closed. The third respondent shall dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible. Sd/- Asst. Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar. ggs https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1. The Deputy General Manager (CMR) Bank of Baroda Ist Floor, 90, C.P. Ramasamy Road, Alwarpet, Chennai 600018. 2. The Collector and Chairman District Level Vigilance Committee, Thiruvallur District. 3. The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Adi Dravida and Tribal Welfare Dept., Fort St. George, Chennai 600009. 1 cc to Mr.V. Vijay Shankar, Advocate, SR. 47272 1 cc to Mr.A.R. Nagarajan, Advocate, SR. 47162 Writ Petition No.586 of 2007 and M.P.No.1,2,4 & 5 of 2007 CK (CO) kk 12/9 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/