IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 15814 of 2008 Between: No. 045143716 Ct(GD) Manohar Kumar, S/o.Ajablal Sharaha, B/141 Battalion, Central Reserve Police Force, Chinnur, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commadant 141 Battalion, Central Reserve Police Force, Chinnur, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District. 2 The Dy. Inspector-General of Police, Central Reserve Police Force, Keshavagiri, Chandrayantutta, Hyderabad - 500 005. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in issuing the impugned order No. D.IX-9/2007-Estt-II, dated 19-6-2008 as arbitrary, illegal and violate of principles of natural justice and set-aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.SATYAM REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: MR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY (ASST SOLICITOR GEN) The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner was appointed as a Constable in the Central Reserve Police Force, in the year 2004, against a vacancy reserved in favour of Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner produced a caste certificate said to have been issued by the Deputy Collector and Mandal Revenue Officer, Rajendranagar Mandal, on 09.10.2003. After the petitioner was appointed, the Additional DIGP addressed a letter, dated 04.08.2004, in the context of verification. A letter, dated 07.02.2005, is said to have been issued by the Deputy Collector stating that the certificate issued by him on 09.10.2003 is genuine. Two years later, however, a different version emerged from the office of the Deputy Collector. Vide letter, dated 14.02.2007, it was pointed out that the certificates relied upon by the petitioner were not issued by the Deputy Collector. Therefore, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner, only in this limited context. The petitioner contends that the Enquiry Officer himself addressed a letter to the Mandal Revenue Officer on 27.12.2007, and the latter, in turn, addressed a reply, dated 07.01.2008, stating that the certificate is genuine. The Enquiry Officer’s report is to the effect that the charge against the petitioner is proved, and consequently, the first respondent passed an order, dated 19.06.2008, dismissing the petitioner from service. The same is challenged in this writ petition. Heard Sri S.S.Satyam Redy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri A.Radha Krishna, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the Central Government. The petitioner had urged several contentions in challenging the impugned order. One of them is that in response to the letter, dated 27.12.2007, addressed by the Enquiry Officer, the Deputy Collector, who is since designated as Tahasildar, had issued reply, dated 07.01.2008, stating that the caste certificate issued to the petitioner is genuine. No discussion touching on these letters is noticed in the impugned order. If what is stated by the Tahasildar is true, the charge framed against the petitioner deserves to be answered in the negative. However, this Court is not inclined to deal with the matter in detail, in view of the fact that the petitioner had an effective alternative remedy by way of appeal to the second respondent. The appellate authority would be in a better position to appreciate the matter by examining the record. Further, the controversy is in a very narrow compass and it is only a matter of verification of records. Hence, the Writ Petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal before the second respondent. It is directed that, in case the appeal is presented within three weeks from today, it shall be entertained by the second respondent without raising any objection as to limitation and the appeal so presented shall be disposed of within a period of two months from the date of presentation. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ Dt.24.07.2008 L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Note: Furnish C.C. in three days. (B/o) GJ