a IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 14422 of 1994 Between: Hazari Hari Kishan Rao S/o. Vasudeva Rao R/o. Shankarampet, Medak District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of A.P rep. by its Prl. Secretary, Social Welfare (J-2) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Joint Collector & Addl. District Magistrate Medak District at Sangareddy. 3 The Joint Collector & Addl. District Magistrate Karimnagar District. 4 The Commissioner of Tribal Welfare Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 5 The Mandal Revenue Officer Shankarmpet-R, Medak District. .....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 or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the order dated 15-7- 1994 made in proceedings No. D4/8220/94 of the 2nd respondent as highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violative of principles of natural justice if necessary after striking down G.O.Ms.no. 282 Social Welfare (J-2) Department dated 19-12-1988 of the First respondent and pass such other order or orders Counsel for the Petitioner :MR.A.RAMAKRISHNAP Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P.No. 14422 of 1994 ORAL ORDER: The petitioner while employed as a Senior Assistant (Revenue Inspector) in Shankarampet mandal, Medak district under the administrative control of the fifth respondent was served with a notice dated 10-06-1993 by the third respondent calling upon him to show cause why the social status certificate issued by the Assistant Director, Agriculture, S.C. Unit, Karimnagar in the petitioner’s favour be not cancelled and the petitioner prosecuted. This notice was issued on the stated ground that the fourth respondent had informed that the petitioner does not belong to Mannervarlu community as certified in the social status certificate. Thereupon the petitioner requested the third respondent to furnish him a copy of the report of the fourth respondent – The Commissioner of Tribal Welfare, Andhra Pradesh – on the basis of which the show cause notice was issued. He made further representations to this effect on 07-07-1993 and 24-01-1994. The second respondent in response thereto furnished the petitioner a copy of enquiry report of the fourth respondent. According to the petitioner, the report of the fourth respondent disclosed that the conclusions therein were based on four documents viz., (a) LAQ No. 7794 (S) notice given by Sri P. Nageswar Rao and other MLAs., (b) G.O.Rt.No. 157 S.W. (J2) Department dated 17-03-1993; (c) From the District Collector, Medak, Lr.No. E4/1726/93 dated 13-02-1993 and (d) D.O.Lr.No.E4/1782/93 dated 03-04- 1993 from the Joint Collector & Addl., District Magistrate, Medak district. The petitioner by a representation dated 22-04-1994 requested for the above documents. In response thereto, the second respondent by a communication dated 09-04-1994 informed the petitioner to collect copies of the documents ‘c’ and ‘d’ from the second respondent’s office while informing the petitioner that the documents at ‘a’ and ‘b’ were not available with the second respondent and the petitioner should approach the fourth respondent for copies of documents at ‘a’ and ‘b’. When the petitioner contacted the fourth respondent, the fourth respondent is stated to have declined to furnish copies of the documents at ‘a’ and ‘b’ and informed the petitioner to make his own arrangements for procuring them. Thereupon, the second respondent by the order impugned dated 15-07-1994 bearing reference No.D4/8220/94 cancelled the petitioner’s community certificate dated 05-01-1978 issued by the Assistant Director of Agriculture, S.C. Unit-IV, Korutla, Karimnagar district wherein the petitioner was certified as belonging to ‘Mannervarlu’ S.T. community. The impugned order dated 15-07-1994 also directed the fifth respondent to launch prosecution against the petitioner under Section 420 IPC in terms of the government order in G.O.Ms.No.164, Employment & S.W. (SC & ST) Cell Department dated 15-09-1973. The petitioner assails the impugned order on several grounds, inter alia that the fourth respondent conducted the enquiry behind his back and without affording him a participatory opportunity in such an enquiry; that the fourth respondent merely called the petitioner to his office and directed him to fill up a questionnaire furnishing the details of his family members; the petitioner was not furnished any incriminating material on the basis of which his community certificate was to be cancelled nor the particulars of the circumstances in which the cancellation is proposed were communicated to him; that on merits, the conclusion of the second respondent as set out in the impugned order is perverse as merely because Mannervarlu community does not have an independent dialect cannot be a rational ground for characterizing the petitioner as not belonging to the said community; that the conclusion based on difference in surnames is also irrelevant; that the conclusion based on verification of the petitioner’s school records is unsustainable as the petitioner was not put to notice about these school records or the alleged entries therein including in his transfer certificate. Before passing the impugned order, the second respondent issued a show cause notice to the petitioner intimating that the fourth respondent in his letter dated 30- 04-1993 had informed that the petitioner does not belong to Mannervarlu community and therefore the petitioner to show cause why the community certificate dated 05-01-1978 in his favour be not cancelled. None of the circumstances on the basis of which the proposal to cancel the petitioner’s community certificate was arrived at, were communicated to the petitioner. The second respondent has filed a counter affidavit. The second respondent asserts that in the list of Scheduled Tribes there is enumerated a community ‘Kolam mannervarlu’; whereas the petitioner obtained a certificate to the effect that he belongs to ‘Mannervarlu’. The leaned counsel for the petitioner Sri A. Ramakrishbna points out that in the list of Scheduled Tribes ‘Kolam’ and ‘Mannervarlu’ are distinctly enumerated as communities with a coma in between and therefore it is clear that ‘kolam’ and ‘mannervarlu’ are distinct communities and not one community by name ‘kolam mannervarlu’. The second respondent’s counter further pleads that in 1990 certain complaints were received against the petitioner alleging that he obtained employment under a Scheduled Tribe quota by producing a false caste certificate. On receipt of such complaints, the fourth respondent requested the Collector, Medak to direct the writ petitioner to present himself before the fourth respondent with full and oral documentary evidence in support of his claim to be belonging to the community he is certified for. The petitioner presented himself before the fourth respondent and furnished information in respect of his social status on, 07-06-1991. Thereupon, the fourth respondent caused/made enquiries and drew up a report which was sent to the Collector, Karimnagar on 30-04- 1993. Though a copy of the report is stated to have been marked to the Collector, Medak, no such report of the fourth respondent was received in the office of the answering respondent. Further correspondence was made with the fourth respondent. The fourth respondent enquiry report was furnished to the answering respondent along with letters of the fourth respondent dated 04-08- 1993 and 16-08-1993. Thereupon the enquiry was initiated against the petitioner and a show cause notice was issued for the said purpose on 10-06-1993. In view of the directions of the State in a Memo dated 23-03-1993, the entire case relating to the cancellation of caste certificate of the petitioner was placed before the Collector, Medak by the Collector, Karimnagar by the letter dated 09-08-1993. On 25-01-1994, the date on which the show cause notice was served on the petitioner, he submitted an application for supply of copies of the fourth respondent’s report dated 30-04-1993 to enable him to submit his response to the show cause notice. In response to this request, the report was furnished to the petitioner on 22- 03-1994. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted an application on 24-03-1994 for supply of copies of four documents (referred to earlier in this judgment). The petitioner was informed by the Collector, Medak on 09-05- 1994 that the first two documents were not available with the Collector and may be obtained from the fourth respondent and the other two documents may be obtained from the office of the Collector. With regard to first two documents -- ‘a’ and ‘b’—the petitioner was advised to approach the fourth respondent. The counter proceeds to state that instead of approaching the fourth respondent, as advised, the petitioner submitted another application dated 31-05-1994 requesting the Collector, Medak to move the fourth respondent for supply of the two documents which were unfurnished. It is also stated in the counter that the petitioner did not approach the Collector to obtain the two documents which he had requested and which were available with the Collector, Medak. According to the counter in the above circumstances the impugned order was passed cancelling the community certificate of the petitioner and directing the fifth respondent to initiate a prosecution against the petitioner. As seen from the averments in the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent, the petitioner’s allegation that the fourth respondent’s enquiry report was based on a process of enquiry that did not afford the petitioner any participatory opportunity and such unilateral report formed the basis of the second respondent’s conclusions in the impugned order, has not been denied. Since the second respondent had initiated the inquiry on the basis of the fourth respondent’s report and since the fourth respondent’s report referred to the four documents which were requested by the petitioner, it was the obligation of the second respondent to have furnished these documents instead of furnishing two documents which are available with the second respondent and calling upon the petitioner to pursue with the fourth respondent for supply of the other two documents. As a result of such lax process adopted by the second respondent, a situation is brought about where the petitioner approached the fourth respondent and the fourth respondent declined to furnish the documents requested and thereby the petitioner is enabled to complain of denial of fair opportunity. Effective quasi-judicial process would have required the second respondent to control the proceedings, obtain the relevant documents from the fourth respondent and furnish the same to the petitioner so that the petitioner would have been denied the justification of complaining of denial of reasonable opportunity. It also requires to be noticed that the petitioner’s grievance that the fourth respondent had conducted the enquiry behind his back without permitting him participation at such enquiry has not been denied either in the counter affidavit of the second respondent nor by the fourth respondent who has not even chosen to file a counter affidavit. Since the conclusions in the impugned order of the second respondent are founded solely and exclusively on the report of the fourth respondent, the invalidity of the fourth respondent’s report dated 30-04- 1993 introduces a fatal infirmity into the decision of the second respondent, by the impugned order. For the aforesaid reasons and on the aforesaid analysis, the impugned order of the second respondent bearing reference proceedings No.D4/8220/94 dated 15- 07-1994 is quashed. The allegation that the petitioner does not belong to Scheduled Tribe community and produced a fraudulent certificate to that effect is a serious allegation which if true permits the petitioner an unmerited advantage of public employment without entitlement. At the same time since the petitioner does possess a social community certificate issued by the competent authority, he must prima facie be considered as belonging to the said community unless and until such certificate is rescinded in accordance with the due process of law. An unmerited incumbency in public office under a reserved quota has deleterious impact on genuine members belonging to Scheduled Tribe community. It is the obligation of the State to ensure that a proper enquiry is conducted with commitment and resolute expedition to weed out fraudulent incumbents of reserved vacancies in public services. The casual procedures followed by the authorities neither serve the constitutional purpose nor advance societal interest. The respondents would do better than to repetitively enact a ritual and should get down to serious business of governance. In the circumstances above, while quashing the impugned order of the second respondent dated 15-07- 1994, liberty is granted to the State – the first respondent – to initiate, if it so desired, an enquiry into the petitioner’s social status/community certificate in accordance with the extant law. The writ petition is allowed as above, but in the circumstances there shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J Dated: 04-04-2008 pvks