IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 21ST OCTOBER 2011 / 29TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 26037 of 2009(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- K.N.VIJAYAN, T.C.7/590, THULASI BHAVAN, MARUTHUMKUZHI, KANJIRAMKULAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-30. BY ADV. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, SCHEDULED CASTES/SCHEDULED TRIBES DEVELOPMENT(G) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHAIRMAN, SCRUTINY COMMITTEE FOR VERIFICATION OF SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES CLAIMS AND SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES DEVELOPMENT (G) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DIRECTOR, KERALA INSTITUTE FOR RESEARCH TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT STUDIES OF SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES (KIRTADS), KOZHIKODE. 4. VIGILANCE OFFICER, VIGILANCE CELL, DIRECTORATE OF KIRTADS, KOZHIKODE. 5. GENERAL MANAGER, INDIA OVERSEAS BANK, INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS DEPARTMENT, P.B.NO.3765, 763 ANNA SALAI, CHENNAI-600 002. ADV. SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR, SC,I.O.BANK FOR R5 SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE (MANACHIRACKEL) FOR R5 SRI.K.J.CHACKOCHAN FOR R5 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.LALY VINCENT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.26037/09 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT NO.VIG.1365/93 DATED 7.4.97 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT ADDRESSED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT DATED 11.8.98 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNITY CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY BHARGAVI THANKAPPAN, MLA. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER, VADASSERIKKARA. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE CASE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY SRI.KALLADA NARAYANAN. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE TRAVANCORE FOREST MANNUAL PART II. EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE CASTE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR. EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF PART I REPROT VOLUME XXVIII OF THE CENSUS OF INDIA 1931. EXT.P10: TRUE COPY OF THE PAGE NO.12 OF VOLUME III-K OF CASTES AND TRIBES OF SOUTHERNINDIAN BY EDGAR THURSTON. EXT.P11: TRUE COPY OF THE LIST PREPARED BY THE TALUK WELFARE INSPECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA. EXT.P12: TRUE COPY OF THE LIST PREPARED BY THE TALUK WELFARE OFFICER DATED 26.6.1958. EXT.P13: TRUE COPY OF THE DEED DATED 31.5.60 RELINQUISHING THE MORTGAGE OF 50 CENTS OF PROPERTY NEAR OLIKALLU ADIVASI COLONY BY SRI.AYYAPPAN. EXT.P14: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FORM FOR ADMISSION TO 1ST STANDARD IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONER'S FATHER. EXT.P14(a): TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FORM FOR ADMISSION TO 1ST STANDARD IN RESPECT OF NEELAKANTAN. WPC NO.26037/09 -2- EXT.P14(b): TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FORM FOR ADMISSION TO 1ST STANDARD IN RESPECT OF K.A.VELUMBI. EXT.P14(c): TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FORM FOR ADMISSION TO 1ST STANDARD IN RESPECT OF K.A.RAGHAVAN. EXT.P14(d): TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FORM FOR ADMISSION TO 1ST STANDARD IN RESPECT OF K.A.KESAVAN. EXT.P15: TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE PEOPLE OF INDIA NATIONAL SERIES VOL.III, THE SCHEDULED TRIBES BY K.S.SINGH. EXT.P16: TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(MS) NO.11/77/DD DATED 28.1.1977. EXT.P17: TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DT 12.11.96 EXECUTED BY SRI.AYYAPPAN, IN FAVOUR OF GOVERNMENT FOR GRANT OF RS.300/- FOR RECLAMATION OF LAND AND FOR PURCHASE OF AGRICULURAL IMPLEMENTS, FOR COMPARING THE SIGNATURES ADMITTEDLY PUTBY SRI.AYYAPPAN. EXT.P18: TRUE COPY OF THE PAGE 201 OF TH BOOK TITLED ADIVASIKALUDE KERALAM. EXT.P19: TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE CENSUS OF INDIA 1941 VOLUME XXV, TRAVANCORE PART II TABLES. EXT.P20: TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE CENSUS OF INDIA, 1901. EXT.P21: TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE CENSUS OF INDIA, 1941 VOLUME XXV, PART III STATE TABLES. EXT.P22: TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE CENSUS OF INDIA VOLUME I. EXT.P23: TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE NATIONAL SEIRES VOLUME III SCHEDULED TRIBES OF ANTHROPOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA. EXT.P24: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DT 6.2.1957 OF THE PUBLIC DEPARTMENT. EXT.P25: TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT ISSUED BY THE GIRI ARGHA DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, PUNALUR CLARIFYING THAT URALI AND MALAI URALY ARE ONE AND THE SAME. EXT.P26: TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE TRIBAL DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, PUNALUR DT 4.4.1982. EXT.P27: TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(MS) NO.37/80/DD DT 3.4.1981 PUBLISHED IN THE KERALA GAZETTE DATED 12.5.1981. WPC NO.26037/09 -3- EXT.P28: TRUE COPY OF THE PAGE 125 OF CASTES AND TRIBES OF SOUTHERN INDIA VOL.IV-K BY EDGARTHURSTON SHOWING THE FORM OF INHERITANCE OF KURAVANS IS MARUMAKKATHAYAM. EXT.P29: TRUE COPY OF THE PAGE NO.118 OF VISWA VINJANA KOSAM VOLUME III EDITED BY DR.M.V.KRISHNA WARRIER AND PROF.N.GUPTHANNAIR. EXT.P30: TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DT 7.7.1987 ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR, RANNI. EXT.P31: TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DT 21.5.1993 OF THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER, VADASSERIKKARA. EXT.P32: TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DT 22.9.1986 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, CHITTAR, SEETHATHODE. EXT.P33: TRUE COPY OF THE 3RD PAGE HER S.S.L.C.BOOK OF THE WIFE OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P34: TRUE COPY OF THE 3RD PAGE OF THE SSLC BOOK OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P35: TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE ADMISSION REGISTER OF THE PETITIONER MAINTAINED IN THE GOVERNMENT TRIBAL HIGH SCHOOL, KATTACHIRA. EXT.P36: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WA 121/2003. EXT.P37: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS IN HON'BLE COURT IN OPNO.13622/99. EXT.P38: TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE NO.8285/G3/07/SC/STDD DATED 20.4.2007 ISSUED THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P39: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 7.7.07 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO EXT.P38 SHOW CAUE NOTICE, WITHOUT ITS ENCLOSURES. EXT.P40: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.8285/G3/2007/SCSTDD DATED 10.10.2007 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P41: TRUE COPY OF THE NTOICE NO.8285/G3/2007/SCSTDD DATED 22.6.09. EXT.P42: TRUE COPY OF THE COVER, EXT.P41 NOTICE WAS DISPATCHED, CONTAINING THE ENDORSEMENT THAT THE SAME WAS RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER ONLY ON 25.6.2009. WPC NO.26037/09 -4- EXT.P43: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CHAIRMAN, SCRUTINY COMMITTEE FOR VERIFICATION OF COMMUNITY CERTIFICATE DT 26.6.09. EXT.P44: TRUE COPY OF THE GO(MS) NO.45/2009/SCSTDD DATED 26.6.09 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P45: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT 24.7.09 OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P46: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT 11.6.09 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC NO.26958/2008. EXT.P47: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DT 22.5.2009. EXT.P48: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.9793/G3/2009/SCSTDD DATED 26/27.6.2009 OF THE STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER AND JOINT SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT. EXT.P49: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.IRD 184/34/2010-11 DATED 6.5.2010 OF THE CHIEF MANAGER, INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS DEPARTMENT. EXTS. OF R2 ANNEXURE R2(a): TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF SCRUTINY COMMITTEE HELD ON 27/10/2007. ANNEXURE R2(b): TRUE COPY OF THE ATTENDANCE ON 27/10/2007. ANNEXURE R2(c): TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.8285/G3/07/SCSTDD DATED 17.6.09 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. ANNEXURE R2(d): TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.8285/G3/07/SCSTDD DATED 22.6.09 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 26037 OF 2009 ===================== Dated this the 21st day of October, 2011 J U D G M E N T In this writ petition, challenge is against Exts.P43, 44 and 45 orders of the respondent resulting in the termination of the service of the petitioner, who was the Manager of the 5th respondent Bank. 2. Briefly stated, the facts are that according to the petitioner, he is a member of the Uraly community, a Scheduled Tribe in the State of Kerala. It is stated that on being sponsored by the Employment exchange, in 1975, petitioner was recruited and in 1976, he joined in the Indian Overseas Bank as a Clerk. 3. Subsequently, he earned promotions and while working as an officer, an enquiry into his community status was conducted by the 4th respondent resulting in Ext.P1 report dated 7/4/1997. In this report, the Vigilance Officer concluded that the petitioner does not belong to the Uraly community, but belongs to scheduled caste, Kurava community. Based on Ext.P1, notice was issued by the Scrutiny Committee to which the petitioner submitted his reply. WPC No. 26037/09 :2 : 4. Accordingly, order dated 5/3/99 was passed by the Scrutiny Committee accepting Ext.P1 report and holding that the petitioner does not belong to the Scheduled Tribe of Uraly. On that basis, he was dismissed from service by order dated 26/4/1999, which was called in question before this Court in OP No.13622/99. By Ext.P37 judgment rendered on 01/02/2006, original petition was disposed of setting aside the impugned proceedings and directing the respondents to conduct a fresh enquiry in the matter. 5. In pursuance to the direction of this Court, the Scrutiny Committee issued Ext.P38 show cause notice dated 20/4/07 and in response to which petitioner submitted Ext.P39 reply along with supporting documents. Notice was issued and though the petitioner appeared before the Committee on 27/10/2007, however orders were not passed. 6. According to the petitioner, on account of Ext.P47 application made by a stranger under the Right to Information Act requiring disclosure of the steps that were taken consequent to the judgment in OP 13622/99, hurriedly Ext.P41 notice was issued on 22/6/09, requiring the petitioner to appear for a hearing on 26/6/09. Referring to Ext.P42 postal endorsement, petitioner says WPC No. 26037/09 :3 : that Ext.P41 notice was delivered to him at 5.30 p.m on 25/6/09. In para 63 of the writ petition, he says that due to paucity of time, a fax message was sent to the Scrutiny Committee requesting for an adjournment of the proceedings. However, he was not given any further intimation. Thereafter, he received Ext.P45 order dated 24/7/09 issued by the 5th respondent terminating him from service. This order was based on Exts.P43 ad Ext.P44 orders passed by the Scrutiny committee and the Government holding that the petitioner does not belong to the scheduled tribe community of Uraly. It is in these circumstances, writ petition has been filed seeking to quash Exts.P43, P44 and P45. 7. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is one of violation of the principles of natural justice in as much as he was denied an opportunity of hearing before the impugned orders were passed. 8. I heard the learned senior Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 4 and also the learned standing counsel appearing for the 5th respondent. According to the learned Government Pleader, the claim of the petitioner that he belongs to scheduled tribe community of Uraly has already been found against him as per Ext.P1 report of the 4th respondent. It is WPC No. 26037/09 :4 : stated that in discharge of their obligation to give the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, petitioner was issued Ext.P41 notice and that the petitioner did not avail of the opportunity thus extended to him. It is stated that it was therefore that considering the entire materials available on record, the aforesaid respondents had to pass Exts.P43 and 44. Therefore, according to the learned Government Pleader, there is no violation of the principles of natural justice warranting the intervention of this Court. 9. As far as the 5th respondent is concerned, the contention of the learned counsel is that they were bound to act on the basis of Exts.P43 and P44 and that it was therefore that the order was issued. It is stated that for the said action, they cannot be faulted. 10. Having considered the rival submissions made at the bar, I am inclined to think that there is substance in what the petitioner contends. As already seen, this is a proceedings which commenced way back in 1997. Ext.P41 notice was issued to the petitioner only on 22/6/2009 and hearing was scheduled on 26/6/2009. From the endorsement on Ext.P42, it would prima facie appear that the cover was delivered to the petitioner at 5.30 WPC No. 26037/09 :5 : p.m on 25/6/2009. In para 63 of the writ petition, there is also a specific averment that the petitioner had sent a fax message requesting for an adjournment of the proceedings. Although the Government Pleader is perfectly justified in contending that no proof of having despatched the fax has been produced by the petitioner, still fact remains that for a hearing that was scheduled on 26/6/2009, notice was delivered to the petitioner only on 25/6/2009 and that too only in the evening. Therefore, I am inclined to think that no adequate notice was given to the petitioner for the hearing that was scheduled on 25/6/2009. Thus, it was without giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing that the Scrutiny Committee considered the proceedings, which led to Exts.P43 and P44 orders culminating in Ext.P45 order of termination. 11. In such circumstances, I am of the view that the impugned orders were passed without a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In that view, Exts.P43, P44 and P45 deserves to be interfered with and accordingly, the said orders will stand set aside. 12. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: WPC No. 26037/09 :6 : (1) The 2nd respondent will issue fresh notice to the petitioner, hear him and pass orders on Ext.P1 report submitted by the 4th respondent in the light of other documents which are available on record. (2) Such proceedings shall be concluded as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 3 months of receipt of a copy of this judgment. (3) Since Ext.P45 order of termination has been set aside, 5th respondent is directed to reinstate the petitioner in service on production of a copy of this judgment. (4) As far as the claim of the petitioner for monetary benefits for the period subsequent to Ext.P45 is concerned, the same will be decided depending upon the fresh orders to be passed by the 2nd respondent and the consequential order to be passed by the 5th respondent. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp