THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.31350 of 1998 Date: 30.1.2008 Between : Y. Brahmaiah …..Petitioner And Electronic Corporation of India Limited, Moula Ali, Hyderabad and others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.31350 of 1998 ORDER: Questioning the action of the respondents in initiating disciplinary proceedings against him, pursuant to the charge sheet issued in proceedings No.ECIL:SPD:060319:29, dated 29.11.1997, as arbitrary and illegal and contrary to Section 5 of the A.P. (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes) Regulations of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1993 and Rule 9 of the A.P. (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes) Issue of Community, Nativity and Date of Birth Certificates Rules, 1997, the present writ petition is filed. In the charge sheet dated 29.11.1997 issued by the respondent- Corporation, the petitioner is alleged to have obtained employment on submitting a false Caste Certificate indicating that he belonged to the Scheduled Tribe (Koya Caste) and that the District Collector, in his letter dated 13.11.1997, had informed that they had conducted a detailed enquiry into the matter and found that the petitioner belonged to “Kapu” Caste, but, not Scheduled Tribe (Koya caste) as claimed by him. Sri D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that as long as the Certificate issued by the competent authority has not been set aside in accordance with the 1993 Act and the Rules made thereunder, no disciplinary action could be taken against the petitioner on the allegation that he had submitted a false Caste Certificate. Learned counsel would submit that, subsequent to the filing of the writ petition, the District Collector had cancelled the Caste Certificate by order dated 29.7.2004 and thereafter a notification was issued in the Khammam District Gazette on 4.8.2004 declaring that he did not belong to S.T. (Koya) community; that the petitioner had thereafter preferred an appeal to the Government which also came to be dismissed on 16th September, 2007, that the petitioner had questioned both the proceedings of the District Collector and that of the Government in Writ Petition No. 28260 of 2007 and that this Court, by order in W.P.M.P. No. 36933 of 2007 in W.P. No. 28260 of 2007, had granted interim suspension of the said order. Learned counsel would submit that, since the impugned orders have been suspended, no disciplinary action can be taken against the petitioner. Sri P. Nageswara Sree, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent- Corporation, on the other hand, would state that the Corporation was not a party to the earlier writ petition and, since they were not a party, any order, which, this court may have passed, is not binding on them. Learned counsel would contend that, in the absence of any direction, the respondent- Corporation is not precluded from initiating disciplinary action against the petitioner. The mere fact that the petitioner had obtained an order against the District Collector and the Government, would not bar the respondents from taking disciplinary action against him. All the events aforementioned are subsequent to the filing of the present writ petition. While the Caste Certificate has since been cancelled and has been published in the Gazette in accordance with the provisions of the 1993 Act, the fact remains that the said order has been suspended by this Court and the interim order of suspension continues to remain in force. However the submission of Sri P. Nageswara Sree that the respondent- Corporation is not a party to the writ petition cannot be said to be without merit. Ends of justice would be met if the interim suspension granted pending the disposal of the present writ petition is continued for a period of two months from today within which period the petitioner shall be at liberty to take appropriate steps to question the validity of the charge memo issued by the respondent-Corporation, in the light of the subsequent events, in accordance with law. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. No costs. __________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J DATE: 30th January, 2008 pnb