IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2011 / 31ST ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 19258 of 2011(F) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- P.PANDIAN,S/O.N.VENKATACHALAPATHY, DY.AREA MANAGER/GYPSUM,BADGE NO.11952, MARKETING DIVISION,THE FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS TRAVANCORE LIMITED,TRICHY,TAMILNADU,PIN-672010, NOW R/AT.HOUSE NO.2,SOORYA NAGAR,CHANDRANAGAR P.O. PALGHAT-678 007. BY ADV. SRI.JIMMY GEORGE SRI.M.JOSE ANTONY RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS TRAVANCORE LIMITED, REP. BY ITS CHARMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR, UDYOGAMANDAL-683 501. 2. DY.GENERAL MANAGER (MARKETING), THE FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS TRAVANCORE LIMITED, MARKETING DIVISION, UDYOGAMANDAL, PIN-683501. 3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MADURAI, PIN-20. 4. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, USILAMPATTI, PIN-625 532. 5. THE TAHSILDAR, USILAMPATTI, PIN-625 532. R1 & R2 BY ADV.SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.19258/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE COMMUNITY CERTIFICATE DATED 21/2/1982 P2 COPY OF THE MEMO DGM(MKTG)-193 DATED 13/7/2010 P2(A) COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET AS ANNEXURE 1 P2(B) COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET AS ANNEXURE II P3 COPY OF the REPLY DATED 2/8/10 OF THE PETITIONER TO EXT.P-2 P4 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 12/4/2007 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P5 COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT WHICH IS TAMIL P5(A) COPY OF THE TRANSLATION OF EXT.P-5 P6 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 12/7/10 SENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 19258 OF 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is working as Deputy Area Manager/Gypsum under the Fertilisers and Chemicals Travancore Limited. This writ petition has been filed challenging initiation and continuation of disciplinary proceedings on the ground mentioned in Ext.P2 pending final decision on Ext.P6. Admittedly, for the purpose of obtaining appointment under the first respondent the petitioner had produced Ext.P1 Community Certificate. Now, Ext.P2 memorandum dated 13.7.2010 has been issued to the petitioner proposing to take disciplinary action and for conducting enquiry against the petitioner alleging that he has committed misconduct under sub rule (a), (d), and (e) of Rule 7 of the FACT Employees (Conduct, Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1997 for Managerial Personnel. Annexure-II appended therewith is the imputations of misconducts supporting articles of charges. The relevant portion of the same reads thus:- WPC.No.19258/2011 : 2 : “.......... On subsequent verification of the genuineness of the Caste Certificate, it was reported by the District Collector, Madurai, vide letter No.Roc.L8/928/04 dt. 17.3.2007 that Shri V Pandian does not belong to Hindu Kammara(ST). The report D.Dis.No.823/06/A1 dt.19.02.2007 of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Usilampetti enclosed by the Collector reveals that Shri Pandian belong to Hindu-Vadugan of OBC and he obtained a false caste certificate as Hindu Kammara. It was also mentioned in the report that the said Caste Certificate was not issued by the Taluk Officer, Usilampetti and no reference number of the office was seen/mentioned in the certificate and hence the certificate produced by Shri Pandian was a false Caste Certificate. From the letter of the District Collector, Madurai, and report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Usilampetti, it is evident that Shri V Pandian secured employment in the company by producing false Caste Certificate.” (emphasis supplied) 2. The contention of the petitioner is that Ext.P1 certificate has not so far been cancelled and therefore, there is no justification in initiating or conducting an enquiry against the petitioner alleging commission of fraud. Ext.P2 would reveal that it is a report of the 4th respondent in Tamil and Ext.P5 is its translation in English. Ext.P1 claims to be a certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Usilampatty and admittedly, for obtaining appointment under the first respondent the petitioner has produced the same. Ext.P5(a) would reveal that when enquiry was made by the 3rd respondent the Tahsildar, Usilampatty informed that it was not issued by Usilampatty Tahsildar and there is no file number in the certificate. Accordingly, the 3rd respondent WPC.No.19258/2011 : 3 : informed that Ext.P1 is a false certificate. True that, it deals with the petitioner's caste status enquiry as well. In Ext.P5(a) it was also stated. According to the petitioner he has submitted Ext.P6 before the District Collector, Madurai feeling aggrieved by Ext.P5. It is further submitted that along with Ext.P6 he has produced certain documents that shows that he is belonging to the reserved community of Hindu Kammara. The imputations of misconducts to support articles of charge extracted above would reveal the allegations now levelled against the petitioner is not one confining only to the allegation that he is not belonging to the Community of Hindu Kammara as claimed by him whilst it also carries a more serious allegation that he had produced a false caste certificate in fact, a forged certificate to earn appointment. Evidently, the allegation as is obvious from Ext.P2, is that such a certificate was not issued by the Taluk Usilampatti and no file number of the office was mentioned in the certificate. When the enquiry made by the 3rd respondent, District Collector revealed that the said certificate was not issued by Tahsildar, Usilampatty as there is no file number in the WPC.No.19258/2011 : 4 : certificate and when that fact is communicated to respondents 1 and 2 they cannot sit quiet as allegation of commission of fraud, certainly invites a serious probe and such an allegation cannot be lightly taken by any authority. In other words, the allegation is one that he has produced a forged certificate. When that be the case, I am of the view that the contention of the petitioner that since Ext.P1 certificate is not cancelled the respondent are not justified in initiating and continuing with the disciplinary proceedings cannot be countenanced. True that any enquiry for deciding the caste status or correctness of the claim of a particular status can be decided only by the competent authority authorised for that purpose. However, when the appointing authority orders an enquiry, on getting reliable information that the certificate produced for obtaining the appointment is a forged certificate that cannot be interfered with at this stage. Admittedly, now the petitioner was served with Ext.P2 memo of charges in contemplation of an enquiry. It will be open to the petitioner to raise all those contentions in his written statement ans also at the time of the enquiry before the enquiry officer. It is made clear that I have WPC.No.19258/2011 : 5 : not made any observation as to the merits of the contentions raised by the petitioner. There is no merit in the prayer of the petitioner to interfere with Ext.P2 charge memo at this stage and to stay the continuation of the proceedings, in the aforementioned circumstances. In that view of the matter, this writ petition is liable to fail and accordingly, it is dismissed. Sd/- (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge