P. Varadaraju vs The District Collector and Chairman, District Level Vigilance Committee, The Revenue Divisional Officer and Canara Bank

D. Murugesan, J.—The Petitioner has prayed for issuance of writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the 1st Respondent made in R. Dis. 4920/92/D10 dated 21.2.2001 and to quash the same.

The Petitioner was terminated from service on the basis of the findings of the District Level Vigilance Committee appointed by the Government of Tamil Nadu in G.O. 2D(18) Adi Dravida and Tribal Welfare Department dated 1.4.97 to go into the genuineness of the community certificate. The said proceedings of the District Level Vigilance Committee cancelling the Community certificate of the Petitioner has been challenged in this writ petition on the ground that the said committee consisting of two members has not been constituted in conformity with the directions of the Supreme Court made in the decision in Kumari Madhuri Patila and another Vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and others,

Mr. N. Kannadasan, learned Counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the Government Order constituting the Committees at the District Level and State Level itself was challenged before this Court in a batch of writ petitions and the same was upheld by a learned single Judge. However, a Division Bench of this Court by order dated 6.9.2001 made in C.M.P. No. 14218 of 2001 in W.A. No. 1645 of 2001 granted interim stay of the said Government Order. The learned Counsel submitted that as on today, the order of the District Level Vigilance Committee constituted to go into the genuineness of the community certificate itself has been stayed and therefore, the order of termination based upon the order of the District Level Vigilance Committee cannot also be sustained. Equally, the District Level Vigilance Committee cannot go into the genuineness of the Community Certificate as it has not been constituted as per the directions of the Supreme Court made in the judgment reported in Kumari Madhuri Patila and another Vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and others, referred supra. The learned Counsel would also rely upon a Divisional Bench judgment of the Kerala High Court reported in Dr. C. Velayudhan Vs. State of Kerala and Others, holding that the constitution of two members committee is not in accordance with the directions of the Supreme Court and therefore, the said committee cannot go into the genuineness of the community certificate. The learned Counsel would rely upon another judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 2001 (4) SC 461 (Baswant v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.) wherein the Supreme Court has also held that the constitution of the Committee consisting of two members is not in accordance with the decision rendered by the Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil''s case. Hence, the learned Counsel submitted that the impugned order of the 1st Respondent cancelling the community certificate of the Petitioner is liable to be set aside.

Heard Mr. M.S. Palanisamy, learned Additional Government Pleader for the 1st and 2nd Respondent and Mr. P.S. Raman, learned Counsel for the 3rd Respondent bank. The learned Additional Government Pleader does not dispute the fact that the very Government Order passed in G.O. 2D (18) Adi Dravida and Tribal Welfare Department dated 1.4.97 has been stayed by this Court in W.A. No. 1645 of 2001 and the Supreme Court as well as the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court have held that the constitution of two members committee at the District Level is not in accordance with the decision of the Supreme Court made in Kumari Madhuri Patil''s case.

Mr. P.S. Raman, learned Counsel for the 3rd Respondent bank submitted that the Petitioner has been taken back into service and the Petitioner is still functioning.

When the question of verification of community certificate came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in the decision in Kumari Madhuri Patila and another Vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and others, referred supra, the Supreme Court has observed in paragraph 12(4) as follows: -

All the State Governments shall constitute a Committee of three officers, namely, (I) an Additional or Joint Secretary or any officer higher in rank of the Director of the concerned department, (II) the Director, Social Welfare/Tribal Welfare/Backward Class Welfare, as the case may, and (III) in the case of Scheduled Castes another officer who has intimate knowledge in the verification and issuance of the social status certificates. In the case of the Scheduled Tribes, the Research Officer who has intimate knowledge in identifying the tribes, tribal communities, part of or groups of tribes or tribal communities.

As per the above direction, the State Government shall constitute a Committee consisting three officers, namely, (I) an Additional or Joint Secretary or any officer higher in rank of the Director of the concerned department, (II) the Director, Social Welfare/Tribal Welfare/Backward Class Welfare, as the case may, and (III) in the case of Scheduled Castes another officer who has intimate knowledge in the verification and issuance of the social status certificates. In the case of the Scheduled Tribes, the Research Officer who has intimate knowledge in identifying the tribes, tribal communities, part of or groups of tribes or tribal communities. In view of the clear directions, the committee constituted by the State Government consisting of two members in G.0.2D(18) Adi Dravida and Tribal Welfare Department dated 1.4.97 cannot be sustained. In similar circumstances, K.P. Sivasubramaniam, J. by order dated 25.4.2001 in W.P. No. 8573 of 2001 has considered and directed the Respondents to proceed with the enquiry as to the genuineness of the community certificate only by a proper committee constituted with three members as per the directions of the Supreme Court. The judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 2001 (4) SC 461 and a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court have also held that two members committee constituted to go into the genuineness of community certificate is not in accordance with the directions of the Supreme Court. In view of the above, the impugned proceedings of the District Level Vigilance Committee is set aside and the writ petition is allowed without prejudice to the Respondents to go into the genuineness of the community certificate of the Petitioner by a committee constituted in accordance with the directions of the Supreme Court made in the decision in Kumari Madhuri Patila and another Vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and others, referred supra. It is also made clear that the payment of backwages to the Petitioner pursuant to the order of termination shall be subject to any orders that may be passed by the appropriate committee. With the above observations, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected W.M.P. is closed.