The Civil Rights Enforcement Cell lacks jurisdiction to initiate investigations without a prior referral from the District Caste Verification Committee, rendering such actions null and void.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following reliefs:

“A. To call for records relating to the issue of the impugned order bearing No. Ji.Sa.Ka.Aa./Ra/11/2010-11 Sa.Ka-3/CR-dated 21.06.2014 passed by the Respondent No.4 vide Annexure-G and the Proceedings of the Meeting dated 17.05.2014 passed by the Respondent No.3 vide Annexure-F together with the impugned order passed by the Respondent No.2 dated 28.02.2017 passed in Appeal No. CR-12/2014-15 vide ANNEXURE-M and after perusal set aside the same.

B. To pass such other orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. Heard the learned Counsel Sri. Vijaykumar Bajantri for Sri. G.K. Hiregoudar, appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel Sri. C. Jagadish, appearing for the respondents.

3. Facts adumbrated are as follows:

The petitioner is appointed as an Assistant Teacher in Harohalli Vidya Samste, an aided institution, against an aided post. The petitioner is said to have secured the employment on the strength of a caste certificate depicting him to be belonging to Bhovi caste. The petitioner is said to have submitted the caste certificate that was in his possession, which depicted him to be belonging to the Bhovi caste, for securing promotion to the post of Headmaster, notified as Scheduled Caste. The petitioner was then promoted as the Headmaster against a post reserved for Scheduled Caste / Scheduled Tribe and the same was approved by the competent authority. When things stood thus, on 16.07.2007, a complaint comes to be filed by respondent No.5, before the Civil Rights Enforcement Cell, alleging that the petitioner had obtained a false caste certificate stating that he belongs to Scheduled Caste-Bhovi, though he belonged to Gangamata community. On the said complaint, the Civil Rights Enforcement Cell suo motu institutes proceedings on the complaint and directs investigation into the matter at the hands of the Deputy Superintendent of Police of the Civil Rights Enforcement Cell. The investigation is said to have been conducted without notifying the petitioner and the result of the investigation is the direction to the District Caste Verification Committee to initiate proceedings towards cancellation of the caste certificate.

4. In the interregnum, the petitioner retires on attaining the age of superannuation and files an appeal. Based upon the said report, two proceedings spring, one initiated by the District Caste Verification Committee, in which the certificate of the petitioner stood cancelled and the other, a crime registered in Crime No.216 of 2014.

5. Insofar as the criminal case is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has been acquitted in the said case and that the acquittal has attained finality. The issue that now falls for consideration at the hands of this Court is whether the Civil Rights Enforcement Cell could have entertained the complaint and initiated suo motu investigation without the matter being referred to by the District Caste Verification Committee to the hands of the Civil Rights Enforcement Cell for the purpose of conduct of investigation.

6. The learned counsel Sri. Vijaykumar Bajantri, appearing for the petitioner, submits that the Civil Rights Enforcement Cell did not have jurisdiction to conduct a suo motu investigation upon a complaint, unless the Caste Verification Committee had directed it to do so. The learned counsel submits that since the very foundation of the case rests on the investigation conducted by the Civil Rights