The subsequent report exonerating the petitioner was void ab-initio and non-est in the eyes of the law, and the termination without a departmental enquiry did not violate Article 311 of the Constitution.

JUDGMENT :

Atul Sreedharan, J

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner who was initially aggrieved by his order of suspension and, thereafter of termination from service, due to which he had amended the petition raising additional grounds and prayers.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows. The petitioner was selected in the J&K Judicial Services as a Munsiff, Judicial Magistrate, 1st. Class, in the year 2000. He is stated to have taken the benefit of the “Resident of Backward Area” (hereinafter referred to as the “RBA certificate”) certificate taking advantage of which he was selected into the service. Resident of Backward Area certificate is akin to a caste certificate elsewhere, based on which the benefit of reservation is taken in Government service.

3. The petitioner’s selection was challenged in a writ petition being SWP No. 1724/1999. The petitioner was one Reyaz Ahmad Gadda. He challenged the selection of the petitioner on the ground that he was not a resident of Rakhshilvat but of village Mirgund. A second writ petition being SWP no. 973/2000 was filed by one Javed Ahmad who was one of the candidates, who challenged the selection of the petitioner on similar grounds.

4. The learned Single Judge, who was seized of the matter, passed an interim order on 11.08.2003 directing the Registrar Vigilance of this Court to conduct an enquiry and give a report. The Registrar Vigilance conducted an enquiry concluding that the petitioner fraudulently secured a place in the J&K Judicial Service based on a fabricated RBA certificate. The petition was finally disposed of by the learned Single Judge on 06.06.2008. The said order was challenged by the petitioner by filing LPA No. 110/2008. The LPA was disposed of by the learned Division Bench of this Court issuing directions, inter alia, directing the Deputy Commissioner, Bandipora, under SRO 126 of 1994 to conduct an enquiry into the genuineness of the RBA certificate based on which the petitioner secured a position in service. In effect, the direction given by the learned Single Judge to the Registrar Vigilance to enquire into the case was set aside. However, in the interim, the report of the Registrar Vigilance was sent to the High Court on the administrative side by the learned Single Judge. The Administrative Committee, on the basis of the report of the Registrar Vigilance, suspended the petitioner from service.

5. The petitioner also challenged the order passed by the learned Division Bench in the LPA which, inter alia, had directed the Deputy Commissioner, to enquire into the genuineness of the RBA certificate before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

6. The Supreme Court initially, vide its order dated 08.07.2016 stayed the order passed by the learned Division Bench in the LPA. However, by its order dated 04.10.2017 the initial order of 08.07.2016 was modified whereby, the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed the Deputy Commissioner, Bandipora to conduct an enquiry into the caste verification certificate after giving an opportunity of participation to the petitioner.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that during the pendency of the SLP before the Supreme Court, a report was given by the Deputy Commissioner, dated 12.01.2018 whereby doubt was raised on the genuineness of the RBA certificate. The said report was also placed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court which is recorded in its order dated 15.01.2018. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner says that the copy was not given to the petitioner. Inter alia, learned counsel for the petitioner has indicted the said report stating that the Deputy Commissioner had delegated the work of ascertaining the genuineness of the RBA certificate to the Tehsildar concerned who in turn further delegated it to the Naib Tehsildar.

8. On 30.01.2010, second report which refers to itself as the final report of the Deputy Commissioner, which is extremely elaborate, was passed, which categorically held that the RBA Certi