ORDER: This writ petition has been filed to quash the impugned proceedings of the first respondent dated 27.8.1990 whereby the services of the petitioner were terminated.

2. The petitioner joined the services of the respondent- bank on 26.7.1982 claiming that he belongs to Kattunaicken community, which is notified as a scheduled tribe. The respondent- bank forwarded a complaint to the District Collector on 21.12.1987 with regard to the genuineness of the community certificate produced by the petitioner. The Revenue Divisional Officer conducted an enquiry on 29.9.1987 and 28.12.1987. On 25.1.1988, the Assistant Collector of Salem sent a report to the Superintendent of Police, Salem informing him that the certificate produced by the petitioner is a forged one and further requested the Superintendent of Police to take up further investigation and file a criminal prosecution against the petitioner herein.

3. On 10.12.1988, the respondent- bank served a show cause notice on the petitioner calling upon the petitioner to explain as to why the petitioner’s services should not be terminated for having produced a forged caste certificate in support of the material information. On 17.1.1989, the petitioner also submitted his explanation. On 8.12.1989, the petitioner’s services were terminated.

4. As against the same, the petitioner filed W.P. No.16225 of 1989. By an order dated 5.7.1990, this Court allowed the said writ petition and remanded the matter, to the respondent- bank to consider the petitioner’s explanation and pass fresh orders. Thereafter, the respondent- bank passed the impugned order.

5. Mr.Singaravelan, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Revenue Divisional Officer did not hold any enquiry. The petitioner was not aware about the materials on which the Enquiry Officer found that the certificate produced by the petitioner is a forged one. A copy of the enquiry report was also not furnished to the petitioner. Further, no final orders were passed by the Collector cancelling the community certificate on the basis of the report filed by the Enquiry Officer. Till such final order is passed by the appropriate authority, no action can be taken against the petitioner. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

6. Apart from this, he further contended that the respondent- bank had issued a show cause notice on the basis of the report of the Enquiry Officer as stated in the counter affidavit. When the respondent- bank is taking disciplinary action against the petitioner on the basis of the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, the respondent- bank is duty bound to furnish a copy of the report to the petitioner. The non-furnishing of such a report of the Revenue Divisional Officer along with the show cause notice vitiates the entire proceedings. Hence, the impugned proceedings is liable to be set aside.

7. On the contrary, Mr.N.G.R. Prasad, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the Revenue Divisional Officer held the enquiry, in which, the petitioner had also participated. Thereafter, the report has been submitted stating that the community certificate produced by the petitioner is a forged one. A criminal complaint has, also been filed and the same is pending. The petitioner is fully aware about these facts. The respondent- bank issued the show cause notice calling upon the petitioner to explain as to why his services should not be terminated for the production of a forged community certificate. As the explanation submitted by the petitioner is not satisfactory, the impugned order of termination was passed. Further, the petitioner had signed a declaration that the particulars furnished by him in the application are correct. Now that the declaration made by the petitioner with regard to the community to which he belongs had been found to be false, his services had been terminated. When once the petitioner asserts that he belongs to a particular community, the burden is on him to establish the same

Click Here to Read the rest of this document