The main legal point established in this judgment is that the State Level Scrutiny Committee must follow the proper procedure for verification of community certificates, including providing an opportunity for cross-examination and considering all relevant evidence. The court emphasized the importance of conducting a thorough examination and not relying solely on birth extracts or school records.

ORDER :

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the 1st respondent in its Proceedings No.6820/CV5/2019-10 dated 11.02.2022 and the consequential order of the 2nd respondent in its No.103/Doo/AFU/Disc & Legal/IE/KJA dated 11.03.2022 and quash both the orders.

Challenge in the writ petition is to the order of the State Level Scrutiny Committee dated 11.02.2022, in and by which, the Committee concluded that the claim of the petitioner that he belongs to scheduled tribe community ‘Konda Reddy’ is not genuine and consequential order of termination issued by the employer viz., 2nd respondent dated 11.03.2022.

2. The claim of the petitioner is that he belonged to Scheduled Tribe community viz., Konda Reddy and a certificate to that effect was issued by the Tahsildar, Mettur on 17.11.1980 and later by the Revenue Divisional officer, Mettur on 27.10.1988. He was appointed as a semi-skilled worker with the 2nd respondent in the year 1997 and at present is working as a Master Craftsman in Ordnance Factory at Trichy, which is now under the control of the 2nd respondent. The employer referred the certificate for verification by the State Level Scrutiny Committee.

3. The petitioner would claim that all his paternal uncles and aunts have been described as persons belonging to Konda Reddy community in their school records. Most of them have been favoured with community certificates as persons belonging to Scheduled Tribe community of Konda reddy. In fact, a mandamus has been issued by this Court at the instance of one of his uncles Sanjeevi to issue Scheduled Tribe community certificate to his daughter Thaara Shanmathi.

4. Upon reference, the District Level Vigilance Cell enquired in the Village of the petitioner and concluded that the petitioner does not belong to the Scheduled Tribe community viz., Konda Reddy. The report was served on the petitioner on 20.03.2015. The petitioner sent a detailed explanation on 30.03.2015 pointing out that the materials collected by the Vigilance Cell in its discreet enquiries have not been forwarded to him and the same is in violation of the settled procedure established by law in relation to verification of community certificates. The petitioner would submit that he had also sought for cross-examination of the witnesses whose statements were recorded by the District Level Vigilance Cell. Without furnishing the documents and without giving an opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses, the state Level Scrutiny Committee concluded that the claim of the petitioner is not genuine and recommended cancellation of certificate by order dated 07.04.2016.

5. The said order was challenged by the petitioner in W.P.No.17741 of 2016. The said writ petition came to be allowed on 18.04.2017, pointing out that there had been substantial violation of principles of natural justice in the procedure adopted by the State Level Scrutiny Committee. The Division Bench has held that the petitioner is entitled to copies of all the documents that were relied upon by the Vigilance Cell and the petitioner should also be provided with opportunity to cross-examine the persons whose statements have been relied upon by the Vigilance Cell. The Division Bench of this Court issued a direction requiring the District Level Vigilance Cell to furnish all the documents and provide opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses and thereafter pass orders in accordance with law.

6. In the interregnum, the petitioner’s services were terminated by the employer on 14.05.2016 in violation of the order of stay granted by this court on 11.05.2016. The Division Bench also directed reinstatement of the petitioner and the petitioner was reinstated in service on 06.04.2017. Thereafter, consequent upon directions issued by the Division Bench, the petitioner was summoned for enquiry on 18.09.2017. The petitioner appeared on that day and