The court emphasized the importance of following the guidelines for verification of Scheduled Tribe community certificates and upheld the impugned order based on the findings of the Vigilance Committee and State Level Scrutiny Committee.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the 1st respondent''s impugned Proceedings No.16127/CV-4(2)/2014-8 dated 04.01.2022 and quash the same.)

R. Hemalatha, J.

1. The petitioner has challenged the impugned proceedings dated 04.01.2022 issued by the Tamil Nadu State Level Scrutiny Committee-III of Adi Dravidar Tribal Welfare Department, Government of Tamil Nadu.

2. Briefly into the facts of the case:

The petitioner R.Balasundaram was in possession of a Community Certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Avinashi, Coimbatore District bearing Serial No.70/80 dated 11.02.1980 certifying him as and W.M.P.Nos.12723 & 12725 of 2022 belonging to ''Hindu Konda Reddy'' a Scheduled Tribe Community. Based on this certificate he was appointed as Khalasi under the quota of Scheduled Tribe in the Institute of Forest Genetics and Tree Breeding, Coimbatore on 15.10.1982. Subsequently, he was promoted to the cadre of Lower Division Clerk on 03.12.1999 and later became Upper Division Clerk on 09.09.2020. He attained his superannuation on 30.11.2021 and was being paid only the provisional pension.

3. On 30.09.2014, while he was in service his employer the third respondent referred his community certificate to the first respondent committee which in turn initiated proceedings on 04.07.2017 referring the matter to Vigilance Cell in the year 2018. The Vigilance Cell made an enquiry and submitted a report dated 02.05.2018 stating that the petitioner does not belong to a Scheduled Tribe Community and the same was accepted by the first respondent committee which cancelled the Original Community Certificate dated 11.02.1980 issued by the Tahsildar, Avinashi, Coimbatore District. Hence this Writ Petition praying for quashing the impugned order of the first respondent committee.

4. Heard Mr.N.Naganathan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.P.Gurunathan, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 & 2 and Mr.M.T.Arunan, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent.

5. Mr.N.Naganathan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the impugned order prima facie was in total violation of the decision of the Apex Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil vs Additional Commissioner reported in 1994 (6) SCC 241. According to the counsel, the first respondent committee did not disclose any valid reason for cancelling the petitioner''s community certificate that too after four decades since the date of issuance of the original certificate. It was also pointed out by the learned counsel that the Guidelines of Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension, Government of India were categorical that such verification of Scheduled Tribe community certificates was to be done only for those who had obtained employment under the quota for Scheduled Tribe category during or after 1995 and therefore, the impugned proceedings has no legal sanctity. It was also pointed out that the inordinate delay of about 40 years without going into the antecedents of the petitioner is arbitrary and unsustainable in law. It was further contended that the Tahsildar, Avinashi in his reply dated 03.04.2018 to the Vigilance Cell had mentioned that the records of the year 1980 pertaining to Community Certificate were not traceable and penalising the petitioner for not preserving the old records is unjustifiable. Further, it was argued that the constitution of the first respondent committee itself was not in accordance with the guidelines set out in Kumari Madhuri Patil case (cited supra). It was contended that the second member of the said committee was not in a competent position to be a member. The provisional pension which was being paid till December 2021 was also stopped, after the receipt of the impugned order, and the terminal benefits due to the petitioner was already withheld by the third respondent and thus causing untol