The State Level Scrutiny Committee has the authority to scrutinize community certificates and make decisions based on evidence. The court will not interfere with the Committee's decision unless there is bias or procedural lapses.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the proceedings bearing No.10892/CVIII/2007, dated 29.03.2019 of the first respondent and quash the same.)

This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner to call for the records relating to the proceedings bearing No.10892/CVIII/2007, dated 29.03.2019 of the first respondent and quash the order passed therein, by issue of a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction and pass such other or further order as this Hon''ble Court may deem fit under the circumstances of the case.

2. The gist of the case of petitioner are as follows,

(i) According to the petitioner, he belongs to Scheduled Tribe community (Konda Reddis) and to that effect the Revenue authorities have issued community certificate dated 24.12.1976. The petitioner was appointed as apprentice Fire man in the Railway Department on 03.04.1978, based on the said community certificate. In the mean time, the Railway Department has sent the community certificate to the scrutiny committee and the same was pending for a long time. In the mean time, the petitioner has retired from service on 30.06.2013. But the Southern Railways refused to disburse his terminal benefits except sanctioning provisional pension. Hence, he filed the Original Application in O.A.No.1461 of 2013 before the Central Administrative Tribunal to disburse his terminal benefits and the same was allowed. But the employer of the Railway Department has challenged the said order before the Hon''ble High Court in W.P.No.28396 of 2016 and the same is also pending. While, he was in service in the year 2007, based upon the third party complaints, his community certificate was sent for verification to the District Level Vigilance Committee and the said Committee has passed an adverse order.

(ii) Aggrieved by the same, he filed the Writ Petition in W.P.(MD).No.4429 of 2007, before this Hon''ble Court and the same was disposed of in his favour and directed him to approach the first respondent i.e., State Level Scrutiny Committee and further directed the first respondent to complete the enquiry within four weeks. In pursuance of the order passed by this Court, he has filed an application before the first respondent, State Level Scrutiny Committee on 01.09.2008. The first respondent summoned him for enquiry on 01.12.2014, after his date of superannuation. Thereafter, four different Deputy Superintendent of Police heading different vigilance cells, have conducted the vigilance enquiry and submitted the report on 12.03.2018 without enquiring the petitioner. Based on the three different vigilance cells in the vigilance cell report , the first respondent had passed the impugned order dated 29.03.2019 by cancelling his community certificate.

(iii) Aggrieved by the said order, he has filed this Writ Petition alleging that in the vigilance report, there is a reference to one Mrs.Avudaiammal, who is none other than his own younger blood sister and her community was recorded as Reddiar based on the written statement of the Head Master, Panchayat Union Elementary School, P.Pudur dated 05.03.2018. When the Vigilance report states that his sister belongs to Reddiar, the impugned order states that she belongs to Chettiar. Likewise, in the impugned order, there is a reference about the report of Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai, dated 29.11.2014. The said spot enquiry report pertains to enquiry of his mother, namely Mrs.Lakshmiammal. In fact, the RDO has not enquired his mother in person and she was examined by the second vigilance cell only on 21.06.2016 but the said deposition was not considered in the impugned order. Further when he appeared for enquiry before the first respondent on 28.09.2018, he produced more than 50 documents, but the first respondent had indica