IMPORTANT POINT
Employers can initiate disciplinary proceedings against employees for producing forged community certificates, independent of the genuineness of the community itself.

JUDGMENT :

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to allow the writ appeal by setting aside the order of Hon'ble Judge dated 27.04.2019 passed in W.P.No.11300 of 2011 and dismiss the writ petition.

Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to allow the writ appeal by setting aside the order of Hon'ble Judge dated 27.04.2019 passed in W.P.No.11301 of 2011 and dismiss the writ petition.

Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to allow the writ appeal by setting aside the order of Hon'ble Judge dated 27.04.2019 passed in W.P.No.11302 of 2011 and dismiss the writ petition.

The facts in nutshell as narrated by the parties would reveal that the 1st respondent in all the writ appeals secured employment in the United India Insurance Company Limited [hereinafter referred as “Insurance Company”] / appellant by producing Schedule Tribe Community certificate, wherein, the name of the community of the respondents are stated as “Konda Reddy”.

2. The 1st respondent in all the writ appeals were appointed as Assistants in the appellant / Insurance Company. The employer sent the community certificate for verification of its genuinity and the District Collector, Salem vide proceedings in R.O.C.167924/90 (D10) dated 30.04.1991 sent a reply to the appellant / Insurance Company stating that during enquiry conducted by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mettur, they found that the respondents working in appellant / Insurance Company have forged the signature of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mettur. The District Collector further stated in the said letter that no such community certificate have been issued by the Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mettur and the certificates produced by the respondents are found to be bogus. A request was made to the Revenue Divisional Officer to initiate all further actions.

3. Based on the letter of the District Collector, Salem dated 30.04.1991 departmental disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the respondents for securing public employment by producing bogus community certificate. The 1st respondent in all the writ appeals approached this Court challenging the initiation of disciplinary proceedings by filing writ petitions, which were initially rejected. Thereafter, the respondents preferred writ appeals in W.A.Nos.1002 to 1004 of 2001. The Division Bench passed final orders on 06.12.2006 and the relevant portion of the judgment are extracted hereunder;

“4. Though the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants/writ petitioners seem to be attractive, but we do not subscribe to such submissions. It appears that the said letter dated 7.7.1983 or the judgment rendered in Vol.98 (1985) L.W. 105 (cited supra) is not applicable to the case of the appellants/writ petitioners. The aforesaid circular dated 7.7.1983 relates to community certificate issued by the competent authority, wherein, later on if it comes to the notice of the authorities that the said certificate was not obtained correctly, but by misrepresentation, it was directed that before cancellation of such certificate already issued, the concerned person should be given an opportunity of hearing to justify the genuineness of the community claimed by him.

5. In the present case, it is not the allegation that the appellants/writ petitioners obtained the their community certificates on their misrepresentation. On the other hand, the allegation is that no such certificates were issued and they are forged. In such circumstances, the question of cancellation of the certificates purported to have been issued, does not arise and thereby, question of giving opportunity to the concerned person by the Collector is also not applicable.

6. The only question to be determined in these appeals is Whether the community certificate produced by one or other appellants/writ petitioners was forged or not. Prima facie, this issue can be determined only by a Court of competent jurisdiction.