P.Ramakrishnan v. The Chairman, T.N.State Level

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 15.02.2016

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL W.P.No.34491 of 2015 .......

P. Ramakrishnan .. Petitioner Vs.

1. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu State Level Scrutiny Committee & Secretary to Government, Adi-Dravida & Tribal Welfare Department, 'Namakkal Kavingnar Maaligai', Fort St. George, Chennai.9.

2. The Chief Personnel Manager, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., No.1 Ranganathan Gardens, 11th Main Road, Anna Nagar, Chennai 40.

3. The District Collector, Salem District, Salem.

4. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, SC/ST Vigilance Cell, Salem Range, Salem.

.. Respondents This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the 3rd respondent in connection with the impugned Report issued by him in C.No.1/ DSP/ SC/ST Vigilance Cell/ Salem Region/2013 dated 18.6.2014 and the consequential order of the 1st respondent issued in proceedings No.12182/ CV4(2)/ 2012-16 dated 31.8.2015 (received on 18.9.2015) and quash the same and direct the respondents to

accept the Community Certificate produced by the petitioner dated 5.7.78 issued by the Deputy Tahsildhar, Mettur Dam as genuine and held that the petitioner belongs to Konda Reddy Community and grant him all consequential service and monetary benefits.

For Petitioner : Mr. K. Venkatramani Sr. Counsel for Mr. M. Muthappan For Respondents : Mr. V. Raghunathan for M/s. T.S. Gopalan & Co., - RR 1 & 2 Mrs. A. Srijayanthi Govt. Pleader - R3 - - - - -

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI, J.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2.

Challenge in this writ petition is to the proceedings/order dated 31st August, 2015, whereunder, the petitioner's application seeking Hindu Konda Reddy (ST) community certificate is rejected on the ground that sufficient material has not been produced.

3. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that on the basis of the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil and another- Vs. - Additional Commissioner, Tribal Department and others1, the petitioner is entitled to a copy of the Vigilance report, if the same is adverse to his claim. In the case on hand, secret enquiry was conducted without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and he was not served with a copy of the vigilance report on the basis of which, the impugned order rejecting his claim was passed. He further submits that even the vigilance committee was not constituted properly, as directed by the Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) and as referred to by a Division Bench of this Court, wherein, one of us (Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) was a Member, in G.Venkitasamy and V.Balasubramaniam vs. The Chairman, State Level Scrutiny Committee and Secretary to Government, Adi (1994) 6 SCC 241

Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, Namakkal Kavingar Maaligai, Fort St. George, Chennai - 92. Thus, the vigilance enquiry itself is vitiated on the ground of Vigilance Committee not being constituted properly.

4. Per contra, Mrs. A. Sri Jayanthi, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the third respondent fairly submits that a copy of the vigilance report was not furnished to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. However, the impugned order was passed based on the materials produced by the petitioner.

5. Be that as it may, the course adopted by the respondents is not proper. The enquiry is required to be conducted in accordance with the guidelines laid down in Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra). It is further required that the vigilance enquiry is to be properly conducted, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and a copy of the report is to be served on the petitioner to enable him to put forward his defence/representation. But, in the case on hand, no such course was adopted. Thus, the impugned proceedings is vitiated.

6. Resultantly, the impugned proceedings is quashed and the writ petition is allowed remanding the matter to the State Level Scrutiny Committee to examine the petitioner's case afresh in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court as well as this Court, as aforestated. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

7. Now, it is informed that a copy of the vigilance report, during the pendency of the writ petition, has been supplied to the petitioner. According to the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, some pages are not legible. Therefore, the authorities are expected to serve a legible copy of the vigilance report for effective and proper representation.

-s/dAssistant Registrar True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar ra 2016-1- L.W. 289

To

1. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu State Level Scrutiny Committee & Secretary to Government, Adi-Dravida & Tribal Welfare Department, 'Namakkal Kavingnar Maaligai', Fort St. George, Chennai.9.

2. The Chief Personnel Manager, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., No.1 Ranganathan Gardens, 11th Main Road, Anna Nagar, Chennai 40.

3. The District Collector, Salem District, Salem.

4. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, SC/ST Vigilance Cell, Salem Range, Salem.

+1 cc to M/s.Muthappan Advocate sr.9515 +1 cc to M/s.T.S.Gopalan & Co Advocate sr.9696 W.P.No. 34491 of 2015 aa24/02/2016