(R4 impleaded as a party respondent as per order of this Court DT. 09/11/2010 in MP 2/2010 and MP 2/2010 in W.P.(MD) No.6700/2010 and W.P.(MD) No.7677/2010) COMMON PRAYER: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to the proceedings of the 1st respondent dated Nil.04.2010 (signed on 30.04.2010) and 14.05.2010 respectively in Na.Ka.No.B4/10436/2006 so as to quash the same.
(Order of the Court was made by T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J.) These writ petitions pertain to communal status of the original writ petitioner, who died during the pendency of these writ petitions and his legal heirs have been brought on record.
2.W.P.(MD) No.6700 of 2010 has been filed, challenging the enquiry notice dated 30.04.2010, issued by the first respondent, directing the original writ petitioner to appear for enquiry before the Committee to verify the genuineness of the Community Certificate issued to him as belonging to a Scheduled Caste Community. The said writ petition was admitted and an order of interim stay was granted by this Court. Therefore, the Committee should not have proceeded with the enquiry, but it appears, the Committee proceeded with the enquiry. Since the original writ petitioner did not appear before the Committee and did not produce any documents an order was passed cancelling the Community Certificate issued to the original writ petitioner as not being genuine, challenging the same the original writ petitioner has filed W.P.(MD) No.7977 of 2010.
3.When the enquiry notice itself has been subject matter of challenge in a writ petition and there was an order of interim stay granted by the Court on 13.05.2010, the first respondent ought not to have proceeded further with the enquiry to determine the communal status of the original writ petitioner exparte. Therefore, the decision taken by the Committee, which ultimately culminated in the order dated 14.05.2010, is vitiated on account of procedural infirmity.
4.Under normal circumstances, if the Court comes to such conclusion, it would remand the matter to the Committee for fresh consideration to re-do the process after issuing notice to the aggrieved person. However, in this case, we do not propose to issue any such direction for the reason, the original writ petitioner is no more and he also retired from the services of the respondent bank. However, the legal heirs cannot take advantage of the fact that we have allowed the writ petitions, but not remanded the matter for fresh consideration, in the event there is a necessity to enquire into the communal status of the legal heirs of the original writ petitioner.
5.Thus, by clarifying this aspect of the matter, we allow these Writ Petitions. The fourth respondent is directed to settle the terminal benefits payable to the deceased employee to his legal heirs within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also dismissed.
To
1.The Member Secretary, Office of the District Community Certificate Verification and Vigilance Committee cum Adi Dravidar Welfare Officer, Tirunelveli, Collector's Office, Tirunelveli ? 9.
2.The Collector of Thirunelveli, Tirunelveli District, Kokkirakulam, Tirunelveli.
3.The Sub-Collector, Cheranmahadevi, Thirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.
4.The Assistant General Manager (Administration), Administrative Unit NW-2, State Bank of India, Kurinchi Complex, State Bank Road, Coimbatore ? 641 018..