IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No. 25985 of 2014 BETWEEN K. Krishnavenamma.
AND ... PETITIONER The Mandal Revenue Officer, Kurnool Mandal, Kurnool District and others.
...RESPONDENTS The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Petitioner seeks to question the action of the Collector in proceeding with de novo enquiry against the petitioner as well as the proceedings dated 07.08.2014 wherein he directed the fifth respondent to stop post retirement benefits of the petitioner till finalization of bogus caste certificate enquiry.
2. The aforesaid proceeding is based upon the directions of the Collector issued earlier to the Revenue Divisional Officer to conduct an enquiry into the caste certificate held by the petitioner and that a notice of the enquiry was already issued to the petitioner by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Adoni, in proceedings No.Rc/G.393/2014 dated 21.06.2014. As per the said notice, the enquiry was, in fact, scheduled on 07.07.2014 and subsequently it appears that the petitioner appeared on 07.07.2014 and produced all the relevant documents including earlier report of the scrutiny committee.
3. Learned Government Pleader was required to get instructions, who submits on that basis, that the Revenue Divisional Officer, after receiving check list from the Joint Collector, Kurnool, on 19.08.2014, has sent the same to the Tahsildar, Adoni for de novo enquiry and submission of detailed report with check list and the said report is awaited. It is also stated that an advocate representing the petitioner informed the Tahsildar that the petitioner has since retired from service as Chief Telecom Master on the afternoon of 31.07.2014 and that she has also attended the enquiry and given her statement on 07.07.2014. However, thereafter the petitioner is stated to be unwell and therefore, the enquiry was postponed. The instructions also state that though the report of the then Revenue Divisional Officer dated 12.02.2004 supports the petitioner, after receipt of the de novo enquiry report from the Tahsildar, appropriate decision thereof will be taken.
4. Petitioner also questions the order of the District Collector dated 07.08.2014 directing the General Manager Telecom District, Kurnool, to stop the retirement benefits of the petitioner pending enquiry. However, if the petitioner is aggrieved by that part of the order, she will have to take appropriate remedial steps. The relief sought for in the present writ petition questioning the de novo enquiry, however, does not appear to be substantiated inasmuch as the competent authority is entitled to conduct an enquiry and satisfy itself that the petitioner’s caste certificate is justified and since the enquiry is already in progress, where petitioner is stated to have already recorded her statement, I am not inclined to interdict the said enquiry.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed strong reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in RAMESHBHAI DABHAI NAIKA v. STATE OF GUJARAI[1] where the Supreme Court adjudicated upon the question relating to the caste determination of an offspring brought up by the mother, belonging to SC and ST community. However, that case is hardly relevant as we are now at the stage of enquiry only awaiting appropriate orders from the competent authority. Hence, at this stage, I am not inclined to entertain the writ petition. Petitioner is at liberty to participate in the enquiry and substantiate her case and thereafter the competent authority will take appropriate decision in the matter in accordance with law.
6. After the order is dictated, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in KANAILAL BERA v. UNION
[2]
OF INDIA and sought to contend that repeated enquiries are impermissible. The facts of the case, referred to above, before the Supreme Court reveal that a disciplinary enquiry was held against an employee and the charges could not be proved against him.
In that context, it was held that the second departmental enquiry on the same charge cannot be held. Therefore, that case is clearly distinguishable on facts and on legal position from the case on hand.
The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J September 17, 2014 LMV
[1] 2012 (4) SCJ 91
[2] (2008) 1SCC (L&S) 63