2006 (11) TMI 543 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether respondent obtained employment on forged caste certificate? Held that - In the present case in the earlier proceedings no finding had been recorded that the respondent had not availed of the benefit of belonging to the Scheduled Tribe community for any of the promotions given to him. In fact the authority was satisfied that he gained initial entry into service as an OC candidate and not as a Scheduled Tribe candidate. However it seems that his subsequent promotions were against posts reserved for Scheduled Tribe Community to which he did not belong. While disposing of the appeal filed by the respondent against the order of the District Collector Hyderabad the State Government referred the matter to the employer to take disciplinary proceedings after verifying of the records for production of false Caste certificate. It appears that the respondent availed of the benefit of Scheduled Tribe community for getting two promotions 026 one as UDC and another as LSG Clerk on the ground that he belongs to Scheduled Tribe community and it is for these reasons that the authorities issued the impugned Charge Memo dated 23.12.2003. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
- Validity of promotion based on forged caste certificate
- Jurisdiction of High Court in entertaining writ petition against charge sheet
- Double jeopardy in disciplinary proceedings

Validity of promotion based on forged caste certificate:
The respondent was initially appointed as a Clerk in the Postal Department based on his SSLC Examination marks, which indicated his belonging to a Scheduled Tribe community. Subsequently, he was promoted to Upper Division Clerk and then to LSG cadre under the Scheduled Tribe category. However, it was revealed that he did not belong to the Scheduled Tribe community but to a different one. A show-cause notice was issued regarding the forged caste certificate, leading to the cancellation of his Scheduled Tribe status. The State Government held that the respondent did not belong to the Scheduled Tribe community and allowed disciplinary action against him. The Charge Memo framed against him alleged availing reservation under the Scheduled Tribe category despite not belonging to it. The respondent challenged the charge sheet, arguing that he had been exonerated in an earlier proceeding. The Supreme Court held that the charges had not been previously enquired into, and the respondent had not been exonerated. The Court directed the respondent to reply to the Charge Memo and the authority to decide the matter expeditiously.

Jurisdiction of High Court in entertaining writ petition against charge sheet:
The High Court had allowed the respondent's Writ Petition challenging the Charge Memo. The Supreme Court emphasized that ordinarily, a writ does not lie against a charge sheet or show-cause notice as it may be premature. Writ jurisdiction is discretionary and should not be exercised to quash a charge sheet unless it is wholly without jurisdiction or illegal. The Court cited precedents stating that a writ lies only when a final adverse order affecting a party's rights is passed. The respondent's argument of double jeopardy was rejected as the charges had not been previously enquired into. The Court set aside the High Court's judgment and directed the respondent to respond to the Charge Memo.

Double jeopardy in disciplinary proceedings:
The respondent contended that facing disciplinary action again would amount to double jeopardy. The Court clarified that since the charges had not been previously enquired into and the respondent had not been exonerated, it did not constitute double jeopardy. The respondent had availed of promotions under the Scheduled Tribe category despite not belonging to it, leading to the disciplinary proceedings. The Court held that the decision in a previous case cited by the respondent did not apply in the current scenario. The Court directed the respondent to submit his reply to the Charge Memo for further legal action after due process.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, directing the respondent to respond to the Charge Memo and the authority to proceed in accordance with the law. The Court emphasized the need for due process in disciplinary proceedings and rejected the argument of double jeopardy due to the lack of previous inquiry into the charges.