- (1.) Sri. C. Jagadish, learned Special Advocate takes notice for respondent Nos. 2 to 6. Notice to respondent No. 1 is not necessary. Heard. By the impugned notice at Annexure-'H', dated 12.7.2012, the third respondent has merely directed that the enquiry should be conducted to find out as to whether the petitioner is belonging to Scheduled Tribe or not.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the caste certificate was issued in favour of the petitioner as far back as on 3.02.1988 i.e. about 25 years prior to this day and therefore, the enquiry should not be held. He further submitted that the report has already been issued in favour of the petitioner in the year 2006 as per Annexure-'G' by the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, Bangalore to the effect that the petitioner is belonging to 'Kadu Kuruba' which comes under Scheduled Tribe category.
(3.) Prima facie, the said caste certificate at Annexure-'G' reveals that the petitioner is belonging to 'Kadu Kuruba', which falls under Scheduled Tribe category. The caste certificate is issued in favour of the petitioner as far back as on 03.02.1988. However, the fourth respondent still wants to conduct enquiry in the matter. The petitioner is working as Assistant Director, (Mech.) Branch, Industrial Estate, Dimapur, Nagaland. It may not be possible for him to appear for enquiry everytime as he is working in far away place at Nagaland. Be that as it may, on the said ground there cannot be any direction to the effect that the enquiry should not be held. If the respondents have taken a decision to conduct the enquiry through CRE Cell, the same shall be conducted by the CRE Cell as per law. The petitioner shall be heard in the matter and he shall be given adequate opportunity to participate in the proceedings. Merely because the third respondent has been directed to give investigation report within two months, the enquiry should not be conducted hurriedly without hearing the petitioner. With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands disposed of.;