S.B.Sinha, C.J. - (1.) Obtaining of employment by filing a false Caste Certificate resulting in an order of removal was the subject matter of an application before the Tribunal and the order passed therein being dated 24-1-2001 in O.A. No.1678 of 1999 is the subject matter of this writ petition.
(2.) The short fact of the matter is as follows: The petitioner claims to have married a person belonging to Konda Kapu community - a community recognized as a Scheduled Tribe. Her husband obtained a caste certificate from the then Member of Legislative Assembly of Secunderabad Assembly constituency. A similar certificate was obtained on the basis of the former one by the petitioner from the Special Tahsildar, MIGH Scheme, Hyderabad on 4-11-1977. She was appointed in July, 1980 as Lower Division Clerk in a post which was reserved for Scheduled Tribe candidates.
(3.) The Joint Collector later on cancelled the said certificate. The petitioner's husband faced an order of dismissal. A proceeding was also initiated against the petitioner culminating in imposition of penalty of removal from service. An appeal preferred by her was dismissed. Before the learned Tribunal below the said orders were challenged on the grounds: "(a) There was delay in concluding the inquiry proceedings; (b) There was delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings; (c) The applicant was appointed in the year 1980 and disciplinary proceedings were initiated on 11-9-90; (d) Even the Inquiry Officer conducted the enquiry in utter violation of the procedure contemplated in the CCS (CCA) Rules; (e) Copies of the documents mentioned in Annexure-III to the Charge Memo were not supplied. She has requested to furnish a copy of the Memo No.l4013/l/86-Estt. dated 10-10-91 referred to in the memo but the same was not supplied; (f) The Inquiry Officer conducted the enquiry with a prejudiced mind. The findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer are arbitrary and perverse; (g) The documents relied upon by the disciplinary authority were not marked during the course of evidence. The documents which were not marked could not have been relied upon by the respondent authorities; (h) She had not played fraud in claiming to be belonging to ST community on the basis of the caste certificate dated 4-11-77 issued by the Special Tahsildar MIGH Scheme, Hyderabad District. (i) She had not misrepresented the authorities; (j) The caste certificate dated 4-11-77 is a genuine and valid one. Even now the said certificate dated 12-1-75 is in force; (k) She has not suppressed any factual information from the department either at the time of appointment or later. As and when she was called upon to furnish any information she furnished the same with all factual details; she had correctly answered column 9(b) of the attestation form; she was not asked to explain how she acquired ST status; either by birth or by marriage; (l) For the first time the respondent authorities asked her to inform whether she belonged to ST community by birth or because of her marriage to a person belonging to ST community. She explained to the said memo by letter dated 21-7-1987 wherein the respondent authorities relied upon certain instructions of Ministry of Home Affairs Circular dt.2-5-1975 and informed her that she could not be treated as belonging to ST community merely on account of her marriage with a person belonging to ST community in accordance with the established tradition in the community and that she became a full-fledged ST candidate. She relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1972 SC 1840 and STR 1987 (1) CAT 163. The instructions issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs in letter dated 2-5-1975 could not be a bar for her being regarded as a member of the ST community because she was not born in that community. Thus the Charge Memo issued to her was irregular. (m) That the findings of the Inquiry Officer holding her guilty of the charges are not correct. The Inquiry Officer gave importance to the document marked as S.10 to which she was not a party and which had not valid as the same was secured behind her back; (n) The applicant narrates the case of one Smt. K. Rajya Lakshmi applicant in O.A. 465/92 and submits that same benefits could have been extended to her; she had completed 19 years of service, she is aged about 49 years and she is the only earning member in the family; (o) The disciplinary authority on 10-10-1991 remanded back to the same Inquiry Officer who held her guilty of the charges. The disciplinary authority should have nominated a different Inquiry Officer. (p) While imposing the punishment of removal the disciplinary authority had not considered the various points raised by her in the representation dt.7-5-99. As there is nearly seven years delay in furnishing the copy of the report of the Inquiry Officer the punishment of removal imposed on her is too severe and harsh. (q) The appellate authority passed the order on appeal on 26-10-99. It appears the applicant had remained absent from duties w.e.f. 2-11-1999. Taking these factors into consideration the Assistant Director of. the respondent department by his proceedings No.C.16013/l/99-Estt. dt.9-11-1999 observed that the applicant stood I relieved from the post w.e.f. I 9-11-99 A.N. (r) On 10-11-99 the OA came up for hearing. This Tribunal passed the interim order which reads as : under: "The order No.C.16013/l/99-Estt dt.9-11-99 will not be insisted upon and the applicant will be taken back to duty submitted the learned Counsel for the respondents. In view of the above submission Admjt. The impugned order passed by appellate authority is suspended until further order. (s) By virtue of this interim order the applicant is working on the post.";