Supreme Court: Exercise of Verification of Community Certificate Must be Completed Expeditiously, Proceedings Cannot Be Done Ex-Parte Except in Most Exceptional Circumstances

Supreme Court: Exercise of Verification of Community Certificate Must be Completed Expeditiously, Proceedings Cannot Be Done Ex-Parte Except in Most Exceptional Circumstances

The Supreme Court by its division bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose and Krishna Murari while adjudicating an appeal against order passed by the High Court of Madras whereby the Appellants’ challenge to the denial of his post-retirement benefits was dismissed, observed that exercise of verification of community certificate must be completed expeditiously and where the validity of a community certificate is put to question, keeping in mind the importance of the document and the effect it has on people’s rights, the proceedings questioning the document cannot, except in the most exceptional circumstances, be done ex-parte.

In the present case, the appellant was appointed as a clerk-cum-shroff in the Respondent bank based on a community certificate dated 15 November, 1975 certifying that he was from the Konda Reddy Community. After a tenure of 38 years, the Appellant retired as a Scale 3 officer, however, two days before his superannuation, he received a cessation order on grounds of his caste certificate being false, and all his retirement benefits except PF were withheld from him.

During the Appellant’s tenure in the respondent bank, The District collector (sixth respondent herein), without conducting any enquiry, cancelled the community certificate granted to the Appellant.

Aggrieved by the same, the Appellant filed writ petition before the High Court of Madras. The High Court vide order dated 09.08.2009 remanded the matter back to the Tamil Nadu State Level Scrutiny Committee (first respondent herein) to conduct a fresh enquiry. However, even after the High Court order, the verification with regard to the communal status of the Appellant was still not concluded, and this led to the Appellant’s retirement without realization of his retirement benefits.

The Appellant then, to seek his post-retirement benefits filed writ petition in the High Court, however, the same was disposed off vide order dated 04.07.2014, and the first respondent was directed to complete the enquiry within a period of eight weeks.

The Appellant then preferred a Special Leave Petition (SLP) in the Supreme Court against the above-mentioned High Court order, and during the pendency of the SLP, an interim order was passed by this Supreme Court directing the Appellant to appear before the first respondent for enquiry. Subsequently, the said SLP was withdrawn.

In the meantime, the enquiry got concluded in November 2017 with the finding that the Appellant, in fact, did not belong to the Konda Reddy Community.

Challenging the same, he again moved to the High Court, wherein the Court, in December 2017, remanded the matter back to the scrutiny committee whilst quashing the show cause notice issued to him and the enquiry report.

The Committee again held an inquiry (ex-parte) and concluded that his caste certificate was not correct based on vigilance reports and other expert reports. Aggrieved by the same, he moved to the High Court, however his plea and subsequently, the review plea was dismissed.

Mr. R. Balasubramanian and Mr. S. Prabakaran, Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant vehemently argued that as per the directions of the High Court in order dated 19.12.2017, the Appellant was to be given due opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, and copies of all documents relied on by the Respondents was to be furnished to the Appellant, however, the same was not done.

It was further contended that at the time when the Appellant was given the cessation order, no enquiry against him was pending, and that in the entire process he has been subject to harassment for almost 19 years.

Per Contra, Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Senior Advovate and Mr. Joseph Aristotle, AOR, appearing on behalf of the respondents argued that notice was duly served on the Appellant, and it was the Appellant who did not show up in the proceedings. It was also argued that due to the Appellant not showing up, the proceedings were adjourned, but even after the adjournment the Appellant did not show up, and hence the committee had no option but to pass its decision ex-parte.

The Apex Court at the outset stated that the right to pensionary benefit is a constitutional right and as such cannot be taken away without proper justification as has been held in the case of State of Jharkhand and others. vs Jitendra Kumar Srivastava and another (2013).

The bench expressed its disappointment and was appalled at the treatment given to the Appellant by the Respondents herein. The Appellant, before applying to the post reserved for ST candidates supplied all documents required in support of his claim as a ST candidate, and got the documents verified and approved. After being given employment however, the re-evaluation of the authenticity of the documents of the Appellant have been kept pending for 19 years, dangling like a sword on the Appellants head.

The bench noted that after serving the Respondent bank for 38 years, the Appellant, two days before his superannuation received his cessation order without there being any proper enquiry. Further, on communication made to the respondent no.1, it was found that on the date of passing the cessation order, no case was pending against the Appellant.

The bench commented, “to us, a very clear pattern of harassment is visible, and there appears to be a sinister motive against the Appellant and his right to pensionary benefits. Even after 38 years of service, irrespective of the merits of the case, the fact that the Appellant has not been treated with any respect is sad to see, and the use of delayed procedure as a dangling sword can only be interpreted as harassment.”

In the present case, the bench noted that there has been an inordinate and unexplained delay of 19 years, an amount of time which cannot be fathomed within the ambit of “reasonable time” and stated that the exercise of verification of community certificate must be completed expeditiously.

Further, the Apex Court was of the view that by not allowing the Appellant an opportunity to be heard, the principle of “Audi Alteram Partem,” a principle of natural justice was violated.

The bench observed, “the Appellant, in proceedings where the genuineness of his belonging to a community is under question, must have a right to be heard, and must be given the right to cross-examine the witnesses, for the nature of the proceedings are not just a question pertaining his employment, but also something that strikes at the core of his being, i.e., his identity.”

The Apex Court asserted that a community certificate in cases of scheduled tribe communities, unlike any other piece of paper, is an acknowledgment of a person belonging to a community which has faced years of oppression.

The Constitution of India guarantees certain rights to people from Scheduled Tribe communities on grounds of historical injustice, and for the translation of such rights from paper to real life, the community certificate in most cases becomes an essential document, stated the Court.

The Court vociferously affirmed that this certificate, whilst being an acknowledgment of history, is also a document that tries to rectify such historical injustice by becoming a tool that fabricates constitutional rights into reality.

In such a scenario where the validity of a community certificate is put to question, keeping in mind the importance of the document and the effect it has on people’s rights, the proceedings questioning the document cannot, except in the most exceptional circumstances, be done ex-parte, the bench stated.

Therefore, the bench set aside the impugned orders passed by the Madras High Court and the Indian bank was directed to grant all post-retirement benefits to the Appellant which were denied to him along with 6% Simple Interest on account of unnecessary withholding of payment, from the date the payment was due to the date of actual payment.