SRI T S RAMACHANDRA vs. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

4 category. In view of Circular dated 11.03.2002, the services of the appellant were retained and no penal action was taken against him. The appellant, during his services in Telecom Department, after 2007 onwards was treated as a person belonging to general category and superannuated on 31.07.2013. The Telecom Department settled the retirement benefits of the appellant. After superannuation of the appellant, a complaint was made by one R.Ravichandra, General Secretary, National Confederation of Bahujan Organizations, Karnataka State Branch, Kengeri Upanagara, Bengaluru to the Superintendent of Police, Civil Rights Enforcement Directorate, Mangalore, in which it was averred that the appellant has obtained a false caste certificate as a person belonging to the 'Maleru' caste. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, a show cause notice dated 12.11.2014, was issued to the appellant by which the appellant was informed that an enquiry with regard to the genuineness of the caste certificate has to be held and he was asked to appear before the Superintendent of Police, Civil Rights Enforcement Directorate, Mangalore on 25.11.2014. The appellant challenged the validity of the aforesaid notice in a

5 writ petition namely W.P.No.53632/2014 before the learned Single Judge. The writ petition has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge. In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant, while inviting the attention of this Court to the show cause notice dated 12.11.2014, submitted that the show cause notice is per se without jurisdiction as the same has not been issued by the District Caste Verification Committee which is a competent authority, but is issued by the Superintendent of Police, Civil Rights Enforcement Directorate, Mangalore who has no authority in law to issue the impugned notice to the appellant. It is further submitted that the complainant namely R Ravichandra has no locus to lodge a complaint against the appellant. In this connection, our attention has been invited to the decision of the division bench of this Court in W.A.NO.1242/2019 (R.S.MAHADEV VS. G.R.GOPAMMA & ORS.) dated 03.06.2021.

6 5. On the other hand, Mr.C.Jagadish, learned Special counsel for the respondents submitted that the appellant had surrendered his caste certificate and thereafter, the respondent had decided to lodge a prosecution against the appellant for falsely obtaining the caste certificate. It is further submitted that the order passed by the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any infirmity. 6. We have considered the submissions made on both sides and have perused the record. Rule 7 of the Karnataka SC/ST & Other BC (Reservation of Appointments, etc.) Rules, 1992 which is relevant for the purpose of deciding the controversy involved in the appeal, is reproduced below for the facility of reference: 7. Issue of Validity Certificate. - (1) After getting a report on a reference made under Rule 6-A, the Caste Verification Committee and the Caste and Income Verification Committee shall hold an enquiry after giving opportunity to the parties concerned. (2) The Committee may examine school records, birth registration certificate if any, and such other relevant materials and may also

7 examine any other person who has the knowledge of the community of the applicant:

Provided that in case of an applicant who belongs to the Scheduled Tribes, the Committee may also examine the anthropological and ethnological traits, deity, rituals, customs, mode of marriage, death ceremonies, method of burial of dead bodies and such other matters. (3) If on such enquiry the Committee finds that the applicants claim is genuine it may issue the certificate sought for, in Form I-A, but where the committee finds that the applicant obtained the Caste Certificate or Income and Caste Certificate by making a false representation, it shall pass an order rejecting the application indicating the reasons therefore for such refusal. An order under the sub-rule shall be passed within one month from the date of receipt of the application. (4) Where the Committee even after the enquiry referred to in sub-rules (2) and (3) finds that the claims is doubtful, and is not in a position to come to a conclusion it shall refer the matter to the Directorate of Civil Rights Enforcement for detailed investigation and report. On receipt of the report from the Directorate of Civil rights enforcement, the

8 Committee shall dispose off the case on merit, after holding such enquiry as it deems fit and after giving the applicant an opportunity of being heard. An order under this sub-rule shall be made within one month from the date of receipt of the application. (5) Any person aggrieved by an order of the Caste Verification Committee or Caste and Income Verification Committee may appeal to the Divisional Commissioner. The Divisional Commissioner shall after giving an opportunity of being heard to both the parties pass such order as he deems fit within forty-five days from the date of filing of such appeal. 7. A Division Bench of this Court in WA No.100375/2017 vide judgment dated 17.08.2020, dealt with the issue whether the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Civil Rights Enforcement Cell, has the authority to initiate the proceeding with regard to veracity of the caste certificate. The aforesaid issue has been answered in paragraphs 10 and 11 as follows: 10. In Bheemappa S/o. Chandrappa Bhovi Vs. State of Karnataka and others (W.P.No.103358/2015), this Court has held that

9 Caste Verification Committee is a competent body which is provided under law to consider the validity of the Caste Certificate. 11. In Shantamani vs. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, (W.P.No.11704/2013), this Court, after considering Rule 6-A and Rule 7 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments, etc.) Rules, 1992 ('the Rules' for short) and decisions in Ramachandra Keshav Adke and others Vs. Govind Joti Chavare and others reported in AIR 1975 SC 915 and in Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai Vs. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala and others reported in 2002(1) SCC 633, has held as follows: "7. Thus, from perusal of the aforesaid provisions, it is evident that Caste and Income Verification Committee shall refer the application for issue of validity certificate to the District Social Officer and report after holding local enquiries. Thereafter, on getting report on a reference made under Rule 6A of the Rules, Caste Verification Committee shall hold an enquiry after giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties. From perusal of Rule 7(4) of the Rules, it is evident that if

10 the Committee after holding an enquiry finds that claim is doubtful and the Committee is not in a position to come to a conclusion, it shall refer the matter to the Directorate of Civil Rights Enforcement for detailed investigation and report. It is well settled in law that when the statute provides a manner of doing a particular thing in a particular manner, that thing has to be performed in that manner alone. In this connection, reference may be made to decisions of Supreme Court of India in 'RAMCHANDRA KESHAV ADKE AND OTHERS vs. GOVIND JOTI CHAVARE AND OTHERS' AIR 1975 AIR 1975 SC 915 and 'COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI VS. ANJUM M.H. GHASWALA AND OTHERS' 2002 (1) SCC 633. 8. In view of aforesaid enunciation of law, it is evident that the enquiry in to the caste certificate has to be made by the Directorate of Civil Rights Enforcement on the basis of reference made by District Caste Verification Committee as provided under Rule 7(4) of the Rules. In the instant case, the Civil Rights Enforcement cell on its own has issued the notice which

11 is in contravention of Rule 7(4) of the Rules, the same therefore cannot be sustained in the eye of law. It is pertinent to note that in the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent in W.P.No.14144/2008, neither Rule 6A nor Rule 7 of the Rules had been considered. Therefore, the aforesaid decision is distinguishable." 8. Thus, from the perusal of Rule 7 of the Rules, it is evident that the Directorate of Civil Rights Enforcement has to take steps for prosecution of claimant who has obtained false caste certificate on the basis of the report submitted by the District Caste Verification Committee. 9. Thus, in the instant case, the enquiry had not been initiated on a reference made by District Caste Verification Committee but on the basis of a complaint made by the complainant namely R Ravichandra. The initiation of proceeding against the appellant is de hors the procedure prescribed in Rule 7 of the Rules. The impugned notice is per se without jurisdiction and therefore, cannot be sustained in

12 the eye of the law. The appellant has superannuated from service on 31.07.2003 and after 2007, he has been treated as a general category candidate and all retirement benefits has been settled. It is pertinent to note that the appellant in the writ petition before the learned Single Judge, had sought the following reliefs:

"a) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other order or direction quashing the proceedings initiated by R-2 Superintendent of Police CRE Mangalore in his notice bearing No.JaVi/17/NaHaJaNi/2014 dated 12.11.2014 Ann-E after holding that such exercise of power by the said authority is in violation of Article 14 of Constitution of India. b) Pass any other order or direction that this Hon'ble Court deems it fit and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice and equity." 10. The learned Single Judge, therefore, has traveled beyond the scope of the proceeding before him and has held that the appellant is liable for prosecution under Rule 7A of the Rules which was not the issue before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge has not taken note of the

13 decision of the Division Bench of this Court in WA No.100375/2017 dated 17.08.2020. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained. 11. In view of the preceding analysis, the initiation of enquiry against the appellant is sans jurisdiction. The show cause notice dated 12.11.2014 suffers from jurisdictional infirmity. For the aforementioned reasons, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside. The notice dated 12.11.2014 issued by the Superintendent of Police is quashed. In the result, the appeal is allowed. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE RV