R SUNDARAM versus THE TAMIL NADU STATE LEVEL SCRUTINY COMMITTEE & ORS.

Citation: [2023] 2 S.C.R. 1037 · Decided: 17-03-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ANIRUDDHA BOSE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1037
R SUNDARAM
v.
THE TAMIL NADU STATE LEVEL SCRUTINY
COMMITTEE & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 1770-1771 of 2023)
MARCH 17, 2023
[ANIRUDDHA BOSE AND KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.]
Service Law – Scheduled Tribe – Community Certificate –
Validity – Post Retirement Benefit – Effect – Appellant was appointed
as clerk-cum-shroff in the respondent bank on the basis of the
community certificate – The appellant served in service for 38 years
and was to set to retire but just before 2 days of his superannuation,
he received a cessation order on the ground that his caste certificate
being false and all his retirement benefits except PF were withheld
from him – Aggrieved by this, the appellant approached High Court
– High Court remanded the matter back to the scrutiny committee –
The scrutiny committee held that the caste certificate of the appellant
was not correct based on vigilance and experts reports – Aggrieved
by this, the appellant again approached the High Court, but the
writ petition and the contempt petition were dismissed on the ground
that despite fair opportunity being granted to the appellant, he did
not abided by the same – On appeal, held: Appellant before applying
for the said post had supplied all documents supporting his claim
as a ST candidate – However, re-evaluation of the authenticity of
the documents were kept pending for 19 years – In the present case
the clear pattern of harassment is visible as the cessation order was
received by the appellant just two days before his superannuation
after completing a service of 38 years and that on the date of passing
of cessation order, no case was pending against the appellant –
Also, it is evident that the appellant was not given an opportunity of
being heard in the fresh scrutiny which was being conducted as the
notice issued to the appellant was not actually served upon him as
admitted by the postal department since the same was served to
someone else – Further, the respondents’ claim that appellant’s
community certificate was fake, was not proved – Two reports
declaring the community certificate of the appellant as fake were
[2023] 2 S.C.R. 1037
1037
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1038
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 2 S.C.R.
submitted after inordinate delay and both reports have not allowed
participation of appellant – Thus, impugned orders set aside –
Appellant entitled to post-retirements benefits.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. 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. It is 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. [Para 14][1044-C-E]
2. It has been explicitly stated by this Court that the
exercise of verification of community certificate must be
completed expeditiously. In the present case however, as has
been mentioned above, 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”. Further, the
Respondent committee finally, after years of superannuation of
the Appellant submitted its first report, however the same was
struck down by the High Court on grounds of it being violative of
principles of natural justice, as the appellant was not given an
opportunity to lead his evidence and cross examine the witnesses.
Subsequent to this, a fresh enquiry was conducted, and another
report was submitted again, however even this report suffers
from the same fallacy as the previous report because even here,
the Appellant has not been afforded the opportunity to be heard.
[Paras 16 and 17][1046-B-D]
3. The High Court in its findings in the impugned judgment
stated that the subsequent report was passed ex-parte because
the Appellant, even after receiving notice of the proceedings did
not attend the same. The Appellant however claims that he never
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1039
received notice. A bare perusal of the material at hand would
show that the notice which was to se

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.