Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1119 (KAR)

K. Prabhakara v. State Karnataka

2019-06-06

L.NARAYANA SWAMY, R.DEVDAS

body2019
JUDGMENT : R. Devdas, J. 1. The petitioner was appointed as Village Accountant on 26.05.1978. When the petitioner was working as Village Accountant at Mangala Village at Hangala Hobli in Gundlupet Taluk, an application was made by one C. Jagadish, son of Sri. Chikkanna of Bandipur Village, on 28.07.1993, seeking a Caste Certificate. The Petitioner submitted the said application to the jurisdictional Tahsildar. A report was sought from the petitioner, since he is the Village Accountant of the place from which the said Sri. C.Jagadish hailed. 2. It is the contention of the petitioner that, on the basis of the Transfer Certificate issued by the Eastwood School of Bengaluru during the year 1984-85, where the said C. Jagadish was studying, the petitioner gave a report to the Tahsildar stating that he belongs to Kadu Kuruba Community. Based on the report given by the petitioner, the Tahsildar issued a Caste Certificate to the said C. Jagadish that he belongs to 'Kadu Kuruba' Community. 3. It appears, subsequently a complaint was made by a person against the said C. Jagadish that, he did not belong to 'Kadu Kuruba' Community and he has secured a false Caste Certificate and therefore, inquiry was initiated against the said C. Jagadish. Consequently, a notice was also issued to the petitioner herein and a departmental inquiry was initiated on the basis of the complaint. It was found that, the petitioner had issued a report without verifying the facts as required in the circulars issued by the State Government. The Charges levelled against the petitioner having been proved, the petitioner was removed from the service. 4. The petitioner, being aggrieved, approached the Tribunal in Application No.2480/2012. The Tribunal disposed of the application with an observation that the petitioner should have availed the alternative remedy by filing an appeal before the Appellate Authority. Therefore, the petitioner approached the Appellate Authority i.e., the Regional Commissioner, Mysuru Division. It appears, simultaneously, the petitioner also made an application under the Right to Information Act seeking information/documents on the basis of which the allegations of collusion with the applicant of caste certificate was made. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, an endorsement was issued to the petitioner, that 'no such material was available'. However, the appeal was rejected by order dated 03.12.2012. Thereafter, the petitioner once again approached the Tribunal in Application No.7391/2012. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, an endorsement was issued to the petitioner, that 'no such material was available'. However, the appeal was rejected by order dated 03.12.2012. Thereafter, the petitioner once again approached the Tribunal in Application No.7391/2012. The Tribunal dismissed the application filed by the petitioner herein by order dated 14.07.2015. Being aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the very basis on which the Departmental Inquiry was initiated against the petitioner, is unfounded. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, it is the Tahsildar, who is responsible for issuance of Caste Certificate and he is the Competent Authority under the Karnataka SC/ST and Other BC (Reservation of Appointments, etc.) Act, 1990 and Rules, 1992. Learned counsel further submits that, even as per the Circular dated 24.10.1992 bearing No. MAG (2) MSC/36/1992-93 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Mysuru District, there is no specific responsibility fixed on the Village Accountant in the matter of issuance of Caste Certificate. It is therefore contended by the learned counsel that when the petitioner, as a Village Account was not cast with any statutory duty, the action of the Respondent-State holding the petitioner responsible for issuance of the Caste Certificate is untenable and therefore, the State Government should not have proceeded to initiate a Departmental Inquiry against the petitioner. 6. It is also the submission of the learned counsel that, even otherwise, without conceding that there was a misconduct of the petitioner, the misconduct imputed on the petitioner could not attract the punishment of dismissal. It is therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the punishment of dismissal imposed on the petitioner is disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. 7. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate submits that, as per the circular issued by the State Government/Deputy Comissioner, it was the responsibility of the Village Accountant to visit the family and the neighbourhood of the applicant to find-out about the veracity as to whether the applicant belongs to Schedule Tribe Community and only after ascertaining these aspects personally, the Village Accountant is supposed to make a report to the Tahsildar. The learned Additional Government Advocate submits that, though the Statute imposes responsibility on the Tahsildar, practically it is impossible for the Tahsildar to visit each and every applicants family and neighbourhood. The learned Additional Government Advocate submits that, though the Statute imposes responsibility on the Tahsildar, practically it is impossible for the Tahsildar to visit each and every applicants family and neighbourhood. Therefore, the responsibility has been attributed on the Village Accountant. Learned Additional Government Advocate points out to Rule 3A of Rules 1992, to buttress his argument. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate. 9. Rule 3-A of the Rules would clearly provide that the Tahsildar is to satisfy himself regarding correctness of the information, documents or other materials furnished by the applicant. In this regard, sub-clause(d) of sub-rule(3) of Rule 3-A would provide that Tahsildar may require the assistance of any officer for the purpose of satisfying himself regarding the genuineness of the claim made by the applicant. We have also gone through the circular dated 24.10.1992. Here again the responsibility is fixed on the Tahsildar, who is the competent authority to issue the caste certificate to verify carefully the claim of the members who claim to belong to Scheduled Tribe and upon satisfying themselves that they manifest Tribal Characteristics, primitive traits, distinctive culture, geographical isolation, shyness of contact with the community at large and backwardness, the Tahsildar may issue a caste certificate. The Tahsildar is required to enquire all these aspects and after having satisfied himself that the applicant meets all such requirements, the Tahsildar is required to issue a caste certificate. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner/Village Accountant having not been entrusted with the statutory responsibility, even if it is found that the report given by him did not ascertain the true facts, the decision of the authorities to hold the petitioner is responsible for issuance of the caste certificate, is of substance. It is also not on record as to what action the State Government has taken against the Tahsildar, who issued the caste certificate. It is relevant to extract the provision Rule 3-A, in order to ascertain the responsibilities fixed by the Statutes on the competent authority. The Rule 3-A reads as follows: 3-A. Issue of Caste Certificate and Income and Caste Certificate.-(1)Every application for Caste Certificate or Income and Caste Certificate under Section 4-A shall be in forms A, B or C as may be appropriate accompanied by such document and other materials in support of the claim. The Rule 3-A reads as follows: 3-A. Issue of Caste Certificate and Income and Caste Certificate.-(1)Every application for Caste Certificate or Income and Caste Certificate under Section 4-A shall be in forms A, B or C as may be appropriate accompanied by such document and other materials in support of the claim. (2) On receipt of the application the Tahsildar shall verify the information, documents and such other materials furnished by the applicant and on such verification if he is satisfied with the correctness of the information, documents and evidence furnished by the applicant, he shall issue Caste Certificate or Income and Caste Certificate in Forms D, E or F as may be appropriate within two months from the date of receipt of the application. (3) Where the Tahsildar is not satisfied with the correctness of the information, documents or other materials furnished by the applicant he shall then proceed to hold enquiry as follows- (a) The Tahsildar shall fix the date of enquiry and issue notice to the applicant to appear on the date so fixed along with all documents and other materials which he desires to produce. (b)During the course of enquiry he shall examine the school records, birth registration certificate if any, and such other relevant records. He shall examine the applicant if he is present and may also examine the parent/guardian of the applicant and any other person who has the knowledge of the social status of the applicant and parent/guardian: Provided that in the case of an applicant who belongs to the Scheduled Tribes, the Tahsildar shall also take into account the anthropological and ethnological traits, deity, rituals, customs, mode of marriage, death ceremonies, method of burial of dead bodies and Such other matters. (c) The Tahsildar shall also cause to be issued a public notice by beat of drum or any other convenient mode in the village or locality to which the applicant and his parent/guardian belongs. If in response to such notice or otherwise any person or association opposes the claim of the applicant such person or association shall also be given an opportunity to produce evidence during the enquiry. (d) The Tahsildar may require the assistance of any officer for the purpose of satisfying himself regarding the genuineness of the claim made by the applicant. If in response to such notice or otherwise any person or association opposes the claim of the applicant such person or association shall also be given an opportunity to produce evidence during the enquiry. (d) The Tahsildar may require the assistance of any officer for the purpose of satisfying himself regarding the genuineness of the claim made by the applicant. (e) Where the applicants or parents/ guardians are inhabitants in an area which is not within the territorial jurisdiction of the Tahsildar, he may make a reference to the District Social Welfare Officer concerned in the case of persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes or to the District Officer of Backward Classes, to provide such professional assistance as available with them. (f) The Tahsildar may also call for further information, document or material if he deems it necessary. (g) The Tahsildar may after holding the enquiry in the manners specified above either issue Caste Certificate or Income and Caste Certificate in Forms D, E or F as may appropriate or reject the claim within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the application. 10. It is clear from a reading of Rule 3-A that it is the Tahsildar, who has to satisfy himself regarding correctness of the information. The Tahsildar is required to fix the date of enquiry, issue notice and examine the application. The Tahsildar is also required during the course of the enquiry to examine the school records, birth registration certificate and he is required to examine the applicant and his/her parents/guardian and any other person who has the knowledge of the social status of the applicant. It is the Tahsildar who has to record the anthropological and ethnological traits, deity, rituals, customs, mode of marriage, death ceremonies, method of burial of dead bodies and such other aspects. It is therefore clear that it is the Tahsildar who is entrusted with all these responsibilities. Under clause (d) of sub-rule(3), the Tahsildar can only require assistance from any other officer for the purpose of satisfying himself regarding genuineness of the claim made by the applicant. It implies that even if the Village Accountant/petitioner herein has given a report, it was incumbent upon the Tahsildar to verify the same and after being satisfied that the report given by the Village Accountant is genuine, the Tahsildar may proceed to issue the caste certificate. 11. It implies that even if the Village Accountant/petitioner herein has given a report, it was incumbent upon the Tahsildar to verify the same and after being satisfied that the report given by the Village Accountant is genuine, the Tahsildar may proceed to issue the caste certificate. 11. In the light of the above, we hold that it is the Tahsildar alone who is to be held responsible for issuance of the caste certificate. Even if any other officer like Village Accountant is required to submit a report, it is once again incumbent upon the Tahsildar to verify the same before issuing a caste certificate. Consequently, we hold that the allegation or imputation of offences against the petitioner herein is contrary to the provisions of the Act and Rules, 1992. However, this should not mean that the petitioner has not committed any error or irregularities in the functioning. As an officer under the State, every Government servant is required to do his duties with utmost sincerity and devotion. Further since the petitioner has already attained the age of superannuation, this Court proceeds to modify the order of punishment imposed on the petitioner from an order of dismissal to an order of compulsory retirement. The order of the Tribunal accordingly stands modified. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of.