ORDER : SURAJ GOVINDARAJ, J. 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: a. Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ or Order and quash the notices issued by the Respondent No.2 bearing No.417/NA.HA.JA.NI/ BE.PRA/2023 dated 29.11.2023 and 01.02.2024 produced at ANNEXURE - A & B respectively and all consequent proceedings thereto. b. Issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and any other relief deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of this case. 2. Respondent No.3, who was earlier engaged by the petitioner as Assistant Professor in the College of the petitioner, had initiated several litigations before Co- ordinate Benches of this Court, Division Bench of this Court, leading up to the Hon’ble Apex Court. When finally, in Slp.No.22479-22480/2022 vide order dated 21.08.2023, respondent No.3 who was the petitioner in that matter having suffered adverse orders against him had agreed to withdraw all these proceedings which had been filed by respondent No.3 and in pursuance thereof, the Hon’ble Apex Court recorded the said submission disposed Slp.No.22479- 22480/2022 as withdrawn, Slp.No.17906 of 2023 with Diary No.3389 of 2023 as disposed having become infructuous, Writ Appeal No.899 of 2023 having deemed to have been withdrawn for all intents and purposes, Crime No.43 of 2022 was quashed, Complaint No.2 of 2022 pending before the Karnataka State Commission for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes was also quashed. 3. However, the proceedings in WP No.12545/2023, which were the proceedings as regards the applicability of the All-India Council for Technical Education Regulation (for short hereinafter referred to as “ AICTER ”) norms or otherwise, were kept pending to be decided on their own merits. 4. Respondent No.3 had also submitted a letter dated 18.08.2023 addressed to the Board of Governors of the petitioner requesting the management to appoint him as an in-charge principal until 31.08.2023, the date he would superannuate from service, the petitioner had also agreed for the same and indicated that a letter would be so issued and respondent No.3 could continue as an in-charge principal till 31.08.2023. 5. In pursuance thereof, respondent No.3 issued an appointment order dated 21.08.2023 appointing him as in-charge principal with effect from 21.08.2023 to 31.08.2023. 5. In pursuance thereof, respondent No.3 issued an appointment order dated 21.08.2023 appointing him as in-charge principal with effect from 21.08.2023 to 31.08.2023. On 31.08.2023 respondent No.3 submitted his letter of resignation from the position of in-charge principal and in the said letter he had categorically indicated that he has resigned unconditionally without seeking any claim to the in-charge principal post in future and thanked the Chairman, Board of Governors for having granted him an opportunity to serve as in-charge principal of the esteemed institution for which he had indicated that he shall always remain grateful. The resignation letter was accepted on the very same day i.e., on 31.08.2023. 6. Subsequently, respondent No.3 claiming that when respondent No.3 had visited the office of the principal and alleging that below his photograph the tenure of him being the in-charge principal was not mentioned alleging that such not mentioning or the erasure was deliberately with an intention of causing annoyance and humiliation to him in full public view, had submitted a complaint to the Additional Director General of Police, Directorate of Civil Rights Enforcement contending that there was humiliation as also atrocities committed under the provision of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short hereinafter referred to as “Act of 1989” ) and the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (for short hereinafter referred to as “Rules of 1995” ). 7. It is in pursuance thereof, that a notice has been issued to the petitioner calling upon the Chairman of the Management and other members of the Board to answer the allegations made by respondent No.3, which is under challenge in these proceedings and the aforesaid reliefs have been sought for in relation thereto. 8. The submission of Sri.Badri Vishal., learned counsel for the petitioner is that; 8.1. There is absolutely no offence which has been committed under the Act or Rules inasmuch as the respondent No.3 has not been humiliated by anybody, the allegation is only as regards the then principal having erased the term of service of respondent No.3, the Board of Management or the Chairman of the Board of Management have been unnecessarily dragged into the matter. 8.2. 8.2. Once earlier when such proceedings had been filed the Hon’ble Supreme Court has quashed the same on account of submission made by the Party-in-person, inasmuch as in Crime No.43 of 2022 and complaint No.2 of 2022 have been quashed by the Hon’ble Apex Court. 8.3. His submission is also that despite the orders having been passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court and the term being only till 31.03.2023, respondent No.3 had once again filed application before the Hon’ble Apex Court seeking for extension of time to continue as an in-charge principal beyond said period. 8.4. The said application came to be dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court on 16.04.2024 and in that background his submission is that respondent No.3 has been given to filing false complaints and this also being one of the false complaint no offence under the Act or Rules made out, respondent No.2 could not have exercised any right to issue notice to the petitioner and as such the reliefs which have been sought for are required to be granted. 9. Dr.Sakey Shamu., respondent No.3 (Party-in-person) who is present before this Court submits that; 9.1. The erasure of the term of office of respondent No.3 causes humiliation to respondent No.3. On enquiry as to under what provision such alleged humiliation could be redressed and/or what are the provisions that the petitioner has violated, he refers to the Government Order which has been produced by the petitioner themselves. 9.2. He refers to para 42 of the writ petition to contend that even according to the petitioner, the Special Cell in the State CID could investigate into the grievance of respondent No.3. 9.3. In that regard he refers to items No.13 and 14 thereof which are extracted hereunder for easy reference; 13. Any other matters pertaining to the violation of constitutional safeguards and protection extended to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. 14. Any matter pertaining to the contravention or violation of any law or rule or executive order aimed at the Socioeconomic upliftment and welfare of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes. 9.4. Any other matters pertaining to the violation of constitutional safeguards and protection extended to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. 14. Any matter pertaining to the contravention or violation of any law or rule or executive order aimed at the Socioeconomic upliftment and welfare of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes. 9.4. His submission is that the CRE cell having the jurisdiction to investigate any other matters pertaining to violation of constitutional safeguards and protection extended Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes and any matter pertaining to contravention of violation of any law or rule or executive order aimed at socio economic upliftment and welfare of schedule caste/scheduled tribes would be applicable and that the CRE cell has rightly initiated the investigation. 9.5. His submission is that the petitioner has been harassing respondent No.3 from the very beginning and this is one more such harassment meted out by the petitioner and as such he submitted this Court ought not to intercede and the CRE cell has to investigate the same. 10. Sri.Gowthamdev.C. Ullal., learned counsel submits that he appears only in Fake Caste Certificate matters in respect to respondent No.2 and does not appear in other matters. Hence, learned AGA accepts notice for respondent No.2. 11. On enquiry with learned AGA as to under what provision the proceedings have been undertaken, she submits that since a complaint has been filed proceedings have been taken up. 12. Heard Sri.Badri Vishal., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Ms.Satitha Kulkarni., learned AGA appearing for respondent No.2. Dr.Sakey Shamu., respondent No.3 (Party-in-person) who is present before this Court personally. Perused papers. 13. The points that would arise for consideration are; 1. Whether proceedings can be initiated by the Directorate of Civil Rights Enforcement (DCRE-respondent No.2) on any complaint which has been filed before it or would be restricted to the complaints which come within the purview of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995? 2. In the present case could proceedings have been initiated by respondent No.2 against the petitioner? 3. What order? 14. I answer the above points as under: 15. 2. In the present case could proceedings have been initiated by respondent No.2 against the petitioner? 3. What order? 14. I answer the above points as under: 15. Answer to point No.1: Whether proceedings can be initiated by the Directorate of Civil Rights Enforcement (DCRE-respondent No.2) on any complaint which has been filed before it or would be restricted to the complaints which come within the purview of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995? 15.1. The DCRE has been set up for enforcement of civil rights and one of the functions of the DCRE is to enforce social relations which includes the Act of 1989 and Rules of 1995. There being a constitutional mandate since Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes are to be covered under weaker sections, the DCRE is required to protect their interest in terms of the applicable law. Through various government orders which have been issued from time to time the scope and ambit of the DCRE has been defined, the functions can be found at para 2092 of the Karnataka police Manual which is extracted hereunder for easy reference; 2092. The object behind the creation of this Unit originally was to bring about stricter enforcement of the provisions of the PCR Act 1955, and to deal with the cases of harassment and atrocities against the persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The object behind the creation of this Unit originally was to bring about stricter enforcement of the provisions of the PCR Act 1955, and to deal with the cases of harassment and atrocities against the persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The functions of this Unit were further expanded during the year 1975 through a Government Order, which stipulated that this Unit shall collect intelligence and the investigate into cases of: (1) Violation of Government Orders pertaining to reservation of 18% posts, (2) Violation of Government Order pertaining to earmarking and utilisation of funds; (3) Violation of the provisions of Karnataka Land Grant Rules; (4) Violation of Government directions, relating to eviction from Gomal lands; (5) Violation of rules pertaining to grant of sites; (6) Wrongful alienation of the inam land and house sites; (7) Wrongful eviction of SCs/STs by the landlords; (8) Wrongful eviction of SC/STs by other communities and Government agencies; (9) Cases of production of false caste certificates; (10) Offences under Bonded Labour System Ordinance 1975; (11) Offences under Karnataka Debt Relief Order 1975; (12) All instances of mis-managements and misuse of grants pertaining to Social Welfare Department; (13) Any other matters pertaining to violation of Constitutional Safeguards and protection to SCs/STs and; (14) Any matter pertaining to violation of any law or rule aimed at the Welfare of the SCs/STs. (15) The implementation of Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of certain lands) Act, 1978 which came into force on 1st January, 1979 was entrusted to CRE Cell. With the enactment of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 the Constitutional provisions for the eradication of social disabilities and preventing discrimination against the SC/ST were further buttressed and the Cell was entrusted with its enforcement. 15.2. There being 15 items which have been detailed under the said police manual, the submission of Dr.Sakey Shamu., Party-in-person is that the present issue comes under Category 13 and 14 thereof. 15.3. Category 13 relates to any other matters pertaining to violation of constitutional safeguards and protection to SC/ST an ex-facie reading of the same indicates that it is only if there is violation of any constitutional law or constitutional safeguard then item No.13 would be attracted. 15.4. 15.3. Category 13 relates to any other matters pertaining to violation of constitutional safeguards and protection to SC/ST an ex-facie reading of the same indicates that it is only if there is violation of any constitutional law or constitutional safeguard then item No.13 would be attracted. 15.4. In the present case, there is nothing which has been placed on record which would indicate that any of the constitutional safeguards of respondent No.3 has been violated by the petitioner. 15.5. Insofar as Category 14 is concerned it relates to any matter pertaining to violation of any law or rule aimed at the welfare of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes. Nothing has been placed on record of any law or rule which has been violated by petitioner, so as to make it come within the ambit of Category 14. 15.6. The other categories, even according to respondent No.3, are not attracted in the present matter. 15.7. If at all, DCRE apart from the functions prescribed under 2092 of the Police Manual could take up proceedings under Section 3 of the Act of 1989. The allegation in the present matter is as regards the erasure of the term in which the respondent was respondent No.3 was the in-charge principle. There is nothing which indicates that it is because respondent No.3 being a member of scheduled caste and scheduled tribe that the said period has been deleted or erased. If at all the contention of respondent No.3 is that the erasure of the period has caused humiliation to respondent No.3 as a person and not with reference to him being a member of the scheduled caste or schedule tribes. 15.8. If at all, there is any humiliation or defamation that respondent No.3 contends the same would be amenable for redressal in appropriate proceedings which could be initiated under law and not under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ( “Act of 1989” ) and the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 ( “Rules of 1995” ) let alone under paragraph 2092 of the Karnataka Police Act. 15.9. 15.9. In that view of the matter, I answer point No.1 by holding that proceedings can be initiated by the Directorate of Civil Rights Enforcement (DCRE-respondent No.2) on any complaint which has been filed before it which come within the purview of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995, or para 2092 of the Karnataka Police Manual and not otherwise. 16. Anwer to point No.2: In the present case could proceedings have been initiated by respondent No.2 against the petitioner? 16.1. In view of my answer to point No.1 it being clear and categorical that the allegation made by respondent No.3 not coming within the purview of para 2092, Act of 1989 or Rules 1985, the DCRE could not have initiated any proceedings against the petitioner. 16.2. When proceedings are initiated by DCRE and summons are issued it is in nature of taking cognizance as regards violation and/or offences committed and as such there is a requirement for the DCRE to apply its mind to the allegations made and ascertain, if there is any violation of any particular provision of law and indicate the same before such summons are issued. Since there are penal consequences which flow from such issuance of summons, it is the bounden duty on part of the officer of the DCRE to apply his mind to the individual facts and situation in the manner in which it is required as regards cognizable offence under the erstwhile CrPC or the BNSS now. 16.3. None of those having been done, the allegations not making out any offence under the Act of 1989 or Rules 1985 as also para 2092 of the Karnataka Police Manual, I am of the considered opinion DCRE could not have issued the notice. 16.4. Hence, I answer point No.2 by holding that in the present case the proceedings could not have been initiated by respondent No.2 against the petitioner. 17. Answer to point No.3: What order? 17.1. In view of my answer to point No.1 and 2 above, I pass the following; ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. A certiorari is issued, the notice issued by respondent No.2 bearing No.417/ NA.HA.JA.NI/BE.PRA/2023 dated 29.11.2023 and 01.02.2024 at Annexure-A and B are quashed. iii. 17. Answer to point No.3: What order? 17.1. In view of my answer to point No.1 and 2 above, I pass the following; ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. A certiorari is issued, the notice issued by respondent No.2 bearing No.417/ NA.HA.JA.NI/BE.PRA/2023 dated 29.11.2023 and 01.02.2024 at Annexure-A and B are quashed. iii. Liberty is however reserved to respondent No.3 to initiate such proceedings as may be advised or available as regards the alleged humiliation/defamation caused to respondent No.3.