(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records on the file of the CAT dated 07.03.2023 in O.A. 310/00448 of 2022, the 2nd respondent herein and quash the same.)

C.V. Karthikeyan, J.

1. The respondent in OA No.448 of 2022, on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, aggrieved by an order dated 07.03.2023, has filed the present writ petition.

2.OA No.448 of 2022 had been filed by the first respondent herein, K.Ravikumar, Junior Works Manager (Selection Grade), High Energy Projectile Factory, Trichy, seeking records of the writ petitioner, dated 26.05.2022 and quash the same.

3. It is the contention of the first respondent herein that he had been issued with a ST certificate by the Tahsildar on 02.05.1981. He was then appointed as Security Assistant in September 1993, promoted as Chargeman in 1997 and further promoted as Foreman NT in 2007, which post had been redesignated as Junior Works Manager. The State Level Scrutiny Committee (hereinafter referred to as ‘SLSC’) initiated verification process of his ST certificate in 2016. Final report had not been given, however, a charge memo dated 26.05.2022 had been issued contending that he had produced fake/fabricated ST community certificate for employment. Questioning such charge memo as having been issued without jurisdiction and that it is invalid, the first respondent had filed the original application before the Tribunal.

4. The Tribunal by an order dated 07.03.2023, after examining the rival contentions had stated that the competent authority to decide the genuineness or otherwise of the community certificate is the SLSC before whom the case of the first respondent is pending. It had been further held that since a final decision had not been rendered by the SLSC, status quo will have to be maintained, but however, it is open to the writ petitioner to proceed further with the charge memo in accordance with the decision of the SLSC. Aggrieved by those directions, the present writ petition has been filed.

5. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the writ petitioner that only a charge memo had been issued and it is always open to the first respondent to participate in the enquiry proceedings and putforth his statement of defence. It had been contended that the writ petitioner had materials to proceed against the first respondent herein departmentally. It had been contended that even at the preliminary stage, the first respondent had filed the original application before the Tribunal and that without any enquiry being conducted, the Tribunal had kept in abeyance the further proceedings of the charge memo. It had been contended that therefore the directions issued by the Tribunal should be interfered with by this Court.

6. The learned counsel for the first respondent however contended that the issues are pending before the SLSC from the year 2016 and for no fault of the first respondent, the charge memo had been issued even before a final decision could be taken or furnished by the SLSC. It had been contended that the community certificate of the first respondent had been scrutinised at the time of the initial appointment. After verification, employment had been granted to him. It is thus been contended that the Tribunal had come to a just decision by directing the writ petitioner to await the final decision of the SLSC.

7. We have carefully considered the arguments advanced and perused the materials on record.

8. In view of the contentions raised that the issue relating to the first respondent had been pending before the SLSC from the year 2016, we have suo motu impleaded the State Level Scrutiny Committee as further respondent in the writ petition, by an order dated 29.01.2026. We had also directed an officer from the SLSC to be present in Court with the details of the enquiry pending as against the first respondent. Accordingly, Mr.S.Jesudas, Assistant Law Officer, ADW Department of the SLSC is present in Court today. He contended that the enquiry is progressing and the report from the Deputy Superintendent of Police is awaited. He further stated that the said report would be made available hopefully within a period of two weeks and within a period of two months, final orders will be passed by the SLSC.

9. It is the fact that the first respondent had obtained employment primarily owing to the ST community certificate, which he had produced. The writ petitioner however for reasons which they justify had issued a charge memo to the first respondent contending that the said certificate produced by him was fabricated and fake. This is an issue which could be examined only by the SLSC. They are the competent authority to handle this particular aspect. Matters are pending before the SLSC from the year 2016. We have therefore impleaded the SLSC as further respondent in the writ petition. Since the matter is still nebulous and no finding had been rendered by any competent authority that the certificate produced by the first respondent is either genuine or fabricated, it will not be proper or prudent on our part to render any finding on the same. The Committee has decided to examine the said certificate and they also have their procedure to conduct such enquiry, but however the delay is telling.

10. In these circumstances, we would dispose of the writ petition by giving a direction to the third respondent, namely, the State Level Scrutiny Committee to complete the enquiry process as against the first respondent within a period of two months from this date and forward a report to the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner may thereafter take appropriate action to either proceed with the charge memo or to drop the charges in accordance with the report of the SLSC. It may not be proper on the part of either this Court or of the writ petitioner to pre-judge the entire issue and come to any conclusion before the Committee which has jurisdiction to examine the issues of this nature provides a final report on the certificate produced by the first respondent.

11. The writ petition stands disposed of. A direction is issued to the third respondent to complete the enquiry and forward a report to the writ petitioner within a period of two months from this date. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.