Saurabh Banerjee JUDGMENT
Saurabh Banerjee, J.
1. The petitioner before us submits that since his appointment as Assistant Commandant in CISF and promotion as Senior Commandant, he was being deputed at different places from time to time. While posted as Sr. Commandant at Kochi Port Trust, an anonymous complaint qua a false caste certificate submitted by one Lola Ramanayya, CISF No. 942290688, constable, Unit CPT Cochin, Kerala (hereinafter referred to as "Constable") at the time of his recruitment, was received on 22.10.2013. The said caste certificate was found to be false by the Tehsildar on 16.06.2014 and by the Collector on 05.09.2014. Thus, respondents vide letter dated 24.09.2014 requested the then Senior Commandant, i.e. petitioner to initiate appropriate disciplinary action against the said Constable.
2. A perusal of records of the said Constable by petitioner revealed a false caste certificate dated 09.02.1993 and its verification report dated 05.09.2007. This prompted the petitioner to, in the light of re.: Kumari Madhuri Patil vs. Addl. Commissioner MANU/SC/0022/1995 : (1994) 6 SCC 241, ask the District Collector qua the authenticity of the said documents vide letter dated 07.10.2014.
3. In the interregnum, in another parallel proceeding, as the Constable was absconding from his duties and was OSL (Over Stayed Leave) since January, 2014 despite several unanswered Lookout Notices issued in February, 2014, the respondents issued a charge-sheet dated 01.09.2014 to him. Though the Constable replied thereto on 21.09.2014 but chose not to appear before the competent authority. The competent authority thus proceeded ex-parte and issued a final order dated 06.03.2014 finding him guilty of overstay of leave and imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement from service with 10% cut in his monthly pension. The said order, after review by the Appellate Authority, was held to be valid.
4. The petitioner was then posted out of Kochi Port Trust on 31.03.2016. Later on the District Collector on 03.12.2016 responded to the letter dated 07.10.2014 of petitioner.
5. However, vide letter dated 18.08.2017 the respondents sought an explanation from petitioner as to why the said Constable was dealt for OSL only and not for submitting a false caste certificate. After receiving the response dated 01.11.2017 from the petitioner, the respondents issued a charge-sheet dated 13.12.2019 to him. The petitioner responded thereto also vide his reply dated 15.01.2020.
6. Being aggrieved and prior to commencement of any proceedings there under, the petitioner approached this Court by way of the present petition seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the Charge Memorandum dated 13.12.2019 as well as quashing any other proceedings initiated against him pursuant to the above said charge-sheet.
7. Upon hearing the learned counsel for petitioner, vide order 31.01.2020 this Court issued notice to the respondents and directed that no further proceedings shall take place pursuant to the charge memorandum dated 13.12.2019 till the next date of hearing. The said order is subsisting as on date.
8. During arguments learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the act of the petitioner was bona fide and as Senior Commandant he was duty bound to follow the law laid down in Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) and that the respondents have issued the impugned charge sheet without examining the reply dated 01.11.2017 of the petitioner which specifically mentioned Rule 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Schedule Castes, Schedule Tribes and Backward Classes-Issue of Community, Nativity and Date of Birth Certificate Rules, 1997.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that the impugned charge-sheet ........