1. The Petitioner seeks writ of certiorarified mandamus seeking to quash the proceedings of the Respondent in IRD/184/1/2000 dated 3.5.2000 dismissing him from service and to direct the Respondent Bank to reinstate him into the service of the Respondent Bank with all attendant benefits.
2. The Petitioner claims to be belonging to KONDA REDDY community. The Petitioner was appointed as Clerk-cum-Sheriff in Respondent Bank on 2.5.1980 against a reserved quota for Scheduled Tribe community. He produced community certificate dated 31.8.1978 issued by the Tahsildar, Tirunelveli. Later the Petitioner was confirmed and promoted as Special Cadre Assistant. In the year 1988, a complaint was received by the Bank stating that the information given by the Petitioner that he belongs to KONDA REDDY community was wrong. Therefore, by order dated 25.3.1988, the Respondent bank requested the Collector to enquire into the matter. The Sub-Collector, Cheran Madevi conducted thorough enquiry and forwarded the report to the Collector. After giving opportunity to the Petitioner, District Collector passed the order dated 6.11.1992 holding that the Petitioner does not belong to KONDA REDDY community and cancelled the certificate. Based on the Collector's order, Respondent Bank issued a show cause notice on 2.12.1992. At that stage, challenging the order of the Collector, Petitioner filed W.P.No.18777 of 1992 and obtained interim stay. The Writ Petition was dismissed on 15.3.2000 holding that all the provisions of law have been followed and that only after local enquiry the competent authority has found that the Petitioner does not belong to KONDA REDDY community and that he belongs to Reddiar community and the learned single Judge held that the community certificate was rightly cancelled.
3. Suppressing the dismissal of the Writ Petition, Petitioner filed a Civil Suit in O.S.No.104 of 2000 on the file of District Munsif's Court, Valliyur to declare that the Respondent Bank had no right to take any proceedings on the basis of community certificate. Though an interim injunction was initially granted, it was vacated on 14.7.2000.
4. The Petitioner also filed W.P.No.8734 of 2000 challenging his order of termination. On 17.7.2000, the Petitioner withdrew W.P.No.8734 of 2000 and the same was dismissed as withdrawn. The Petitioner has also moved Human Rights Commission for reinstating him in service. Without affording opportunity to the Bank to put forth its claim, Human Rights Commission recommended reinstatement of the Petitioner, against which Petitioner filed W.P.No.8080 of 2001 and obtained interim stay of all proceedings before Human Rights Commission pursuant to its order dated 14.12.2000.
5. Against the order of learned single Judge in W.P.No.18777 of 1992, as an after thought, Petitioner filed W.A.No.897 of 2000. The Writ Appeal was dismissed at the admission stage itself and Division Bench has observed that no direction as prayed for could be granted. While dismissing the Writ Appeal, Bench has directed the Petitioner to approach the State Level Committee and he was given thirty days time to move the State level Committee for his grievance.
6. It was at that stage the Petitioner has filed the present writ petition - W.P.No.22280 of 2001 on 16.11.2001 again challenging the order of termination dated 3.5.2000 on the ground that no departmental enquiry had been held and no opportunity had been given to the Petitioner before termination.
7. Learned counsel for Petitioner submitted that the impugned order of termination is illegal and unlawful as the Respondent Bank has not held any departmental proceedings and even if the community certificate was cancelled, employer was bound to hold departmental proceedings. It was further submitted that the order of termination is liable to be set aside on the sole ground that no departmental enquiry was conducted before passing the final order.
8. Drawing our attention to the various dates and events, the learned counsel for the Respondent bank submitted that the present writ petition is only an abuse of process of Court and having been unsuccessful in several rounds of litigations, it is not open to the Petitioner to challenge the order of termination.
9. The very narration of various dates and events and other proceedings would make it clear that the Petitioner has earlier challenged the cancellation of community certificate as well as his termination from service. As pointed out earlier, Petitioner had filed W.P.No.8734 of 2000 challenging Bank's order dated 3.5.2000 terminating his services, which was later withdrawn. Having challenged the termination order in the earlier Writ Petition, it is not open to the Petitioner to challenge the same under the guise that no departmental enquiry was held prior to termination. The Petitioner was appointed against a reserved quota for Scheduled Tribe community. When the community certificate of the Petitioner was cancelled by the competent authority after due enquiry, it was no longer incumbent upon the employer Respondent Bank to hold any further departmental proceedings. Having unsuccessfully challenged the cancellation of community certificate in W.P.No.18777 of 1992, the Petitioner cannot challenge the consequential order of termination from service.
10. The learned counsel for petitioner Mr.M.Suresh Kumar submitted that Petitioner has subsequently approached State Level Scrutiny Committee and requested us to issue direction to keep in abeyance the order of termination till the State Level Scrutiny Committee decides the matter. The submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioner cannot be countenanced. The challenge in this Writ Petition is only the termination order. The direction to the State Level Scrutiny Committee was issued way back in 2000 in W.A.No.897 of 2000. It is not known as to when the Petitioner has approached the State Level Scrutiny Committee. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, having regard to the conduct of the Petitioner in filing number of Writ Petitions and the limited scope involved in this Writ Petition, no direction could be issued to the State Level Scrutiny Committee. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for Respondent Bank the present writ petition is only an abuse of process of Court and is devoid of merits.
11. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed with costs.