M.Karuppanan Vs Tamil Nadu State Level Scrutiny Committee – II (Madras High Court)
Conclusion: A retired Central Excise officer was provided relief by quashing an order that community doubt on the validity of his caste certificate from 1977, even though it was initially evident that assessee belonged to the backward class rather than the ST Community and assessee must file an undertaking that his children would not claim any benefit based on his caste certificate.
Held: Assessee had joined the Central Excise Department in 1978 based on a Scheduled Tribe (ST) certificate stating he belonged to the Katunayakkan community, which was recognized under Article 342 of the Constitution. The controversy began when, decades later, the employer GST and Central Excise sought a verification of assessee’s community status in 2018. Acting on this request, the Tamil Nadu State Level Scrutiny Committee held that the community certificate was not genuine and directed the employer to take action. Assessee challenged the order citing several procedural and legal lapses. High Court found merit in assessee’s contention that Government of India circulars from 2005, 2016, and 2020 clearly barred retrospective verification of community certificates issued to Central Government employees appointed prior to 1995. It was held that the composition of the Scrutiny Committee violated the Supreme Court’s guidelines in Kumari Madhuri Patil v. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development, as one of the committee members was not qualified under the norms prescribed by the Apex Court. The Court opined when the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that the committee ought to be formed with the Director of Social Welfare and Tribal Welfare, then the formation of the above committee was against the direction issued by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the Committee members was against the direction of the Supreme Court, hence the order passed by the Committee was legally not valid. The Court also noted that the enquiry was conducted during the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, when assessee being 72 years old was unable to attend in person, and hence was denied a proper opportunity to be heard, violating principles of natural justice. The Court acknowledged that there appeared to be prima facie evidence that assessee might not belong to the claimed ST community, it declined to disturb his service record or financial benefits in view of his long years of service and retirement. However, the Court directed that assessee must file an undertaking that his children would not claim any benefit based on his caste certificate. The Court allowed the writ petition, restrained the department from taking further action, and quashed the impugned order.
