1. The present writ appeal has been filed by the Kuvempu University being aggrieved by the order dated 08.10.2020 passed in W.P.No.9297/2020 (Smt. Gayathri D.V. vs. The Kuvempu University and Another).

2. The facts of the case reveal that the respondent No.1 in the present writ appeal was appointed as a First Division Clerk on 26.10.1989 in the services of the appellant/University and a complaint was made against her that she has obtained the employment on the basis of false caste certificate. The University at the relevant point of time requested the Additional Director General of Police, Civil Rights Enforcement Cell, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as 'the ADGP, CRE Cell') to conduct an enquiry and the ADGP, CRE Cell communicated the Registrar of the University after holding an enquiry that the employee belongs to Marati community(reserved category). It was also informed that the Marati community as per the Presidential Notification is listed as Scheduled Tribes and the employee in question is undisputedly a Member of the Scheduled Tribes only. Thereafter, some other complaints were made against the employee that she has obtained caste certificate based upon false information and once again, the matter was referred to the Police and the Inspector of Police, CRE Cell vide communication dated 09.03.2009 informed the University that a detailed enquiry has already been done in the matter and the employee in question belongs to Scheduled Tribes community only.

3. The University was not satisfied with the enquiries conducted by the Additional Director General of Police twice and therefore, again referred the matter to the committee constituted on account of the judgment delivered in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and Another vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and Others reported in (1994) 6 SCC 241 [LQ/SC/1994/798] by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Deputy Commissioner, Shivamogga District after conducting an enquiry at the instance of one G.S.Krishnamurthy and others has passed an order on 15.07.2017 holding that the employee in question belongs to Marati community which is a Scheduled Tribe community under the Presidential Notification. Thus, the undisputed facts reveal that State of Karnataka keeping in view the procedure prescribed, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madhuri Patil (supra) has held that the employee in question to be a Member of the Scheduled Tribe community.

4. G.S.Krishnamurthy not being satisfied with the order passed by the competent authority, thereafter, preferred a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. in the year 2013 and informed the University about the complaint. The Trial Court, thereafter, directed registration of FIR and the criminal case is still pending. The facts of the case reveal that the complaint was filed in the year 2014 and Smt. Gayathri, respondent No.1 in the present writ appeal (writ petitioner) was due for superannuation on 30.06.2020. The University, for the reasons best known to it, suspended her only on 29.06.2020. The order of suspension dated 29.06.2020 was subjected to judicial scrutiny and the learned Single Judge after discussing at length all the details in a chronological order has allowed the writ petition. Paragraphs 6 to 13 of the said judgment reads as under:

"6. Heard the learned Counsels for the petitioner, the respondent-university & learned HCGP for the 2nd respondent-Deputy Commissioner and perused the petition papers.

7. As submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent-university, it seems that the impugned order of suspension has been issued invoking the provisions of the Statute as referred to above. But, what is glaring is that when it was incumbent upon the university to get the Caste Certificate verified immediately after the order of appointment, the university did not do so. On the basis of complaints, which is obviously given by the said G.S.Krishnamurthy, the competent authority i.e., the ADGP, CRE Cell has caused an enquiry. The required information was collected through the concerned Tahsildar. After holding a detailed enquiry the competent authority came to conclusion that the petitioner and her family belong to Marati community and since they hailed from Dakshina Kannada District, as per the Presidential Notification, the petitioner and her family members belong to a Scheduled Tribe community. This communication was made way back in the year 1995 to the respondent-university. The university has accepted the enquiry report and the petitioner has continued to serve the university. What is astonishing is that the Registrar of the university deemed it fit to invoking the provisions of Clause 7(1) (a) of the Statute, a day before the retirement of the petitioner. As seen from the impugned order, the basis for issuance of the suspension order is a criminal case in PCR No.26/2014 said to have been filed by the very same person, who has been making allegations and complaints and at whose instance the enquiry was conducted by the competent authority. The fact that the private complaint was registered during the month of November, 2013 also cannot be lost sight of. What prompted the respondent- university to keep quite all the while from 2013-14 and thereafter pass the order of suspension just a day prior to the retirement of the petitioner, i.e., 29.06.2020, is unfathomable.

8. Clause Nos.7 (1) and 7(2) read as follows:

7(1) The appointing authority or any authority to which it is subordinate may place an employee under suspension;

(a) where the disciplinary proceedings against him as contemplated or is pending; (b) where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation or trial;

7(2) The Registrar (Evaluation) the Finance Officer, Principals of University colleges and the Chairman's of the Department of Board of studies may place under suspension any employee belonging to Group-B or Group-C working under him;

(a) where a criminal proceedings against the employee as contemplated or is pending;

(b) provided that in any such case the authority suspending such an employee shall forthwith report to the appointing authority the circumstances under which the order was made.

9. Admittedly, there is no disciplinary proceedings initiated or pending against the petitioner while the order of suspension was issued. The university has admittedly caused an enquiry on the allegations made against the petitioner regarding furnishing a false Caste Certificate, the competent authority has gone into the complaint, conducted a detailed enquiry and submitted a report that there is no truth in the allegations made against the petitioner. The university admittedly, did not question the report submitted by the competent authority. Therefore, the issue regarding the genuinity of the Caste Certificate claimed by the petitioner has reached finality.

10. As could be seen from the records, the said G.S.Krishnamurthy has been initiating proceedings after proceedings against the petitioner. The Deputy Commissioner has also passed an order in a proceedings, where the ADGP, CRE Cell was also a party. The order was passed by the Deputy Commissioner on 15.07.2017. It is important to notice that the private complaint was registered at the instance of G.S.Krishnamurthy in the month of November, 2013. Obviously, the allegations made in the private complaint would have been reiterated before the Deputy Commissioner in the presence of the competent authority i.e., the ADGP, CRE Cell, who had conducted the earlier enquiry. Such being the case, after the Deputy Commissioner has once again gone into the details of the enquiry that was conducted earlier and having been satisfied that the report submitted by the ADGP, CRE Cell could not be found fault with, the genuinely or otherwise of the cast certificate issued in favour of the petitioner was once again held to be in accordance with law and stood concluded. Under these facts and circumstances, the Registrar of the 1st respondent-university could not have passed the order of suspension only on the premise that a criminal case is under investigation against the petitioner.

11. In the considered opinion of this Court, the invoking of Clause 7(1) and 7(2) of the Statute by the Registrar of the 1st respondent-university cannot be sustained since, it seems to be tainted with malafides. Nevertheless, if the private complaint initiated by the said G.S.Krishnamurthy reaches its logical conclusion, and if it is found that the petitioner had submitted fraudulent document on the basis of which the Caste Certificate was issued in favour of the petitioner, then the petitioner may have to face the consequences. This Court has not dealt with the question of maintainability of the private complaint or the merits of the Criminal Petition No.3923/2020.

12. For the present, on the merits of this writ petition, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order of suspension dated 29.06.2020 is tainted with malafides and therefore the same is liable to be quashed and set aside.13. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 29.06.2020 at Annexure-A issued by the Registrar of the 1st respondent-university is hereby quashed and set aside. The 1st respondent-university is hereby directed to settle the retirement benefits of the petitioner.

It is made clear that if the private complaint which was initiated by Sri. G.S. Krishnamurthy, reaches the logical conclusion that the petitioner had furnished forged documents to secure the Caste Certificate, then the 1st respondent-university is at liberty to proceed against the petitioner and recover the retirement benefits if the law so provides for.

The retirement benefits of the petitioner shall be settled as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

It is ordered accordingly."

5. This Court has carefully gone through the judgment delivered by the learned Single Judge. It is an undisputed fact that the status of respondent No.1 in the present writ appeal was verified by the ADGP, CRE Cell, Bengaluru. A report was submitted by him on 20.10.1995 to the Registrar and the Registrar, University at no point of time objected to the aforesaid report. Again a report was submitted by the Police and the Registrar later on forwarded some of the complaints submitted by one Sri G.S.Krishnamurthy to the Police. On 09.03.2009, again it was informed by the police that the respondent No.1 belongs to Scheduled Tribe only. Not only this, the Committee constituted for the purpose of caste verification has passed a detailed order on 15.07.2017 holding that respondent No.1 belongs to Scheduled Tribe only. The University was aware of the complaint filed by G.S.Krishnamurthy as it was filed in 2014 and opted to suspend the employee on the eve of her retirement i.e., on 29.06.2020.

6. In the considered opinion of this Court, the order of suspension certainly suffers from total non-application of mind on the part of the University and it could not have been passed on mere registration of complaint case specially in the light of the aforesaid fact that the Committee constituted by the State of Karnataka has given a clean chit to the respondent No.1.

7. Rule 7-A of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments, Etc.) Rules, 1992 reads as under:

"7-A. Prosecution for obtaining false caste certificate- (1) The Caste Verification Committee or the Caste and Income Verification Committee, as the case may be and the Divisional Commissioner, shall send a copy of the order rejecting claim of the applicant for grant of Validity Certificate or, as the case may be, a Copy of the order in appeal rejecting such claim, to the Directorate of Civil Rights Enforcement.

(2) The Directorate of Civil Rights Enforcement shall take steps to prosecute such claimant who has obtained a false Caste Certificate."

8. The aforesaid statutory provision of law makes it very clear that the prosecution can be initiated only after the caste certificate is cancelled by the competent authority and therefore, on the basis of the complaint case alone, the petitioner could not have been suspended in the manner and method it has been done.

9. Resultantly, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The writ appeal is dismissed.

The pending interlocutory applications do not survive for consideration and stand disposed of.