In doing so, the Court held that a fresh enquiry could not be initiated merely on receipt of another complaint regarding an employee's community certificate.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Harinath N. allowed the writ petition filed by an employee of Southern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Limited (APSPDCL). The Court said responsible employers should not entertain frivolous complaints, as they can cause undesirable consequences and trauma to employees.

The Court observed:

"The respondents could not have initiated a fresh enquiry as and when they received a complaint with regard to the community certificate of any employee. Once a comprehensive enquiry is completed and a finding is arrived at by the Enquiry Officer, the same ought to be referred to for considering any further complaint against the said employee for initiating further action, if necessary, subject to the fresh complaint bringing on record any additional material which was ignored by the earlier Enquiry Officer.
On the facts of the present case, it is evident that there was no additional material submitted by the complainant with regard to suppression of any material by the petitioner or any additional material which required a re-enquiry into the community certificate of the petitioner. The enquiry appears to have been initiated on a complaint received from a third party on the same allegation that the petitioner had submitted a false community certificate and secured employment in the 6th respondent. Such complaints could not have been entertained by the respondent as a responsible employer in the State. Frivolous complaints against employees ought not to be entertained by the employer, as they result in undesirable consequences and cause trauma to the employee."

The case concerned a woman employed with APSPDCL. Her Scheduled Tribe community certificate was cancelled following a second enquiry into allegations that she had secured employment by producing a false certificate.

According to the petitioner, she was born to parents belonging to the Yanadi community. Her school and educational records consistently recorded her community as Scheduled Tribe. She joined APSPDCL as a Junior Assistant in 1996. She later married a person belonging to the Gajula Balija community.

After she became due for promotion, a complaint was made alleging that she had obtained employment under the Scheduled Tribe quota by producing a false community certificate.

The allegation had already been examined in a Vigilance enquiry earlier.

The Vigilance Report had gone into allegations that the petitioner had secured appointment as a Lower Division Clerk (LDC) in the Scheduled Tribe quota by producing a bogus caste certificate. It was also alleged that her father and husband belonged to the Balija caste and that she had secured appointment in the ST backlog quota.

It was further alleged that she had been adopted by a Brahmin and was trying to secure promotion in the ST quota. She was also alleged to have offered a bribe of Rs. 25,000 in connection with the promotion.

The Vigilance Authority examined the petitioner's community status, school records and other relevant documents. Statements of witnesses were also recorded.

The enquiry found that the petitioner belonged to the Yanadi ST community and professed Hinduism, as reflected in her school certificates and Transfer Certificate. The school records also indicated her community as Yanadi (ST).

The petitioner's father denied that she had been adopted by a Brahmin, stating that the person concerned was only a neighbour who guided her in her education. The Enquiry Officer also verified the caste and educational certificates of her elder brother, who was working as a Mechanic in APSRTC and had secured employment under the ST quota.

Subsequetly, a detailed report was also submitted to the Chairman and Managing Director of APSPDCL which found nothing adverse to render the petitioner's caste certificate null and void.

Despite this, a fresh enquiry was initiated by the District Level Scrutiny Committee on a subsequent complaint raising the same allegation. The District Collector thereafter by an order cancelled her Scheduled Tribe community certificate, which was later upheld by the State Government in appeal, prompting her to approach the High Court.

The petitioner contended that the Committee failed to consider the earlier Vigilance report, her educational certificates and her brother's community certificate.

The High Court found that neither the District Collector nor the appellate authority had referred to the earlier Vigilance report or given reasons for ignoring it.

The Court noted that the report was “categorically clear and unambiguous” and that no additional material had been brought on record to justify a re-enquiry.

Holding that the proceedings had “miserably failed to consider the report of the Enquiry Officer”, the Court set aside the orders cancelling the petitioner's ST community certificate and rejecting her appeal.

The writ petition was allowed.

Case Title: Smt. Thota Rajya Lakshmi v. Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.

Case No.: W.P. No. 19700 of 2023

Counsel for the Petitioner: Raviteja Talaseela

Counsel for the Respondents: GP for Revenue, Venkata Rama Rao Kota, & GP for Social Welfare