CHIDANAND vs THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND ORS
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11159
WP No. 200023 of 2023
CNR: KAHC030100662022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
TH
DATED THIS THE 9 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
WRIT PETITION NO. 200023 OF 2023 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI. CHIDANAND
S/O SIDDESHWAR UKKALI
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
OCC: CISF CONSTABLE/GD
CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE
(CISF) UNIT RTPS RAICHUR
R/O VILLAGE HALAGUNAKI
TQ: INDI, DIST: VIJAYAPURA-586101
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAVI B PATIL., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
THROUGH MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS
THROUGH COMMANDANT UNIT
CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE
C.H.P.A. CHENNAI-600001
TAMILNADU STATE
2.
THE COMMANDANT
C.I.S.F UNIT, RTPS
RAICHUR-585101
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
INDI SUB DIVISION, INDI
DIST: VIJAYAPUR-586101
Digitally
signed by
SWETA
KULKARNI
Location:
HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11159
WP No. 200023 of 2023
CNR: KAHC030100662022
4. THE TAHSILDAR INDI
TAHASIL OFFICE, INDI
DIST: VIJAYAPUR-586101.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.SUDHIRSINGH R. VIJAPUR, DSGI FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI.MALLIKARJUN SAHUKAR, AGA FOR R3 AND R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, A) ISSUE A WRIT
OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED COMMUNICATION
RD
DATED 12.09.2022 AND 21.11.2022 ISSUED BY THE 3
RESPONDENT AUTHORITY IN FILE NO.AJSK/VINIVA/161/2022-
ND
23/1561 RELIED UPON BY THE 2 RESPONDENT AUTHORITY
ALONG WITH THE MEMORANDUM AND ARTICLE OF CHARGES
AS AT ANNEXURE-D AS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY AND PERVERSE
IN NATURE; B) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED PROCEEDINGS IN FILE NO.15099/KOSUBA/RTPS
(R)/CHIU/NI-36/2022/10382, DATED 02.12.2022 AS AT
ANNEXURE-D AS AGAINST THE PETITIONER AS ILLEGAL AND
ARBITRARY IN NATURE; C) PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER/S AS
HONOURABLE COURT DEEMS FIT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF
THE CASE INCLUDING AN ORDER AS TO THE COSTS OF THE
PRESENT WRIT PETITION.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:
“a) Issue a Writ of Certiorari to quash the
impugned communication dated 12.09.2022
rd
and 21.11.2022 issued by the 3 Respondent
authority in file No.AJSK/ViNiva/161/2022-
nd
23/1561 relied upon by the 2 Respondent
authority along with the Memorandum and
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11159
WP No. 200023 of 2023
CNR: KAHC030100662022
article of charges as at Annexure-D as illegal,
arbitrary and perverse in nature, in the
interest of justice and equity.
b) Issue a Writ of Certiorari to quash the
impugned proceedings in file
No.15099/KOSUBA/RTPS (R)/ChiU/Ni-
36/2022/10382, dated 02.12.2022 as at
Annexure-D as against the petitioner as illegal
and arbitrary in nature, in the interest of
justice and equity.
c) Pass such other order/s as this Hon’ble
Court deems fit in the circumstances of the
case including an order as to the costs of the
present writ petition, in the interest of justice
and equity.”
2. Sri.Ravi B. Patil, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as
a Constable in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF)
pursuant to the appointment order dated 21.06.2009 by
furnishing a caste certificate issued by the competent
authority claiming OBC reservation. It is submitted that
respondent No.2 issued a memorandum dated
02.12.2022, along with the article of charge, alleging that
the OBC certificate furnished by the petitioner at the time
of his appointment is false, by referring to the
communication issued by the Tahsildar, Indi, dated
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11159
WP No. 200023 of 2023
CNR: KAHC030100662022
22.12.2008. It is further submitted that the petitioner was
appointed based on the OBC caste certificate issued by the
competent authority and that, after a long gap of time, the
authorities are now questioning the caste certificate by
contending that the petitioner’s caste is not found in the
Central List of OBCs. It is also submitted that, the similar
issue has come up before this Court in the case of
Virupaxagouda S/o. Yellappagouda Kareppagoudra
1
v. The State of Karnataka and Others and this Court
quashed the communication of respondent No.2 therein,
who has indicated that the petitioner’s caste did not find a
place in the Central List of OBCs. Accordingly, he seeks to
allow the petition.
3. Per contra, Sri.Sudhirsingh R. Vijapur, learned
Deputy Solicitor General of India (DSGI) appearing for
respondent Nos.1 and 2 supports the action of the
respondents and submits that the notification issued by
1
WP.No.104460/2022 dated 19.02.2024
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11159
WP No. 200023 of 2023
CNR: KAHC030100662022
the authority indicates that the post is reserved for the
OBC candidates. However, the petitioner belongs to the
Hindu lingayat community, though he is an OBC in the
State List, he is not the OBC in the Central List. It is
further submitted that the jurisdictional Tahasildar has
clearly confirmed that the petitioner belongs to Hindu
lingayat community, and the said caste does not find a
place in Central List of OBCs. Therefore, the caste
certificate furnished by the petitioner is false. In view of
the same, the authority decided to hold an inquiry, and
filing of the writ petition challenging the article of charge is
premature. Accordingly, he seeks to dismiss the writ
petition.
4. Sri.Mallikarjun Sahukar, the learned Additional
Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.3 and
4 submits that respondent No.2, being the appointing
authority, sought clarification, which has been furnished
by the jurisdictional Tahasildar, Indi, indicating that the
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11159
WP No. 200023 of 2023
CNR: KAHC030100662022
Hindu lingayat is not OBC in the Central List. However, the
Hindu lingayat is an OBC in the State List. It is submitted
that, the jurisdictional Tahasildar has issued the certificate
of OBC in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, he seeks to
pass appropriate orders.
5. I have heard the arguments of the learned
counsel for the petitioner, the learned DSGI appearing for
respondent Nos.1 and 2, the learned Additional
Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.3 and
4 and meticulously perused the material available on
record.
6. Respondent No.2 invited applications from male
and female Indian citizens for filling up the temporary
posts of Constable (GD) for a particular pay scale. As per
the recruitment notification, a total of 274 posts were
notified for the State of Karnataka for male candidates,
comprising 127 posts under the General category, 43
posts under the Scheduled Caste category, 86 posts under
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11159
WP No. 200023 of 2023
CNR: KAHC030100662022
the OBC category and, 18 posts under the Scheduled Tribe
category. In addition, 38 posts were notified for female
candidates. Pursuant to the said notification, the petitioner
applied for the said post and thereafter, he was appointed
on 05.07.2009.
7. It is noticed that, during the recruitment
process, the petitioner submitted an OBC caste certificate
issued by the Tahasildar, Indi, on 22.12.2008, wherein the
petitioner's caste was shown as Category 3B (OBC).
Subsequently, the authority sent a communication to the
jurisdictional Tahasildar, Indi, vide communication dated
30.05.2022, seeking clarification with regard to the caste
certificate produced by the petitioner. In response, the
Assistant Commissioner, Indi, issued a communication
dated 12.09.2022 to the Assistant Commandant for
Commandant CISF Unit CHPA, Chennai, which reads as
under:
“With reference to above mention
subject, As per your letter No E-36071/
CISF/CHPA/DOC/2022/2229. Dated 11-04-
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11159
WP No. 200023 of 2023
CNR: KAHC030100662022
2022 regarding to submit verification report of
OBC caste certificate issued to Mr Chidanand
Ukkali S/o Shri Siddeshwar at post village
Halagunaki Tq. Indi, Dist:Vijayapur on 22-12-
2008,
As per your letter officially issued
direction to Tahasildar Indi to submit
verification report of OBC caste issued to
Chidanand Siddeshwar Ukkali on 22-12-2008,
As per our direction Tahsildar Indi has
submitted verification report of OBC caste
issued to Chidanand Siddeshwar Ukkali, on
basis of Local Enquiry conducted by village
Accountant Halagunaki and Revenue inspector
Ballolli Hobli, The report says that Chidanand
Siddeshwas Ukkali belongs to Hindu lingayat
community, This Hindu lingayat community
not come under central OBC category, due to
this report the said case certificate dated 22-
12-2008 is not a OBC certificate.
This is for your kind information and
necessary action.”
8. It is to be noticed that respondent No.2 sought
for re-verification vide communication dated 25.10.2022.
In response to the said communication, the Assistant
Commissioner Indi, Sub Division Indi, Vijayapura issued a
communication dated 21.11.2022 reiterating the earlier
stand that the petitioner belongs to the Hindu lingayat
community and the Hindu lingayat community does not
come under the Central List of OBCs. Based on the
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11159
WP No. 200023 of 2023
CNR: KAHC030100662022
aforesaid communications, respondent No.2 issued the
memorandum and articles of charge dated 02.12.2022.
9. It is further required to be noticed that the
memorandum and articles of charge were issued by
respondent No.2, almost 14 years after the petitioner’s
appointment and commencement of service with the
respondents. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in the
case of Virupaxagouda S/o. Yellappagouda
Kareppagoudra referred supra, while considering a
similar issue, at paragraph Nos.12 to 15 observed as
under:
“12. In the present case, there is no allegation
that the petitioner has either fabricated,
forged or concocted the caste certificate. The
petitioner has rightly place on record that he
belongs to Hindu-Reddy category-III(A), but
has claimed benefit of reservation relying on
the State list rather than Central list even
though the employment is for a central service
not of the State service. Since, he was to be
appointed with the CISF.
13. Be that as it may, the certificate submitted
by the petitioner and the petitioner being
appointed on 23.06.2009, the jurisdictional
Tahasildar in the year-2018 has also
confirmed the said certificate though by
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11159
WP No. 200023 of 2023
CNR: KAHC030100662022
referring to the State list rather than Central
list, which he was supposed to do. This aspect
is sought to be corrected by respondent No.2
in the year-2022. In the meanwhile, the
petitioner has worked for nearly 14 years with
the CISF. The petitioner’s certificate having
been held to be genuine and the petitioner
coming under category-III(A) by the
Tahasildar in the year-2018, it was required to
be explained both by the employer and
Tahasildar as to why there was a delay of
nearly 10 years from the date of appointment
of the petitioner, which has not been so
explained.
14. Furthermore, even after the Tahasildar has
submitted a report in the year 2018, the 2nd
respondent has sought to correct the same in
the year-2022 and the explanation for the
delay of those four years, is also not place on
record. Thus, the Hon’ble Apex Court in
Dattu’s case (supra) having held that if there
is any unexplained delay, the benefit of long
service cannot be taken away, I am of the
considered opinion that the said decision
would also apply to the present case and come
to the rescue of the petitioner.
15. This is not a stray case, there have been
several such cases, which have been coming
up before this Court on account of the laxity
on the part of the officials concerned being
both the employer and the verifying authority.
In that view of the matter, I am of the
considered opinion that general directions
would also have to be issued.”
10. Considering the observations made by the
Co-ordinate Bench in the aforesaid decision, wherein the
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11159
WP No. 200023 of 2023
CNR: KAHC030100662022
Court is of the view that the initiation of proceedings
against an employee after 14 years is impermissible. In
the case on hand as well, the memorandum and articles of
charge were issue on 02.12.2022, more than 13 years
after the petitioner’s appointment and as on this day, it is
nearly 18 years.
11. It is also to be noticed that the respondent
authorities are not making an assertion that the petitioner
has obtained the caste certificate by fraudulent means and
that he has misled the authorities and obtained the
appointment. In the absence of any such allegation, the
initiation of proceedings against the petitioner after such
lapse of time is impermissible.
12. The grievance of the respondents is that the
Hindu lingayat is not in the Central List of OBCs. It is not
in dispute that Hindu lingayat is an OBC in the State of
Karnataka. The notification issued by respondent No.2
clearly indicates that the appointment of the constables is
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11159
WP No. 200023 of 2023
CNR: KAHC030100662022
made against the vacancies to the respective states.
Considering the said aspect and in the absence of any
clarity in the notification that the candidates are required
to place the OBC caste certificate from the competent
authority and the said OBC should be of the Central List.
In the absence of such clarity also and considering the
decision of the Co-ordinate Bench referred supra and
taking note of peculiar facts and circumstances explained
supra, I am of the view that, at this length of time the
continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner may
not be appropriate more particularly when the petitioner
had no role in obtaining the caste certificate which he has
submitted and obtained the employment. Accordingly, I
proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i. The writ petition is allowed.
ii. The memorandum and articles of
charge dated 02.12.2022 at Annexure-D
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11159
WP No. 200023 of 2023
CNR: KAHC030100662022
passed by respondent No.2 are hereby set
aside.
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
ABK
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42