SUKHDEV PRASAD Vs. SOUTH EASTERN COAL FIELDS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein calls in question legality, validity and correctness of the order dtd. 7/12/2009 (Annexure P-1) by which his services have been terminated relying upon the report dtd. 21/8/2009 issued by respondent No.2 branding the same as arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction and without authority of law.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as 'Mining Sardar' by the respondent SECL on 21/7/2000 (Annexure P-2) against ST category as he belongs to "Munda" caste on the basis of caste certificate issued by the competent authority vide Annexure P-3. It is the case of the petitioner that his appointment was first made on probation for a period of six months and thereafter his services were regularized and thereafter he was transferred to Bokaro (Jharkhand) plant of SECL, in which he served till the year 2003. In the year 2003, SECL, Bokaro had referred the matter of the petitioner to District Administration, Bokaro and his caste was duly verified vide caste verification report Annexure P-4 in which it was found that caste certificate was validly issued in his favour holding him to be a member of Scheduled Tribes. Thereafter on the direction of the Home Ministry, caste certificate of the petitioner was to be verified and accordingly, vide communication dtd. 29/8/2009 (Annexure P-9), it was informed by the competent authority of Bokaro that caste certificate dtd. 28/1/97 (Annexure P-3) issued in favour of the petitioner is forged /wrong and on that basis, the impugned order dtd. 07/12/2009 (Annexure P-1) has been passed terminating the services of the petitioner. It is further case of the petitioner that caste certificate can be made only as per decisions of the Supreme Court in the matters of Kumari Madhuri Patil and another v. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and others, (1994) 6 SCC 241. Collector, Bilaspur v. Ajit P.K.Jogi and others, (2011) 10 SCC 357 and Chairman and Managing Director, Food Corporation of India v. Jagdish Balaram Bahira and others, (2017) 8 SCC 670 as such, the impugned order deserves to be set-aside.

(3.) Return has been filed by respondent No.1 opposing the averments made in the writ petition stating inter-alia that the petitioner's caste certificate was verified in accordance with clause 5, 10 and 11 of the appointment order dtd. 21/7/2000 and finding that he did not belong to ST category, his services have been terminated in accordance with the conditions of the appointment order, which is strictly in accordance with law and no interference is warranted.