ROHIT PATRE Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order/report dtd. 22/6/2009 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Caste Certificate High Level Scrutiny Committee (for short 'the Scrutiny Committee') ' Respondent No.4, whereby the caste certificate of the petitioner claiming to be 'Halba' has been invalidated.

(2.) Brief facts of the case, as projected by the petitioner, are that the petitioner who basically belongs to Mehdiwada Waraseoni, District Balaghat, Madhya Pradesh genuinely belongs to Scheduled Tribe "Halba" as declared by His Excellency the President of India under Article 342 read with Article 366(25) of the Constitution of India. He passed his Higher Secondary examination in the year 1991 from Waraseoni. The Government Secondary School Waraseoni, Balaghat issued a transfer certificate (Annexure P/2) to the petitioner dtd. 24/01/1998 showing status of the petitioner as "Halba" Scheduled Tribe. A caste certificate (Annexure P/2) was also issued to the petitioner by the Naib Tehsildar, Rajnandgaon which indicates as "Halba". On the basis of caste certificate issued by the Naib Tehsildar, Rajnandgaon, the petitioner secured appointed on 16/8/1995 (Annexure P/3) on the post of Technical Inspector in Handloom Training Center at Raigarh, Madhya Pradesh. After completing the probation of 2 years, the petitioner was regularized on the said post vide order dtd. 16/06/1998 (Annexure P/4) with effect from 28/08/1995. Further, the Departmental Promotion Committee confirmed the petitioner on the post of Technical Inspector in the Directorate, Handloom, Madhya Pradesh vide order dtd. 14/09/1999 (Annexure P/5). After carving out of the State of Chhattigarh, the services of the petitioner were allocated to the State of Chhattisgarh vide order dtd. 14/12/2000 and he was posted at Directorate Handloom, Raigarh. During the course of employment, vide letter dtd. 18/05/2004, the Assistant Director, Directorate of Rural Industries (Handloom), Raipur Chhattisgarh asked the petitioner to complete the process of caste verification as complaint was made with regard to caste certificate of the petitioner. Vide letter dated 17/10/2005n (Annexure P/6), a departmental enquiry was instituted against the petitioner and the charge sheet was served on the petitioner stating therein that the decision with regard to institution of departmental enquiry was taken under Rule 14 of the aforesaid rules. Four charges were leveled against the petitioner for non-furnishing of relevant information in prescribed pro-forma. Vide letter dtd. 05/09/2006 (Annexure P/7), the petitioner submitted a detailed reply to the charge sheet. He had also submitted the required information in prescribed pro-forma (Annexure P/8) on 26/10/2006. Since the petitioner's tribe claim was not verified, the employer of the petitioner namely Director, Rural Industries (Handloom) terminated his services vide order dtd. 08/02/2007 (Annexure P/9).

(3.) Challenging the order dtd. 8/2/2007, the petitioner moved a writ petition before this Court being W.P. (S) No. 6580/2007. The said petition was disposed off vide order dtd. 15/11/2007 (Annexure P/10) with liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appropriate appeal before the Appellate Authority. Thereafter, the petitioner moved a statutory appeal (Annexure P/11) before the Appellate Authority on 26/11/2007. While hearing the appeal, on 30/07/2008 the Secretary recorded on the order sheet (Annexure P/12) that no higher official has the authority to remove any person from service on the basis of suspicion. However, the matter was referred to the High Level Caste Scrutiny Committee for verification of the Caste and it was recorded that if the report of the committee is not received within six months, the matter would be considered. Upon completion of the period of six months on 30/01/2009, the petitioner submitted a written request (Annexure P/13) to the Secretary that the period of six months was over and therefore, the appeal may be considered. However the appellate authority did not consider the same. In the meantime, Committee had already started their proceedings. Vide letter dtd. 25/09/2008 (Annexure P/14), the petitioner was asked to appear before the Scrutiny Committee on 20/10/2008 along with the documents pertaining to his caste without issuing any show cause notice as contemplated in the judgment rendered by the Hon' ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kumari Madhuri Patil Vs. Additional Commissioner, reported in (1994) 6 SCC 241 in paragraphs 13(5) and 13(6). The petitioner was also not supplied the report of the Superintendent of Police along with the aforesaid letter. The petitioner vide his letter dtd. 20/10/2008 (Annexure P/15) submitted his reply to the letter dtd. 25/09/2008 along with the relevant documents and also mentioned therein that he may be given an opportunity of hearing and that he may also be permitted to adduce evidence of persons heading his community who know about the history of his caste. He also requested that he be allowed to have the services of defense assistant. When the Scrutiny Committee made no remarks to the letter of the petitioner dtd. 20/10/2008, the petitioner was constrained to write a letter dtd. 10/11/2008 (Annexure P/16) asking them to give the opportunity of hearing, list of witnesses, records etc and to examine, cross-examine and re-examine the witnesses. In this letter, the petitioner specifically referred to the Historical work of HH Risley, Denzil C.J.Ibbetson, and John C. Nesfield as contained in "The Tribes and Castes of Bengal" Volume II (Annexure P/17). The Scrutiny Committee had already initiated the proceedings against the petitioner which is evident from the report (Annexure P/18) submitted by the Superintendent of Police (Vigilance Officer), Balaghat dtd. 24/01/2008.