UNION OF INDIA,THROUGH CONTROLLERATE OF QUALITY ASSURANCE (INSTRUMENTS),RAIPUR,DISTRICT DEHRADUN Vs. SHRI KOTWAL SINGH RAWAT (RETD.) & ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) UNION of India has filed this Writ Peti ­tion challenging the judgment dated 22nd August 2000 passed by the Cen ­tral Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad in Original Application No. 930 of 1991.

(2.) FACTS : Kotwal Singh Rawat was recruited to the post of Tracer on 24th July 1957 with effect from 24th May 1957 against reserved vacancy. Kotwal Singh Rawat filed a caste certificate dated 5th May 1956 in support of his claim that he was a Rawat from Dehradun. That Cer ­tificate was issued by the District Mag ­istrate, Dehradun. As per the Certifi ­cate, Kotwal Singh Rawat belonged to the Rawat community, which was rec ­ognized as a Schedule Caste under the Constitution (Schedule Caste) Order 1950. As per the Certificate, Kotwal Singh Rawat resided in Dehradun in state of U.P On 22nd February, 1975 the District Magistrate wrote a letter to the Controller to return the above caste certificate on the ground that it had been wrongly issued as Rawats were Rajputs in Garhwal and that they were not Schedule Castes. Consequent upon the said decision of the District Magis ­trate, Kotwal Singh Rawat was re ­moved from services on 23.3.1979. He challenged the Order of Removal by fil ­ing a writ petition in the Allahabad High Court. On 14th March 1984, the Allahabad High Court set aside the or ­der of removal on the ground of viola ­tion of rules of natural justice in passing the order of removal. In the, meantime, Kotwal Singh Rawat reached the age of superannuation on 31st December 1982. However, pursuant to the orders passed by the High Court, show cause notice was issued on 18th August 1989 by the Government to Kotwal Singh Rawat as to why his full pension should not be withheld. Thereafter, inquiry was held. On 18th March 1991, it was decided to withhold 50% of the pension of Kotwal Singh Rawat. Being aggrieved, Kotwal Singh Rawat moved Central Administra ­tive Tribunal, Allahabad, which has passed the impugned Order on 22nd August 2000 against which, Union of India has filed this Writ Petition.

(3.) FINDINGS : We do not see any reason to inter ­fere with the order passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad. Firstly, the Presidential Notification / Order of 1950 showed Rawats as Schedule Caste. In 1950, Dehradun was a part of state of UP Even today, after 9th November 2000 (when the State of Uttaranchal was created), Rawats continue to be Schedule Caste in UP In this case, when Kotwal Singh. Rawat was appointed on 24th July 1957, the Presidential Order of 1950 was in' force and under that Order "Rawats" were shown as Schedule Caste. Therefore, there was no wilful misrepresentation when Kotwal Singh Rawat procured the caste certificate from the District Magistrate. Secondly, in the caste certificate, it is stated that Kotwal Singh Rawat was a Rawat from Dehradun: Therefore, there was no mis -representation. We can understand the case of Kotwal Singh Rawat declar ­ing himself to be a Rawat from Rajasthan where Rawats are Schedule Caste. In this case,that is not so. In this case, Kotwal Singh Rawat got the cer ­tificate from the District Magistrate, which states that he was from Dehradun. Hence, there is, no merit in the argument advanced on' behalf of the Government that Kotwal Singh Rawat had committed grave mis -con ­duct. Kotwal Singh Rawat went by the Presidential Order 1950, which was clarified by the Schedule Caste Com ­mission in 1975 by which time, Kotwal Singh Rawat had put in several years of service. In fact, the setting up of Schedule Caste Commission to ascer ­tain the status of Rawats, itself, shows that there were lot of disputes on this point. The matter was ultimately .settled in 1975. Therefore, this is not a case of grave misconduct in terms of Rule 9(1) of Central Civil Service Pension Rules 1971. In this case, we are not con ­cerned with the object of Article 341 of the Constitution. It cannot be disputed that concessions are available only to Schedule Caste and that no citizen was entitled to fraudulently obtain such con ­cessions. However, in this case there is no wilful misrepresentation on the part of Kotwal Singh Rawat. Kotwal Singh Rawat had gone to the District Magis ­trate. He had informed the District Mag ­istrate that he was a Rawat. He had also informed the District Magistrate that he was from Dehradun. The District Magis ­trate gave the caste certificate because in the state of UP, Rawats belong to Sched ­ule Caste community. The Certificate was given as far back as 5th May 1956. At that time, Dehradun was a part of state of UP It is later on because of agita ­tion that Schedule Caste Commission was constituted to look into the matter. That Commission clarified the position in 1975. -Therefore, we do not see any ,reason to interfere with the order passed by Central Administrative Tribu ­nal, Allahabad.