KOTWAL SINGH RAWAT Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two petitions (No. 2787 of 1979-Kotwal Singh Rawat v. Union of India and another) and (No. 2784 of 1979-Rajendra Singh Rawat v. Union of India and another) are being disposed of by a common judgment as the controversies involved therein are identical.

(2.) INCIDENTALLY the two petitioners are brothers. As a coincidence again, both of them were appointed initially as Tracers in Technical Development Establishment (Instruments) Dehradun. Kotwal Singh was appointed on 24-7-1957, whereas Rajendra Singh Rawat on 22nd July, 1959. Both these petitioners were appointed against the vacancies reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates. They claimed that as 'Rawats' they belonged to a Scheduled Caste as specified in the Constitution (Scheduled Casts) Order 1950. In support of this claim both the petitioners filed certificates issued by the District Magistrate concerned confirming that the petitioners belonged to a Scheduled Caste called "Rawats". It appears that in the year 1975 the District Administration informed the Director General of Inspection (Arnaments) in the case of Kotwal Singh and the Controller, Controllerate of Inspection (Instruments) Government of India, Raipur, Dehradun that in fact the petitioners were both high class Rajputs and they had gained entry into the service by falsely representing that they belonged to the Scheduled Caste commonly known as 'Rawats' in Uttar Pradesh. This gave rise to initiation of disciplinary action against both the petitioners. Charge-sheets were issued against them by the officer concerned under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. In the charge-sheets served on the petitioners, it was stated that the petitioners were guilty of misconduct or mis-behaviour inasmuch as they gained entry into the service against the quota reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates by falsely representing that they belonged to the community of Scheduled Caste being 'Rawats'. The petitioners were also asked to show cause why they should not be removed from the service.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by these orders, the petitioners have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.