GOPAL G NIPANE Vs. HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Heard forthwith. The petitioner at the time of his dismissal from service was working as Senior Manager (Customer services) with respondent No. 1. The petitioner was recruited in the service of the respondent No. 1 against a reserved post. The petitioner for that purpose produced his school leaving certificate which disclosed that the petitioner belonged to Halba Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner joined the respondent No. 1 initially as Management Trainee and was appointed by letter dated 12th August, 1978. On completion of training the petitioner joined the respondent No. 1 as grade II Officer on 12th November, 1979. On 13th November, 1983 the petitioner was promoted as Deputy Chief Inspector/deputy Manager and was promoted as Chief Inspector/manager on 11th November, 1986. The petitioner was transferred to Nasik Division as Grade IV Officer in Customer Service on 2nd April, 1994. It is the case of the petitioner that the reservation Roster Point in promotion is applicable only upto Grade IV and the petitioner was given benefit of reservation in promotion accordingly. On 1st July, 1996 he was promoted as senior Manager as Grade V Officer and was confirmed on 1st October, 1997.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that after completion of 11 years service with respondent No. 1 the petitioner's caste certificate was referred to the scrutiny Committee at Pune on 23rd February, 1989. The petitioner forwarded the necessary documents as required by the Committee. On 19th June, 1999 the petitioner received a communication from the Scheduled Tribe Scrutiny committee, Nagpur, requiring the petitioner to appear before the Committee for interview and hearing on 29th June, 1999. As the petitioner received the letter only on 28th June, 1999 it was impossible for the petitioner to collect the required data and/or documents and reach Nagpur on 29th June, 1999 for the hearing. The petitioner accordingly addressed a letter to the Scrutiny Committee and clarified the fact and sought to be represented through an Advocate. The committee, however, intimated to the petitioner, that he be available personally. The petitioner once again made a request to be represented through Advocate. According to the petitioner the Committee vide order dated 18th October, 1999 intimated the finding of the Committee that the petitioner does not belong to the halba Scheduled Tribe and as such his claim as belonging to Halba Scheduled tribe was invalidated. The petitioner preferred Writ Petition No. 2323 of 2000 at nagpur Bench. That petition came to be dismissed by order dated 19th June, 2001. It appears that the petitioner had also filed S. L. P. which has been dismissed.

(3.) The petitioner thereafter received a charge memorandum dated 3rd august, 2001 containing the imputation of misconduct. The main charge was that the petitioner had been appointed and promoted against a reserved post for scheduled Tribe and that the Scrutiny Committee had held the petitioner as not belonging to Halba S. T. As the petitioner was called upon to submit a detailed reply to the charge memorandum, the petitioner filed detailed reply on 1st october, 2001 raising various grounds therein and relied on the judgment of the apex Court in State of Maharashtra vs. Milind Katware, 2001 (1) Mh. L. J. (SC) 1 = 2001 (1) SCC 4 as also other office memorandum in force from time to time issued by the Government of Maharashtra. In spite of reply the respondents proceeded with the enquiry. As such he filed Writ Petition No. 38 of 2001 before this Court. The petitioner withdrew the said petition. The disciplinary proceedings were continued and concluded on 5th June, 2003. After complying with the procedural requirements of show cause and reply a second show cause notice dated 23rd June, 2003 was issued to which he submitted his say on 11th july, 2003. By order dated 16th August, 2004 the Disciplinary Authority dismissed the petitioner from the service with immediate effect. Aggrieved the petitioner preferred an Appeal and as the Appellate Authority was not disposing of the Appeal within reasonable time he filed Writ Petition before this Court being Writ Petition No. 5230 of 2004. The petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondent therein to dispose of the appeal within 8 weeks. The appellate Authority confirmed the order of the Disciplinary Authority and refused to interfere with the punishment imposed. It is the case of the petitioner that this was based on the judgment of the Apex Court in R. Vishwanathan Pillai vs. State of Kerala and ors. , 2004 SCC (L and S) 350. It is the case of the petitioner that the Appellate Authority failed to consider the judgment in State of maharashtra vs. Milind Katware and various orders passed by the Division benches of this Court wherein it was observed that in future the petitioner will not claim any of the benefits or concession as are available to the candidates belonging to the Scheduled Tribes. It is the case of the petitioner that he is also entitled to similar reliefs and consequently the present petition. No reply has been filed on behalf respondents 1 to 3 but they have relied on the judgments in support of the orders. The petitioner has also filed compilation of judgments.