TEJRAM NETRAM BANNAGARE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner before us has challenged the order dated 02.01.2006 passed by Respondent No. 2 - Scrutiny Committee, invalidating his caste claim as belonging to Pawara, Scheduled Tribe. In addition, he has challenged Show Cause Notice dated 02.05.2006 issued by Respondent No. 3 - Executive Engineer, asking him to show cause why his services should not be terminated. Respondent No. 3 is his employer. This Court has issued notice on 18.5.2006 and no interim relief has been given till date.

(2.) Heard finally Shri Mardikar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri learned Mandpe, AGP for respondents No. 1 & 4, Shri Sambre, learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 and Shri Mohgaonkar, learned Counsel for respondent No. 3.

(3.) Shri Mardikar, learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner was not given due opportunity to defend himself by the Scrutiny Committee and hence the order as passed is in breach of principles of natural justice. He has further contended that the petitioner was appointed on 25.3.1986 by Respondent No. 3 and was promoted as Operator on 5.1.1994. Thus, on the date on which his caste claim was invalidated, he has put in more than 20 years of service. In 2002, after almost 17 years of service, the claim of the petitioner as belonging to Pawara, Scheduled Tribe was sent for verification to Respondent No. 2 - Committee and it has been invalidated by the impugned order. He has relied upon the judgment in the case of Punjab National Bank v. Vilas Govindrao Bokade, 2003 4 MhLJ 233 and Regional Manager, Central Bank of India v. Madhulika Guru Prasad Dahir, 2008 AIR(SC) 3266, to contend that such reference and invalidation after unreasonable delay itself vitiates the order of Scrutiny Committee and because of this delay that order needs to be quashed and set aside. He has further contended that in view of the policy decision of Government of Maharashtra dated 30th June 2004 as the petitioner had joined services before 15.6.1995 and was also promoted before that date, the petitioner cannot be removed from service or his services cannot be terminated. The learned Counsel, therefore, contends that even on this count, the petition deserves to be allowed and Show cause notice dated 2.5.1996 issued by Respondent No. 3 needs to be quashed and set aside.