LAKHANDAS MANIKPURI Vs. CENTRAL WAREHOUSING CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE propose to decide both the appeals (LPA No. 216/98 : Lakhandas Manikpuri v. Central Warehousing Corporation and Ors. , and LPA No. 217/98 : Smt. Manjula Das v. Central Warehousing Corporation and Ors.) by this common judgment, since the question for consideration and decision are directed to almost on similar situation.

(2.) LAKHANDAS Manikpuri v. The Central Warehousing Corporation and Ors. (LPA No. 216/98): The appellant was sponsored by Raipur Employment Exchange for interview for the post Sweeper to clean godowns etc. , which was to take place on January 31, 1971, in the office of the Central Warehouse, Bhatapara, (Annexure P/l ). Thereafter, the post of daily rated Sweeper at the rate of Rs. 75 per month (Consolidated) was offered to him. He was directed to bring the original educational certificates and registration of Employment Exchange Card at the time of joining the post by memorandum dated February 1, 1971 (Annexure P/2 ). The petitioner was appointed daily rated Watchman at the rate of Rs. 3. 15 per day with effect from March 1, 1973, by office order dated 23rd Feb. , 1973 (Annexure P-2/a ). Pursuant to this appointment, the appellant joined the post on May 28, 1973. At the time of joining the post, the appellant furnished the certificate attested by Naib Tahsildar dated May 26, 1973 (Annexure P/3) to the effect that he belonged to 'panika' caste of village Kholwa Patwari Halka No. , Police Station Bhatapara. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Warehouse Assistant Grade II (WAG-II) in 1981. He was again promoted to the post of Ware House Assistant-I (WAG-I) at the Central Warehouse, Nagpur, in the year 1984. In this capacity, he performed his duties at Khandwa, Raipur and Bhatapara, till dismissal from service by order dated December 2, 1997.

(3.) PRECEDING this, the respondents sought confirmation from the Collector, Raipur, whether "panika" was scheduled caste. The information dated August 8, 1996 received by the respondents is that the appellant did not belong to Scheduled Castes and the certificate furnished by him was forged. In the proforma prescribed by the respondents to be filled by the candidates, the appellant has mentioned against column No. 9 (A) that he is Hindu and against column 9 (b), requiring information whether he is a member of Scheduled Caste/scheduled Tribes, he describes "yes" 'panika'. After receiving the report from the Collector, the respondents issued show cause notice to the appellant why disciplinary action be not taken against him. He explained his case vide Annexure P/5, in which he submitted that he was appointed on February 4, 1971 when his caste "panika" was in reserved category of Scheduled Castes/scheduled Tribes. However, afterwards, it was removed from this category in some districts. He also submitted that it was not fair for the respondents to take action after 25 years of his appointment etc. etc. By office memo dated October 16, 1996, he was again called for to show cause why disciplinary action be not taken against him, to which he replied by communication dated November 14, 1996. Thereafter, termination order followed by office order dated December 2, 1997 (Annexure P/8 ).