KISHANLAL MEENA Vs. GENERAL MANAGER, UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard finally with the consent of parties.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that petitioner was appointed as Platform Porter vide order dtd. 27/1/1986. Since he belong to S.T. community, a caste certificate was issued in his favour by the Additional Collector, Jaipur (Raj.) on 29/6/2001. Petitioner was thereafter promoted to the post of Ticket Collector vide order dtd. 23/3/2004 since the promotional post of Ticket Collector was reserved for the S.T. Category. However, on 27/2/2007, chargsheet was issued to the petitioner alleging that the caste certificate produced by him is false and forged. Departmental Enquiry was conducted against the petitioner. Witnesses were examined from both the sides and their statements were duly recorded. Enquiry Officer has submitted report holding the caste certificate to be forged. Petitioner was provided with a copy of the enquiry report and he was asked for submitting representation, photocopies of show cause notices alongwith reply. Pursuant to the departmental enquiry, respondents have passed an order of punishment dtd. 24/12/2008 reducing his recruitment grade in Grade D on permanent basis which was challenged by the petitioner in appeal and the said appeal stood dismissed vide order dtd. 9/6/2009. The order of rejection of appeal was challenged by filing revision petition which was also dismissed. Thereafter, petitioner has challenged all these orders before the CAT by filing O.A. No. 229/2010. Hence this petition has been filed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that CAT has committed error in holding that the petitioner has not made any allegations of procedural irregularities in the departmental enquiry proceedings. However, petitioner has made specific allegations regarding irregularities in the D.E. proceedings. He further submitted that it is settled position of law that no enquiry can be conducted with regard to caste certificate by any authority except by the Caste Scruitny Committee formed pursuant to the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Kum.Madhuri Patil and another Vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development, Thane and Others reported in AIR 1997 SC 2581. In any case, if any complaint has been received regarding forged caste certificate, the same ought to have been referred to high power Caste Scrutiny Committee, Jaipur as even the Collector Jaipur has no power to verify the certificate issued by the Additional Collector Jaipur. Learned CAT further failed to consider that during the course of D.E. proceedings, charges levelled against the petitioner have to be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Though no evidence were on record, despite that the Enquiry Officer has illegally found the charges levelled against the petitioner to be proved. Even, during the course of enquiry, original record of the Addnl Collector, Jaipur, ADM or Tehsildar has not been called and summoned and without verifying the original record, such findings with respect to caste certificate has been made. Under such circumstances, the order passed by the CAT in OA No. 229/2010 as well as the punishment order dtd. 24/12/2008, order of rejection of appeal dtd. 9/6/2009 and rejection of revision dtd. 6/10/2009 are liable to be quashed.