SANJOY CHAKRABORTY Vs. NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR SCHEDULE CASTE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has assailed a decision dated April 24, 2018 of the National Commission for Scheduled Caste (hereinafter referred to as the Commission) taken in File No. WB/3/2016-APCR. An application made at the behest of the petitioner seeking extension of an interim Order passed in the writ petition has also been taken up for hearing.

(2.) Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that, the petitioner is a Police Officer. He was posted with Asansol (South) Police Station at the relevant time. In 2015, when the petitioner received an information that there was illegal dealing of iron scrap at a particular godown, the petitioner instructed his immediate sub-ordinate Officer to make necessary enquiries. The second Officer did make the enquiries. Subsequently, the Police received another complaint regarding unrest at the locality. Such complaint was registered as a First Information Report being Asansol (South) Police Station Case No. 123 of 2015. There were judicial proceedings with regard to such F.I.R. In May 2015, the sixth respondent filed a complaint with the Commission alleging violation of the Act of 1989 by the petitioner. A departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. The departmental proceeding resulted in a final order being passed. In the departmental proceeding, allegations of violations of provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 were levelled. The Enquiry Officer did not find any substance in such charge. Such finding was affirmed upto the Appellate Authority stage. The Commission called for a report from the fourth respondent. The fourth respondent responded thereto. The Commission was informed by the fourth respondent that, an enquiry was conducted, against the petitioner and the persons connected with it, with regard to the allegations levelled against them and that, appropriate steps were taken.

(3.) Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that, an appropriate Court is in seisin of the criminal proceeding in which the sixth respondent is an accused. The Court in seisin of the criminal proceeding is yet to arrive at a finding that is adverse to the petitioner in the context of the Act of 1984. In such circumstances, the assumption of jurisdiction by the Commission as against the petitioner in relation to the Act of 1989, is bad. He has referred to the minutes of the hearing dated April 24, 2018 and submitted that, the impugned writing is bad on two grounds. Firstly, the Commission cannot interfere or pass any direction with regard to any subject matter which is receiving the consideration of the Court. More importantly, the Commission has no power of enquiry and to issue directions. He has referred to Article 338 of the Constitution of India and submitted that, the Commission established under Article 338 cannot have jurisdiction beyond Article 338. What the Commission is doing in the facts of the present case, is beyond its jurisdiction. He has referred to Section 3 of the Act of 1989 to contend that, the Commission has no power in the nature that has been sought to be exercised by the impugned writing. He has referred to Article 338 (4) and (5) of the Constitution of India and submitted that, the Commission has formulated guidelines in exercise of powers under Article 338(4) of the Constitution. The guidelines so formulated by the Commission specify that, the Commission should not take any action on matters which are subjudice. In the present case, there is a criminal case pending. Therefore, the Commission should not have exercised jurisdiction in respect of the criminal case.