MARKESH MALLICK Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner who is aggrieved of the order passed by the State Level Scrutiny Committee (hereinafter referred to as 'SLSC') constituted pursuant to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil & Anr. v. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development & Ors., AIR 1995 SC 94 urging various facts and legal contentions and prayed for quashing of the order by issuing a writ of Certiorari.

(2.) Relevant facts as stated for the purpose of appreciating the rival legal contentions urged on behalf of the parties with a view to find out as to whether the impugned order challenged by the petitioner herein is liable to be quashed on the grounds urged by the petitioner's counsel. The disputed facts of the case is that on the basis of the Vigilance Commission Report submitted by the Vigilance Officer along with the documents in support of the findings of the enquiry made by him is on the basis of which show cause notice issued to the petitioner herein to examine the correctness of issuance of the caste certificate in his favour. Though he does not belong to Scheduled Tribe (hereinafter referred to as 'ST') but has obtained the caste certificate fraudulently on the basis of suppression and mis-representation of facts. As in fact and in law he does not belong to the ST caste therefore he is not entitled to get the caste certificate is the basis on which show cause notice was served on the petitioner herein. Thereafter, he has submitted the interim explanation and requested to furnish copies of the relevant documents to facilitate the authority to go through the same and there after ward, a detailed explanation for perusal of the SLSC was filed to take a just decision in the matter.

(3.) The undisputed facts in the present case are that on the basis of furnishing such documents along with the explanation offered denying all such allegations that are made in the show cause notice, the SLSC is required to conduct an enquiry as per the guidelines provided in sub-paragraph 5 of paragraph 12 of the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil case referred to (supra) upon which the learned Senior Counsel Mr. Sanjit Mohanty for the petitioner herein so also the learned Advocate General Mr. Ashok Mohanty placed strong reliance in justification on the grounds to quash the orders passed in violation of the principles of natural justice as the cancellation of the caste certificate obtained from the respective jurisdictional Tahasildar by the petitioner is on the basis of the report of the R.I. concerned in justification of the claim that the petitioner belong to Schedule Caste category. Cancellation of the same on the allegation made in the show cause notice issued by the SLSC to the petitioner basing on the report and the documentary evidence collected by the Vigilance Officer behind the back of the petitioner is in violation of principles of natural justice. Fair and reasonable opportunity has not been given to the petitioner before canceling the caste certificate which would not only suffer from civil and also penal consequences. On the basis of obtaining such certificate the petitioner has the benefit of reservation to be in employment and cancellation of the same entail disciplinary proceedings by which he would lose the employment which will deprive him as well as his family members of the fundamental right to life includes livelihood as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. Therefore, enquiry should have been conducted by SLSC following the principles of natural justice and this argument is taken note of and therefore there are guideline laid down by the Apex Court in sub-paragraph 5 of paragraph 12 of the judgment referred to supra. Therefore, directing the SLSC while examining the matters in relation to obtaining the fraudulent caste certificates, the Committee should offer the opportunity of being heard to such persons. As stated thus, the Vigilance Officer should have personally verified and collected all the facts relating to social status claimed by the candidate or the parent or guardian, as the case may be. He should have also examined the school record, birth registration, if any, the parent, guardian or the candidate in relation to their caste etc. of such other persons who have knowledge of the social status of the candidate and then would have submitted a report to the Directorate of Vigilance together with all particulars as envisaged in the proforma, in particular, of the STs relating to their peculiar anthropological and ethnological traits; deity, rituals, customs, mode of marriage, death ceremonies, method of burial of dead bodies etc. by the concerned castes or tribes or trial communities. At sub-paragraph 6, it has been specifically stated that public notice by beat of drum may be published in the village or locality and if any person oppose such claim an opportunity to adduce evidence maybe given to him/it; it means both to the person who has obtained certificate it refers to the SLSC to examine the witness by producing evidence in justification of show cause notice issued by the Committee on the basis of the report. In the instant case, no such procedure has been followed. Therefore, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner herein vehemently contended and placed strong reliance on the following decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in support of the non-compliance of his contention, i.e., violation of principles of natural justice by not giving fair and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner which caused prejudice to him in canceling the caste certificate validity obtained from the competent Certifying Officer.