ASIT KUMAR NAYAK Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Mishra, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, his client belongs to scheduled tribe 'Gondo'. He has challenged final order dtd. 20/6/2012, of the State Level Scrutiny Committee, passed in fake caste certificate case (FCC no.21 of 2011). He submits, the Investigating Officer (IO) did not afford his client opportunity in the purported investigation conducted. His client had earlier moved a Division Bench of this Court by W.P.(C) no.2003 of 2012, which was disposed of on order dtd. 8/2/2012. There was direction for his client to have fair and reasonable opportunity of hearing and allow him to furnish the documents, if any.

(2.) He draws attention to report dtd. 11/11/2011 of the IO, on the investigation made without participation of his client. He points out from findings in impugned final order that when his client produced photocopy of the admission register relating to, inter alia, his father, the committee said they had perused the original admission register and found that caste entry on admission of his father had been tampered with by overwriting and made 'Gondo'. Hence, the document could not be relied upon and was not taken into consideration. He submits, there is no mention in report of the IO that school admission record regarding his client's father had been tampered. He relies on judgment of the Supreme Court in Sayanna vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2009) 10 SCC 268, paragraph 14. He submits, impugned final order be quashed.

(3.) Mr. Babu, learned advocate, Additional Government Advocate appears on behalf of State and relies on paragraphs 10, 11 and 12 in the counter. He submits, it will appear therefrom that petitioner was given opportunity to appear in the investigation but, he did not. The committee complied with directions made in aforesaid order of the Division Bench, by supplying copies of documents attached to the report of the IO, to petitioner. His show-cause was perused and he was given personal hearing. Steps were duly taken in the matter as per observations of the Supreme Court in Madhuri Patil v. Addl. Commr., Tribal Development, reported in AIR 1995 SC 94. Impugned final order was made. It has clear findings. In the circumstances, there should not be interference by judicial review.