SANKARSAN PRADHAN Vs. STATE OF ORISSA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition involves a challenge to the decision of the State Level Scrutiny Committee dated 31.5.2013.

(2.) Short background involved in the case is that petitioner upon completion of his High School Certificate Examination in the year 1982 obtained a caste certificate from the competent authority i.e. the Tahasildar, Khandapara on 14.10.1982 by virtue of an outcome in the Misc. Case no. 146 of 198 His name being sponsored to the office of the opposite party No.3, the Board of Revenue, Orissa vide its order No.387 dated 11.1.1988 selected the petitioner for appointment as Junior Assistant. The petitioner joined service on 19.1.1988 and in course of his employment he has been promoted to the post of Senior Assistant on 1.1991, then to the post of S.O. Level-1 on 22001. In the meanwhile, petitioner has been promoted to the post of Section Officer, Level-1 on 28.5.2004. It is alleged that while the petitioner was continuing as such, a co-employee namely Baidyanath Majhi along with some other persons filed a complaint before the opposite party No.3 raising objection to the caste certificate produced by the petitioner for the purpose of employment. Based on which, the petitioner was asked by the opposite party No.2 to submit his caste certificate in original on or before 25.11.2006. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted his caste certificate along with the residential certificate before the opposite party No. Being not satisfied with the certificates produced by the petitioner, the opposite party No.2 directed the petitioner to submit a recent caste certificate from the concerned authority returning back the old one to the petitioner. It also appears that though the petitioner had applied for fresh caste certificate but in the meantime, the petitioner got promotion to the post of Establishment Officer on Adhoc basis. Petitioner though submitted his joining report but the same was not accepted by the authority and his case was referred to the opposite party no.1 for further action. In the meantime, the petitioner received a letter dated 212006 calling upon him to explain within three days from the date of receipt of the letter as to why disciplinary actions shall not be taken against him for his meeting the Joint Secretary in the matter of acceptance of his joining report without having prior permission from the competent authority. The petitioner submitted his explanation. In the meantime, the petitioner was again reminded to produce the recent caste certificate, which compelled the petitioner to approach the opposite party No.1. Pursuant to which, the opposite party no.1 directed the opposite party no.2 to accept the joining report of the petitioner with a permission to the opposite party no.2 to conduct a confidential enquiry. Basing on the report to get into the appropriate disciplinary proceedings in the event the petitioner is found to have forged caste certificate, it is alleged that despite several directions the petitioner is not allowed to join in the promotional post. As such, the petitioner was constrained to approach the Orissa Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A. No.806 of 2007 for relief claimed therein. In the meantime, the opposite party No.2 referred the allegations involving the petitioner to the State Level Scrutiny Committee. The State Level Scrutiny Committee called for a report from the Tahasildar, Khandapara. At this stage, the Tahasildar, Khandapara reported that the petitioner has obtained the caste certificate under the claim that he was adopted by one Amin Pradhan, who is 'Kandha' by caste. The State Level Scrutiny Committee by its meeting dated 15.3.2007 cancelling the caste certificate of the petitioner directed for taking actions against the petitioner following the provisions contained in the Orissa Caste Certificate (S.C. & S.T.) Rules, 1980 and under the provisions of the I.P.C. Petitioner challenged the decision of the State Level Scrutiny Committee by filing W.P. (C) No.11668 of 2007 before this Court and this Court was pleased to remand the matter for fresh decision after setting aside the order passed by the State Level Scrutiny Committee. In the meantime, the State Level Scrutiny Committee again passed an order against the petitioner. Petitioner challenged the said order on the premises of being passed without affording opportunity to the petitioner vide writ petition vide W.P.(C) No.8621 of 2008 and this Court by its order dated 7.7.2009 while quashing the order of the State Level Scrutiny Committee remitted the matter again back to the State Level Scrutiny Committee for reconsideration of the matter. In the meantime, a criminal case was also initiated against the petitioner under Section 420, 468, 471 of I.P.C which matter ended with an order of acquittal vide judgment dated 31.1.201 In the meantime, the petitioner was terminated from his service on the premises of getting employment on production of fake certificate. Petitioner filed an appeal seeking reinstatement before the Government of Orissa. Petitioner also challenged the order of termination by filing O.A. No.2299 of 2007. The Orissa Administrative Tribunal dismissed the original application by its order dated 211.2013 and the petitioner has filed a writ petition before this Court vide W.P.(C) No.8910 of 2013 which is claimed to be pending at this point of time. In the meantime, the proceeding before the State Level Scrutiny Committee was concluded against the petitioner holding that while reaffirming its previous order of cancellation of the caste certificate, directed the Tahasildar to correct the relevant records accordingly and while observing that the decision terminating the petitioner as appropriate, directed the D.W.O., Nayagarh to investigate and assess the kind and quantum of financial benefit enjoyed by the petitioner and his family members, further also to file necessary F.I.R to decide the criminal liability involving the petitioner, the S.P., Nayagarh was also directed therein to initiate the criminal proceeding under appropriate provisions of law, giving rise the petitioner to file the present writ petition.

(3.) Assailing the impugned order, Sri S. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is sufficient materials available to establish the case of the petitioner that from the date of birth, the petitioner has been recognized as the son of Amin Pradhan and there has been absolutely no material to indicate that the petitioner is the son of Panu Sahu. It is alleged that for production of various public documents, the petitioner has been able to satisfy that he is the son of Amin Pradhan and therefore, claims that the report of the Tahasildar as well as the impugned order are all based on no material. For the grant of caste certificate on the basis of materials available on record by the competent authority, it cannot be stated that the petitioner has obtained the caste certificate on fraudulent basis and since the caste certificate is not based on fraud, cancellation of such a certificate cannot result in dismissal of a person from his service with recovery of financial benefits accrued in the meantime. There is not a single document available establishing that the petitioner is the adopted son of Amin Pradhan. Sri Mishra also claimed that there has been improper consideration of statement of Udayanath Sahu and Magi Sahoo. It is also claimed that the evidence of Udayanath Sahu and Magi Sahoo has no relevancy for the reason that both of them are in enemical term with the petitioner and there are some criminal cases pending between the petitioner and the said Udayanath Sahu and Magi Sahoo. Sri Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also contended that the observation involving the R.O.R vide Khata no.1, Mouza-Badazhar, Tahasildar-Khandapara stands in the name of Udayanath Pradhan, Gangadhar Pradhan, Nakul Pradhan, Kokila Pradhan, Manguli Pradhan and Hara Pradhan, who are the sons and daughters of Amin Pradhan. Mere nonappearance of name of Sankarsan Pradhan in the R.O.R cannot be a ground to decide the case against the petitioner. Further, the observation of the State Level Scrutiny Committee on the basis of village address of Sankarsan Pradhan as well as the Amin Pradhan also claim to be erroneous. It is also contended that the observation and findings taking out the caste certificate of the petitioner on the basis of the petitioner's performing Durga Puja, Grama Devi Puja, Thanapati Puja and Kali Puja along with the other co-villagers remaining in the same village, has no basis. The observation of the State Level Scrutiny Committee that the petitioner doesn't have any knowledge of "Kandha Language" has also no foundation. Sri Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner referring to several other documents annexed to the writ petition also made a claim that there is no material to disapprove the claim of the petitioner to be the son of Amin Pradhan and therefore, prayed this Court for interfering in the impugned order and setting aside the same.