ANANTA NARAYAN PRADHAN Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is an ex-serviceman, has filed this application to quash the final order dated 28.03.2009 in Annexure-3, whereby the state level scrutiny committee has directed to cancel forthwith the caste certificate issued to the petitioner and to take penal and disciplinary action against him, and consequential order dated 30.03.2009 in Annexure-6 issued by the Government of Orissa, ST and SC Development Department for implementation of the said final order, so far it relates to the petitioner.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case, in hand, is that on the basis of the allegation made on 17.03.2008 by Nikhila Utkal Kui Samaj Union, G. Udayagiri of Kandamal district against 226 persons, including the petitioner with regard to alleged possession of fake caste certificate, enquiry was conducted through inquiry officers of District Vigilance Cell, Kandhamal, who submitted their investigation reports to the Director, SC/ST and Chairman, State Level Scrutiny Committee (in short "scrutiny committee") for further action. In pursuance of such report, the petitioner was issued with a show cause notice on 17.11.2008. In response thereto, the petitioner submitted his show cause reply on 02.12.2008 where a request was made for personal hearing. The same was placed before the scrutiny committee on 17.01.2009. The scrutiny committee after hearing the petitioner personally, who stated that whatever he has stated in his reply to the show cause he has nothing more to submit, in view of the direction given by the apex Court in paragraph-6 of the judgment in Kumari Madhuri Patil and others v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and others, 1995 AIR(SC) 94, sent the show cause submitted by the petitioner to DWO, Kandhamal, vide letter dated 21.01.2009 of Director (ST and SC), for publicity in the concerned villages or localities by beat of drums, inviting objection from any person or association against show cause reply within 15 days of publication of the notice. The DWO, Kandhamal through local Tahasildar, Daringbadi invited objections on 29.01.2009 by beat of drum as reported in letter dated 07.02.2009. But no objections were received within the stipulated period. Consequentially, the scrutiny committee, considering the report of the inquiry officer, the show cause reply of the petitioner, as well as his oral statement made before it during personal hearing on 17.01.2009 and other relevant records, unanimously held that the allegation of fake caste certificate in this case is a fact. Accordingly, the scrutiny committee directed that the Tahasildar, G.Udayagiri shall cancel the caste certificate issued to the petitioner, the DWO, Kandhamal shall thoroughly investigate and assess the kind and quantum of financial benefits received by the petitioner and his family members, such as, stipend, loan, subsidy etc. as members of the ST and take appropriate steps to recover the same amount, if necessary, by initiating OPDR case against the petitioner and his family members within 3 months from the date of passing of that order, and that shall file necessary FIR against the petitioner and government officials responsible for issue of fake caste certificate in favour of petitioner, within one month of the issue of that order, with the local police station, and that S.P., Kandhamal shall take steps to institute criminal proceedings under appropriate provisions of law against the petitioner for obtaining fake caste certificate and for illegally grabbing several concessional benefits of government for himself and his family members, and that according to Rule 8(5) of Orissa Caste Certificate (for SC and ST), Rules, 1980, appropriate penal and disciplinary action shall be initiated by the competent authorities of the Revenue Department, Government of Orissa against the concerned revenue officials as per the relevant provisions of IPC and OCS(CCA) Rules, 1962 for issuing wrong caste certificate to the petitioner, and that Tahasildar concerned shall initiate suo motu proceeding for correction of revenue records in respect of wrong entry of caste in the Khatians and other similar records of the petitioner, within a period of three months, and the Collector, Kandhamal was directed to ensure the same. Hence this application.

(3.) Mr. S.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner argued with vehemence stating inter alia that the allegation against the petitioner that he was issued with caste certificate in RMC No. 247/ 85, in which his caste has been mentioned as 'PANO', is absolutely misconceived one, inasmuch as, on enquiry it is found that it was issued by the Tahasildar, G. Udayagiri to one Bipra Charan Majhi of village- Kakatipanga, P.S.- G. Udayagiri, Dist- Kandhamal, but the RMC in which caste certificate was issued to the petitioner relates to RMC No. 247/84 but not RMC No. 247/85 and as such, the Tahasildar, G. Udayagiri issued the caste certificate in favour of the petitioner on 29.07.1985. Thereby, the entire enquiry was conducted on wrong premises that the caste certificate had been granted in favour of the petitioner in RMC No. 247/85, as a result of which, the enquiry so conducted was perfunctory and without application of mind, for which the final order passed by the scrutiny committee in Annexure-3 and consequential order passed in Annexure-6 for implementation of the final order cannot sustain in the eye of law and both are liable to be quashed. It is further contended that enquiry had been conducted behind the back of the petitioner, meaning thereby, while conducting local enquiry, the inquiry officer contacted the villagers, namely, Abhiram Pradhan, S/o- Jena Pradhan, Surendra Pradhan, S/o- Janira Pradhan and Nagarjuna Pradhan, S/o- Arjuna Pradhan of village Dugudipari, who stated that the petitioner had married to one Raisi Pradhan, who is a PANO Chiristian. But those persons had neither been allowed to be cross examined by the petitioner nor any opportunity given to the petitioner to prove their statements as incorrect, but those statements had been utilized against the petitioner for preparing report by inquiry officer. Thereby, the report so prepared by the inquiry officer basing on the statements of such persons, as mentioned above, could not and should not have been taken into consideration and the same has to be rejected outright, as no opportunity of hearing had been given to the petitioner to controvert the allegation made against him. To substantiate the same, the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of this Court in Markesh Mallick v. State of Orissa and Others,2011 Supp2 OrissaLR 677.