ABHIMANYU PRADHAN Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is an ex-serviceman and was working as watchman in Indian Metals and Ferro Alloys Limited, Therubali, Koraput, has filed this writ application to quash the final order dated 26.08.2009 in Annexure-7 passed by the state level scrutiny committee and consequential order dated 31.08.2009 in Annexure-8 passed by the Director (ST/SC)-cum-Addl. Secretary to the Government for implementation of final order of state level scrutiny committee on alleged fake Certificate Case No.116 of 2008 initiated against him.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case, in hand, is that on the basis of allegation made by "Nikhil Utkal Kui Samaj", G.Udayagiri, Kandhamal, vide letter dated 17.03.2008, an enquiry was conducted by the District Vigilance Cell, Kandhamal against the petitioner, who was initially serving in Indian Army and after retirement joined in Indian Metals and Ferro Alloys Limited (IMFA), Rayagada on 22.07.1988 and retired on 13.10.2006. The inquiry officer, after conclusion of enquiry, submitted a report, which was received by state level scrutiny committee on 03.12.2008, that the petitioner had procured a fake caste certificate. On that basis, by letter dated 27.12.2008, the petitioner was called upon by the state level scrutiny committee (for short "scrutiny committee) to show cause. In response thereto, the petitioner submitted his reply and requested for personal hearing before the scrutiny committee, which was received on 09.01.2009 and placed before the committee on 07.02.2009. The petitioner stated that his grandfather's and grandmother's title was not known to him, his mother and wife were 'Kandha' by caste, his brother-in-laws were converted into Christian, his younger brother Surjit Pradhan married to a 'Pano' lady and that he was also told that in 1982 they were absent in the village at the time of settlement operation and the settlement officer recorded their caste as 'Pano'. It was also contended that at the time of admission in the school, as the father of the petitioner was illiterate, the teacher had written their caste at his own will. 2.1 Thereafter, pursuant to the direction of the apex Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development, 1995 AIR(SC) 94, copies of the enquiry report, show cause reply and statement submitted by the petitioner were sent to D.W.O., Kandhamal vide letter dated 11.02.2009 of the Director (ST&SC) for publicity in the concerned village or locality by issuing a public notice, by beat of drum or any other convenient mode inviting objection from any person or association within 15 days, which was complied on 27.05.2009, but no objection was received within the time stipulated. Therefore, the committee considered inquiry officer's report, show cause reply of the petitioner and other relevant records, and came to the finding that the petitioner belonged to SC, being 'Pano' by caste, and does not belong to ST. For the said purpose, reliance was placed on RORs where caste of the petitioner had been mentioned as 'Pano', but ROR Khatian No.36/203, which stands in the name of the petitioner, the caste has been recorded as 'Kandha', and the said plot was purchased by the petitioner after joining as driver in IMFA, Rayagada. 2.2 As per the report of the inquiry officer, the admission register of Kalinga Nodal U.P. School revealed that the brother of the petitioner had been admitted to the said school on 02.04.1964, where his caste mentioned in column-10 as 'Harijan'. Therefore, the scrutiny committee concluded that the petitioner and other members of his family obtained caste certificate as 'Kandha' (ST) fraudulently and derived the benefits available for 'Kandha' as ST. Consequentially, the scrutiny committee cancelled the caste certificate issued in favour of the petitioner and his family members and directed Tahasildar, G.Udayagiri to correct the relevant records, and further directed the D.W.O., Kandhamal to 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 ST and take appropriate steps to recover the same amount, if necessary, by instituting OPDR case against the petitioner as well as his family members within three months, and also lodge FIR against the petitioner and government officials responsible for issuance of such fake certificate within a period of one month, and further directed to the Superintendent of Police, Kandhamal to take steps to institute criminal proceedings under the appropriate provisions of law against the petitioner for obtaining fake caste certificate with a view to illegally grab several concessional benefits given by the government for himself and his family members under Sections 120(b), 420 and other relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code, and also under Rule 8(5) of Orissa Caste Certificate (for SC&ST) Rules, 1980 appropriate penal and disciplinary action be initiated by the competent authorities of the revenue department of Government of Odisha against the concerned revenue officials as per the relevant provisions of Indian Penal Code and under Rule-15 of O.S.C. (CCA) Rules, 1962 for issuing wrong caste certificate, and further directed to the Tahasildar, G.Udayagiri to initiate suo motu proceedings for correction of revenue records in respect of wrong entry of caste in R.O.Rs. (Khatian No.36/203, Mouza-Therubali) of the petitioner and other similar records of the petitioner and his family members within a period of three months and the Collector, Kandhamal was directed to ensure the same. Consequentially, for implementation of final order of the scrutiny committee on fake caste certificate case, so far as it relates to the petitioner, order dated 31.08.2009 was passed by the Director (ST/SC)-cum-Addl. Secretary to Government requesting the Collector, Kandhamal and the Superintendent of Police, Kandhamal for ensuring timely action. Hence this application.

(3.) Mr. S.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the petitioner had not been served with show cause notice along with the report of the District Vigilance Cell and without affording opportunity of hearing the final report was published by the scrutiny committee and thereby there is gross violation of principles of natural justice. It is further contended that the petitioner has not produced and caste certificate from the Tahasildar or the local MLA to get any benefits of reservation as ST (Kandha), therefore, no proceeding can be initiated by the scrutiny committee on the allegation of fake caste certificate, and as such no conclusion can be drawn without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to substantiate his case. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the judgment of this Court in Markesh Mallick v. State of Orissa,2011 Supp2 ORISSALR 677.