AJAY KUMAR PRASAD Vs. BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application has been filed for quashing the resolution dated 5.2.2000 (Annexure -8) whereby a departmental proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner.

(2.) WHILE petitioner was posted as an Assistant Engineer, Vigilance Case No. 2 of 1996 was registered against him. According to the allegation, at the time of appointment, petitioner submitted his caste certificate showing him as belonging to Mahar caste of Village Nainpur, district Mandala of the State of Madhya Pfadesh. Mahar is a scheduled caste in "the said State. He was appointed in the Bihar State Electricity Board, hereinafter referred to as the Board, on a post reserved for the members of the scheduled caste. However, later on, it was found that the petitioner does not belong to Mahar caste but is Sudi by caste and belongs to Dalsinghsarai, a place in the State of Bihar. It was further alleged that the petitioner is the son of Late Baleshwar Prasad who was an Assistant Teacher in Railway Primary School, Nainpur and the petitioner was admitted in Class I of the said school and in the declaration form, caste of the petitioner was shown as Sudi. It was further alleged that the petitioner obtained forged certificate of belonging to Mahar caste and on that basis, secured appointment as an Assistant Engineer and later on, he was also promoted as Executive Engineer on the basis that he belongs to scheduled caste. Vigilance Department, after investigation, submitted the charge sheet dated 27.5.1998 against the petitioner. Further, by resolution dated 5.2.2000, the respondent Board had also initiated a departmental proceeding in respect of the same allegation.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by the aforesaid order, respondent Board preferred L.P.A. No. 1571 of 2000 (Bihar State Electricity Board & Ors. V/s. Ajay Kumar Prasad). A Division Bench of this Court, by order dated 21.2.2002, allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the learned Single Judge dated 6.9.2000 and remitted the matter back for a fresh decision. The Division Bench, while passing the said order, observed as follows: "In our view, there is no legal bar in considering the aforesaid document by the appellate court but taking into consideration the fact that the Board was not afforded an opportunity of bringing the said documents and other relevant documents on record before the learned Single Judge, we are of the view that it is a fit case where the order of the learned Single Judge is to be set aside for a fresh decision after giving an opportunity to the Board to file a detailed counter affidavit annexing the aforesaid document and other relevant documents and an opportunity of rebuttal to the writ petitioner -respondent."