Dinesh Shamrao Barapatre vs Deputy Director And Anr.
2002 Latest Caselaw 918 Bom

JUDGMENT

S.A. Bobde, J.

1. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent of parties.

2. This petition is directed against an order dated 21-5-1999 of Caste Scrutiny Committee negativing the petitioner's claim that he belongs to Halba Scheduled Tribe.

3. The only point urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Police Vigilance Cell has failed to record the statement of any person as required by Supreme Court in the case of Madhuri Patil v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development, Thane, . In that judgment, particularly in paragraph 5, the Supreme Court has observed as follows:

"5. Each directorate should constitute a Vigilance Cell consisting of Senior Deputy Superintendent of Police in overall charge and such number of Police Inspectors to investigate into the social status claims. The Inspector would go to the local place of residence and original place from which the candidate hails and usually resides or in case of migration to the town or city, the place from which he originally hailed from. The Vigilance Officer should personally verify and collect all the facts of the social status claimed by the candidate or the parent or guardian, as the case may be. He also should examine the school records, birth registration, if any. He should also examine the parent, guardian or the candidate in relation to their caste etc. or such other person who have knowledge of the social status of the candidate and then submit a report to the directorate together with all particulars as envisaged, in the proforma ............"

4. Mrs. Deshpande, learned Counsel for the Committee, accepts the fact that the Police Vigilance Officer has not recorded the statement of any of the persons referred to by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment, namely the candidate, parent, guardian or such other persons who may have knowledge about the social status of the candidate. However, the learned Counsel relies on a judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court (Mohite, J.) in Ku. Chaya Namdeorao Binekar v. State of Maharashtra, Writ Petition No. 1683 of 2000 . In particular, she refers to paragraph 29 where in sub-paragraphs (b) and (c) the learned Judge has observed as follows:

(b) That the investigation of the vigilance cell need not be strictly in accordance with the relevant words as contained in direction No. 5 as reproduced above.

(c) There can be flexibility in the manner in which the investigation should be carried out as long as the investigation is not slipshod negligent or unfair.

I do not read the observations of Mohite, J., as relieving the Vigilance Officer from recording the statement of the candidate, parent or other persons, as referred to in direction No. 5. The learned Judge has in paragraph 28 observed that the order of the Caste Scrutiny Committee shall not be vitiated because investigation has not been carried out strictly in accordance with the relevant wordings given in direction No. 5. The learned Judge has observed as under:

"28. To further elaborate the point, it will not be open to any person to contend that the ultimate order of the Caste Scrutiny Committee is vitiated merely because the investigation has not been carried out strictly in accordance with the relevant wording given in direction No. 5 as reproduced hereinabove. If there is any lacuna in the vigilance cell report or in the documents enclosed therewith, it is always open to the concerned person to bring this to the notice of the Scrutiny Committee in the enquiry contemplated under the direction No. 6. The aforesaid wordings of the Supreme Court pertaining to the manner in which the investigation is required to be carried out cannot be read as if they are a part of a statute."

5. I am of view that the aforesaid observations cannot be considered as an authority for the proposition that the Police Vigilance Cell can ignore its duty of making an enquiry into the peculiar anthropological and ethnological traits, deities, rituals, etc., as observed by the Apex Court. I understand that the aforesaid observations of brother Mohite, J., merely allow the Investigating Authority "free play in the joints" and allows latitude on the question as to how to conduct the investigation. It however does not allow latitude as to what is required to be investigated. The category of what is required to be investigated would comprise the anthropological and ethnological traits, deities, rituals, customs, mode of marriage, death ceremonies, method of burial of the persons/family and existence of documents evidencing the caste of the concerned person. Indeed, in para 5 of the judgment of the Supreme Court, the Apex Court dealt with "how" an investigation should be conducted as well as "what" should be investigated. The latitude allowed in the judgment of brother Mohite, J., is only in respect of the former and not the latter. The judgment in Ku. Chaya Namdeorao Binekar v. State of Maharashtra and others, rendered by brother Mohite, J., in Writ Petition No. 1683/2000 is, therefore, of no help when an enquiry conducted by Police Vigilance Cell is devoid of essential and basis investigation necessary for procuring necessary material for verifying a person's caste.

6. That, I think, is the true import of Mohite, J.'s observation. The observations are not intended to give a free charter to the investigating authority to ignore even something as basic, as recording the statement of the candidate or parent or such other persons referred to by the Supreme Court in direction No. 5.

7. No other point is urged before me. In the result, the petition succeeds. As a consequence, the termination order dated 29-5-1999 which has been given effect to in view of the invalidation of petitioner's caste claim, is hereby set aside. Matter is remanded to the Caste Scrutiny Committee for fresh decision in accordance with the law. The Caste Scrutiny Committee is directed to ensure that the investigation is carried out in accordance with the guidelines laid down in the respective Government Resolutions and in paragraph 5 of the Madhuri Patil's case. The investigating agency is free to carry out the investigation in such a manner as it considers more appropriate. It is made clear that the employer shall be at liberty to take such action, as may be advised in case the petitioner's caste claim is found to be invalid.

Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms.