Bombay High Court
Nitin S/O Vitthal Dongre vs State Of Mah. Through Its ... on 25 April, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
1 wp1228.1229.16.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.1228/2016
Nitin Vitthal Dongre,
aged about 31 years, Occ. Service,
as Danger Building Worker (DBW) in
Ordnance Factory, Chandrapur,
r/o Gur Nagar Ward, Opp. Bus Stand,
Bhadrawati, Dist. Chandrapur. .....PETITIONER
...V E R S U S...
1. State of Maharashtra through its
Secretary, Ministry of Tribal Welfare
and Social Justice, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2. Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny
committee, Gadchiroli-442605, through
its Deputy Director.
3. Sub Divisional Officer, Chandrapur.
4. Ordinance Factory, Chanda,
Chandrapur - 442 001 (M.S.)
through its General Manager. ...RESPONDENTS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri N. C. Phadnis, Advocate for petitioner.
Shri N. Patil, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent nos. 1 to 3.
Shri Ambarish Joshi, Advocate for respondent no.4.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.1229/2016
Sachin s/o Vitthal Dongre,
aged about 35 years, Occ. Service,
as Supervisor in Private Farm, r/o Guru
Nagar Ward, Opp. Bus Stand,
Bhadrawati, Dist. Chandrapur. .....PETITIONER
...V E R S U S...
1. State of Maharashtra through its
Secretary, Ministry of Tribal Welfare
and Social Justice, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
::: Uploaded on - 29/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 23:44:24 :::
2 wp1228.1229.16.odt
2. Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny
committee, Gadchiroli-442605, through
its Deputy Director. ...RESPONDENTS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. N. C. Phadnis, Advocate for petitioner.
Mr. N. Patil, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent nos. 1 to 3.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:- SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK AND
V. M. DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATED :- APRIL 25, 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J.)
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The writ petitions
are heard together and are finally decided at the stage of admission
with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The respondent-Ordinance Factory in Writ Petition
No.1228/2016 had appointed the petitioner in the said writ petition on
a post reserved for the Scheduled Tribes. The respondent-Ordinance
Factory in the said writ petition had referred the caste certificate of the
petitioner in the said writ petition to the Collector, Chandrapur for
necessary action. It appears that the respondent-Scrutiny Committee
had initiated suo motu proceedings for considering the correctness or
otherwise of the caste certificates issued by the competent authority in
favour of the petitioners. The petitioners were asked by the Scrutiny
Committee to remain present on 01.11.2015 and 02.11.2015. The
petitioners did not remain present before the Scrutiny Committee and
also did not file the applications for grant of time to produce the
3 wp1228.1229.16.odt
necessary documents. In the absence of the petitioners, the Scrutiny
Committee passed the impugned orders dated 23.11.2015 confiscating
the caste certificates issued by the competent authority in favour of the
petitioners on the ground that they were not secured by the petitioners
by producing the requisite documents. It was observed by the Scrutiny
Committee that the claim of the petitioners of belonging to the Halba-
Scheduled Tribe was false. The orders of the Scrutiny Committee are
challenged by the petitioners by these petitions.
3. Shri Phadnis, the learned counsel for the petitioners
submitted that the Scrutiny Committee was not justified in invalidating
the caste claim of the petitioners without granting an opportunity of
hearing. It is submitted that though the Scrutiny Committee has heavily
relied on the Vigilance Cell's report for invalidating the caste claim of
the petitioners, the vigilance report was not supplied to the petitioners.
It is submitted that it is necessary for the Scrutiny Committee to supply
the vigilance report to the petitioners before invalidating their claim. It
is stated that the orders are liable to be quashed and set aside as a fair
opportunity was not granted to the petitioners to give their say on the
vigilance report. It is submitted that the orders of the Scrutiny
Committee may be quashed and set aside and the Scrutiny Committee
may be directed to reconsider the caste claim of the petitioners after
granting a fair opportunity to them to produce the relevant documents
4 wp1228.1229.16.odt
and the other material for proving their caste claim.
4. The learned Assistant Government Pleaders have supported
the orders of the Scrutiny Committee. It is submitted that the
petitioners were not cooperating with the Scrutiny Committee in the
matter of verification of their caste claim. It is submitted that though
the petitioners were required to remain present before the Scrutiny
Committee on 01.11.2015 and 02.11.2015 respectively, the petitioners
failed to remain present before the Scrutiny Committee on the said
dates and also did not seek an adjournment. It is, however, fairly
admitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleaders after perusing
the original record and proceedings that the copies of the vigilance
reports were not supplied to the petitioners before their caste claim was
invalidated.
5. Shri Ambarish Joshi, the learned counsel for the respondent
no.4-Ordinance Factory in Writ Petition No.1228/2016 submitted that
the petitioner in the said case was appointed on a post earmarked for
the Scheduled Tribes and, therefore, it is necessary to verify the caste
claim of the petitioner in the said writ petition.
6. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we find that
an opportunity to the petitioners to reply to the observations in the
5 wp1228.1229.16.odt
Police vigilance report is necessary. Though, the petitioners were asked
to remain present before the Scrutiny Committee on 01.11.2015 and
02.11.2015 respectively, the petitioners had not responded to the notice
despite receiving the same a week earlier. The petitioners had also not
applied to the Scrutiny Committee for grant of some time to produce
the necessary documents. In this background, the petitioners cannot
blame the Scrutiny Committee for deciding their caste claim behind
their back. However, since the copies of the vigilance reports were not
served on the petitioners, the petitioners did not get an opportunity to
reply to the same and produce the material in support of their caste
claim. It was necessary for the Scrutiny Committee to serve a copy of
the police vigilance report on the claimant before invalidating his caste
claim. Since, the police vigilance report was not served on the
petitioners before the impugned orders were passed, the impugned
orders cannot be sustained.
7. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petitions are
partly allowed. The impugned orders are quashed and set aside. The
matters are remanded to the Scrutiny Committee for a fresh decision on
the caste claim of the petitioners, in accordance with law. Needless to
mention that the Scrutiny Committee should serve the copies of the
Vigilance report on the petitioners and also permit the petitioners to
tender documents and material in support of their claim, in case they so
6 wp1228.1229.16.odt
desire. The petitioners undertake to remain present before the Scrutiny
Committee on 23.05.2016 so that notices to the petitioners could be
dispensed with. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no
order as to costs.
(V. M. Deshpande, J.) (Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J.)
kahale
