Bombay High Court
Murlidhar Sadashiv Thakre vs The Addl.General ... on 16 December, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
wp.1813.00
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT NAGPUR, NAGPUR.
...
WRIT PETITION NO. 1813/2000
Shri Murlidhar s/o Sadashiv Thakre
Aged years, occu: service
R/o Shivajinagar, Chitnavispura
Nagpur. ..PETITIONER
v e r s u s
1) The Union of India
Through its Secretary to the
Department of Ministry of Defence
Ordnance Factory, Delhi.
(Respondent No.1 deleted as per
Court's order dated 9.10.2002)
2) The Additional General Manager
Ordnance Factory, Ambazari, Nagpur.
3) The Assistant Works Manager
(Administration), Ordnance Factory
Ambazari, Nagpur.
4) The Scheduled Tribes Caste Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur
Through its Chairman and Director
Tribal Research and Training Institute,
Nagpur.
5) State of Maharashtra
Through Chief Secretary to Government,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. ...RESPONDENTS
...........................................................................................................................
Advocate for the petitioner absent
Shri A.A. Madiwale, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent-State
............................................................................................................................
wp.1813.00
CORAM: SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK &
MRS . SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ
.
DATED : 16 December, 2016
th
ORAL JUDGMENT: (PER SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J.)
By this Writ Petition, the petitioner challenges the order of the
Scrutiny Committee, dated 11.10.1999, invalidating the claim of the petitioner
of belonging to 'Gond-Gowari' Scheduled Tribe.
It appears on a reading of the Writ Petition and on a perusal of
the vigilance report that the vigilance enquiry was not properly conducted in
the matter of the caste claim of the petitioner. It appears from the vigilance
report that is annexed to the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent
no.4, that the Research Officer was not associated with the vigilance cell while
conducting the vigilance enquiry as the report is not signed by the Research
Officer. It is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment, reported in
AIR 1997 SC 2581:(Kum. Madhuri Patil & another vs. Additional
Commissioner & others) that it would be necessary for a Research Officer to
be associated with the vigilance cell while conducting the enquiry. As per the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, reported in AIR 1995 SC 94:
(Kumari Madhuri Patil and another vs. Additional Commissioner and others)
it would be necessary for the vigilance cell to record the statements of the
relatives and acquaintances of the candidate before preparing a report. In
the instant case, it appears that neither was the Research Officer associated
wp.1813.00
with the vigilance cell nor were the statements of the family members of the
petitioner recorded by the vigilance cell, while conducting the enquiry. Since
the mandatory directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgments
reported in AIR 1995 SC 94 and AIR 1997 SC 2581 are not followed while
verifying the caste claim of the petitioner, the impugned order is liable to be
quashed and set aside and the matter is liable to be remanded to the Scrutiny
Committee for a fresh decision, on merits.
Hence, for the reasons aforesaid the Writ petition is partly
allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The matter is
remanded to the Scrutiny Committee for a fresh decision on the caste claim
of the petitioner, in accordance with law.
Since the petitioner is not represented by his counsel in the
Court today, it would be necessary for the Scrutiny Committee to ensure that
the petitioner is served with the notice of the proceedings pertaining to his
caste claim, before deciding the caste claim,.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms, with no order as to
costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
sahare
