Kailash Rajendra Gatlewar vs S. T. Caste Scrutiny Committee, ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 8661 Bom

                    J-wp2144.22.odt                                                            1/10


                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                               NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR


                                           WRIT PETITION No.2144 OF 2022


                    Shri Kailash Rajendra Gatlewar,
                    Aged 45 years,
                    Occupation : Clerk,
                    State Bank of India, Chimur Branch,
                    R/o. Plot No.809, Tailor Line,
                    Chaoni, Nagpur.                                   :     PETITIONER

                                   ...VERSUS...

                    1.    Scheduled Tribes Caste Scrutiny
                          Committee, through its Member Secretary,
                          Adivasi Bhawan, Giripeth, Nagpur.

                    2.    State Bank of India,
                          Chimur Branch,
                          Through its Branch Manager,
                          Gandhi Ward, Chimur,
                          District : Chandrapur.

                    3.    State Bank of India,
Amendment
carried as per
                          Regional Branch,
Court's order             Through its Regional Manager,
dated                     Kingsway, Nagpur-1.                         :      RESPONDENTS
17.6.2022
                    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
                    Shri R.S. Parsodkar, Advocate for Petitioner.
                    Ms. N.P. Mehta, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent No.1.
                    Shri M. Anilkumar, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
                    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

                    CORAM           :      A.S.Chandurkar & Urmila Joshi-Phalke, JJ.

                    Arguments heard on               : 10th August, 2022
                    Judgment delivered on            : 30th August, 2022.





         J-wp2144.22.odt                                                              2/10




        ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per : Urmila Joshi-Phalke, J.)

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard learned

counsel for the parties.

2. The challenge in this writ petition is to the order passed by

the Scrutiny Committee on 8.3.2022 by which invalidated the claim of

the petitioner belonging to "Chhatri" Scheduled Tribe. It is the

contention of the petitioner that he belongs to "Chhatri" Scheduled

Tribe which is enlisted at Serial No.22 of the Constitutional Scheduled

Tribes Order, 1950. The petitioner obtained the caste certificate as

belongs to "Chhatri" Scheduled Tribe from the Executive Magistrate,

Nagpur. On 5.1.2009 he came to be appointed as Clerk in the State

Bank of India-respondent No.2. On 21.6.1989 the petitioner was

recorded as "Chhatri" Scheduled Tribe in the school leaving certificate

issued by the Tagore Memorial High School, Chaoni, Nagpur. His

father Rajendra Venkatchalam Gatlewar is also recorded as "Chhatri".

The forefathers of the petitioner i.e. his grandfather Venkatchalam

was also recorded as "Chhatri" Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner

further contended that his great grandfather Ballaiyya has four sons,

namely, Narsaiyya, Venkati, Ramaiyya and Venkatchalam. Narsaiyya

has son, namely, Rajanna and said Rajanna is recorded as "Chhatri"

         J-wp2144.22.odt                                                           3/10


        Scheduled Tribe in the document i.e. Kotwal Panji.              Said Rajanna

Narsaiyya is real cousin uncle of the petitioner.

3. On 23.9.2021 the respondent No.2-State Bank of India

referred the tribe claim of the petitioner to the respondent No.1-Caste

Scrutiny Committee. The Vigilance inquiry was also conducted and

submitted its report. After receipt of the said report respondent No.1

Committee issued a letter to the petitioner on 12.10.2021 and called

him to appear for hearing on 20.10.2021. Accordingly, the petitioner

appeared before the Committee and submitted his detailed reply. On

20.10.2021 the respondent No.1 informed the petitioner that next

date of hearing would be informed to him by giving notice, but in fact

the next date of hearing was never informed. The petitioner first time

came to know that the Committee had fixed next date of hearing on

25.10.2021 after perusal of the order passed by the Committee. As

the petitioner was not given any notice for hearing or no date of

hearing was informed to him, he could not remain present before the

Committee. Thus, without proper notice of seven days in advance it

was not possible for the petitioner to attend the hearing. The

respondent No.1 Committee at its own fixed the date of hearing on

25.10.2021 and not informed the said date to the petitioner, therefore

petitioner could not remain present and Committee illegally

J-wp2144.22.odt 4/10

proceeded and passed exparte order of invalidation on the ground

that the petitioner is "Telanga Chhatri". The order passed by the

Committee is arbitrary, illegal and without giving an opportunity to

the petitioner of hearing. It is submitted by the petitioner that the

order passed by the Committee is liable to be set aside as it was

passed without affording an opportunity of hearing.

4. The respondent-State opposed the petition and supported

the decision of respondent No.1-Committee on the ground that the

Committee had verified all the documents and invalidated the claim

of the petitioner. The order passed by the Committee is justified and

writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. Heard learned counsel Shri R.S. Parsodkar, for the

petitioner. He submitted that the entire genealogy produced on

record shows that the petitioner is affiliated to the person shown in

genealogy, his forefathers i.e. his grandfather, great grandfather and

his father were recorded as "Chhatri". The pre-constitutional

documents submitted on record are sufficient to establish that the

petitioner belongs to "Chhatri" community. The petitioners have

produced on record the document i.e. Kotwal Panji of his cousin uncle

Rajanna Narsaiyya Chhatri, wherein date of birth of his cousin uncle

was shown as 25.5.1931 and caste was recorded as "Chhatri". Thus,

J-wp2144.22.odt 5/10

sufficient pre-constitutional documents produced on record by the

petitioner are not considered by the Committee. The Committee has

not afforded any opportunity to the petitioner though petitioner and

his father appeared before the Committee on 20.10.2021 and

submitted detailed reply. On 20.10.2021 no hearing in his matter had

taken place and it was informed to him that the next date of hearing

would be communicated to him, but no date of hearing was

communicated. This fact is also appearant from the order passed by

the Committee which shows that the petitioner was present before the

Committee on 20.10.2021 and submitted his reply. Learned counsel

Shri Parsodkar submitted that the next date of hearing was never

communicated to the petitioner and therefore he could not appear

before the Committee. He further submitted that as per exparte order

respondent No.1 had invalidated the claim of the petitioner. The

respondent No.2 in view of the order passed by the Committee on

16.6.2022 terminated the service of the petitioner. Due to the exparte

order passed by the respondent No.1, the respondent No.2 had passed

order and hence petitioner had lost his service. It is submitted that

opportunity is to be given to the petitioner to submit entire evidence

on record to show that he belongs to "Chhatri" community. The

service of the petitioner which was terminated by the respondent No.2

J-wp2144.22.odt 6/10

is illegal and therefore he is to be reinstated in service.

6. Whereas, learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. N.P.

Mehta for the respondent No.1 and learned counsel Shri M.

Anilkumar for the respondent No.2 supported the order of the

Scrutiny Committee. It is submitted by the learned Assistant

Government Pleader that the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee

is on the basis of Vigilance report and the documents produced by the

Vigilance Committee. Therefore, the order passed by the Scrutiny

Committee is justified and no interference is called for. Learned

counsel Shri M. Anilkumar has submitted that as the tribe claim of the

petitioner was invalidated by the Committee and in the light of the

directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of R. Vishwanatha

Pillai vs. State of Kerala and others, reported in (2004)2 SCC 105, the

services of the petitioner are terminated. Hence, writ petition

deserves to be dismissed.

7. Heard learned counsel. Perused the record. The petitioner

had claimed that he belongs to "Chhatri" community which is a

Scheduled Tribe. Admittedly, he was appointed as a Clerk in the

respondent State Bank, his tribe claim was referred to the respondent

No.1 Caste Scrutiny Committee on 23.9.2021. The Vigilance Cell

conducted the inquiry and submitted its report. The petitioner relied

J-wp2144.22.odt 7/10

upon pre-constiutional document i.e. Kotwal Panji entry of his cousin

uncle Rajanna Narsaiyya which shows that said Rajanna Narsaiyya

born on 25.5.1931 and belongs to "Chhatri" community. The

Committee while passing the order had referred some documents.

The observation of the Committee shows that a copy of Vigilance Cell

report was sent to the applicant vide show-cause notice dated

23.9.2021 and called him to appear for hearing on 5.10.2021 along

with his say on Vigilance Cell report. Again petitioner was called vide

letter dated 12.10.2021 by issuing letter on fixed date 20.10.2021.

The petitioner appeared before the Committee on 20.10.2021 and

submitted his reply during the hearing. It is specific contention of the

petitioner that next date of hearing was never communicated to him

and therefore he could not appear before the Committee but on

earlier date he submitted his reply. The detail reply filed by the

petitioner is on record. Apparently, it appears that sufficient

opportunity is not granted to the petitioner to place all the documents

before the Committee to substantiate his claim. The pre-constitutional

document of his cousin uncle shows that he belongs to "Chhatri"

community. But as no date of hearing was communicated to the

petitioner he could not produce the said document before the

Committee and could not substantiate his claim. The Committee

J-wp2144.22.odt 8/10

without giving him an opportunity of hearing passed the order. The

Committee has passed the order without hearing him is also apparent

from the reasons recorded by the Committee while passing the order.

It is specifically mentioned in the order that on 20.10.2021 the

petitioner was present before the Committee. Nothing is on record to

show that the next date of hearing was communicated to the

petitioner by the Committee. Due to the said invalidation order

petitioner had lost his service as he was terminated from the service

due to the invalidation of the claim.

8. Since the petitioner could not substantiate his claim for

want of sufficient opportunity, it is necessary to grant one

opportunity to the petitioner to substantiate his claim before the

Committee. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons and to facilitate

re-consideration of the petitioner the order dated 8.3.2022 passed by

the Scrutiny Committee deserves to be set aside and direction is

required to the Scrutiny Committee to consider the petitioner's claim

of belonging "Chhatri" Scheduled Tribe by permitting him to submit

necessary documents. To facilitate such adjudication petitioner has to

appear before the Scrutiny Committee on 12th September, 2022.

9. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner

that the services of the petitioner have been terminated for not

J-wp2144.22.odt 9/10

producing caste validity certificate. On this ground, reinstatement in

service has been sought as the petitioner's services have been

terminated on account of the order of invalidation. Learned counsel

for the petitioner relied upon the case of Sudhir Vasantrao Dhekan vs.

Joint Commissioner and Vice Chairman, Scheduled Tribe Caste

Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur and others, reported in

2010(5) Mh.L.J. 353, wherein this Court has held that termination of

the petitioner for not producing caste validity certificate it is beyond

the control of the petitioner to produce validity certificate, in the

circumstances order of termination set aside. We find that the

services of the petitioner have been terminated only on account of

invalidation of his tribe claim. The order of termination has been

issued during pendency of the writ petition. As the order passed by

the Scrutiny Committee has been set aside and the proceedings have

been remanded for fresh consideration, the petitioner is entitled to be

reinstated in service subject to final outcome of the proceedings before

the Scrutiny Committee. The petitioner however would not be

entitled for backwages for the period from 16.6.2022 till his

reinstatement. The reinstatement would result in restoration of all

benefits such as continuity in service etc. except backwages. In the

aforesaid facts and circumstances, we proceed to pass following

J-wp2144.22.odt 10/10

order :

ORDER

(i) The Writ Petition is allowed.

(ii) The order passed by the Scrutiny Committee

dated 8.3.2022 is set aside and Scrutiny Committee is directed to

re-consider the petitioner's claim by giving him opportunity to

produce relevant documents. To facilitate such adjudication the

petitioner shall appear before the Scrutiny Committee on 12.9.2022.

The Caste Scrutiny Committee shall complete the validity proceeding

of the petitioner within six months from the date of the petitioner's

appearance.

(iii) The respondent No.2 is directed to reinstate

the petitioner in service within a period of seven days from today.

The reinstatement shall operate for all purposes except the payment of

backwages from 16.6.2022 till reinstatement. The same shall be

subject to final outcome of the validity proceedings.

10. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No costs.

(Urmila Joshi-Phalke, J.) (A.S.Chandurkar, J.)

okMksns