Sukhdev Prasad vs Sourth Eastern Coa Fields And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 2635 Chatt

                               1

                                                               NAFR
         HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
               Writ Petition (S) No. 3637 of 2010
      Sukhdev Prasad, Aged about 40 years, S/o Late
      Bhola Prasad, R/o Kumda Colony, Bishrampur,
      M.D.M. Quarter No.159, Post Kumda, District­
      Sarguja (CG)
                                                  ­­­Petitioner

                             Versus

   1. South Eastern Coal Fields Limited Through the
      Managing   Director   (Work,  Administration),
      Seepat Road, Bilaspur (CG)
   2. Upper   Samaharta,   Bokaro,          C/o        Collector,
      District­Bokaro, Jharkhand
   3. Anchal   Adhikari,  Dhanbad,          C/o        Collector,
      District­Dhanbad, Jharkhand
                                                ­­­ Respondents

For Petitioner :Mr.Aniket Verma, Advocate For Respondent No. :Mr.Shailendra Shukla, Advocate For Res.No.2 and 3 :None present

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order on Board 30/09/2021

1. The petitioner herein calls in question

legality, validity and correctness of the order

dated 7.12.2009 (Annexure P­1) by which his

services have been terminated relying upon the

report dated 21.8.2009 issued by respondent

No.2 branding the same as arbitrary, illegal,

without jurisdiction and without authority of

law.

2. The petitioner was appointed as 'Mining

Sardar' by the respondent SECL on 21.7.2000

(Annexure P­2) against ST category as he

belongs to "Munda" caste on the basis of caste

certificate issued by the competent authority

vide Annexure P­3. It is the case of the

petitioner that his appointment was first made

on probation for a period of six months and

thereafter his services were regularized and

thereafter he was transferred to Bokaro

(Jharkhand) plant of SECL, in which he served

till the year 2003. In the year 2003, SECL,

Bokaro had referred the matter of the

petitioner to District Administration, Bokaro

and his caste was duly verified vide caste

verification report Annexure P­4 in which it

was found that caste certificate was validly

issued in his favour holding him to be a member

of Scheduled Tribes. Thereafter on the

direction of the Home Ministry, caste

certificate of the petitioner was to be

verified and accordingly, vide communication

dated 29.8.2009 (Annexure P­9), it was informed

by the competent authority of Bokaro that caste

certificate dated 28.1.97 (Annexure P­3) issued

in favour of the petitioner is forged /wrong

and on that basis, the impugned order dated

07.12.2009 (Annexure P­1) has been passed

terminating the services of the petitioner. It

is further case of the petitioner that caste

certificate can be made only as per decisions

of the Supreme Court in the matters of Kumari

Madhuri Patil and another v. Addl.

Commissioner, Tribal Development and others1,

Collector, Bilaspur v. Ajit P.K.Jogi and

others2 and Chairman and Managing Director,

Food Corporation of India v. Jagdish Balaram

Bahira and others3, as such, the impugned order

deserves to be set­aside.

3. Return has been filed by respondent No.1

opposing the averments made in the writ

petition stating inter­alia that the

petitioner's caste certificate was verified in

accordance with clause 5, 10 and 11 of the

appointment order dated 21.7.2000 and finding

that he did not belong to ST category, his

services have been terminated in accordance

with the conditions of the appointment order,

1 (1994) 6 SCC 241 2 (2011) 10 SCC 357 3 (2017) 8 SCC 670

which is strictly in accordance with law and no

interference is warranted.

4. Mr.Aniket Verma, learned counsel for the

petitioner, would submit that the petitioner's

caste certificate has already been verified by

Bokaro Administration and he has been held to

be a member of ST category by Annexure P­5 and

he has not been afforded an opportunity of

hearing and without holding departmental

enquiry in terms of applicable Standing Orders,

the petitioner's services have been terminated.

He would further submit that caste certificate

can only be considered and determined by the

Caste Scrutiny Committee / Committee

constituted in accordance with the statute made

by the State Government and in accordance with

the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in

the matter of Madhuri Patil (supra), as such,

the impugned order deserves to be set­aside.

5. On the other hand, Mr.Shailendra Shukla,

learned counsel for respondent No.1, would

support the impugned order and submit that the

petitioner's services have been terminated in

accordance with clause 5, 10 and 11 of the

appointment order dated 21.7.2000 finding him

to be not belonging to ST category, as such,

the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties,

considered their rival submissions made

hereinabove and also went through the records

with utmost circumspection.

7. It is the case of the petitioner that he was

appointed as Mining Sardar on 21.7.2000 against

ST category and his caste certificate was

verified from Bokaro Administration and vide

Annexure P­5, he was found to be a member of

Scheduled Tribes and thereafter all of sudden,

on the basis of order dated 29.8.2009 (Annexure

P­9), his services have been terminated by

order dated 07.12.2009 (Annexure P­1).

8. The question for consideration would be

whether for verification of the petitioner

caste / status, if any, the matter could have

been referred to the Caste Scrutiny Committee

and in absence thereof, the impugned order

dated 07.12.2009 (Annexure P­1) terminating the

services of the petitioner is bad ?

9. In order to adjudicate this issue, it would be

appropriate to notice the pertinent judgments

in this regard. The Supreme Court in the matter

of Madhuri Patil (supra) formulated the scheme

for verification of tribal status and held that

any application for verification of tribal

status as a Scheduled Tribe should be carried

out by such committee and issued direction for

issuance of social caste certificate. The

directions issued are as under :­

"13. The admission wrongly gained or appointment wrongly obtained on the basis of false social status certificate necessarily has the effect of depriving the genuine Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes or OBC candidates as enjoined I the Constitution of the benefits conferred on them by the Constitution. The genuine candidates are also denied admission to educational institutions or appointments to office or posts under a State for want of social status certificate. The ineligible or spurious persons who falsely gained entry resort to dilatory tactics and create hurdles in completion of the inquiries by the Scrutiny Committee. It is true that the applications for admission to educational institutions are generally made by a parent, since on that date many a time the student may be a minor. It is the parent or the guardian who may play fraud claiming false status certificate. It is, therefore, necessary that the certificates issued are scrutinised at the earliest and with utmost expedition and promptitude. For that purpose, it is necessary to streamline the procedure for the issuance of social status certificates, their scrutiny and their approval, which may be the following : (1) The application for grant of social status certificate shall be made to the Revenue Sub­Divisional Officer and Deputy

Collector or Deputy Commissioner and the certificate shall be issued by such Officer rather than at the officer, taluk or mandal level.

* * * (4) All the State Governments shall constitute a Committee of three officers, namely, (i) an Additional or Joint Secretary or any officer higher in rank of the Director of the Department concerned,

(ii) the Director, Social Welfare/Tribal Welfare/Backward Class Welfare, as the case may be, and (iii) in the case of Scheduled Castes another officer who has intimate knowledge in the verification and issuance of the social status certificates. In the case of the Scheduled Tribes, the Research Officer who has intimate knowledge in identifying the tribes, tribal communities, parts of or groups of tribes or tribal communities.

(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 should also 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 persons 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 pro forma, in particular, of the Scheduled Tribes relating to their peculiar anthropological and ethnological traits, deities, rituals, customs, mode of marriage, death ceremonies, method of burial of dead bodies, etc. by the castes

or tribes or tribal communities concerned, etc.

(6) The Director concerned, on receipt of the report from the Vigilance Officer if he found the claim for social status to be 'not genuine' or 'doubtful' or spurious or falsely or wrongly claimed, the Director concerned should issue a show­cause notice supplying a copy of the report of the Vigilance Officer to the candidate by a registered post with acknowledgment due or through the head of the educational institution concerned in which the candidate is studying or employed. ...

* * * (9) The inquiry should be completed as expeditiously as possible preferably by day­to­day proceedings within such period not exceeding two months. If after inquiry, the Caste Scrutiny Committee finds the claim to be false or spurious, they should pass an order cancelling the certificate issued and confiscate the same. It should communicate within one month from the date of the conclusion of the proceedings the result of enquiry to the parent/guardian and the applicant."

10. Quite recently following the principles laid

down in Madhuri Patil (supra), in the matter of

Ajit P.K. Jogi (supra) the Supreme Court has

held that the verification of validity of the

caste certificates and the determination of the

caste status should be done only by scrutiny

committee constituted as per direction in

Madhuri Patil (supra) or in terms of any

statute made by appropriate Government in that

behalf.

11. In the matter of Sudhakar Vithal Kumbhare v.

State of Maharashtra and Others4, Their

Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that

issue of caste status cannot be gone into in a

departmental enquiry and this matter can be

examined only by the Caste Scrutiny Committee

constituted under the direction of the Supreme

Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil

(supra) and held as under :­

"6. Here we find that the Maharashtra State Electricity Board acting upon the direction of State Government has reverted the appellant without referring the matter to the Scrutiny Committee which was not the correct way to deal with the appellant's case. In fact, in such a situation the employer was required to refer the question before the Scrutiny Committee, which admittedly had been constituted and established for coming to the matter."

12. The Supreme Court in the matter of Jagdish

Balaram Bahira (supra) affirmed the principle

of law laid down in Madhuri Patil (supra) and

held as under :­

"69.2. Since the decision of this Court in Madhuri Patil which was rendered on 2­ 9­1994, the regime which held the field in pursuance of those directions envisaged a detailed procedure for :

(a) the issuance of caste certificates;

(b) scrutiny and verification of caste and tribe claims by Scrutiny Committees

4 (2004) 9 SCC 481

to be constituted by the State Government;

(c) the procedure for the conduct of investigation into the authenticity of the claim;

(d) Cancellation and confiscation of the caste certificate where the claim is found to be fales or not genuine;

(e) Withdrawal of benefits in terms of the termination of an appointment, cancellation of an admission to an educational institution or disqualification from an electoral office obtained on the basis that the candidate belongs to a reserved category; and

(f) Prosecution for a criminal offence."

13. Reverting to the facts of the present case

in light of decision rendered by the Supreme

Court in the matter of Madhuri Patil (supra)

followed in the matter of Ajit P.K. Jogi

(supra) and in Jagdish Balaram Bahira (supra),

it is quite vivid that the petitioner was

earlier granted caste certificate on 28.1.1997

by the competent authority, which was also

verified by the SECL, Bokaro and vide Annexure

P­5, it has been certified to be a member of

Scheduled Tribes and thereafter on the basis

of Annexure P­9, the respondent SECL has got

the petitioner's caste certificate verified

and on the basis of Annexure P­9, the

petitioner's services have been terminated.

Annexure P­9 states as under:­

cksd kjks] lekgj.k dY;k.k 'kk[kk

i=kad [email protected] 848 [email protected]@09

izs"kd]

vij lekgRrkZ] egkizca/kd ([email protected]'kk) cksdkjksA ,lbZlh,y] fcykliqj H/4488 28/8/09 lsok esa] egkizca/kd ([email protected]'kklu) lkmFk bZLVuZ dksyQhYMl fyfeVsM] fcykliqjA

fo"k;%& Jh lq[knso izlkn] firk&Lo0 Hkksyk izlkn ds tkfr izek.k&i= lR;kiu ds lac/a k esaA izlax%& vkidk i=kad 1310 fnukad [email protected]@09 ds dze esaA

egk'k;] mijksDr fo"k; ds laca/k esa dguk gS fd Jh lq[knso izlkn] firk&Lo0 Hkksyk izlkn ds izek.k&i= la[;k&20 fnukad 28&01&97 dk lR;kiu vuqeaM+y inkf/kdkjh] csjeks (rsuq/kkV) djk;k x;kA mUgksaus vius i=kad 33 (eq0)] fnukad&[email protected]@07 }kjk izfrosfnr fd;k gS fd lq[knso izlkn] firk&Hkksyk izlkn xzke&'kkL=h uxj] iks0&tkjaxMhg] Fkkuk&cksdkjks FkeZy] ftyk&cksdkjks dks fuxZr izek.k&i= QthZ (xyr) gSA

lwpukFkZ izsf"krA fo'okl Hkktu] [email protected] vij lekgRrkZ] cksdkjksA

14. By the aforesaid certificate, the

petitioner's caste certificate has found to be

forged / wrong, but according to the decisions

of the Supreme Court in the matter of Madhuri

Patil (supra) followed in Ajit P.K. Jogi

(supra) and in Jagdish Balaram Bahira (supra),

it could have only been verified by the Caste

Scrutiny Committee constituted by the State

Government in this behalf. The Supreme Court

has categorically held that verification of

validity of caste certificate and

determination of caste status should be done

by the Caste Scrutiny Committee in terms of

the aforesaid judgments, therefore, validity

of caste certificate issued to the petitioner

could have been done only by the Caste

Scrutiny Committee and not by respondent No.2,

which runs contrary to the decision of the

Supreme Court in the matter of Madhuri Patil

(supra) particularly when the petitioner's

caste certificate has already been found to be

correct one on 22.5.2007 vide Annexure P­5.

15. In the considered opinion of this Court,

once the petitioner's caste certificate has

already been verified by SECL, Bokaro and he

is found to be a member of Scheduled Tribes on

22.5.2007, thereafter if any doubt has been

entertained by the SECL, it could have been

sent to the Caste Scrutiny Committee in terms

of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court

in the matter of Madhuri Patil (supra)

followed in Ajit P.K.Jogi (supra) and in

Jagdish Balaram Bahira (supra) and could not

have been undertaken by respondent No.2, which

runs contrary to the judgments rendered by the

Supreme Court in the above­stated cases.

16. Accordingly, the impugned order dated

07.12.2009 (Annexure P­1) passed by respondent

No.1 is hereby set­aside. Respondent No.1 is

directed to reinstate the petitioner forthwith

with all consequential service benefits except

backwages. The question of backwages shall be

considered by the competent authority within a

period of 60 days from the date of receipt of

a copy of this order in accordance with

applicable Rules/ Regulations/Standing orders

on the basis of material available on record.

The petitioner will be allowed to make a

representation for the same before respondent

No.1.

17. The writ petition is allowed to the extent

indicated herein­above. No cost(s).

Sd/­

(Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge

B/­