Rakesh Kumar Verma vs The State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 4001 Chatt

                                      1

                                                                       NAFR
              HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                   Reserved for orders on : 15/06/2022

                      Order passed on : 24/06/2022

                           WPS No. 5936 of 2021

     • Rakesh Kumar Verma S/o Shri Bhaiya Lal Verma, Aged About 51
       Years R/o P/4-No.238, Sector 27, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur
       Region, Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

                                                               ---- Petitioner

                                   Versus

     1. The State Of Chhattisgarh, Through It's Secretary, Public Works
        Department, Secretariat, Mahanadi Bhawan, P.S. and Post Rakhi, Atal
        Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur,
        Chhattisgarh

     2. The Engineer In-Chief, Public Works Department, Raipur, District
        Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

     3. Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, National High Way Zone,
        Byron Bazar, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

                                                           ---- Respondents

For Petitioner : Mr. K.R.Nair and Ms. Veena Nair, Advocates. For State/respondents : Mr. Amrito Das, Addl. Advocation General.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant C A V ORDER

24/06/2022

1. Prayer has been made in this petition to quash/set aside the

impugned order dated 14-09-2021 and direct the respondents to

grant all consequential benefits to the petitioner including arrears

of pay, notional seniority and promotion to the next higher grade

for which the petitioner had entitlement.

2. It is submitted that the petitioner was direct recruit to the post of

Assistant Engineer in M.P. Public Works Department in the year

1992. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Executive

Engineer by order dated 22-04-2003. A false complaint was

made against the petitioner and on that basis the petitioner was

placed under suspension and he was charge sheeted. However,

later on, the suspension was revoked and charge sheet was

withdrawn. Subsequent to which, the petitioner was reinstated.

The matter of regularization of the petitioner was considered by

the DPC, but the same was kept in a sealed cover during his

suspension. Another complaint was filed against the petitioner

and on that basis the SC/ST Commission of the State issued

direction to withhold further promotion of the petitioner on the

ground that his caste certificate is under scrutiny. The Caste

Scrutiny Committee passed the final order dated 10-11-2008

(Annexure-P/2) invalidating the caste certificate of the petitioner.

The petitioner challenged this order in WPS No.2061/2009 in

which the High Court by order dated 09-11-2016 ordered by

modifying the order of SC/ST Caste Certificate Scrutiny

Committee. That order has become final as the same has not

been challenged in any Court. Subsequent to this order the

petitioner was regularized by order dated 08-01-2020 (Annexure-

P/4). In subsequent development, a termination order Annexure-

P/1 dated 14-09-2021 was passed on this ground itself that

SC/ST Caste Scrutiny Committee has invalidated the caste

certificate of the petitioner and that invalidation order has been

confirmed by the High Court.

Relying on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in

the case of Chairman and Managing Director, Food

Corporation of India and others Vs. Jagdish Balaram Bahira

and others, (2017) 8 SCC 670 it is submitted that the provisions

of SC/ST & OBC (Regularization of Social Status Classification)

Act, 2013 (in short 'the Act, 2013') were required to be followed

and also on the judgment in the case of Shalini Vs. New India

High School Association, (2013) 16 SCC 526 was required to

be followed. Hence, the impugned order is malafide and

unsustainable.

3. The State counsel representing all the respondents submits that

the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee has passed the order

Annexure-P/2 dated 10-11-2008, which was subject to challenge

in WPS No.2061/2009. The order of this Court dated 09-11-2016

is very clear and no interference has been made in the finding of

the High Power committee. It is submitted that in the judgment of

Chairman and Managing Director, Food Corporation of India

and others Vs. Jagdish Balaram Bahira and others (supra),

itself, Hon'ble the Supreme Court has overruled the judgment

Shalini Vs. New India High School Association (supra).

hence, the petitioner has no case and he is not entitled for any

relief.

4. In rebuttal it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that

in the year 2016, when the order was passed by this Court in

WPS No.2061/2016 the judgment of Shalini Vs. New India High

School Association was prevailing which was overruled later

on. The removal of the petitioner was not in accordance with the

provisions under the Act, 2013. The petitioner was allowed to

continue in the service until 2021. Hence, under these

circumstances the petitioner is entitled for relief.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

documents.

6. Considered on the submissions. The order was passed by the

High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee on 10-11-2008. The

operative portion is in paragraphs 8 and 9, which are as follows:-

"8. Hkkjr ljdkj x`g ea=ky; ds ifji= dz- [email protected]@72&vkj;w (,l-lh-Vh-

&Ogh-) vizSy 1975 ds fcaanq 1-1 ds vuqlkj tkfr izek.k&i= ds lR;kiu gsrq

O;fDr rFkk muds firk ,oa ekrk okLro esa ,sls leqnk; dk gksuk pkfg,]

ftldk og nkok dj jgk gSA Jh jkds'k oekZ us lfefr ds le{k ,slk dksbZ Hkh

vfHkys[k izLrqr ugha fd;k] ftlls lkfcr gks lds fd buds [email protected]

'dksjok' vuqlwfpr tutkfr ds FksA Jh jkds'k dqekj oekZ ds izkFkfed 'kkyk] iwoZ

ek/;fed rFkk mPprj ek/;fed 'kkyk ds nkf[ky&[kkfjt jftLVj vkfn pkj

vfHkys[kksa esa tkfr oekZ vafdr gSA Hkkjrh; lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 342 ds rgr~

e/;izns'k jkT; ds fy, tkjh dh xbZ vuqlwfpr tutkfr dh lwph esa 'oekZ'

'kkfey ugha gSA vr% Jh jkds'k dqekj oekZ dks vuqlwfpr tutkfr ds tkfr

izek.k&i= ,oa vuqlwfpr tutkfr ds fy, vkjf{kr in ij fu;qfDr izkIr djus

dh ik=rk ugh vkrh gSA

9. mijksDr rF;ksa ds vk/kkj ij lfefr bl fu"d"kZ ij igqaprh gS fd Jh

jkds'k dqekj oekZ us ftyk la;kstd] vkfne tkfr dY;k.k foHkkx] lkxj (e-iz-)

rFkk vuqfoHkkxh; vf/kdkjh lkxj (e-iz-) ls Hkkjr ljdkj x`g ea=ky; ds tkfr

izek.k&i= tkjh djus laca/kh fu;eks ds foijhr xyr tkfr izek.k&i= izkIr

fd;k gSA vr,o ;g vkns'k fn;k tkrk gS fd&

9-1 Jh jkds'k dqekj oekZ dks vuqlwfpr tutkfr dk tkjh fd;k x;k tkfr izek.k

i= dks rRdky izHkko ls fujLr ekuk tkosA

9-2 ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds vuqlkj [email protected] tkfr izek.k&i= /kkjd

dh fu;qfDr muds fu;ksDrk }kjk fujLr fd;k tkuk gSA vr% izeq[k lfpo]

NRrhlx<+ 'kklu] yksd fuekZ.k foHkkx dks ys[k fd;k tkrk gS fd os Jh

jkds'k dqekj oekZ dks vuqlwfpr tutkfr ds fy, vkjf{kr lgk;d ;a=h ds

in ij nh xbZ fu;qfDr dks rRdky izHkko ls fujLr djus dh dk;Zokgh djsaA

9-3 dysDVj] ftyk&lkxj] e?;izns'k dks funsZf'kr fd;k tkrk gS fd xyr tkfr

izek.k&i= izkIrdrkZ ,oa tkjhdrkZ vf/kdkjh ds fo#) fu;ekuqlkj dk;Zokgh

djsA"

7. The petitioner challenged this order, then he was allowed to

continue in the services by the department which is not under

dispute. The order dated 09-11-2016 passed by this Court in

WPS No.2061/2009 has not quashed the order dated 10-11-2008

passed by the High Power Scrutiny Committee. The operative

part of the order dated 09-11-2016 is relevant which is in

paragraphs No.9 and 10, which are as follows:-

"9.In the case at hand, there is no finding by the Committee that

while obtaining the certificate from the office of District

Organizer, Tribal Welfare Department, Sagar (MP), the

petitioner has played fraud or has otherwise misled the

authorities. The Committee has, therefore, not recommended

for taking any criminal action against the petitioner.

10. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion

that the petitioner is also entitled to retain the benefit, which

he has already availed as a member of Scheduled Tribe

Community till the time the certificate was operative and was

not cancelled by the Committee. However, since after

passing of the impugned order, the petitioner shall not be

entitled to any further benefit as a Scheduled Tribe candidate

either during his service career or elsewhere. The benefit

already accrued to him shall not be taken away from the

petitioner."

8. This order is very clear on these terms that the petitioner was

held entitled to enjoy benefit on the basis of caste certificate, until

the date it was cancelled by the Committee and it was made

clear that the petitioner was not entitled for any further benefit.

The specific recommendation of the Caste Scrutiny Committee

for removal of the petitioner from the service has not been

interfered with in this order. Hence, it is not a case of

modification, on the contrary it is a case in which the High Court

has explained the effect of the order and the only benefit derived

by the petitioner is this, that he was allowed to retain benefits in

service until the date the caste certificate was cancelled. There is

no specific order regarding continuation of the same benefits.

9. On the date the Caste Scrutiny Committee passed the order

dated 10-11-2008 SC/ST & OBC (Regularization of Social Status

Classification) Act, 2013 has not come into force, therefore, the

scrutiny of the caste certificate being false or not genuine was

guided by the directions in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil

and another Vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development

and others, (1994) 6 SCC 241. Therefore, there was no

requirement for constitution of any committee under the Act,

2013 and neither Section 7 of the Act, 2013 could have been

followed at the time when the enquiry was made by the

Committee. It is further observed that the petitioner who had

earlier challenged the order Annexure-P/2 dated 10-11-2008 in

WPS No.2061/2009 has not further challenged the caste

certificate, by filing a petition, either before Division Bench or

before Hon'ble the Apex Court. Therefore, the order of the Caste

Scrutiny Committee has attained finality and the directions given

in the same were required to be complied with, which have been

accordingly complied in the impugned order. Reliance of the

petitioner on the case of Chairman and Managing Director,

Food Corporation of India and others Vs. Jagdish Balaram

Bahira and others (supra) does not come to help of the

petitioner. It is observed in this judgment Hon'ble the Supreme

Court that invalidation of the caste certificate may result in two

consequences, first, withdrawal of benefits secured on the basis of

false caste certificate and second, prosecution of the claimant

who procured the certificate which is found to be false by the

Scrutiny Committee. In this present case no criminal prosecution

has been initiated against the petitioner regarding which there is

observation in the order of this Court in WPS No.2061/2009 and

further the recommendations of other action by the Caste

Scrutiny Committee has been complied which was not interfered

by the High Court. Hence, after these discussions and

considering on the submissions I am of this view that the present

petition is not fit to be allowed, hence, the same is dismissed and

disposed off.

Sd/-

(Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant) Judge Aadil