Kandhilal Maravi vs Union Of India And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 542 Chatt

                                      1

                                                                        NAFR


             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                          WPS No. 2532 of 2011
                      Order reserved on : 10/11/2022
                     Order delivered on : 27/01/2023
    Kandhilal Maravi, S/o Shri Saukhilal Maravi, Constable (GD), Aged
     About 35 Years, R/o Village- Partala, Post- Bamhani, Tehsil-
     Narayanganj, District- Mandla, (M.P.).
                                                               ---- Petitioner
                                   Versus
   1. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, North
      Block, New Delhi-1.
   2. Central Reserve Police Force through its Director General, Special
      Sector, Directorate, Block No.1, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New
      Delhi.
   3. Inspector General, Special Sector, Central Reserve Police Force,
      Old Secretariat, Delhi-54.
   4. Deputy Inspector General, Group Centre, Central Reserve Police
      Force, Bharni, District- Bilaspur (C.G.)
   5. The Naib Tehsildar, Narayanganj, District- Mandla (M.P.)
                                                            ---- Respondents

For Petitioner                   : Mr. Rajkumar Pali, Advocate
For Respondents No. 1 to 4       : Ms. Anmol Sharma, Central Government
                                   Council/Union of India
For State/respondent No.5        : Ms. Smriti Shrivastava, P.L.


               Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, Judge
                                 CAV Order

1. This petition is filed under article 226/227 of the Constitution of India

for quashing/ set aside the impugned orders dated 04.06.2010

(Annexure P/1) passed by respondent No.2 and 03.07.2009

(Annexure P/2) passed by respondent No.3.

2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner is a constable in the Central

Reserve Police Force (CRPF). He was appointed on the post of

constable (General Duty) in CRPF on 29.03.1996. By order

18.10.2007, the petitioner was transferred to Group Centre, CRPF,

Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. At the time of appointment in the CRPF,

petitioner had duly submitted his caste certificate issued by the

Tehsildar, Narayanganj (Respondent No.5) bearing No. 78/B/13/91-

92 dated 13.05.1992. As per caste certificate (Annexure P/4),

petitioner belonged to 'Gond' tribe. On 08.07.2005, a letter

(Annexure P/5) was written to Naib Tehsildar, Narayanganj

(Respondent No.5) by the Additional DIG, Bhopal (M.P.) regarding

the verification of caste certificate of the petitioner. On 05.05.2007,

the Additional DIGP, G.C., CRPF, Bilaspur wrote a letter (Annexure

P/6) to the District Magistrate, Mandla (M.P.) with regard to an

enquiry sought to be made as to the legality and validity of the caste

certificate of the petitioner. Between 08.12.2007 and 31.12.2007,

letters (Annexure P/7) were written to Naib Tehsildar by Respondent

No.4 with respect to the verification of the caste certificate and the

certificate of residence belonging to petitioner.

3. As per respondents authorities, while undergoing the verification

process, it was revealed that the petitioner had submitted a forged

caste certificate at the time of his appointment into the force.

Subsequently, on 31.03.2008 a charge-sheet was issued to the

petitioner and a Departmental Enquiry was initiated against him in

terms of Section 11 (1) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act,

1949 read with rule 27 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules,

1955, wherein, he was asked to submit his reply to the charges

levelled against him. On 01.04.2008, the petitioner submitted his

reply and denied all the allegations levelled against him. Vide order

dated 25.04.2008 passed by the Deputy Inspector General

(Respondent No.4), Shri M.H. Qazi, Deputy Commandant was

appointed as the Enquiry Officer to enquire into the allegations

levelled against the petitioner.

4. On 24.07.2008, during the course of Departmental Enquiry, the

statement of the petitioner was recorded wherein he had stated that

he belongs to 'Gond' community which happens to be a Scheduled

Tribe. In support of his submission, the petitioner produced the

copies of Kishbandi Khatauni (Annexure P/8), wherein the caste of

his father and the grand-father is shown to be 'Gond' i.e. Scheduled

Tribe. Petitioner also submitted various other documents like School

Transfer Certificate (Annexure P/9) issued on 29.06.2006 along with

the caste certificate issued by the Gram Panchayat, Partala, District-

Mandla (M.P.) wherein he is shown to be belonging to Gond tribe.

On 09.01.2009, on submission of the enquiry report, respondent

No.4, vide letter dated 13.01.2009 informed the petitioner that the

enquiry report has been duly submitted by the enquiry officer and the

petitioner was asked to file his reply to the same. Copy of the letter

dated 13.01.2009 has been annexed as Annexure P/10.

5. On 21.01.2009, the petitioner has filed his reply (Annexure P/11)

denying all allegations leveled against him. The Naib Tehsildar sent

the verification report (Annexure P/12) pertaining to the caste

certificate of the petitioner which revealed that the caste certificate

bearing No.78/B/121/91-92 dated 13.05.1992 does not belong to the

present petitioner but the caste certificate belonging to the petitioner

bears the No.78/B/13/91-92 and the caste certificate attached to the

service-book of the petitioner also bears the said number i.e.

78/B/13/91-92 and not 78/B/121/91-92. On 29.01.2009, petitioner

wrote a letter to the DIG stating that his matter be enquired by a duly

constituted High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee. The petitioner

was under a bona fide belief that the disciplinary authority will

consider the fact that his caste certificate was duly issued by

respondent No.5 on 13.05.1992 and has not been forged in any

manner but respondent No. 4 vide its order dated 30.01.2009

(annexure P/13), on the basis of verification report submitted by Naib

Tehsildar, Narayanganj imposed the penalty of dismissal from

service upon the petitioner.

6. Being aggrieved by the order of dismissal, petitioner preferred an

appeal before the appellate authority Inspector General of Police,

Special Sector, CRPF, Delhi (respondent no.3) but vide impugned

order dated 03.07.2009, this appeal was dismissed by respondent

No.3. Thereafter, petitioner preferred a revision before respondent

No.2 i.e. Director General of Police (DGP), Central Reserve Police

Force, New Delhi but vide order dated 04.06.2010, the revision was

also dismissed. Hence, this petition filed by the petitioner and sought

for the following reliefs-:

10.1 this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/order setting aside/quashing the impugned orders dated 04.06.2010 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.2 and 03.07.2009 (Annexure P-2) passed by respondent No.3.

10.2 this Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to award the cost of the petition.

10.3 any other relief(s) may also be given to the petitioner, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of dismissal

from service has been passed by respondent No.4 i.e. Deputy

Inspector General, Bharni, Bilaspur, (C.G.) and at the time, when the

said order was passed, the petitioner was posted at Bilaspur,

therefore, it remains undisputed that the impugned orders passed by

the respondent authorities are devoid of principle of reasonableness

and fair play and deserve to be set aside. The impugned orders are

not passed in accordance with the law laid down by the hon'ble Apex

court in various cases. The caste certificate of the petitioner has not

been enquired into and in absence of any enquiry, it would be

incorrect to assume that his caste certificate is forged. It is evident

from the impugned orders that the respondent officials have

dismissed both the appeals and the revision preferred by the

petitioner only on the basis of the verification report, without any

application of mind and has upheld the dismissal of the petitioner on

insubstantial grounds. The respondent authority has erred by not

considering the fact that the verification report of the caste certificate

singed by respondent No.5 relates to certificate bearing

No.78/B/121/91-92 whereas the caste certificate of the petitioner

bears a different number i.e. 78/B/13/91-92. The caste certificate of

the petitioner has been duly issued by Naib Tehsildar, Narayanganj.

Therefore, the finding arrived at by the respondent authorities on the

basis of verification report does not hold any good ground of

dismissal.

7.1 It is further added that on 08.08.2008, the enquiry officer had

submitted the Departmental Enquiry report with an opinion that the

allegations against the petitioner do not stand proved and,

therefore, the matter should be disposed of after conducting a

comprehensive enquiry. Copy of letter dated 08.08.2008 is

annexure P/15. He further submits that a bare perusal of original

caste certificate would demonstrate that no forgery has been

committed by the petitioner and even the verification that has been

conducted by the Naib Tehsildar with respect to a caste certificate

that never belonged to the petitioner which shows that the

dismissal of the petitioner from the services was unwarranted. The

petitioner submitted various documents before the disciplinary

authority but the authorities having not been satisfied with the

documents rejected the claim of the petitioner. The caste

certificate bearing No.78/B/13/91-92 issued on 13.05.1992 has

never been enquired and the caste certificate bearing

No.78/B/121/91-92 was sent for verification and was found to be

forged. Respondents authorities have erred in not referring the

matter to the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee. The

respondents have no authority to enquire about the social status of

the petitioner, therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be set

aside.

7.2 Reliance has been placed on the judgment rendered by Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the matter of Kumar Madhuri Patil & another

Vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development & others

reported in AIR (1994) 6 SCC 241 and this Court's judgment

passed in the matters of Surajnathnag Vs. State of C.G. &

others in 2015(5) C.G.L.J. 85, Jagdish Mandal Vs. State of

C.G. & others in 2022(1) C.G.L.J. 113 & Dinesh Kumar

Bhagoria Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & others passed in WP(S)

No. 3338/2007.

8. Learned counsel for the respondents however opposing the petition

submits that a perusal of the documents enclosed with the petition

would reveal that the impugned order of termination was passed

after conducting a detailed enquiry and the petitioner was granted

ample opportunities to justify and to disprove the charges levelled

against him and as such the impugned order does not call for any

interference.

9. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on

record.

10. Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Kumari Madhuri Patil and another Vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and others reported in AIR (1994) 6 SCC 241 has held in para 13 as under:-

13. The admission wrongly gained or appointment wrongly obtained on the basis of false social status certificate necessarily have the effect of depriving the genuine Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes or OBC candidates as enjoined in 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 a 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-Sub-Divisional 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.

2. The parent, guardian or the candidate, as the case may be, shall file an affidavit duly sworn and attested by a competent gazetted officer or non-gazetted officer with particulars of castes and sub-castes, tribe, tribal community, parts or groups of tribes or tribal communities, the place from which he originally hails from and other particulars as may be prescribed by the concerned Directorate.

3. Application for verification of the caste certificate by the

Scrutiny Committee shall be filed at least six months in advance before seeking admission into educational institution or an appointment to a post.

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 concerned department, (II) the Director, Social Welfare/Tribal Welfare/Backward Class Welfare, as the case may, 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 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 over all 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 also should 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 proforma, in particular, of the Scheduled Tribes relating to their peculiar anthropological and ethnological traits, daiety, rituals, customs, mode of marriage, death ceremonies, method of burial of dead bodies etc. by the concerned castes or tribes or tribal communities 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 show cause notice supplying a copy of the report of the vigilance officer to the candidate by a registered post with acknowledgement due or through the head of the concerned educational institution in which the candidate is studying or employed. The notice should indicate that the representation or reply, if any, would be made within two weeks from the date of the receipt of the notice and in no case on request not more than 30 days from the date of the receipt of the notice. In case, the candidate seeks for an opportunity of hearing and claims an inquiry to be made in that behalf, the Director on receipt of such representation/reply shall convene the committee and the Joint/Addl. Secretary as Chair-person who shall give reasonable opportunity to the candidate/parent/guardian to adduce all evidence in support of their claim. A public notice by beat of drum or any other convenient mode may be

published in the village or locality and if any person or association opposes such a claim, an opportunity to adduce evidence may be given to him/it. After giving such opportunity either in person or through counsel, the Committee may make such inquiry as it deems expedient and consider the claims vis-a-vis the objections raised by the candidate or opponent and pass an appropriate order with brief reasons in support thereof.

7. In case the report is in favour of the candidate and found to be genuine and true, no further action need be taken except where the report or the particulars given are procured or found to be false or fraudulently obtained and in the latter event the same procedure as is envisaged in para 6 be followed.

8. Notice contemplated in para 6 should be issued to the parents/ guardian also in case candidate is minor to appear before the Committee with all evidence in his or their support of the claim for the social status certificates.

9. The inquiry should be completed as expeditiously as possible preferably by day-to-day 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. In case of any delay in finalising the proceedings, and in the meanwhile the last date for admission into an educational institution or appointment to an officer post, is getting expired, the candidate be admitted by the Principal or such other authority competent in that behalf or appointed on the basis of the social status certificate already issued or an affidavit duly sworn by the parent/guardian/candidate before the competent officer or non-official and such admission or appointment should be only provisional, subject to the result of the inquiry by the Scrutiny Committee.

11. The order passed by the Committee shall be final and conclusive only subject to the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution.

12. No suit or other proceedings before any other authority should lie.

13. The High Court would dispose of these cases as expeditiously as possible within a period of three months. In case, as per its procedure, the writ petition/Miscellaneous petition/matter is disposed of by a Single Judge, then no further appeal would lie against that order to the Division Bench but subject to special leave under Article 136.

14. In case, the certificate obtained or social status claimed is found to be false, the parent/guardian/the candidate should be prosecuted for making false claim. If the

prosecution ends in a conviction and sentence of the accused, it could be regarded as an offence involving moral turpitude, disqualification for elective posts or offices under the State or the Union or elections to any local body, legislature or the Parliament.

15. As soon as the finding is recorded by the Scrutiny Committee holding that the certificate obtained was false, on its cancellation and confiscation simultaneosly, it should be communicated to the concerned educational institution or the appointing authority by registered post with acknowledgement due with a request to cancel the admission or the appointment. The principal etc. of the educational institution responsible for making the admission or the appointing authority, should cancel the admission/appointment without any further notice to the candidate and debar the candidate for further study or continue in office in a post.

11. High Court of Chhattisgarh also in a catena of decisions held that

whether the caste certificate of an employee is genuine, proper or

false can only be looked into by the High Level Caste Scrutiny

Committee alone and not by any other authority of the State

Government. That it is only on the report of the Caste Scrutiny

Committee the competent authority could have initiated further

actions. This Court in the matter of Surajnathnag Vs. State of C.G.

& others in 2015 (5) C.G.L.J. 85 has held in paragraphs 6 & 7 as

under:-

6. High Court of Chhattisgarh in a couple of decisions has reiterated the principles laid down in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) and has held that if there is a complaint with regard to authenticity of a caste certificate issued by the competent authority, the Caste Scrutiny Committee alone is competent to determine the dispute in accordance with the procedure laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra).

7. In Sudhakar Vithal Kumbhare Vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2004 (9) SCC 481, the Supreme Court has, in somewhat similar circumstances, in a very categorical terms, held that in a situation where the employer doubted the social status of an employee, the employer was required to refer the

dispute to the High Level Caste Scrutiny Committee constituted in terms of the judgment of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) and only on the basis of the report of the said Committee could the employer have taken an appropriate decision. A judgment of the Chhattisgarh High Court in this regard is in the case of Anil Prasad Vs. The State of Chhattisgarh & Ors., in Writ Petition No. 1517 of 2004 decided on 07.08.2008. A similar decision again has been taken in Writ Petition No. 1515 of 2007 in the case of Suresh Kumar Koshti Vs. The State Government of Chhattisgarh & Others, decided on 10.12.2009. Further, again in the case of Birendra Kumar Devangan Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others in Writ Petition (C) No. 2344 of 2007 decided on 26.04.2007, this High Court followed the decision rendered in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) and in the case of Sudhakar Vithal Kumbhare (supra) and held that if there was any dispute with regard to caste of an employee, the matter ought to have been referred to the Caste Scrutiny Committee and before receiving a report from the Caste Scrutiny Committee, any action of the Government detrimental to the service conditions of an employee was not proper, legal and justified.

12. Having considered the above principles and facts of the case, it is

clear from all the documents that respondent authorities conducted

the enquiry against the petitioner and as per copy of letter dated

08.07.2005 (annexure P/5), Naib Tehsildar, Narayanganj, District-

Mandla (M.P.) was asked to verify the certificate No. 78/B/13/91-92

dated 13.05.1992. As per annexure P/12, a letter-cum-verificatton

report issued by respondent No.5 i.e. the Naib Tehsildar,

Narayanganj, District- Mandla (M.P.) dated 20.06.2006 related to

Certificate No. 78/B/121/91-92 dated 13.05.1992 was sent to the

authorities. It is clear from enquiry report and other documents that

the enquiry was conducted by the departmental officers and not by

the Caste Scrutiny Committee.

13. In view of the fact that petitioner's case was not referred to

appropriate committee, the impugned orders deserve to be set

aside. It will be open to the respondent authorities to refer the matter

to the Scrutiny Committee for verifying the caste of the petitioner.

14. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 04.06.2010 (Annexure P/1)

& 03.07.2009 (Annexure P/2) terminating the services of the

petitioner are hereby quashed. The petitioner is directed to be

reinstated forthwith with all the consequential benefits except

backwages. The question of backwages shall be considered by the

competent authority within a period of 45 days from the date of

receipt of a copy of this order in accordance with applicable

Rules/Regulations/Standing orders and petitioner will also be

allowed to make representation for the same. The official

respondents are directed to refer the matter to the appropriate Caste

Scrutiny Committee constituted by the appropriate State

Government to verify the validity of the caste certificate and also for

determination of the caste status of the petitioner as per direction of

the Supreme Court in the matter of Madhuri Patil (supra) and upon

receipt of the report from the Caste Scrutiny Committee, the

respondents are at liberty to proceed in accordance with law.

15. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated herein-above. No

cost(s).

Sd/-

(Rajani Dubey) Judge

Ruchi