Madhya Pradesh High Court
Raghuvir Singh Meena vs M P State Level Committee For ... on 3 August, 2021
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR
(Division Bench)
W.A. No.561/2020
Raghuvir Singh Meena
-Versus-
M.P. State Level Committee for Verification of Caste
Certificate/Director and another
Smt. Shobha Menon, Senior Advocate along with Shri Rahul
Choubey, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri R.K. Verma, Additional Advocate General for the respondents.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM :
Hon'ble Shri Justice Mohammad Rafiq, Chief Justice.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla, Judge.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
(Jabalpur, dtd.03.08.2021)
Per : Vijay Kumar Shukla, J.-
The present intra-court appeal has been filed under
Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand
Nyaypeeth ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, being aggrieved by the
order dated 18-03-2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP-
1891-2018 [Raghuvir Singh Meena vs. M.P. State Level Committee
and another] whereby the writ petition filed by the
appellant/petitioner [hereinafter referred to as "the appellant"] has
been dismissed.
2. The appellant preferred the writ petition under Article
226 of the Constitution of India seeking quashment of the order dated
16-11-2015 passed by the High Level Caste Scrutiny Committee
[hereinafter referred to as "the High Power Committee"] holding that
the caste certificate issued in favour of the appellant on 03-01-1984
is cancelled, as the appellant has not been found entitled to get any
benefit of his caste "Meena" treating the same to be a caste falling
under the Scheduled Tribe category in the State of Madhya Pradesh.
The appellant also sought for a direction that the respondents be
restrained from taking any coercive action against him in pursuance
to the order dated 16-11-2015 and has further claimed that he be
given the benefit in terms of the law laid down by the Apex Court in
the case of Dattu Namdev vs. State of Maharashtra and others,
AIR 2012 SC 360.
3. The facts of the case which are imperative to be stated
are that the appellant was selected on the post of Deputy
Superintendent of Police by the M.P. Public Service Commission in
the year 1984. After verifying the character and completing all
necessary formalities, the appellant was appointed on the said post in
the year 1986.
4. The Tahsildar of Tahsil - Lateri, District Vidisha issued a
certificate on 27-8-1983 to the effect that the appellant was originally
a resident of Village, Lateri District Vidisha. On the basis of the said
certificate, a caste certificate dated 03-01-1984 was issued stating
that the appellant belongs to "Meena" community which falls under
the Scheduled Tribe category. However, by notification dated 8-01-
2003 "Meena" community has been deleted from the list of
Scheduled Tribe category.
5. A complaint was lodged on 19-5-2009 before the
Inspector General of Police (Vigilance) alleging that the appellant
does not fall under Scheduled Tribe category, but he managed to get
the appointment defrauding that he was a permanent resident of
Village, Chachoda District Guna. The Commissioner, Department of
Tribal Welfare, then sent a letter on 04-02-2010 calling a report from
the Superintendent of Police, Vidisha in respect of the complaint
made, but the report was not sent. Several reminders were sent to the
Superintendent of Police. Thereafter, finally he submitted his report
on 25-6-2010. Statements of various persons of Tahsil Lateri were
recorded and ultimately on the basis of the same, it was recorded that
the appellant does not belong to "Meena" community residing in the
Village - Lateri, District Vidisha, and the certificate issued in favour
of the appellant of "Meena" community is false and illegal.
Thereafter, a report was called from the Collector, Guna as well as
Superintendent of Police, Vidisha.
6. A notice was issued to the appellant on 5-6-2015 asking
him to submit his explanation and to remain present before the
respondent No.1 on 17-6-2015. The appellant submitted an
application on 16-6-2015 through counsel as the appellant was
undergoing a training at Hyderabad with effect from 4-5-2015 to 15-
6-2015. Though the appellant remained absent on 17-6-2015 but his
counsel submitted an application 16-6-2015 requiring copies of
certain documents i.e. the complaint made against the appellant and
other documents relating to the said complaint, so that he would be in
a position to submit his written/oral statement, but he has not filed
any document to substantiate his defence.
7. On 17-6-2015 the representative of the appellant was
apprised about the facts and also supplied a copy of inquiry report
and was further asked that whatever documents he needed, could be
obtained under the Right to Information Act. It was further informed
that if on the next date he would remain absent, an ex parte order
would be passed. A letter was issued on 6-11-2015 apprising the
appellant to appear before the Committee on 16-11-2015, but he
remained absent on the said date. Therefore, the authorities have
taken a decision on the basis of the material available on record and
passed the impugned order.
8. Assailing the order passed by the High Power Committee
the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant raised a
singular contention that the order passed by the High Power
Committee is in violation of the principles of natural justice, as the
appellant was not served upon the notice dated 6-11-2015 and the
learned Single Judge has drawn a presumption that the appellant has
been served with the notice.
9. On 20-7-2020 this Court noted para 14 of the order
passed by the learned Single Judge, wherein it was recorded that the
notice dated 06-11-2015 got served upon the appellant through the
Inspector General of Police (Vigilance), CID. The said fact was
controverted by the learned senior counsel for the appellant and this
Court directed the learned Additional Advocate General to produce
the original record from the Office of the Inspector General of Police
(Vigilance), CID relating to service of notice dated 06-11-2015,
which was received from the office of the respondent No.1, to the
appellant.
10. The learned counsel for the State has filed a copy of the
order-sheets of the High Power Committee before this Court along
with an I.A. No.6403/2020 for taking the report dated 29-8-2020 and
the order-sheets on record.
11. In view of the aforesaid factual position, we are not
deciding the case on merit qua other issued raised by the learned
counsel for the appellant, except to examine as to whether the
appellant was served upon the notice dated 6-11-2015.
12. Though the respondents in their return submitted that the
show cause notice, for the first time, was issued on 4-5-2011 to the
appellant and the copy of the report of the Superintendent of Police
was also supplied to him. It was communicated to the appellant on
26-5-2011 and thereafter the appellant submitted his reply on 14-10-
2011. The appellant sent a letter to the respondent No.1 requesting to
keep the issue pending, as relating to the issue whether "Meena"
community comes under the Scheduled Tribe category, a petition was
pending before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court by order
dated 21-6-2011 has directed that the enquiry may go on, but no final
order be passed without permission of the Court. However, the
Supreme Court vide order dated 8-10-2015 dismissed the civil
appeal. Thereafter, the respondents proceeded in the matter of
enquiry.
13. According to the respondents the notice dated 6-11-2015
was got served upon the appellant through the Office of the Inspector
General of Police (Vigilance), CID and that got served upon the said
authority where the appellant was also posted on 13-11-2015.
14. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the
parties and bestowed our anxious consideration on the arguments
advanced. From a perusal of the record/order-sheet dated 6-11-2015
it transpires that the appellant was required to appear in the meeting
dated 16-11-2015 and the notice in that behalf was issued. Thereafter,
it is mentioned "Fax/Speed Post", but no document has been filed to
show copy of the Fax/Speed Post with any acknowledgement or
receipt thereto of the appellant. On 16-11-2015 a precise was
produced before the Committee and it is noted that despite number of
opportunities, the appellant was not present.
15. Thus, it is luminescent that neither the date was fixed in
the presence of the appellant nor his representative and there is no
acknowledgement of receipt of the notice, which was directed to be
issued on 06-11-2015. Thus, the appellant has not been served with
the notice, dated 06-11-2015 nor he has served upon any notice about
the date of the meeting of the Committee. The proceedings before
the Committee remained pending, because of the order passed by the
Supreme Court directing that enquiry may go on, but no final order
be passed without permission of the Court. When the proceeding
recommenced as per order of the Supreme Court, from the record it
is vivid that no notice has been served upon the appellant/petitioner
and therefore, the proceeding from the aforesaid stage, is in violation
of the principles of natural justice, as the appellant has not been
afforded opportunity of hearing by the respondents before passing the
impugned order.
16. For the premised reasons, the order passed by the learned
Single Judge is set aside and the matter is remanded to the High
Power Committee to take a decision afresh in the matter, after
affording opportunity of being heard to the appellant/petitioner. As a
logical corollary, the impugned order passed by the High Power
Committee also stands quashed. The enquiry proceeding shall
commence from the stage it was left, before recommencing the
proceedings after the judgment was delivered by the Supreme Court.
The High Power Committee shall conclude the proceedings within a
period of three months from the date of communication of the order
passed today.
17. With the aforesaid observation and directions, the writ
appeal succeeds and stands disposed of. There shall be no order as
to costs.
(Mohammad Rafiq) (Vijay Kumar Shukla)
Chief Justice Judge
ac.
Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR CHATURVEDI
Date: 2021.08.06 11:35:28 +05'30'
