Bharat Singh Batham vs Life Insurance Corporation Of ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 735 MP

     1 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                Writ Petition No.14571/2020
 Bharat Singh Batham Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India
                         and others

Gwalior, Dated:16/03/2021
                 Through Video Conferencing

         Shri Girish Prakash Kekre, Counsel for the Petitioner.

         Shri K.N. Gupta, Senior Advocate with Shri Rinku Shakya,

Counsel for the respondents.

With the consent of the parties, heard Finally.

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has

been filed against notice dated 4-9-2020 issued by respondent no.1,

by which the petitioner has been called upon to show cause as to why

his appointment be not declared as void ab-initio and why the

proposed penalty of dismissal from service be not imposed and why

gratuity and pensionary benefits should not be forfeited since, the

petitioner has obtained his appointment on the basis of forged caste

certificate which amounts to offence involving moral turpitude.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was issued a

caste certificate to the effect that the petitioner belongs to Manjhi

Caste and accordingly, the petitioner was appointed on 13-3-1981

against the post reserved for Scheduled Tribe category and at present

he is working on the post of Assistant Administrative Officer under

the respondent no.1.

3. It is alleged that the respondents started disciplinary enquiry

against the petitioner on the charges that the caste certificate 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.14571/2020 Bharat Singh Batham Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and others

submitted by the petitioner at the time of appointment in the year

1981 is forged. The disciplinary enquiry was initiated after 37 years

of service of the petitioner and the petitioner has only 3 months of

service remaining for his retirement. The charges leveled against the

petitioner were denied. Thereafter, the enquiry officer, submitted his

enquiry report dated 26-6-2020, thereby exonerating the petitioner

from the charges and it was held that the charge leveled against the

petitioner is not proved.

4. However, the respondent no.1 did not accept the enquiry

report, and issued the impugned notice dated 4-9-2020, thereby

requiring the petitioner to show cause as to why the penalty of

dismissal from service be not imposed and why his gratuity and

pensionary benefits be not forfeited.

5. It is the case of the petitioner that the State Govt. has issued a

circular dated 27-7-2017, by which it has been clarified that in the

year 1996, there was no provision for making application for

issuance of Caste Certificate and there was no format of the same.

Even the record was not maintained in the office of the issuing

authority. It was further mentioned that once, the caste certificate is

issued, then it would be valid for all departments, and the same

cannot be said to be a forged document, merely because it does not

contain the endorsement of the office of Collector.

3 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.14571/2020 Bharat Singh Batham Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and others

6. By another circular dated 1-1-2018, it was clarified that the

persons who belong to Dhimar, Kewat, Kahar, Bhoi, Mallah etc and

are having the Caste Certificate of Manjhi and have got appointment

on the basis of said Caste Certificate, prior to 11-11-2005, shall be

entitled to enjoy the benefits of the Caste Certificate. Circular dated

21-3-2013 has also been issued, mentioning thereby that the people

who have already derived benefit of Manjhi Caste Certificate, status

quo in respect of the same be maintained.

7. It is submitted that High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee has

been constituted in the light of the judgment passed by the Supreme

Court in the case of Madhuri Patil Vs. Add. Commissioner,

reported in AIR 1995 SC 94, and therefore, the validity of a Caste

Certificate can only be looked into by the High Power Caste Scrutiny

Committee and the matter relating to caste certificate of the petitioner

is already pending before the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee,

therefore, the action of the respondent no.1 in issuing a show cause

notice to the petitioner is bad in law.

8. Per contra, the respondents have filed their return. It is their

case that in pursuance of advertisement for the post of Peon, the

petitioner submitted his application on 6-10-1980 along with a Caste

Certificate. Since, the said Caste Certificate was not in proper format, 4THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.14571/2020 Bharat Singh Batham Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and others

therefore, the format of Caste Certificate was sent by the respondents

to the petitioner, who thereafter, submitted his Caste Certificate in the

proper format on 26-11-1980 and accordingly, the petitioner was

called for interview along with all his documents including the Caste

Certificate. The Petitioner appeared in the interview and submitted

his Caste Certificate which was issued by P.V. Namjoshi, A.C.J.M.,

Gwalior. As the petitioner was declared successful in the interview,

therefore, he was given appointment on the post of Peon by order

dated 13-3-1981.

9. One complaint in the letter head of all India SC/ST and

Buddhist, LIC Employees Welfare Association, Central Zone, Unit

Bhopal was made to A.D.G.P. (Complaint), Police Headquarter,

alleging interalia that various persons are serving in the department

on the basis of forged caste certificates.

10. Accordingly, the Divisional Office of respondent no.1

forwarded the complaint to the respondent no.2 by its letter dated 27-

10-2015. Shri Manoj Prabhakar was appointed by the Senior

Divisional Office to look into the allegations and to take up further

proceedings in the matter. Accordingly, Shri Manoj Prabhakar issued

letter dated 30-11-2015, directing him to produce his Caste

Certificate.

11. Similarly, on 27-1-2016, Manager (P&IR), Gwalior Division, 5THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.14571/2020 Bharat Singh Batham Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and others

wrote a letter to the District and Sessions Judge, Gwalior, thereby

requesting him to submit the information regarding the caste

certificate issued by Shri P.V. Namjoshi, the then Addl. C.J.M.,

Gwalior. The office of District and Sessions Judge, Gwalior by its

letter dated 5-2-2016 expressed its inability to provide requisite

information for want of record as there was no entry in the office

record.

12. Accordingly, Manoj Prabhakar submitted his report to the

respondent no.2 on 24-2-2016, indicating that there is no proof, that

Shri P.V. Namjoshi, the then Addl. C.J.M., Gwalior, had ever issued

any Caste Certificate in favour of the petitioner. Thereafter, another

letter was written by Manoj Prabhakar to S.D.O., Gwalior, who in his

turn informed that the Caste Certificate was issued by Shri P.V.

Namjoshi, the then Addl. C.J.M., Gwalior which was countersigned

by the then Executive Magistrate.

13. Thereafter, the Manager (P&IR) requested the office of District

and Sessions Judge, Gwalior to verify the Caste Certificate which

was purportedly issued by Shri P.V. Namjoshi, the then A.C.J.M. with

his official seal. The office of District and Sessions Judge, Gwalior in

its turn by letter dated 9-5-2016, informed that there is no proof of

issuance of any Caste Certificate by the then Addl. C.J.M., therefore,

it was observed that it is not possible to say that in what capacity, the 6THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.14571/2020 Bharat Singh Batham Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and others

caste certificate was issued.

14. Thereafter, the office of Tahsildar by its reply dated 31-8-1016,

also denied the issuance of caste certificate in favour of the

petitioner. Accordingly, it was decided to give one more opportunity

to the petitioner to submit his caste certificate and accordingly, by

letter dated 28-3-2018, the petitioner was called upon to submit his

caste certificate, failing which action as per circular dated 3-1-2014

would be taken.

15. The petitioner in reply submitted that 3 months more time may

be granted for submitting the caste certificate, and accordingly, three

months additional time was granted by letter dated 18-9-2018 with a

specific direction to produce the caste certificate by 25-9-2018.

Thereafter, a reply was submitted by the Petitioner, alleging that he

has already submitted his caste certificate at the time of appointment,

which is a valid document and requested not to take action any

further. The copy of reply dated 24-9-2018 has been placed on record

as Annexure R/19.

16. Accordingly, the Zonal Office i.e., competent authority decided

to issue a charge sheet and accordingly, charge sheet dated 5-10-2019

was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner filed his reply denying the

allegations.

17. The enquiry officer was appointed who after recording 7THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.14571/2020 Bharat Singh Batham Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and others

evidence, submitted his enquiry report with a finding, that the

charges leveled against the petitioner are not proved. The said

enquiry report dated 26-6-2020 was not accepted by the Disciplinary

Authority and accordingly the impugned show cause notice dated 4-

9-2020 has been issued calling upon the petitioner to explain as to

why his appointment be not declared as void ab-initio and why a

penalty of dismissal be not imposed and why his gratuity and other

pensionary benefits be not forfeited.

18. It is submitted that it is a case of forged Caste Certificate. It is

not the case of the respondents, that the Caste Certificate was

wrongly issued in favour of the petitioner. It is submitted that under

the facts and circumstances of the case, the matter is not required to

be looked into by the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee, and the

respondents are well within their powers to initiate departmental

enquiry and to inflict penalty.

19. Challenging the impugned show cause notice dated 4-9-2020,

it is submitted by the Counsel for the petitioner, that since, Caste

Certificate was issued by competent authority, therefore, only the

High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee has jurisdiction to adjudicate

the authenticity of the caste certificate and it cannot be done by the

respondents by holding a departmental enquiry.

20. Per contra, it is submitted by the Counsel for the respondents, 8THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.14571/2020 Bharat Singh Batham Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and others

that since, no Caste Certificate was ever issued in favour of the

petitioner, and the petitioner had obtained appointment on the basis

of forged caste certificate, therefore, the respondents are well within

their rights to conduct a departmental enquiry.

21. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

22. It is not out of place to mention here, that this Court by order

dated 1-10-2020, had directed that no final order shall be passed. It

appears that accordingly, the petitioner has retired from service w.e.f.

31-12-2020.

23. The moot question for determination in the present case is that

whether the caste certificate submitted by the petitioner at the time of

his appointment was forged caste certificate or it was issued by

competent authority?

24. The petitioner has filed a copy of the caste certificate

(Annexure P/3), which was submitted by him along with his

application for appointment on the post of Peon which reads as

under:

tkfr izek.k i=

izekf.kr fd;k tkrk gS fd Hkjr flag ckFke iq= Jh ckcwyky ckFke fuoklh d`".k iqjh eqjkj ds gksdj eka>h tkfr ds lnL; gS tks e?; izns'k dh vuqlwfpr tutkfr es lfEefyr gSA v?;{k Hkkjrh; d';i lekt fVIi.kh%& la'kks/ku vf/kfu;e dzekad 108 lu~ 1976 dh /kkjk 2 }kjk izFke 9THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.14571/2020 Bharat Singh Batham Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and others

vuqlwph dk la'kks/ku fd;k x;k ,oa /kkjk 4 }kjk f}rh; vuqlp w h dk la'kks/ku fd;k x;kA iwoZ es vuqlfw pr tkfr dh lwph ftyksa ds vuqlkj Fkh ftles ,d gh O;fDr ,d ftys es vuqlfw pr tkfr dk ,oa iMkslh ftys es vuqlwfpr tkfr dk ugh vc bl la'kks/ku ls mDr fof/k es deh iwfrZ dh xbZ gSA Hkkjr ds jkti= ¼vlk/kkj.k½ Hkkx nks [kaM ,d fnukad 20 flrEcj 1976 ds i`"B 1371-1396 ij izdkf'kr ;g la'kks/ku dsanz 'kklu }kjk jktdh; xtV es vf/klwpuk }kjk fu;r rkjh[k dks ykxw fd;k x;k la'kks/ku vf/kfu;e ij jk"V~ifr dh Lohd`fr fnukad 18 flracj 1976 dks izkIr gqbZ gSA

vuqfoHkkxh; vf/kdkjh Xokfy;j

25. It is the case of the petitioner, that although the Caste

Certificate was issued by President, Bhartiya Kashyap Samaj, but it

was countersigned by the S.D.O., Gwalior.

26. It is the case of the respondents, that since, the above

mentioned caste certificate was not in accordance with the format,

therefore, the petitioner was directed to submit the caste certificate in

the proper format, and accordingly, the following Caste Certificate

(Annexure R/4) was submitted by the petitioner :

Form of Certificate to be produced by a candidate belonging to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe in support of his claim.

Form of Caste Certificate This is to certify that Shri Bharat Singh son of Baboolal, of town Krishnapuri in District Morar (Gwl) of the State Madhya Pradesh belongs to the Manjhi Tribe which is recognised as a Scheduled Tribe under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. (Lists) Modification Order, 1956, read with the Bombay Reorganisation Act, 1960 and the Punjab Reorganization Act, 1966 the Constitution (Jammu & Kashmir) Scheduled Castes Order, 1956 the Constitution (Andaman and Nicobar Islands) Scheduled Tribes Order, 1959.

The Constitution (Dadra and Nagar Haveli) Scheduled Castes Order,

The Constitution (Pondicherry) Scheduled Castes Order, 1964 10THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.14571/2020 Bharat Singh Batham Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and others

The Constitution (Scheduled Tribes Utter Pradesh) Order, 1967 The Constitution (Goa, Daman and Diu) Scheduled Castes Order,

The Constitution (Nagaland) Scheduled Tribes Order, 1970.

2. Shri Bharat Singh S/o Baboolal and his family ordinarily resides in town Krishnapuri, Morar Gwl District Gwalior (M.P.) of the State Madhya Pradesh

Countersigned by me Signature...Illegible..dated 22-1-81.....

22-1-1981                          Designation with seal P.V. Namjoshi
                                   of the office Add. C.J.M., Gwalior

Place                              State

27. Thus, it is clear from the above mentioned Caste Certificate

submitted by the petitioner, the said Caste Certificate was issued by

Shri P.V. Namjoshi, the then C.J.M., Gwalior and was countersigned

by S.D.O., Gwalior.

28. The Regional Manager (P&IR) by his letter dated 20-11-2020,

had sought opinion of Shri P.V. Namjoshi with regard to the fact as to

whether he had issued the Caste Certificate or not, then in reply it

was stated by Shri P.V. Namjoshi, that prima facie, the said certificate

does not bear his signatures. Further, it was mentioned by Shri P.V.

Namjoshi, that he always write the date in Hindi, accordingly, the so-

called certificate is a suspicious document.

29. The so-called caste certificate was issued on 22-1-1981 by Shri

P.V. Namjoshi, the then Addl. C.J.M., Gwalior. The petitioner himself

has filed a copy of circular dated 27-7-2017 in which the details of 11THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.14571/2020 Bharat Singh Batham Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and others

the authorities who were competent to issue caste certificates have

been given. The relevant portion of circular dated 27-7-2017 reads as

under :

2- ik'oZ es vafdr lanHkksZ es lkekU; iz'kklu foHkkx ds Kkiu fnukad 8-1- 1962 }kjk jktif=r vf/kdkjh] rglhynkj ;k QkjsLV jstj }kjk tkjh tkfr izek.k i= Lohdkj djus ds funsZ'k fn;s x;s FksA ifji= fnukad 10-4-1975 ds }kjk ekuuh; ea=hx.kksa }kjk fn;k x;k tkfr izek.k i= Hkh Lohdkj fd;s tkus ds funsZ'k tkjh fd;s x;s FksA------

30. Thus, from the above mentioned circular dated 27-7-2017, it is

clear that only Gazetted Officer, Tahsildar or Forest Rangers were

competent to issue Caste Certificate, and thereafter, the Ministers

were also authorized to issue caste certificate. However, in the

present case, Shri P.V. Namjoshi has disowned the caste certificate

which was relied upon by the petitioner at the time of his

appointment. Further, Shri P.V. Namjoshi was the then Addl. Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Gwalior, and the Counsel for the petitioner has

not placed any document on record to suggest that judicial officers

were also competent to issue caste certificate. Issuance of caste

certificate is purely an executive function and has nothing to do with

the judicial functions of the Judicial Officers. So far as the Judicial

Officer is concerned, the counsel for the petitioner has not placed any

document on record to show that any executive function was

assigned to them by the State Government. Although a Judicial 12THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.14571/2020 Bharat Singh Batham Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and others

Officer is also a Gazetted Officer, but in absence of any jurisdiction

to perform any executive work, he is expected to perform his judicial

work only. A Judicial Officer after recording the evidence, can

adjudicate the disputed questions of facts, but in absence of any

executive powers, he cannot issue a certificate to the effect that the

aspirant belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe or any other

reserved category. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the

considered opinion that even otherwise, in absence of any

authorization by the State Government to perform any executive

work, the caste certificate could not have been issued by the then

Addl. CJM. It is submitted by Shri Girish Kekre, Counsel for the

petitioner, that in fact Shri P.V. Namjoshi had never issued any Caste

Certificate, but he had merely countersigned the same in the light of

the caste certificate which was initially submitted by the petitioner,

and has been filed as Annexure P/3 (the said caste certificate has

already been reproduced in para 24 of this Judgment).

31. This submission made by the Counsel for the petitioner is

misconceived and is hereby rejected. It is not the case of the

petitioner, that Shri P.V. Namjoshi, the then Addl. C.J.M., Gwalior,

had attested the Caste Certificate. The petitioner has failed to prove

that the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate was competent to issue or

countersign any caste certificate. Further, it is incorrect to suggest 13THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.14571/2020 Bharat Singh Batham Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and others

that the caste certificate was countersigned by Shri P.V. Namjoshi.

The so-called signatures of P.V. Namjoshi are as an authority issuing

caste certificate with name and seal of the authority. Further, there is

one more signature on the right side of the caste certificate which

appears to be countersignature. It is really beyond understanding that

how the caste certificate can be issued by countersignature of

S.D.O.?

32. Further, Shri P.V. Namjoshi, has also disowned his signatures

on caste certificate dated 22-1-1981. Thus, it is held that not only the

Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate had no authority to issue the Caste

Certificate, but even Shri P.V. Namjoshi has disowned his signatures

on the caste certificate dated 22-1-1981. Accordingly it is held that

the caste certificate dated 22-1-1981 which was submitted by the

petitioner at the time of his appointment was a forged document.

33. So far as the Caste Certificate (Annexure P/3) which was

submitted by the petitioner along with his application for his

appointment on the post of Peon is concerned, it is not out of place to

mention here that the said so-called Caste Certificate was purportedly

issued by the President, Bhartiya Kashyap Samaj, Gwalior. The

petitioner has already filed the circular dated 27-7-2017 and in the

light of said circular, it is clear that President, Bhartiya Kashyap

Samaj, Gwalior had no authority whatsoever to issue such a caste 14THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.14571/2020 Bharat Singh Batham Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and others

certificate. It is submitted by the Counsel for the petitioner, that

since, the said caste certificate was countersigned by the S.D.O.,

Gwalior, therefore, it was a genuine caste certificate.

34. Considered the submissions made by the Counsel for the

petitioner.

35. Countersignature means to add one's signature to a document

already signed by another, for authentication or confirmation, or to

sign in response to another sign. Order 28 Rule 1 (3) CPC provides,

that Countersignature shall be sufficient proof that the document was

duly executed. Thus, it is clear that countersignature means that the

person countersigning has authenticated that the document was duly

executed by the executor or the authority countersigning has signed

in response to another signature.

36. Thus, it is clear that the unless and until, it is proved that the

person who had executed/issued the Caste Certificate was competent

to execute the same, the countersignature by any other person would

not make the said Caste Certificate an authentic one. Further, even

the authority countersigning the Caste Certificate should be

competent to countersign the said Caste Certificate.

37. If the Caste Certificate (Annexure P/3) which was filed by the

petitioner along with his application for appointment is considered,

then it is clear that it was issued by President, Bhartiya Kashyap 15THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.14571/2020 Bharat Singh Batham Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and others

Samaj, Gwalior. It is not the case of the petitioner, that President,

Bhartiya Kashyap Samaj, Gwalior was competent to issue Caste

Certificate. Further, this document does not bear any date. The

Countersignature of this document by S.D.O., Gwalior would not

make this document genuine because it was never issued by S.D.O.,

Gwalior. Why, the petitioner did not obtain the Caste Certificate from

S.D.O., Gwalior or competent authority as mentioned in Circular

dated 27-7-2017? At the cost of repetition, it is once again clarified

that according to this circular, from 10-4-1975, only Gazetted Officer,

Tahsildar, Forest Ranger and Ministers were competent to issue Caste

Certificate. Since, the petitioner got appointment in the year 1981,

therefore, it is clear that the President, Bhartiya Kashyap Samaj,

Gwalior was not competent to issue any Caste Certificate.

38. Further, there is nothing on record to suggest the authenticity

of the Countersignature of so-called S.D.O., Gwalior.

39. Thus, it is clear that both the Caste Certificates, Annexure P/3

and Annexure R/4, were forged documents and were never issued by

any competent authority.

40. Now the question for determination is that whether even a

forged Caste Certificate is to be placed before High Power Caste

Scrutiny Committee or not?

16THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.14571/2020 Bharat Singh Batham Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and others

41. The Supreme Court in the case of Madhuri Patil (Supra) has

held 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 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 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 Directorate concerned.

17 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.14571/2020 Bharat Singh Batham Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and others

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 high- er 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 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 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, deity, rituals, customs, mode of marriage, death ceremonies, method of burial of dead bodies etc. by the castes or tribes or tribal 18 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.14571/2020 Bharat Singh Batham Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and others

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 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 educational institution concerned 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/Additional Secretary as Chairperson 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- à-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.

19 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.14571/2020 Bharat Singh Batham Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and others

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 20THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.14571/2020 Bharat Singh Batham Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and others

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 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 simultaneously, it should be communicated to the educational institution concerned 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 from further study or continue in office in a post.

42. From the plain reading of above judgment, it is clear that

whether a Caste Certificate is a false certificate or not is to be

scrutinized by the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee. There is a

difference between false Caste Certificate and forged Caste

Certificate. Forgery has been defined under Section 463 of I.P.C.

which reads as under :

463. Forgery.--Whoever makes any false documents or false electronic record or part of a document or electronic record, with intent to cause damage or injury, to the public or to any person, or to support any 21THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.14571/2020 Bharat Singh Batham Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and others

claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery.

43. Section 464 of I.P.C. reads as under :

464. Making a false document.--A person is said to make a false document or false electronic record-- First.--Who dishonestly or fraudulently--

(a) makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of a document;

(b) makes or transmits any electronic record or part of any electronic record;

(c) affixes any electronic signature on any electronic record;

(d) makes any mark denoting the execution of a document or the authenticity of the electronic signature, with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or part of a document, electronic record or electronic signature was made, signed, sealed, executed, transmitted or affixed by or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed, executed or affixed; or Secondly.--Who, without lawful authority, dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document or an electronic record in any material part thereof, after it has been made, executed or affixed with electronic signature either by himself or by any other person, whether such person be living or dead at the time of such alteration; or Thirdly.--Who dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, seal, execute or alter a document or an electronic record or to affix his electronic signature on any electronic record knowing that such person by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication cannot, or that by reason of deception practised upon him, 22THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.14571/2020 Bharat Singh Batham Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and others

he does not know the contents of the document or electronic record or the nature of the alteration.

44. Section 182 of I.P.C. reads as under :

182. False information, with intent to cause public servant to use his lawful power to the injury of another person.--Whoever gives to any public servant any information which he knows or believes to be false, intending thereby to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, such public servant--

(a) to do or omit anything which such public servant ought not to do or omit if the true state of facts respecting which such information is given were known by him, or

(b) to use the lawful power of such public servant to the injury or annoyance of any person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.

45. There is a difference between false certificate and forged

certificate. False certificate would mean, that by misrepresenting or

by giving false information to the competent authority, the aspirant

has obtained a certificate from a competent authority, but the same is

based on false evidence or information. Whereas the forged

certificate would necessarily mean, that it was never issued by any

competent authority, but it was created by the aspirant himself, with a

sole intention to use the same as a genuine certificate.

46. Thus, it is clear that where the caste certificate was never

issued by any competent authority, then there is no question of 23THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.14571/2020 Bharat Singh Batham Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and others

verification of the same. Only a caste certificate issued by a

competent authority is required to be verified by the High Power

Caste Scrutiny Committee. Thus, a forged caste certificate which was

never issued by any competent authority is not required to be placed

before the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee. Although the

petitioner has claimed in his writ petition, that the matter with regard

to the verification of his caste certificate is pending before the High

Power Caste Scrutiny Committee, but has not placed any document

in support of his contention. During the course of arguments, it was

submitted by Shri Kekre, that the complainant had approached the

High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee in the year 2015 and the

matter is pending before the Committee for the last more than 5

years, but in absence of any document in this regard, this Court

cannot rely upon a bald statement made by the petitioner in his writ

petition.

47. In view of the above mentioned findings that the caste

certificates relied upon by the petitioner are forged caste certificates

and were never issued by the competent authorities, this Court is of

the considered opinion, that the bar as contained in para 13.12 of

judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Madhuri Patil

(Supra) would not apply and the respondents are well within their

rights to proceed departmentally against the petitioner.

24 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.14571/2020 Bharat Singh Batham Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and others

48. It is the case of the petitioner, that he has retired from service

w.e.f. 31-12-2020.

49. This Court by interim order dated 1-10-2020, had restrained

the respondents from passing any final order in the matter,

accordingly, it is directed that merely because the petitioner has

retired from service during the pendency of this petition would not

have any effect on the departmental proceedings.

Accordingly, this petition is Dismissed with cost of Rs.

25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand Only) to be deposited by the

petitioner, in the Registry of this Court, within a period of 45 days

from today. In case if the cost is not deposited, then the petitioner

shall be liable to be prosecuted for Contempt of Court. Accordingly,

it is directed that if the petitioner fails to deposit the cost within the

stipulated period, then the Principal Registrar, shall register a suo

moto contempt proceedings against the petitioner.

(G.S. Ahluwalia) Judge Arun* ARUN KUMAR MISHRA 2021.03.19 17:54:12 +05'30'