Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pawan Rao Kamble vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 December, 2023
Author: Sanjay Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Dwivedi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY DWIVEDI
ON THE 6TH OF DECEMBER, 2023
WRIT PETITION NO.9311/2020
BETWEEN:-
PAWAN RAO KAMBLE S/O LATE SHRI K.R.
KAMBLE, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCCUPATION
POLICE SERVICE, R/O 1/19, SADAR BAZAAR,
DISTRICT SAGAR (M.P.)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI RAHUL DESHMUKH - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
HOME DEPARTMENT, MANTRALAYA,
VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL (M.P.)
2. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SAGAR
(M.P.)
3. STATION HOUSE OFICER, CANTT POLICE
STATION SAGAR (M.P.)
4. SAURABH CHOUKSEY, R/O. 2/25, SADAR
BAZAAR, DISTRICT SAGAR (M.P.)
5. ANIL CHOUKSEY, R/O. 2/25, SADAR
BAZAAR, DISTRICT SAGAR (M.P.)
6. SWAPNIL CHOUKSEY, R/O. 2/25, SADAR
BAZAAR, DISTRICT SAGAR (M.P.)
.....RESPONDENTS
(NO.1 TO 3 BY SHRI TAPAN BATHRE - PANEL LAWYER)
(NO.4 TO 6 BY SHRI ARVIND PATEL - ADVOCATE)
2
................................................................................................................................................
Reserved on: 03.10.2023
Pronounced on: 06.12.2023
This petition having been heard and reserved for orders, coming on
for pronouncement this day, the Court pronounced the following:
ORDER
The instant petition was heard finally with the concurrence
of learned counsel for the parties and today the order is being
pronounced.
2. This petition has been filed under Section 226 of the
Constitution of India, whereby the petitioner is seeking to quash the
impugned show notice dated 22.04.2020 (Annexure-P/9) and for a
direction to respondents-authorities not to take any coercive action on
the basis of frivolous complaint of private respondents. By the
impugned notice issued by the Superintendent of Police, Sagar raising
clouds over the genuineness of petitioner's caste certificate and getting
employment on that basis and asking the petitioner to appear before the
said authority along with all relevant documents to prove the veracity of
caste certificate.
3. As per the facts of the case, the petitioner vide letter dated
07.02.2014 (Annexure-P/1) had informed the Superintendent of Police
that the private respondents are bent upon to unnecessarily harass him
and they have threatened to ensnare in a false case so that petitioner
would lose his employment. It was also informed that there was civil
dispute pending between them and to settle the dispute, they are in habit
of making false complaints against the petitioner. On 13.08.2015, the
private respondents have made fallacious complaint against the
petitioner saying that he had managed to obtain fake caste certificate of
Scheduled Tribe, whereas he does not belong to said community and
therefore enquiry is indispensable. In furtherance to the said complaint,
a notice was issued to the petitioner by Deputy Superintendent of Police
(Rail) Katni. Thereafter, an enquiry report was also submitted by the
Deputy Superintendent of Police (Rail) Katni to the Superintendent of
Police (Rail) Jabalpur in which it is mentioned that during the course of
enquiry, the petitioner filed several documents to substantiate that false
complaints were being made by private respondents against him only
because there is some civil dispute pending between them and as such it
was found that the complaint was fictitious and it was also observed that
the petitioner's caste certificate was not forged one. Once enquiry has
been conducted and report has been submitted with a clear finding of the
Enquiry Officer that the respondents have made false complaint and also
that the petitioner belongs to Harijan community, nothing more is
required, however, second show cause notice has been issued on
22.04.2020 (Annexure-P/9) on the same premise.
4. Shri Rahul Deshmukh, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner sanguinely submitted that attempt of the private respondents
by making false complaint to victimize the petitioner should not be
entertained anyway by exposing him to face the enquiry time and again.
Raising clouds of suspicion over the competency of the authority,
learned counsel submitted that even otherwise enquiry by the
Superintendent of Police cannot be initiated to ascertain the correctness
of the caste certificate of the petitioner because the Superintendent of
Police is not the competent authority. The validity of the caste
certificate, according to Shri Deshmukh, can be ascertained only by the
competent authority i.e. State Level Caste Scrutiny Committee, as has
been set at rest by the Supreme Court in re Kumari Madhuri Patil &
Anr. v. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development & Ors. (1994) 6
SCC 241.
5. Both the learned counsel appearing for the respondents
opposed the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner in unison and
submitted that no interference is warranted at this stage inasmuch as it is
mere a show cause notice and supposedly the petitioner should face the
enquiry. The reply of the respondents-State is almost reticent except
stating that if a complaint is made, the enquiry can very well be initiated
by the authorities. Indeed, there is admission in the reply that caste
certificate can be cancelled by the competent authority i.e. State Level
Caste Scrutiny Committee only. Lastly, it is averred in the reply that the
show cause notice is not de hors the law and at best, the petitioner
should participate in the enquiry to stand upon the test of time.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and
meticulously perused the documents made available on record.
7. On ransacking the record, I find that the authority has issued
the show cause notice dated 22.04.2020 without discerning the aspect
that enquiry with regard to genuineness of petitioner's caste certificate
had already been conducted and report thereof had already been mulled
over by the authorities. Such a report is made part of the record, in
which, earlier Enquiry Officer categorically threw light over the
proclivity of private respondents of targeting the petitioner by making
frivolous lamentations to anyhow cast a slur upon him so that he may
lose his employment. The foundation of reaching such a conclusion is
engrafted in the said report, which bespeaks that there is civil dispute
pending between the petitioner and private respondents. Ergo, it is
insignificant to compel the petitioner to reappear in the enquiry for akin
purpose, that too on the anvil of complaint made by the private
respondents, who are proven of keeping personal antipathies against the
petitioner. Such practice of misusing the law just to settle personal score
cannot be green-signaled. Indeed, various documents are available on
record to justify the petitioner's submission that civil dispute is pending
before the competent authority in which the private respondents are
party. In a statement recorded before the trial Court, respondent No.5
has admitted that the petitioner belongs to Harijan community and
judgment has been passed in that criminal case by the trial Court in
which the petitioner was one of the accused and order of acquittal was
passed in favour of the petitioner. On the one hand, private respondents
are stating before the Court about the particular caste of the petitioner
and on the other hand, they made complaint in regard to petitioner's
caste before the authorities. Such duality has no place in law and is
highly deprecated.
8. In view of the above discourse, the petition is allowed. The
impugned notice dated 22.04.2020 (Annexure-P/9) is hereby set aside. It
is directed that the respondents-authorities shall not proceed on the
complaint made by the private respondents as they have personal grudge
with the petitioner. However, the authority, if so desire and having any
doubt about the caste certificate, may proceed further but through the
competent authority i.e. State Level Caste Scrutiny Committee.
(SANJAY DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
sudesh
SUDESH KUMAR SHUKLA
2023.12.06 17:47:15
+05'30'
