Orissa High Court
Paradip Port Authority vs Pramod Kumar Bindhani And Others on 6 April, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.A. No. 1120 of 2022
Paradip Port Authority, Jagatsinghpur .... Appellant
Mr. Prasanna Kumar Nanda, Advocate
-versus-
Pramod Kumar Bindhani and others .... Respondents
Ms. Pami Rath, Advocate for Respondent No.1
Mr. M.K. Khuntia, A.G.A. for State
CORAM:
THE CHIEF JUSTICE
JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
ORDER
Order No. 06.04.2023
02. 1. Paradip Port Trust (PPT) has in this writ appeal challenged an
order dated 20th May, 2022 passed by the learned Single Judge
disposing of W.P.(C) No.9312 of 2022 filed by Respondent No.1,
Pramod Kumar Bindhani.
2. The background to the present appeal is that Respondent No.1
was appointed as an Assistant Engineer (Civil) in PPT on 14th
September, 1991 inter alia on the basis of his producing a caste
certificate showing him as belonging to the Scheduled Tribe (ST)
category. Subsequently, he was promoted as Executive Engineer
(Civil) on 20th March, 2002 in terms of the reserve post meant for
ST category. In terms of the said certificate, he belonged to the
'Kollahars' tribe.
3. It appears that Respondent No.1 preferred a complaint under the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act against certain persons. As part of those proceedings, the
Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP), Jagatsinghpur referred the
certificates submitted by Respondent No.1 and the person against
whom the complaint was preferred for verification to the Revenue
Authorities. It appears that some enquiry was conducted in that
regard which details need not be set out in the present order.
4. Separately, two private persons appeared to have approached the
National Commission for the Scheduled Tribe (NCST), New Delhi
making a complaint against Respondent No.1 questioning the
genuineness of the certificate which showed him to be belonging to
the ST. A letter was sent by the NCST to the PPT on the basis of
which PPT wrote a letter on 23rd April, 2021 to the District
Magistrate, Mayurbhanj asking him to enquire into the matter and
send a report. The ADM, Mayurbhanj appears to have submitted a
report on 21st October, 2021 stating inter alia that the internal
enquiry revealed that the caste of the father of Respondent No.1
was mentioned as 'Kamara' which belongs to the SEBC/OBC
category.
5. On this basis, a Show Cause Notice (SCN) was issued to
Respondent No.1 by PPT on 29th October, 2021 which was
challenged by him in W.P.(C) No.34695 of 2021 in this Court. In
the said writ petition, one of the contentions raised by Respondent
No.1 was that the enquiries and the reports had come about without
issuing any notice to Respondent No.1 and without his participation
and, therefore, could not form the basis of any further action against
him. It was contended that the only authority authorized to enquire
into the genuineness of such certificate was the State Level Scrutiny
Committee (SLSC).
6. Accepting that plea, an order was passed on 28th March, 2022
whereby the learned Single Judge noted that PPT after receiving the
complaint against Respondent No.1 should have forwarded to the
SLSC for an enquiry instead of straightaway issuing an SCN to
him. A direction was issued that no coercive action would be taken
against Respondent No.1 "without final adjudication" by the SLSC.
7. Respondent No.1 filed the second writ petition being W.P.(C)
No.9312 2022 stating that the SLSC would have to go by the
provisions of the Orissa Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and
Backward Classes (Regulation of issuance and verification of Caste
Certificates) Act, 2012 ('the 2012 Act') as well as the judgment of
the Supreme Court in Madhuri Patil v. Additional Commissioner
Tribal Development (1994) 4 SCC 241. The contention was that the
materials already gathered should not form the basis of the enquiry
by the SLSC since those materials were gathered behind the back of
Respondent No.1 without following the provisions of the 2012 Act
and the principles laid down in Madhuri Patil v. Additional
Commissioner Tribal Development (supra).
8. Disposing of the second writ petition, the impugned order passed
by the learned Single Judge on 20th May, 2022 directing that PPT
will forward the complaint to the SLSC and on receipt of the
complaint, the SLSC will examine it and finally adjudicate the issue
in accordance with law by providing an opportunity of hearing to
the affected parties including Respondent No.1 "within a period of
three months from the date of production of certified copy of this
order". PPT was asked not to take coercive action against
Respondent No.1 "till the matter is finally adjudicated by the
SLSC". The parties were directed to cooperate in early conclusion
of the proceedings by the SLSC.
9. Mr. Prasanna Kumar Nanda, learned counsel appearing for the
Appellant-PPT submitted that since the PPT had already forwarded
a complaint on 30th December, 2021 to the Joint Director, SSD,
Office of the Revenue Divisional Commissioner for verification of
the genuineness of the certificate produced by Respondent No.1, it
should not be asked again to forward a complaint to the SLSC as
that would mean that the entire process of enquiry would have to
start afresh.
10. When pointedly asked by the Court, what real prejudice would
be caused to the PPT if it were to comply with the impugned order
of the learned Single Judge, Mr. Nanda replied that the enquiry may
take an indefinitely long time and, therefore, delay the proceedings.
11. The Court finds that the impugned order has made the entire
proceedings time-bound. The learned Single Judge appears to be
conscious of the fact that the enquiry has to be concluded within a
short time frame and has therefore, specifically directed that within
three months of the receipt of the complaint from PPT, the SLSC
will conclude its proceedings.
12. Mr. Nanda produced a letter dated 3rd April, 2023 from the Joint
Director, SSD to the Director of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes Research and Training Institute (SCSTRTI)
informing him of the sitting of the SLSC on 13th April, 2023 and
requiring him to attend the meeting. It is obvious that if the PPT
were to forward its complaint to the SLSC as directed by the
learned Single Judge, it would have to be examined along with the
aforementioned pending proceedings concerning Respondent No.1
which has already been taken up by the SLSC. Even on that score,
therefore, no prejudice can be said to be caused to the PPT.
13. Since the directions issued by the learned Single Judge are to be
implemented in a time-bound manner, the Court sees no ground to
further clarify the said order.
14. No grounds have been made out for interference with the
impugned order of the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the writ
appeal is dismissed.
(Dr. S. Muralidhar)
Chief Justice
(G. Satapathy)
Judge
S. Behera
