P. C. Raikawar S/o Late Shri Daya Ram Aged About 64 Years Retired v. 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Housing And Environment, Mantralaya, Mahanadi
Case Details
1 SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.02.28 17:20:24 +0530 2025:CGHC:9568 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1453 of 2015 P. C. Raikawar S/o Late Shri Daya Ram Aged About 64 Years Retired Assistant Director, Town And Country Planning, Jagdalpur And R/o D-34, Bajaj Colony, Sector-2, New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Housing And Environment, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2. Director, The Directorate Of Town And Country Planning Indrawati Bhawan, Block-4, 3rd Floor, Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. Joint Director, Directorate Of Town And Country Planning Indrawati Bhawan, Block-4, 3rd Floor, Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4. Assistant Director, The Directorate Of Town And Country Planning, Indrawati Bhawan, Block-4, 3rd Floor, Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh] 5. The High Power Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Pandit Deen Dayal Upadhyay Nagar, Sector-4, Raipur Chhattisgarh, Through Its Commissioner/secretary., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 6. Divisional Joint Director, Treasury, Accounts And Pension Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) with WPC No. 434 of 2015
Legal Reasoning
P. C. Raikawar S/o Late Shri Daya Ram Aged About 64 Years Retired 2 Assistant Director, Town And Country Plannning, Jagdalpur And R/o D 34, Bajaj Colony, Secotr -2, New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Housing And Enviornment, Mantrlaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh 2. Director The Directorate Of Town And Country Planning Indrawati Bhawan, Block -4, 3rd Floor, Naya Raipur, Dsit. Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. Joint Director, Directorate Of Town And Country Planning Indrawati Bhawan, Block -4, 3rd Floor, Naya Raipur, Dist. Raipur Chhattisgarh , District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4. Assistant Director The Directorate Of Town And Country Planning Indrawati Bhawan, Block -4, 3rd Floor, Naya Raipur, Dsit. Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5. The High Power Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committe Pandit Deen Dayal Upadhyay Nagar, Sector -4, Raipur C.G. Through Its Commissioner/ Secretary., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 6. Station House Officer Police Station, Rakhi, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh , District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner For State 25. 02.2025 : Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Rahul Ambast and Mr. Ashutosh Shrivastava, Advocate : Mr. S.P. Kale, Additional Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 1. The above captioned Writ Petitions involve common questions of law and
Decision
facts therefore both were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. In WPC No. 434 of 2015, the petitioner has challenged the order passed 3 by the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee dated 21.01.2014, wherein, it is held that the petitioner failed to prove the fact that he belongs to the ‘Manjhi’ caste, a notified Scheduled Tribe. 3. In WPS No. 1453 of 2015, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by respondent No. 1 dated 13.03.2015, whereby a penalty of recovery of Rs. 7,46,665/- was passed. 4. The facts of the present case are as under:- (a) The petitioner belongs to the Scheduled Tribe Community, particularly the ‘Manjhi’ caste. He was appointed as an Investigator in the Town and Country Planning Department on 19.05.1973. He was promoted to Research Assistant on 06.09.1982 and thereafter, to the post of Senior Research Assistant on 09.10.1992. He was promoted to the post of Assistant Director (Research) vide order dated 26.03.1999 and later he retired from services. (b) On 28.02.2002, an article of charge was issued according to the provisions of Rule 14 of the C.G. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (for short “Rules, 1966”) for the alleged charges of obtaining promotion order by furnishing false caste certificate of Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner filed a detailed reply. He also moved an application for supply of relevant documents referred to in the article of charge, but those documents were not provided. The Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officers were appointed and the enquiry was conducted. (c) After retirement, the matter of social status of the petitioner was referred to the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee vide letter dated 09.05.2011 for verification of the social status certificate. 4 The committee directed the vigilance cell to conduct an investigation and the report was submitted on 14.06.2013. A show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on the same date. The petitioner filed a reply to the show-cause notice on 26.06.2013. The committee vide order dated 21.01.2014, after scrutiny of the documents and the report of Vigilance Cell, recorded a finding that the petitioner failed to prove the fact that he belongs to the ‘Manjhi’ caste, a notified Scheduled Tribe. (d) Pursuant to the order passed by the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee dated 21.01.2014, the disciplinary authority inflicted the penalty of recovery of Rs. 7,46,665/- against the petitioner and shelter was taken by the disciplinary authority upon the findings recorded by the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee. 5. Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner would submit that the entire order-sheet of the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee would reveal that the enquiry report and other material documents were not provided. He would further submit that the committee has not cancelled the social status certificate of the petitioner. He would also submit that the social status certificate of the petitioner is still in existence; therefore, the order passed by the disciplinary authority inflicting the penalty of recovery is erroneous and bad in law. He would refer to Section 8 of the Chhattisgarh Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes & Other Backward Classes (Regulation of Social Status Certification) Rules, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules 2013’) to demonstrate that the committee has to record a specific finding with regard to the social status of a person. He would contend that as no order has been passed with regard to cancellation and confiscation of the social status certificate and the same 5 has not been found false; the order passed by the committee as well as the disciplinary authority are liable to be quashed. 6. On the other hand, Mr. S.P. Kale, Additional Advocate General appearing for the State would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Shrivastava. He would submit that sufficient opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner. He would further submit that after obtaining the report from the Vigilance Cell, a detailed show-cause notice was served upon the petitioner and a detailed reply was filed by the petitioner. He would further submit that the petitioner failed to move any application before the committee demanding relevant documents including the report of Vigilance Cell. He would also submit that for the first time, these grounds are being raised before this Court. He would contend that on the basis of the order passed by the committee, the disciplinary authority has inflicted penalty according to the provisions of the Rules, 1966. He would further contend that in the departmental enquiry, the petitioner was afforded sufficient opportunity and the principles of natural justice were complied with. He would also contend that the petitioner failed to point out any discrepancy in the departmental enquiry or enquiry conducted by the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee. It is stated that the instant petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 8. The order sheet of the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee would show that a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner. The order sheet dated 06.08.2003 would show that along with the show-cause notice, the report of Vigilance Cell was not annexed. On 23.09.2013, it was observed that the reply to the show-cause notice had been received. Vide order 6 dated 23.09.2013, the matter was placed before the committee. On 03.10.2013, a notice was issued to the petitioner. On 08.10.2013, the petitioner appeared and refused to place on record documents pertaining to his caste and finally, the order was passed. The entire order-sheet of the High Power Caste Scrutiny committee would show that the Vigilance Cell report and other relevant documents were not provided. The committee failed to examine any witness to prove the fact that the petitioner does not belong to the ‘Manjhi’ caste and consequently, the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses as no witness was examined. 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kumari Madhuri Patil and another Vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and others, AIR 1995 SC 94, observed that the vigilance cell should 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. A proper opportunity should be afforded to the candidate to adduce evidence. In para 13, the Hon’ble Apex Court summarized the manner of inquiry. Para 13.5 & 13.6 reads as under:- “13.5. 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 7 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 communities concerned etc. 13.6. 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-a-vis the objections raised by the candidate or opponent and pass an appropriate order with brief reasons in support thereof.” 10. In the matter of State of Maharashtra and others vs. Ravi Prakash Babulalsing Parmar and another reported in (2007) 1 SCC 80, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the Caste Scrutiny Committee is a quasi-judicial body. Though it is not bound by the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, it would not be correct for Courts to issue directions as to how it should appreciate evidence. Evidence to be adduced in a matter before a quasi-judicial body cannot be restricted to the admission of documentary evidence only. It may of necessity have to take oral evidence. 8 Relevant para 12 and 13 are reproduced herein-below:- “12. The Caste Scrutiny Committee is a quasi-judicial body. It has been set up for a specific purpose. It serves a social and constitutional purposes. It is constituted to prevent fraud on Constitution. It may not be bound by the provisions of Indian Evidence Act, but it would not be correct for the superior courts to issue directions as to how it should appreciate evidence. Evidence to be adduced in a matter before a quasi-judicial body cannot be restricted to admission of documentary evidence only. It may of necessity have to take oral evidence. 13. Moreover the nature of evidence to be adduced would vary from case to case. The rights of a party to adduce evidence cannot be curtailed. It is one thing to say how a quasi-judicial body should appreciate evidence adduced before it in law but it is another thing to say that it must not allow adduction of oral evidence at all.” 11. Taking into consideration the manner in which the enquiry was conducted by the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in this regard, in my opinion, the order passed by the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee dated 21.01.2014 is not sustainable in the eyes of law and the same is hereby quashed. 12. The order dated 13.03.2015 was passed by the disciplinary authority pursuant to the order passed by the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee, as the order dated 21.01.2014 passed by the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee has already been quashed; therefore, the subsequent order dated 13.03.2015 is hereby quashed. 13. The High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee would be at liberty to initiate the enquiry strictly in accordance with the law/directives issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) and subsequent judgments after affording a due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The disciplinary authority would also be at liberty to pass an 9 appropriate order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in the departmental enquiry strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Rules, 1966. 14. The disciplinary authority may take a decision in the departmental enquiry after the conclusion of the enquiry pertaining to the social status of the petitioner by the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee. 15. With the aforesaid observation(s), and direction(s), both the petitions are hereby disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant