High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 34 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 41154 of 2009 Petitioner :- 981390237 Sepoy/ G.D. Ram Autar Ram Respondent :- Union Of India And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- D.S. Yadav,Ajay Shankar,Jata Shankar Pandey,Kamalesh Sharma,Mir Sayed,Prashant K. Lal,Triveni Shankar Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Rajesh Kumar Pandey,S.C.,Sabhajeet Singh Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
Legal Reasoning
1. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Mir Sayed, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Arvind Goswami, Advocate holding brief of Sri Sabhajeet Singh, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Present petition has been filed seeking following reliefs:- "i. issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned orders dated 9.3.2009 and order dated 23.06.2007 and subsequent order dated 17.7.2007 passed by respondent No. 3 and 2 (Annexure Nos. 3, 1 and 2 to this writ petition).
Decision
ii. issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to give effect to the impugned orders dated 09.03.2009, 23.06.2007 and subsequent order dated 17.07.2007 passed by respondent No.3 and 2 and further be pleased to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service during the final disposal of the writ petition. iii. issue suitable writ order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper circumstances of the case. iv. allow the writ petition with cost along with consequential benefit." 3. Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Mir Sayed, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was selected and appointed on 01.03.1998 at Police Force/ G.D. in Center Reserve Police Force at Allahabad Group Center and was sent for training and thereafter, the petitioner was posted in 61 Battalion and later on he was transferred in A/167, Battalion Sindari, Bihar. 4. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that a general inquiry was initiated in pursuance of complaints about the genuineness of the caste certificate of all the candidates recruited from January, 1995 to December, 2004. During the inquiry, it was revealed that the petitioner, who at the time of recruitment submitted the caste certificate of Schedule Tribe (Bhooksa) issued on 10.01.1998, however, as per the report of the Tehsildar Sadar, Ghazipur dated 10.10.2006, it was found that the petitioner does not belong to Schedule Tribe (Bhooksa) and rather he belongs to a caste 'Chamar' under the Schedule Caste. 5. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that on the basis of this inquiry and under pressure, the petitioner accepted that he intentionally submitted the caste certificate of Schedule Tribe (Bhooksa), therefore, he was terminated from his services by the impugned order dated 23.06.2007 and thereafter, the petitioner was removed from the roles of Battalion by order dated 17.07.2007 and appeal thereof was also dismissed by other impugned order dated 09.03.2009. 6. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that there is no finding against the petitioner that the certificate so submitted was forged or that he does not belong to the Scheduled Tribe. The admission on behalf of the petitioner was under pressure. 7. Learned Senior Counsel has also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Kumari Madhuri Patil And Another vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development And Others; (1994) 6 SCC 241 and submitted that procedure prescribed for the scrutiny of the caste certificate in the aforesaid judgment was not followed, therefore, order of termination is bad in law. 8. Per contra, Sri Arvind Goswami, Advocate holding brief of Sri Sabhajeet Singh, learned counsel for the respondents submits that during the relevant period there were many complaints that the candidates on the basis of forged caste certificates have joined the services and accordingly, a general inquiry was initiated during which, it was found that the petitioner does not belong to Schedule Tribe (Bhooksa) and he belongs to Schedule Caste (Chamar). However, the petitioner has not submitted caste certificate for his Schedule Caste (Chamar) rather he submitted a wrong certificate that he belongs to the Schedule Tribe (Bhooksa). There is a specific admission on behalf of the petitioner during the inquiry that he intentionally submitted the incorrect caste certificate, which has not been disputed or contradicted in the memo of the writ petition, except of some vague submissions in the rejoinder affidavit and supplementary rejoinder affidavit in this regard. 9. I have heard rival submissions and have perused the record. 10. It is not denied by the petitioner that he has submitted caste certificate of Schedule Tribe that he belongs to a Schedule Tribe (Bhooksa), which was found incorrect in the inquriy conducted by the concerned Tehsildar. The petitioner has not submitted any document to indicate that he belongs to the Schedule Caste (Chamar). As per the inquiry report, the petitioner belongs to Schedule Caste (Chamar). The admission on behalf of the petitioner during inquiry is also not denied except making some vague averments in the rejoinder affidavit and supplementary rejoinder affidavit submitted by the petitioner. 11. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has heavily relied upon the judgment in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil (Supra) that the procedure prescribed therein for verification of caste certificate was not followed. However, in the present case, the facts are rather different as the petitioner has not specifically stated or supported his caste certificate that he belongs to Schedule Tribe (Bhooksa) and even he has not submitted any documents that he belongs to Schedule Caste (Chamar). 12. Under these circumstances, when there is no submission on behalf of the petitioner that he does belong to Schedule Tribe (Bhooksa) and not Schedule Caste (Chamar), therefore, even not following the procedure prescribed in case of Kumari Madhuri Patil (Supra), the impugned orders cannot be termed to be illegal in nature. The petitioner with his open eyes has filed incorrect caste certificate showing himself to be a candidate of Schedule Tribe (Bhooksa), though he does not belong to said Schedule Tribe. The petitioner has also not a case that he belongs to Schedule Caste (Chamar). The petitioner, who was a part of a disciplined force has not come up before the authorities with clean hands and intentionally filed a Schedule Tribe Certificate that he belongs to a Schedule Tribe (Bhooksa), which ultimately found to be incorrect. There is no equity for a person of such nature. The petitioner has estopped a genuine person from the Schedule Tribe to join the services. 13. Under these circumstances, I do not find any merit in the arguments advanced by learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 14. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Order Date :- 27.4.2022 Aditya Digitally signed by ADITYA KUSHWAHA Date: 2022.05.06 10:37:05 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad