Dismissed

Dilip Patre v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC10 Jul 2024WPC/912/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a vigilance report alleging false caste certification. The Court held the challenge was premature as the Scrutiny Committee had not yet passed a final order after issuing a show-cause notice. The petitioner was granted an additional opportunity to reply.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted two months to submit a fresh reply to the show-cause notice and opt for a personal hearing; Committee directed to pass order thereafter.

Dilip Patre Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

Order reserved on 24.4.2024

¶5

Order delivered on 11/07/2024

¶6

WPC No. 912 of 2019

¶7

Dilip Patre S/o Shri Mulchand Patre Aged About 47 Years Presently Posted As Assistant Veterinary Field Officer, At Veterinary Hospital, Rajnandgaon , R/o G - 11, New Civil Line Rajnandgaon District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.

¶8

---- Petitioner

¶9

Versus

¶10

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Tribal Welfare, Ministry, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Post Office And Police Station Rakhi, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶11

High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee, Through President - Cum - Secretary, Department Of Schedule Tribe And Schedule Tribe Development, Tribal Research Training Institute Pt. Dindayal Upadhyay Nagar, Sector-4, Raipur Distt Raipur (CG)

¶12

Secretary, Animal Husbandry Department Mantralaya, Mahanadi, Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Raipur District Raipur (CG)

¶13

Director, Directorate Of Veterinary Services, Indravati Bhawan Ground Floor Block 3, Naya Raipur, Raipur District Raipur (CG)

¶14

Deputy Director, Veterinary Services , Rajnandgaon District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.

¶15

---- Respondents

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, Advocate along with Ms. Diksha Gauraha, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Yashwant Singh Thakur, Additional Advocate General with Ms. Supriya Upasane, Government Advocate

¶17

SB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Parth Prateem Sahu

¶18

CAV ORDER

¶19

Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:-

¶20

“10.1. The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set

¶21

aside the finding given by the Vigilance Cell,

¶22

¶23

High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee Raipur (Annexure P/1) and direct to consider to do afresh finding as per Chhatisgarh Schedule Caste, Schedule Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Regulation of Social Status Certificate) Rule 2013:

¶24

10.2. The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in favour of the petitioner as per the facts and circumstances of the present case, in the ends of justice.”

¶25

Facts relevant for disposal of this writ petition, in brief, are that vide order dated 23.3.1994 petitioner was appointed as ‘Assistant Veterinary Field Officer’ against the post reserved for scheduled tribe category candidate. During service tenure of petitioner, one complaint was submitted in the letter head of Chhattisgarh Anusuchit Janjati Shashkiye Sewak Vikas Sangh, Raipur on 22.8.2008 mentioning that four persons named therein, including petitioner herein at Sr. No.2, deceiving the State Government, have fraudulently secured government job based on forged social status certificate. The Member-cumJoint Director, of respondent No.2 took cognizance on the complaint and wrote letter to the Vigilance Cell, Raipur to inquire regarding social status of petitioner and submit report. After conducting inquiry, the Vigilance Inspector, High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee, submitted report (Annexure P-1) to the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Vigilance Cell), High

¶26

¶27

Power Caste Scrutiny Committee, opining that in the inquiry petitioner found to be member of Koshti community, which does not come within the category of scheduled tribe. Based on report of the Vigilance Cell, the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee issued show cause notice to petitioner. The finding and report of Vigilance Cell are under challenge in this writ petition.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that caste certificate in favour of petitioner is issued by the competent authority concerned clearly mentioning that petitioner belongs to ‘Halba’ community, which comes within the category of Scheduled Tribe. Complaint based upon which proceedings were drawn, was made by private entity i.e. by an association, therefore, the Committee could not have taken cognizance on the same as it has not been forwarded by the employer or any other authority of the State Government. If there is any suspicion on the caste or caste certificate of any person, the inquiry is to be conducted initially by the District Level Caste Certificate Verification Committee, as constituted under Section 7 of the Chhattisgarh Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Regulation of Social Status Certification) Act, 2013 (henceforth ‘the Act of 2013’). Even if the complaint is filed by the institution, employer or State Government, it ought to have been referred to the District Level Certification Committee and the Committee could not have proceeded with the same. Complaint against the caste of petitioner is to be rooted through the District Verification

¶29

¶30

Committee and the Committee could not have directly entertained the complaint submitted by a private person or Association. He further contended that proper opportunity of hearing was not provided by the Committee. Documents submitted by petitioner were not properly considered and further, he was not given opportunity to adduce any evidence. Petitioner has not obtained social status certificate by practicing fraud and hence he is entitle for protection of service as ordered and protected in WPC No.1274/2017 (Mahesh Kumar Kumbhare vs. State of CG & ors).

¶31

Per contra, learned State Counsel opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for petitioner and submitted that present writ petition is premature and it is liable to be dismissed as such. He submits that the Committee has yet not taken final decision after submission of report by the Vigilance Cell. The Committee received complaint not only against present petitioner but also against four other persons. Petitioner was granted opportunity to produce relevant orders/documents, however, the same were not produced before the Vigilance Inspector. Complaint against petitioner was made in the year 2008, immediately thereafter the matter was referred to the Vigilance Cell to inquire into the complaint. Action taken on the complaint is by none other than the Member-cum-Joint Director of the Committee of referring the matter to the Vigilance Cell for verification of social status certificate of petitioner. There is no error in the procedure adopted by the Committee for verification of caste certificate issued in favour of petitioner. On the date of

¶32

¶33

sending the complaint to the Vigilance Cell for verifying social status of petitioner, no specific law was prevailing and social status certificate of any person is to be verified by the members of Committee constituted pursuant to the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kumari Madhuri Patil vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development , reported in (1994) 6 SCC 241. Complaint is forwarded by the Membercum-Joint Director of the Committee. Vigilance Cell submitted its report, Annexure P-1, which is the outcome of the inquiry conducted based on statement of certain persons recorded and other material collected during inquiry, opining that petitioner does not belong to ‘Halba’ caste i.e. scheduled tribe, but ‘Koshti’. Considering the report of the Vigilance Cell, showcause notice is issued by the Committee to the petitioner on 18.7.2018 and thereafter on 04.02.2019. Instead of submitting reply to said show-cause notice, participating in inquiry, petitioner has straightaway approached this Court by filing instant petition. Due to interim order passed by this Court, till date the Committee has not taken any decision, therefore, this petition is premature. He also contended that on the date of receipt of complaint questioning social status certificate of petitioner along with others, the Act of 2013 was not in force and therefore, verification of caste certificate of any person was being done by the Committee constituted as per direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) . Hence, the ground raised by petitioner with regard to holding inquiry by Vigilance Cell on the complaint is not

¶34

¶35

tenable. As on date, there is no cause of action in favour of petitioner because no order is passed based on the report of Vigilance Cell.

¶36

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed along with writ petition as also reply filed on behalf of State and original record relating to verification of social status certificate submitted by learned State Counsel pursuant to observation made by this Court on 19.4.2024.

¶37

It is not in dispute that petitioner secured employment as a reserved category candidate i.e. scheduled tribe, based on social status certificate issued in his favour by the competent authority. Documents available on record would show that one complaint was submitted by the Association vide letter dated 22.8.2008 before the Vice-President & Director, High Level Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Raipur. This complaint was received in the office of the Committee on 1.9.2008, as per date mentioned thereon. The Member-cum-Joint Director of the Committee forwarded the complaint to the Vigilance Inspector, Raipur for inquiring into it. None of the parties to writ petition has pointed out that on the date of receipt of complaint, there was any specific Act or law within the State of Chhattisgarh prevailing to deal with complaint received by the Committee.

¶38

The Committee was constituted on the basis of direction issued in case of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra). In the said decision the Hon’ble Supreme Court has formulated the procedure for issuance of social status certificates, their scrutiny. Relevant

¶39

¶40

portion of the said judgment is reproduced herein below for ready reference:-

¶41

“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 scrutinized 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:

¶42

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.

¶43

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.

¶44

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.

¶45

All the State Governments shall constitute a Committee of three officers, namely, (I) an Additional or Joint Secretary or any officer higher in rank of the

¶46

¶47

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 certificate.

¶48

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.

¶49

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 communities concerned etc.

¶50

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 acknowledgment 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.

¶51

¶52

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.

¶53

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.

¶54

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.

¶55

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

¶56

¶57

be only provisional, subject to the result of the inquiry by the Scrutiny Committee.

¶58

The order passed by the Committee shall be final and conclusive only subject to the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution.

¶59

No suit or other proceedings before any other authority should lie.

¶60

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 Article 136.

¶61

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.

¶62

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 acknowledgment 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.”

¶63

Bare reading of Clause-4 of Para-13 of Kumari Madhuri Patil’s case (supra) reveals that procedure formulated by the Supreme Court is a direction to the State Government to constitute a ‘Committee’ of three officers and in Clause-5 there is a direction for constitution of ‘vigilance cell’ consisting of Deputy Superintendent of Police in over-all charge and such number of

¶64

¶65

Police Inspectors to investigate into the social status claims and it is the Vigilance Cell who has to submit report after conclusion of inquiry to the Director or the Committee to further take recourse to law if found social status certificate or person concerned to be suspicious, doubtful or false; the Committee to follow the procedure as provided therein of providing opportunity of hearing, mentioning that concerned person can file reply or representation to show-cause notice etc.

¶66

Objection raised by learned counsel for petitioner with regard to authority of the Committee for taking cognizance on complaint, in the opinion of this Court, is not sustainable because the complaint is filed prior to coming into force of the Act of 2013 and constitution of the District Level Committee. Upon receipt of complaint by the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee, constituted under the direction of Hon’ble Supreme court, the cognizance was taken and complaint was processed before coming into force of the Act of 2013. It is the Vigilance Cell, who conducted inquiry pursuant to direction of High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee, which is also constituted as per direction of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Madhuri Patil’s case (supra).

¶67

Perusal of the documents annexed along with writ petition as also pleadings, reveals that the Committee after receipt of inquiry report from the Vigilance Cell, issued show-cause notice to petitioner asking for further information and documents on 18.7.2018. In show-cause notice issued by the Member Secretary-cum-Director of the Committee, it is specifically mentioned that along with notice, copy of report and other

¶68

¶69

documents including statement of witnesses were enclosed. Petitioner was asked to submit explanation within 15 days and to state whether he wants personal hearing, whether he wants oral inquiry, whether he wants to submit any further document, witness and if yes, to supply the list, and further cautioned him that if reply is not received within specified time, then it will be deemed that petitioner does not want to say anything and exparte proceeding will be drawn.

¶70

Perusal of record further reveals that in response to showcause notice issued based on the report of vigilance cell, no decision till date has been taken by the Committee. Even the petitioner has not submitted reply to said show-cause notice. Application of mind by the Committee on the inquiry report submitted by the Vigilance Cell as well as reply to show-cause, documents and evidence, if any, to be submitted by petitioner is still to take place. In such a situation, in the considered opinion of this Court, present petition filed by petitioner is a premature and therefore, this Court is refraining itself to pass any order commenting merits of the case. It will be the Committee constituted for specific purpose i.e. High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee, has to take decision in accordance with law, considering report of vigilance cell, reply of petitioner to showcause notice as well the documents and evidence, if any, brought on record by petitioner and if opted after providing personal hearing.

¶71

The High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee has issued show cause notice specifically asking the petitioner whether he wants

¶72

¶73

personal hearing, oral inquiry, to produce witness or evidence in support of his social status certificate, if yes, to produce list. From the above question posed, opportunity provided it is apparent that if for any reason petitioner could not get proper opportunity to prove his caste certificate, he can place all the material and evidence before the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee. He can also appear in person before the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee and make his submissions, and therefore, the submission that proper opportunity not granted is also not acceptable.

¶74

Submission of counsel for the petitioner of protection of service is also premature, that stage has yet not reached. At present stage the Committee is inquiring into social status certificate of the petitioner, final order is yet to pass following the procedure as mentioned in the notice. If the order of the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee comes against petitioner that the social status certificate is wrongly obtained and he does not belong to member of scheduled tribe of the State of Chhattisgarh, then only the said prayer may be made at appropriate stage and not at the stage of inquiry.

¶75

For the foregoing reason, this writ petition is dismissed. However, considering that this writ petition is pending since 2016 and this Court has already passed interim order dated 9.10.2018 directing respondents not to take any coercive steps against petitioner pursuant to vigilance report, I find it appropriate to grant one more opportunity to the petitioner to submit fresh reply to show-cause notice dated 31.7.2018 and to

¶76

¶77

submit his option whether he wants personal hearing. In case, petitioner submits fresh reply within two months from the order or opts for any option as mentioned in show-cause notice, then the Committee after providing such opportunity to the petitioner, shall pass the order in accordance with law, taking into consideration the vigilance report as well as reply and documents submitted by petitioner including fresh reply and the documents, if any, filed along with it following due procedure of law as also the directions of Hon’ble Supreme Court and the law applicable to the case.

¶78

Certified copy as per rules.

¶79

Sd/(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶80

roshan/-

Dilip Patre v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dilip Patre v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashok Kenwat Vs State of Chhattisgarh

M/S Siddheshwar Nath Fuels Vs Indian Oil Corporation

Smt. Anita Vishwakarma Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Rajnesh Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Anuradha Khare Vs High Court of Chhattisgarh

G. Mamta Vs State of Chhattisgarh