[TGH CO?n?.T OF CHHATTTSRARH AT RTI.ASPTII? SLIi^^ei*lifiiiXaLL''ui,3yZ-'!'0®9Z Oanpati, So"i. ofP_?jt.i ^'-ii?fti^ a.ged about 39 y^^TB, oc'ciipation Operauve in H&R Section of Coke Ovens and Coal Chemicals Denartment Bhjlai Steel P!ant resident nf Sector-11, Blulai, Tehsil and Disu-ict Durg (C.G). LESJXWDENTS • 1- State of Chhattisgarh, tiiroug'i AjSxn Jati Aiwsandhan Evam Prashilsshan, Raipur, Tehsil and District Raipur (CG). 1. T!ie Collector, Rajiiandgaon, Tehsi! and District Rajnandgaon (CG). 3. The Tehsildar, Rajnandgaon, Tehsi! and District Rajnandgaon (CG). 4. Tfae Deputy CoUeetor, Rajnaidgao", Telisil and District Rajnandgaon (CG). 5. TSie Steel Airthorit'v of India Limited- Bhilai Stee! Plant- C.E.O. and C.C.D. tiirougii the General Manager, Bhiiai, District Diiro CCO^ 6. Deputy General Manager, P. (Coke Ovens) Coke Ovens and C.C.D. Steel A_uthoritv of India Bhilai Steel Plant Diire //-1./-1\ (CG). 7. The Eu^uirv Of?lcetr Additional Chief Vigilance Offlcer. Depai-unenf Enquiry Coniniittee, Bhilai, Disti'ict Durg (CG). (WRFT PETmON TTNDER ARTICI.E 226 OF THE CONRTmmON OF INDIA) Prefsent Sliri Awadh Trioathi. Advocate for the netitioner- Shri Vivek Ranjan Tiwari, Auvocate for tlie respondent No. 5 to 7. (Passed 01107UI ufApriI, 2008) With thei consent ofthe parties, the matt^f is taken i*p foi he^riiig flnally. Tlie petitioner- bv this netition- fiied under Artide 226 ofthe Constitirtioii of (^ India; isiipugii;? thc validity ofthc ordc'r dMcd 09.05.2007 (Amiexiire P/12) p^ssed by the respondexTt No. 6 L€. Oepiity Gc'ne'fal Msn^geT, P. (Coke Ovens) Coke Ovens and C-C.D. Steel Airthnnty nf India Bhilai Stee! Plant, Diirg, whereby, the petitioner has been removed from services on the ground that the petitioner has obtained emplo;/ment on the basis of forged caste certificate. •^ '-^'^ 1 '"'^is I i£3%^K- 4 The brief facts, in nutshell, are that the petitioaer was appointed on the post of Plant Atteiidant on 30.12.1996 (Annexiire P/l). . After satisfactory completion ofprobation period, the petitiosier was confirn'ied on 09.02.1998 (Annexiire P/2). On enquiry, it was found that the caste certificate submitted by the p^titioncr wag forged, The n"(attcr wa^ refencd to th^ Tshsild^r^ Rajnandgaon (COV Th^ Tahsitdsr fln<^ the Oepiity Collector^ Rajnandg^on, giibiiritted rennrts dated 2!.0'7.2006 and 27.07.2006 fA_n_nexiire P/6 & P/7'» tl'icreirL it ^^a^ obser^ed that the ccrtific^te pi'odi^cc'd by the petitioner w^g not legal. Chi thc b?*sis ofreports, thc' respondent No. 6 passed the impugned order without affordiag an opportiiaity ofhearing to the petitioaer. Leamed counse! appearing for the petitioner submits that t3ie Deputy Col!ector/Tahsi!dar, Rajnandgaon have no jurisdicttnn to examine the authentictft/ ofthe caste certificate as we!! as detenniiiation ofthe caste of De'tition^f. T~?€' fijrther siibniits thst iii the' li^ht oF sevcTs! decis'ions of SiToreu''^ Coiiift_ the State ?-c^7€i? Ca^te !?E'lnit,inv CcEHTi'nittee alonc is competent to d-'ci^e' the c^.ste ofth*? petitioo.e;r- Per contr^, Shri ^^ivek P.?li?jan Tiwar^ L?3nie<l couHs?s?1 appearixig for the' rcspondent N<>. 5 to 7 subi'iiits that this is not a cssc ^'rhere the easte ofthe petitioner is in qiiestion biit the c^ste' cerfificate subtnittcd by th<? petitioner has been found as fbrged. Thus, it is nof necessary to refer the matter to the State Level Caste Scnitiny Coniinittee fbr v^rification oftlie document ofthe caste ofthe oetitioner. I ha^^e" he^rd lcanied coiinsel for thc appcaring parties, pen^sed the pleadiaigs and doeiinscntg append^d thereto. Tl'ic report dsted '27-06.2006 (Aiinexi?re p/4') subtiiitted b^r the Tahfiil<lar- reveal^ tl"i8t the cast.e ofth^? oetitioner is not found in Tahsil P-ainandeao" and fiirtSier in the reriorf ciated 21.07.2(X)6 11 .sSf'ffs-. 1^!' .<i< r »,--. t V^l^ '"^s^@^" Sahu fAnnexiire P/6^ it ^fag stated that the Pa?'dhi Jati is not <5cheiduled Caste isil P.aina?idoaoii. 7. Be that as it inny, it appears to be a question of detenriitiatio" ofcaste ofthe petitioner, wlticfa cfliHiot be exaiirined by any authority except the State L^vel Caste Scrutuiy ComiTiittee. Pi'rsuant to the reports gubmitted by the TahsildaT/Depiity CoUector, the impugned order passed by the respondent No. 5 & 6 is not ii"st and nroDer as even thereaftet th€! oetitioncr is cntitied opportunity of hearing to put forivard his case with regard to genuineness of his caste certificate which is not doiie inthe nreseat case. 8. Looking ^oni all angi.es, the impugn.ed order is iiot siistaiiiabl.c in law as the same has been passed <:'H tlic basis of reDorts giibiiiitted bv the Tahsildar/Deputy Coilector, Rajaandgaon, not after examination ofthe State L^vel Ca.<?te SenitiBy Coniniitteey ancl consequexitly^ tlie iuipugned order was not passed, fo!!owing the basis prinrip'es of nataral justice as the unpugned order vissits with e\^il conseoiiences and is riiinltive in naturc. 9. For the reasons stated faereinabove, the inipugned order da-ted 09.05.2007 \ (Amiexiire P'12) is quashed. The petitioner is entitled to all the benefits flowing from this order. The fe'spondent No. 5 & 6 are- st iiberty to refer the matter to the State I_j?-vei Cast^ ^cn1tiiiv Coiimiitte^ for the dccision in a.ccci'rd.Euice ^srith ls^7 l3.id. do'^v'i b'y tb.e Su.prcn.'ic' Cctiirt .io csse of K.iininr' Madhi1ri P?i1:il and ?.nothcr Vs. Addl- Cojnmissionc'r, Tribal Developmeiit aiid ('•- ck+Tt1 i-t^-i/4 -i-f-i.11 iT.is'^Tt-i/l UT T ita^T^im'S /^^fi-t cii^i.'nr' f-iiitf^ •^•U.'^ i ri-f-nn-fr ./^i'-k/^foi i-M-t fv\ /^nttOi /^- i,li<./Ai.) f.UAU li/iiiu; VVt./<* Uy a^\1~iii.Li UW^'Ai^i</i.lt3y Wil.U U.iii.; KiZ^ul. ^i.'ih;lSAlJi,A ill ^iiKS; tJ. 0+^a. ^^^/?f>^^<-^<-,U^^, P^ fTt^r< ^^ T>.T,^ri 15^n1.-nc?l, TSinrUTnil^lo^-i/Y P^^nnf ^r A.n+' ^ t3L<jlLtt; Lfi iVltUii.UiAiL>AiUi+ C>w v./ib. V b. £v.<i.VA JT i tiii-tiyjLi Uiii.l/iAlti.ibUi.i^ t tAliiS.fti Ofc ^-Uli . . 10. Thus, petition is aUowed. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotn Judge • 1994(6)5cc241 ' 2006 AIRSCW 6093