wp70.11 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.70 OF 2011 Gangadhar s/o Sambhaji Sangamwad, Age-36 years, Occu: At present Nil, R/o-Goratha, Tq-Umri, Dist-Nanded, At present Pawar Colony, Bhokar, Dist-Nanded, Ex-Constable G.D. No.981270794. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) Union of India, Through its Secretary, Home Department, New Delhi, 2) D.I.G.P. Group Center, C.R.P.F. Camp, Hingna Road, Nagpur, 3) The Commandant - 64 BN., Central Reserve Police Force, Rawalpura, C/o 56 APO, Pin-934064, 4) The Collector, Collector Office, Nanded, 5) The Tahsildar, Bhokar, Tq-Bhokar, Dist-Nanded. ...RESPONDENTS. wp70.11 2 ... Shri. T.W. Pathan Advocate with Smt. U.T. Pathan Advocate for Petitioner. Shri.Alok Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General for Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. Shri.V.B. Ghatge, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 4 and 5. ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND T.V. NALAWADE, JJ. DATE : 28TH SEPTEMBER, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT [PER NARESH H. PATIL, J.] : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission itself. 2. The Petitioner was in service of Central Reserve Police Force. The Petitioner claims that on 5th March, 1992, Tahsildar, Bhokar, issued a caste certificate mentioning the Petitioner to be belonging to "Koli Mahadev", scheduled tribe. The Petitioner joined service in the year 1992. The wp70.11 3 Petitioner was issued a notice on 14th July, 2006 through the Commandant, 64 - Battalion, Central Reserve Police Force, Rawalpura, in respect of initiation of enquiry under Rule 27 of Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955. In exercise of powers conferred under Section 11(1) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 read with Rule 27 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955, the Petitioner was removed by the Commandant from service on 29th March, 2007. Some correspondence was made by the Petitioner with the Commandant seeking reinstatement and cancellation of the dismissal order. 3. The Petitioner thereafter approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.556 of 2009, but the same came to be dismissed as in the meanwhile the Petitioner filed appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Central Reserve Police Force, Nagpur. By an order dated 26th wp70.11 4 November, 2009, the appeal came to be dismissed. The Petitioner thereafter approached this Court by filing present Writ Petition. 4. During the course of hearing, it transpired that the Petitioner places reliance on certificate issued by Tahsildar, Bhokar having outward No.1405, whereas the Tahsildar in a communication made to the enquiry officer, dated 15th December, 2006, stated that the certificate issued in favour of Petitioner bears Serial No. 2435, dated 5th March, 1992. Considering this disparity, it seems that the action of dismissal was taken against the Petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that it would have been appropriate for the Respondent Commandant to forward the caste certificate for verification to the Caste Scrutiny Committee, instead of dismissing the services of the Petitioner. wp70.11 5 6. Shri. Ghatge, learned A.G.P. produced copy of 'Close File Register' of the year 1992 from the office of Tahsildar, Bhokar. Xerox copy of the relevant entries, is placed on record. We have noticed that there are certain erasions in respect of the entries made at Serial No.1405 and the wordings "Koli Mahadev" and also in the name of the concerned person. We do not wish to say anything more on that aspect of the matter, as it would be appropriate that the Petitioner gets his caste status determined from the Caste Scrutiny Committee. 7. For the reasons stated above, we are not inclined to interfere in the impugned order passed by the Respondent. However, the Petitioner is at liberty to approach the concerned Caste Scrutiny Committee in a prescribed proforma, requesting the Committee to verify the Petitioner's caste claim. In case the Petitioner approaches, the concerned wp70.11 6 Caste Scrutiny Committee shall decide the caste claim of the Petitioner, strictly in accordance with law and the record placed before it, as early as possible. 8. Rule stands discharged. [T.V. NALAWADE, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] asb/SEPT11