(1) WP2136-07 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2136 OF 2007 Prakash s/o Baburao Gazile PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & others RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. A.S. Bayas, advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. N.B. Patil, A.G.P. for the Respondent-State. Smt. Ranjana Reddy, advocate for the respondent No. 5. ..... CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE & M.T. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 27th JULY, 2011 ORAL ORDER: 1. The petitioner who is an employee of the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (for short, "M.S.R.T.C.") - respondent No. 5, has challenged the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee on 27th February, 2007. The petitioner's claim that, he belongs to the "Koli Mahadeo" Scheduled Tribe, has been negatived by the Committee. 2. Principally, two issues have been raised by the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner while criticizing the order passed by the Scrutiny (2) WP2136-07 Committee. He points out that no home enquiry was conducted by the Vigilance Cell and, therefore, the order of the Scrutiny Committee is vitiated. He further points out that the petitioner has not received any intimation, either from the Vigilance Cell or the Scrutiny Committee, about the home enquiry being conducted with respect to him or that the Vigilance Cell had conducted any enquiry. 3. It was contended on behalf of the Scrutiny Committee that the petitioner was sent an intimation about the home enquiry through his employer - the M.S.R.T.C., despite which the petitioner did not cooperate with the Vigilance Cell while the enquiry was being conducted. We, therefore, directed the respondent No. 5 - the M.S.R.T.C. to file an affidavit indicating whether letters received from the Scrutiny Committee which were to be forwarded to the petitioner, had been forwarded to him by the M.S.R.T.C. 4. An affidavit has been filed by the Divisional Traffic Officer, Latur indicating that (3) WP2136-07 only the communication made with the petitioner by the M.S.R.T.C. was dated 11th August, 2003, intimating to the petitioner that he should be present before the Police Inspector who was conducting the Vigilance Enquiry. All that the petitioner was informed was that he should attend the enquiry on any working day. The actual letter received either from the Scrutiny Committee or the Vigilance Cell was not sent to the petitioner, by the M.S.R.T.C. The petitioner has averred in this petition that he was transferred from Kannad to Gangapur w.e.f. 1st January, 2003 and later to Latur where he has been working from 30th June, 2003. In these circumstances, the notices sent to the petitioner have not been received by him and, therefore, the home enquiry which was conducted is vitiated. The remarks of the Research Officer that the petitioner was not cooperating with the Vigilance Cell while the enquiry was being conducted are unsubstantiated since the petitioner had not received any communication from him. It is now well settled that the Vigilance Cell must ascertain not only from the candidate but also from his/her parents their (4) WP2136-07 responses about the traits, characteristics, culture, dances, etc. in order to decide whether the candidate belongs to a particular caste/tribe. 5. In these circumstances, the order of the Scrutiny Committee is set aside. The petitioner will appear before the Scrutiny Committee on 22nd August, 2011. The Scrutiny Committee will decide the petitioner's tribe claim after conducting a home enquiry in accordance with law. Any intimation which is to be sent to the petitioner shall be sent to him directly and not through the M.S.R.T.C. The petitioner shall inform the Committee his latest postal address. The Scrutiny Committee shall decide the petitioner's tribe claim within four months from today. 6. Since the petitioner is in service, no adverse orders be passed against him only because he has not produced the caste/tribe validity certificate. The petition is disposed of accordingly. [M.T. JOSHI, J.] [SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J.] npj/wp2136-07