Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 34 (MP)

Shailendra Khambra v. State of M. P.

2014-01-07

SANJAY YADAV

body2014
Judgment Sanjay Yadav, J:- Matter is taken up in the second round along with connected Writ Petitions No.16263/06, 16294/06, 16340/06, 16341/06, 16346/06, 16348/06, 16632/06, 16633/06, 16634/06 and 16640/06. It transpires from the previous order-sheets that by order- dated 23.2.2010, the petition was directed to be listed along with W.P. No.4743/2009 (PIL). However, subsequently, the Division Bench of this Court, by its order-dated 2.11.2012, had directed the petition to be posted before a single Judge as per roster. At the outset, it is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the issue involved in the present petition was also a subject-matter of batch of Writ Petitions No.16631/06, 16338/06, 17043/06, 17044/06 and 17045/06, wherein the petitioners had called in question the order-dated 20.9.2006 passed by respondent no.2-High Power State Level Caste Scrutiny Committee of holding that they do not belong to Beldar (Scheduled Caste). It is urged that while observing that the petitioners therein were not served with a copy of report of Vigilance Officer (Superintendent of Police) at the time of issuance of show cause notice and there being violation of mandate in Kumari Madhuri Patil vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development (1994) 6 SCC 241 , entire procedure adopted by the Scrutiny Committee got vitiated. Accordingly, the impugned order-dated 20.9.2006 has been quashed and the matter has been remitted to the High Power Scrutiny Committee for a fresh appraisal. It is urged that the petitioner in the instant petition and those in the connected writ petitions are similarly situated as the petitioner in Writ Petition No.16631/2006 (Dr. Madhvi Khambra vs. State of M.P.) & the connected writ petitions and are aggrieved by the order-dated 20.9.2006, communicated vide covering letter dated 30.10.2006; whereby, High Power Scrutiny Committee had cancelled the caste certificate issued in favour of the petitioner belonging to Beldar community (Scheduled Caste) and directed for consequential action. It is also urged that the petitioner was also subjected to similar procedure as was followed in the case of Dr. Madhvi Khambra (supra) and the petitioner was not supplied with the copy of report furnished by the Vigilance Officer (Superintendent of Police). It is further contended that it was mandatory on the part of the respondents to have served a copy of vigilance report along with show cause notice and the said procedure having not been followed, had led to vitiation of the entire process. It is further contended that it was mandatory on the part of the respondents to have served a copy of vigilance report along with show cause notice and the said procedure having not been followed, had led to vitiation of the entire process. Learned Government Advocate does not dispute passing of the order in Dr. Madhvi Khambra (supra) and the connected writ petitions decided on 18.9.2007. He has also not disputed that in furtherance of the order passed in said writ petition, the matter is in seisin with the High Power Scrutiny Committee and is pending final outcome. Thus, apparently, there is no dispute that the petitioners in these batch of petitions are similarly situated like the petitioners in Dr. Madhvi Khambra (supra) and the connected writ petitions decided on 18.9.2007. In the case of Dr. Madhvi Khambra (supra), learned single Judge, while taking note of the fact that copy of vigilance report furnished by the Vigilance Officer (Superintendent of Police), which was required to be served along with show cause notice, was not served, found that the procedure as is laid down by the Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil (above) has not been adhered to and accordingly, set aside the impugned order-dated 20.9.2006. It has been held therein - "8. In clause 6 above, it has been clearly observed that on receipt of report from the vigilance officer if the Directorate concerned found the claim for social status to be 'not genuine' or 'doubtful' or spurious or falsely or wrong claimed, show cause notice must be issued to the concerned person, simultaneously, with a copy of the report of the vigilance officer. The person concerned is entitled to be served with a copy of report of vigilance officer by registered post AD with acknowledgment or through the head of the educational institution concerned or employer. Learned Government Advocate has made available the record of the High Power Scrutiny Committee wherein it is not revealed that the report of the vigilance officer (Superintendent of Police) was served upon the petitioner at the time of issuance of show cause notice. This being so, procedure prescribed by the Apex Court in such matter is found to have been flouted. This being so, procedure prescribed by the Apex Court in such matter is found to have been flouted. As per the Apex Court, it was obligatory on the part of the High Power Committee to serve the person concerned with the copy of report of vigilance officer either by registered post AD or by hand at the time of issuance of show cause notice. This having been not followed, this Court is of the opinion that the order of the High Power Committee contained in Annexure P/1 in all petitions (Annexure P/8 in W.P. No.16338/06) is unsustainable in law and is hereby quashed. 9. Shri Mehta, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondent/State fairly conceded that till today the petitioners are not served with a copy of report of vigilance officer. This being so, it is directed that the High Power Scrutiny Committee (respondent no.2) shall serve the petitioners with a copy of report of vigilance officer (Superintendent of Police). Shri Mehta, learned Government Advocate for State contended that since the petitioners are being represented though their lawyers, copy of the report of vigilance officer may be provided to them. His contention is not acceptable in view of the circular dated 8.9.1997, placed on record as Annexure R/1. It clearly stipulates that if it is found on the report of vigilance officer that claim of the person for social status is doubtful, copy of the report of the vigilance officer shall be served on the persons concerned by registered post AD. 10. Considering the same, it is directed that the respondent no.2 shall serve the petitioners with a copy of report of Superintendent of Police within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Thereafter, the petitioners shall have a right to submit their objections within a further period of 15 days. The High Power Scrutiny Committee shall proceed with the further enquiry in accordance with law after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. The matter may be decided by the High Power Scrutiny Committee expeditiously, in accordance with law and the procedure laid down in the case of Kumari Mudhuri Patil (supra)". Since the case of the petitioner in the present petition and the connected batch of petitions are similar to that of the case of Dr. The matter may be decided by the High Power Scrutiny Committee expeditiously, in accordance with law and the procedure laid down in the case of Kumari Mudhuri Patil (supra)". Since the case of the petitioner in the present petition and the connected batch of petitions are similar to that of the case of Dr. Madhvi Khambra (above) and the connected writ petitions, impugned order-dated dated 20.9.2006 is hereby quashed and the matter is remitted to the respondent no.2- High Power State Level Caste Scrutiny Committee for reconsideration after serving the petitioner with a copy of report of Vigilance Officer (Superintendent of Police) within a period of 15 days from the date of communication of this order. The petitioners would be at liberty to raise the objections. The High Power Scrutiny Committee shall proceed to decide the individual claim as per stipulation contained in Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra). The petition is allowed to the extent above. However, no costs. Certified copy as per rules.