Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 575 (PAT)

Surendra Kumar Gond v. Union of India

2014-05-07

CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH

body2014
CAV ORDER The petitioner in the present writ application is aggrieved by an order dated 25.10.2007 passed by the Commandant BN 147, CRPF, Silchar, Assam whereby he has been dismissed from service on the ground that he submitted a caste certificate to the effect that he belonged to Scheduled Tribe at the time of his appointment as Constable in Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) which was found to be fake upon a subsequent enquiry. An order dated 29.04.2008 passed by the appellate authority affirming the order of the disciplinary authority is also under challenge in the present writ application. 2. It is the petitioner’s case that he belongs to Gond caste which is a Scheduled Tribe. He applied for the post of Constable (GD) in CRPF as Scheduled Tribe candidate and at the time of his recruitment he had submitted a caste certificate issued vide letter No. 472 dated 23.11.1996 from the office of the District Magistrate, Bhojpur, (respondent No.6). After his selection against the vacancy reserved for Scheduled Tribe candidate, he joined duties in the year 2003 and started performing his duties. 3. On 04.01.2006, the petitioner was served with a notice asking his explanation, as regards the caste certificate submitted by him, justifying the veracity of the certificate submitted by him at the time of his appointment. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 06.01.2006. The respondents, thereafter, sought for a report from the Sub divisional Officer, Jagdishpur (respondent No.7), who is said to have reported that the petitioner belonged to “Kanu caste”. The petitioner terms the said report of the Sub divisional Officer, Jagdishpur (respondent No.7) to be wrong reiterating his claim on the basis of caste certificate dated 23.11.1996 issued by the District Magistrate, Bhojpur, (respondent No.6). According to him the certificate dated 23.11.1996 was issued by the District Magistrate, Bhojpur after thorough enquiry of the facts by all the concerned subordinate officers. After finding the caste certificate submitted by the petitioner at the time of his appointment to be fake, the disciplinary authority, i.e., the Commandant BN 147, CRPF (respondent No.4) dismissed the petitioner from service. 4. It has been stated in paragraph 9 of the writ application that the petitioner, in course of enquiry, intended to adduce witnesses in support of his case but no opportunity was given to him. 5. 4. It has been stated in paragraph 9 of the writ application that the petitioner, in course of enquiry, intended to adduce witnesses in support of his case but no opportunity was given to him. 5. This is to be noted here that the petitioner had submitted a caste certificate No. 880 dated 15.02.2003 at the time of his appointment. The said caste certificate was shown to have been issued by the Sub divisional Officer, Jagdishpur (respondent No.7). From the statement of the petitioner, in course of departmental proceeding, which has been brought on record as annexure-3 to the present writ application, it would appear that the petitioner claimed that a caste certificate No. 880 dated 15.02.2003 was issued by the Sub divisional Officer on the basis of earlier certificate issued by the same officer vide No. 1230 dated 21.11.1996. It further appears that the caste certificate dated 23.11.1996 issued by the District Magistrate, Bhojpur (respondent No.6) was also based on a certificate issued by Sub divisional Officer dated 21.11.1996. 6. There is no dispute about the one aspect. The petitioner at the time of his appointment had submitted a caste certificate No. 880 dated 15.02.2003 said to have been issued by Sub divisional Officer, Jagdishpur (respondent No.7) showing that the petitioner belonged to caste Gond, which is a Scheduled Tribe, which has been found to be fake. It has been reported by the Sub divisional Officer himself that no such certificate was issued from his office. There is also no dispute about the fact that respondent No.7, who is said to have issued the certificate dated 21.11.1996, which was the basis for issuance of such certificate by the District Magistrate on 23.11.1996, himself in his report sent to the authorities of CRPF has mentioned that the petitioner belonged to the caste “Kanu”. There is no dispute that the caste Gond is a Scheduled Tribe and Kanu is not and it comes under Other Backward Classes. 7. Counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of Union of India and its officials under CRPF as well as the District Magistrate, Bhojpur, (respondent No.6) and Sub divisional Officer, Jagdishpur (respondent No.7). There is no dispute that the caste Gond is a Scheduled Tribe and Kanu is not and it comes under Other Backward Classes. 7. Counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of Union of India and its officials under CRPF as well as the District Magistrate, Bhojpur, (respondent No.6) and Sub divisional Officer, Jagdishpur (respondent No.7). From the counter affidavit filed on behalf of Union of India, it would appear that in view of certain directions issued by the High Court of Delhi regarding verification of cases of persons who had secured employment in Government of India and their agencies on the strength of forged/ fake Scheduled Tribe caste certificates, exercise to verify caste certificates was undertaken. As has been indicated above, the petitioner had submitted at the time of his appointment a caste certificate No. 880 dated 15.02.2003. Upon verification, the Sub divisional Officer, Jagdishpur (respondent No.7), who is said to have issued the said caste certificate, intimated the fact through his letter dated 01.10.2005 that there was no such caste certificate issued vide letter dated 15.02.2003. From the counter affidavits, it appears that the revenue authorities of the district caused an enquiry and found that the petitioner while purchasing a piece of land in the village had disclosed his caste to be Kanu which comes under Other Backward Classes. 8. In the counter affidavits filed on behalf of respondents No. 6 and 7, it has been mentioned that no caste certificate dated 15.02.2003 showing the petitioner to be Scheduled Tribe was ever issued by the Sub divisional Officer, Jagdishpur (respondent No.7). 9. Whether the petitioner belongs to caste Gond so that he may be treated as a Scheduled Tribe or he belonged to caste Kanu is a disputed question of fact which cannot be decided in writ jurisdiction, in the facts and circumstances of the case. However, this fact is not in dispute that the caste certificate dated 15.02.2003, which the petitioner had submitted at the time of his appointment as Constable in CRPF, was not issued by the authority, i.e., Sub divisional Officer, Jagdishpur (respondent No.7). The petitioner, thus, apparently submitted a certificate at the time of his appointment/enrollment, which was found to be not genuine and fake. Evidently, the petitioner secured his enrollment/appointment in CRPF on the basis of fake caste certificate. The petitioner, thus, apparently submitted a certificate at the time of his appointment/enrollment, which was found to be not genuine and fake. Evidently, the petitioner secured his enrollment/appointment in CRPF on the basis of fake caste certificate. The actions of the respondents, therefore, need no interference, in the facts and circumstances of the case. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in course of the argument, has submitted that petitioner’s own brother is also serving in CRPF, upon his selection as Scheduled Tribe candidate. It has been stated that his matter was also verified and his caste certificate has been found to be genuine. A letter dated 14.08.2009 has been brought on record as annexure-17 to a supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner. 11. As has been noted above, the services of the petitioner has been terminated as he submitted a caste certificate showing him to be Gond caste, which was found to be fake. It is not the petitioner’s case that his brother had also submitted a false caste certificate and has been allowed to continue. However, the authorities will be free to examine this aspect of the matter. This writ application lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed but without costs.