Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1602 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Kheema Ram

2019-05-22

DINESH MEHTA, S.RAVINDRA BHAT

body2019
JUDGMENT : Civil Misc. Application No. 01/2018:- For the reasons stated in the application, delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 527/2019:- 1. The State appeals a decision of a learned Single Judge, contending that it is erroneous insofar as it set aside the penalty of dismissal imposed upon respondent/writ petitioner. The writ petitioner was working as Assistant Teacher in the State of Rajasthan, having entered its service on 27.06.1962. At the time, he claimed Scheduled Caste status in the terms of Scheduled Caste Presidential Order of 1950, [hereinafter "the Presidential Order"] as amended by the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Amendment) Act, 1976 [hereinafter "the 1976 Act"]; as one belonging to the Rawal caste. This community is shown as a Scheduled Caste in Item No. 50 of the list relating to the State of Rajasthan, in the Presidential Order, so far as it relates to Rajasthan and it was so continued in the 1976 Act. 2. The writ petitioner progressed further in his career and was promoted to the post of Headmaster on 06.10.1983 and was confirmed on that post on 05.08.1987. He retired from service on 14.03.1997. 3. During the course of service, on 21.02.1990, the writ petitioner was issued with a charge sheet proposing major penalty on the ground that he secured promotion as Headmaster -- a post reserved for Scheduled Caste Category, by submitting a false Caste Certificate as Rawal. The Inquiry was continued with the permission of the Governor after the age of superannuation, resulting in a report, which held to imposition of penalty of dismissal from service and forfeiture cent percent pension. He, therefore, approached this Court in the year 2004. 4. The learned Single Judge, after considering the record and the submissions of the parties specifically noted in the impugned order that the Inquiry Officer held that the certificate relied upon by the writ petitioner was genuine. However, he proceeded to doubt the correctness of the certificate expressed his doubt that the writ petitioner belonged to the Rawal Community. This led to his recording that the petitioners guilt which ultimately terminated in the dismissal order. 5. However, he proceeded to doubt the correctness of the certificate expressed his doubt that the writ petitioner belonged to the Rawal Community. This led to his recording that the petitioners guilt which ultimately terminated in the dismissal order. 5. The learned Single Judge, in the impugned judgment, noted as follows:- "A bare look at the finding recorded by the inquiry officer, as quoted hereinbefore, would reveal that it has been specifically held that the caste certificate produced by the delinquent officer was correct, however, he went to hold, based on the evidence led by the Department and the delinquent officer that it was doubtful that the petitioner belongs to the scheduled caste community. The Disciplinary Authority by its impugned order, rejected the explanation given by the petitioner holding the same as not satisfactory and imposed the punishment, as noticed hereinbefore. The issue, which arises for consideration, is as to once the finding has been recorded about the genuineness of the certificate, whether the inquiry officer and/or the Disciplinary Authority has the jurisdiction to then decide whether the person belongs to the community regarding which, the certificate has been produced by the delinquent officer? The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Punjab National Bank (supra) after considering the entire issue, inter alia, laid down as under:- "25. Thus, from the above rulings rendered by this Court and also of the Madras High Court it is clearly seen that the employer has not followed the procedure by approaching the authority who issued the certificate, instead, the employer has initiated disciplinary action against the employee and cancelled the certificate without adopting the settled procedure by various judgments referred to above. Under such circumstance, the entire disciplinary proceedings initiated by the Bank and removing the respondent from service on the basis of such enquiry is wholly bad and against the law. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge has rightly quashed the entire disciplinary proceedings on two grounds: (a) that the certificate of the contempt authority was properly considered and accepted by the appointing authority and (b) the appointing authority once accepted a certificate issued by the competent authority regarding declaration of caste of its employee, the same cannot be questioned at issue in a disciplinary proceedings for verifying the correctness or veracity of such certificate. In our opinion, the judgment impugned in this appeal is correct and not liable to be interfered with as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant- Bank." It is well settled that the jurisdiction to decide on the aspect as to whether the person belongs to a particular community or not and/or the validity of a certificate lies with the authorities under the provisions dealing with issuance of the certificate pertaining to the caste and no other authority has the jurisdiction to decide on the said aspect. In view of the above the law laid down by Division Bench of this Court, once the certificate produced by the petitioner was found to be genuine, the Disciplinary Authority apparently had no jurisdiction to concur with the opinion of the inquiry officer and come to a conclusion that the petitioner didn’t belong to scheduled caste community and therefore, the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner and/or the punishment imposed against the petitioner after holding him guilty of the charges, cannot be sustained." 6. The learned counsel for the parties have taken us through the record. It is apparent from the enquiry report that there is clear determination-based upon an overall appreciation of the material on record including the certificate relied upon that the document was genuine, and was held to be correct. In other words, the Inquiry Officer positively found that the certificate was not forged or fake and rather that it was genuine. In these circumstances, given the nature of charge, i.e. of having obtained employment on the basis of false information, by producing a certificate which was not correct or true, had not been proved, as was rightly deduced by the Inquiry Officer. However, having dealt with that decision, the Inquiry Officer proceeded further and held that there was some doubt as to whether in fact the petitioner belonged to the Rawal community. On this aspect, there cannot be two opinions. The Inquiry Officers remit is limited on the subject matter which he is tasked to decide - and not to decide on issues which are not the subject matter of charges or enquiry. It is clear in the present case that the Inquiry Officer transgressed those limits. 7. The learned Single Judge, in the opinion of this Court, correctly appreciated these aspects and set aside the penalty imposed on the writ petitioner. It is clear in the present case that the Inquiry Officer transgressed those limits. 7. The learned Single Judge, in the opinion of this Court, correctly appreciated these aspects and set aside the penalty imposed on the writ petitioner. Accordingly, there is no merit in the appeal which is accordingly, dismissed.