AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.
Heard finally with the consent of Shri Choudhari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Kadu, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
The petitioner is continuing in employment as Shikshan Sewak. His caste claim as belonging to Chhaperband, Vimukta Jati (A), has been invalidated on 10.12.2013. This Court on 21.02.2014 has protected his employment.
Shri Choudhari, learned counsel has invited attention to the impugned order to urge that the validity given to a cousin has been discarded only by observing that the relationship with that person is not established. He contends that except for mentioning this conclusion, there are no reasons recorded as to why the relationship is not substantiated. Our attention is invited to the report submitted by the Vigilance Cell Authority on 20.06.2011 wherein the name of the said cousin or his father Atta Ulla Shah finds mention. The learned counsel submits that as the relationship is not disputed by the Vigilance authorities, the Scrutiny Committee could not have, without extending any opportunity in that connection, observed to the contrary. It is further pointed out that in earlier Writ Petition No. 2100 of 2012, this Court has remanded the matter on 10.04.2013. After that remand, the petitioner could procure the validity given to his cousin Jabbir Ulla Shah Atta Ulla Shah and that validity was given to Scrutiny Committee for its consideration. Even after producing this validity, the impugned order has been passed which shows total non application of mind and as the validity is given to the relative on paternal side, the petitioner also deserves to be given validity.
Shri Kadu, learned AGP for respondents No. 1 and 2 relies upon the impugned order and also reply affidavit filed before this Court. He also points out the sequence of events and submits that as pleaded in the affidavit, after verification, the documents are found to be fake and forged.
With the assistance of the learned counsel, we have perused the orders. Writ Petition No. 2100 of 2012 filed by the present petitioner assailing the earlier order of the Scrutiny Committee. That order was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Scrutiny Committee for taking fresh decision. The petitioner was also permitted to produce additional documents, if any. Accordingly, the petitioner appears to have submitted belatedly the validity certificate dated 05.03.2010 issued by the Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee No. 2, Akola, Amravati Division, Amravati. It appears that a family tree along with affidavit mentioning the relationship was also filed on 30.08.2013.
The Vigilance Report, to which our attention has been drawn by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is dated 20.06.2011, i.e. prior to remand by this Court and prior to the documents mentioned supra. In that report, in the names of three brothers of the father of the petitioner, who have already expired, name Atta Ulla Shah also figures. The name Jabbir Ulla Shah appearing in this report is stated to be name of Jabbir Ulla Atta Ulla Shah, who has been given validity on 05.03.2010. The Vigilance Report on which the petitioner has placed reliance, mentions that name of grand father of the petitioner was Jerawar Shah Lal Shah. Jerawar Shah Lal Shah has four sons and five daughters. Vajeda Bano is shown as last daughter and after her name, name of Jabbir Shah figures as her husband as stated above. He cannot, therefore, be son of Atta Ulla Shah.
The perusal of order of Scrutiny Committee shows a reference to Vigilance Report dated 20.06.2011 and its acceptance by the present petitioner. The Committee has then mentioned that after it closed the matter for orders on 06.08.2013, certain documents were given in inward section by the petitioner on 02/10.09.2013. The Committee also mentions a report of Tahsildar dated 31.08.2013. It is not very clear whether the documents filed after 02/10.09.2013 were verified by the Scrutiny Committee. The petitioner has not given the correct facts of the case. On the contrary, an effort to mislead the Court has been made by urging that name Jabbir Shah mentioned in the report of Vigilance Cell dated 20.06.2011 is the name of Jabbir Atta Ulla Shah only. Before Scrutiny Committee, on 06.08.2013, he stated that he did not wish to file documents. Then on 02/10.09.2013, instead of filing documents on case record, he tendered them in the office of the Committee, knowing fully well that the matter was closed for orders. Thus, a roving effort to create a lacuna in the proceedings was made.
In this situation, we find that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands. Roving efforts are made to continue in employment as long as possible. However, as the petitioner is continuing in employment, instead of proceeding to dismiss the writ petition straightway, we direct his employer to step down his salary to 80% until further orders. The Respondents No. 3 and 4 - management shall pay only 80% of the salary as wages to the petitioner until further orders of the Scrutiny Committee in the matter. The Scrutiny Committee shall forward the documents filed by the petitioner later on to the Vigilance Cell authorities and obtain its report on those documents in accordance with law within two months. After receipt of that report, the petitioner shall be given due opportunity and the Scrutiny Committee shall thereafter, take necessary decision on merits on the caste claim at the earliest and within next three months.
The petitioner is directed to appear before the Scrutiny Committee on 17.11.2014 and to abide by its further instructions in the matter. The Committee shall attempt to obtain Vigilance Cell report within two months and then take suitable final decision on caste claim in next three months. Till the caste claim is validated, the petitioner shall continue to draw salary at the reduced rate as mentioned supra. Subject to this, the order dated 10.12.2013 is set aside.
Writ Petition is partly allowed. However, the petitioner shall pay cost of Rs. 5,000/- to Respondent No. 2 Committee towards this petition within a period of two weeks from today. If the costs are not received by the Committee, the Committee shall be free to pass final suitable orders in the matter.