Smt. Antesh Rawat vs State of M.P. and Others

Sujoy Paul, J.—The petitioner was appointed as Anganwadi Up-Karyakarta by the Project Officer vide Annexure P/2, which was challenged by the private respondent by filing an appeal before Collector. By order dated 16.08.2011 (Annexure P/3) Collector rejected the appeal. This order of Collector was challenged in further appeal No. 222/2010-11 before the Commissioner. The Commissioner opined in paras 5 and 6 as under:-

The said order is criticized by the petitioner on the ground that suspicion cannot be a ground to set aside the order of Collector. In the event of suspicion, the matter should have been remanded back for proper enquiry and the fate of the petitioner can be based on the outcome of such enquiry.

Smt. Pachauri and Shri Katare, learned counsel for the other side supported the order of Commissioner and submit that there is no infirmity in the order and the petitioner''s BPL card is fake.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

This is settled in law that suspicion, however strong it may be, cannot take place of proof. This view is taken by the Supreme Court in Union of India (UOI) Vs. H.C. Goel, and is consistently followed till date. The Commissioner has not given any specific finding that BPL card in question is fake or forged document. He only stated that it is "doubtful/suspicious".

I find force in the argument of Shri Prashant Sharma that in that event, he should have remanded the matter back to the Collector to examine this aspect and outcome of such enquiry will decide the fate of the petitioner. Consequently, the order dated 16.05.2012 is partially set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Collector with the direction to examine the validity and genuineness of the BPL card of the petitioner. The petitioner''s right to enjoy appointment order or the right of private respondent herein will depend on the outcome of such enquiry.

It is expected that Collector will decide the aforesaid aspect within 60 days from the date of production of certified copy of this order. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion about the correctness and genuineness of the said BPL Card. The present petitioner shall continue till the decision of the Collector on the aforesaid aspect. Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs.