Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.
This writ petition was previously allowed by judgment rendered on 25.2.2005 whereby the order of dismissal from service passed against the petitioner on 14.2.2001 was set aside. The judgment/order dated 25.2.2005 was challenged before this Court in Special Appeal No. 1127(SB) of 2005 which the Division Bench of this Court was pleased to allow and the matter was remitted back to this Court for adjudication of the controversy on merit.
Learned counsel for the parties were heard at length.
From the material placed on record, it is gathered that the sole charge levelled against the petitioner was in relation to the caste certificate submitted by him at the time of his recruitment on the post of Technician Grade-B. It is undisputed that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1987 on the post of Technician Grade-B who continued to serve till a complaint was received by the opposite parties from some office bearer of the association of scheduled caste employees in the year 1996. It is this complaint that has triggered an action in the nature of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. Previously, the matter regarding the acceptance of resignation tendered by the petitioner became a subject matter of consideration before this Court and the writ petition in relation thereto was allowed by this Court vide judgment dated 29.10.1997 which attained finality. Pursuant to the judgment rendered in writ petition no. 3665(S/S) of 1996, the petitioner was reinstated in service. Later on, the petitioner was served with the charge-sheet levelling allegation of submitting a false caste certificate. This is the sole charge levelled against the petitioner on the basis of which departmental inquiry was held against him and on the basis of inquiry report, the impugned order dismissing him from service was passed. The dismissal order as stated above was quashed by this Court on 25.2.2005 in the present writ petition against which the Special Appeal came to be filed which was allowed by judgment dated 19.9.2007 and that is how the writ petition has come up for hearing again. During pendency of the Special Appeal, the petitioner was reinstated in service and even after remitting the case, the petitioner remained in service.
At this stage when the writ petition has come up for hearing, it is noteworthy that the petitioner has been in service throughout and having attained the age of superannuation he has retired from service on 30.11.2016. The salary payable to the petitioner has also been paid barring for the time this writ petition remained pending until its decision on 25.2.2005.
Learned counsel for the petitioner taking this Court empirically through the entire process of inquiry has placed some significant documents, according to which, the caste certificate issued to him was established to have been issued by the competent authority which at a later point of time was denied in some correspondence entered into by the opposite parties with the district authorities. The charge levelled against the petitioner has two aspects. Firstly, as to whether the caste certificate was issued by the authority who has signed the document and secondly, as to whether the caste certificate issued to the petitioner stands in accordance with law.
On the aspect of issuance of caste certificate, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed before this Court a letter dated 29.1.1996 issued under the signature of Additional District Magistrate, Administration, Moradabad which clearly indicates that the caste certificate was duly issued and signed by the competent authority. The position as per the document was verified. Thus, this document supports the claim of the petitioner.
Later on, it appears that some further correspondence has taken place to serve the purpose of disciplinary action against the petitioner. The correspondence with the District Collector later on merely indicates that the caste certificate of "Dheemar" does not fall in the category of scheduled caste category. In nutshell, there is no aspersion cast on the petitioner insofar as the issuance of the caste certificate is concerned which according to the order dated 29.1.1996 testifies the petitioner's caste to be that of 'Turaiha'.
It was never a case before the authorities that the caste certificate submitted at the time of appointment was forged particularly when the caste certificate issued to the petitioner as per the order dated 29.1.1996 was testified to be that of "Turaiha" category.
This Court would not venture to probe into the findings of inquiry report on this aspect for the reason that the disciplinary proceedings even otherwise suffer from various procedural irregularities. This Court for reasons more than one is convinced to observe that the departmental inquiry is not a substitute of scrutiny which is essential for verification of a caste certificate. The departmental inquiry at best can place reliance upon an order passed by the screening committee meant for the purpose. It is not in dispute between the parties that ever since the date of commencement of disciplinary proceedings, there existed an independent committee for scrutiny of caste certificate which has not judged the petitioner's caste certificate in dispute. At present there are committees at three levels in the State constituted for the purpose.
The opposite parties until now have not subjected the caste certificate to any such scrutiny by the competent committee and the very purpose of disciplinary proceedings has almost stood frustrated. The petitioner has not otherwise caused any financial loss to the employer and his services have been unblemished. Except for withholding salary for the period the petitioner remained out of service from 14.2.2001 till his reinstatement pursuant to the judgment dated 25.2.2005, the petitioner has been paid all service benefits.
This Court is of the considered opinion that the validity of a caste certificate can only be scrutinized by the competent committee which in the present case was not approached by the employer nor the complainant. For want of any such proceedings, the disciplinary action on the basis of the enquiry report of departmental officer is wholly without any foundation and cannot be a basis of punishment.
The writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 14.2.2001 is hereby set aside. The petitioner as a consequence of setting aside the order dated 14.2.2001 shall be entitled to 50% salary for the period he remained out of service. Consequences to follow.
The writ petition is partly allowed and the impugned orders are hereby set aside. No order as to cost.
Order Date :- 27.11.2019 kanhaiya