IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that claims to belong to reserved categories must be substantiated with credible evidence, and fraudulent claims undermine the constitutional provisions for social justice, leading to the invalidation of benefits obtained under such claims.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

M.S.SONAK, J. - Heard Mr S. Ghate, learned counsel for the Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 322 of 2022, Mr S. D. Khati, learned counsel for the Petitioner in Writ Petition No.63 of 2023, Mr Y. V. Nadkarni with Ms S. Khadilkar for the Mormugao Port Trust Authority (Respondent No.1 in WP No. 322 of 2022 and Respondent No.2 in WP No.63 of 2023 ) and Mr D. Pangam, learned Advocate General with Ms Maria Correia, learned Additional Government Advocate for the Respondent-State in both the petitions.

2. Rule in both the petitions. At the request and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties rule is made returnable immediately. Even otherwise, these matters were posted for disposal at the admission stage.

3. The Petitioner, based on the caste certificate dtd. 17/12/1980, was appointed as a Clerk at the Mormugao Port Trust ( now Mormugao Port Authority- MPA) effective from 7/10/1982. On 21/8/2009, the MPA requested the Caste Scrutiny Committee constituted in terms of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Kum. Madhuri Patil and Another Vs Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and others, 1994(6) SCC 241' to verify the Petitioner's caste.

4. The Caste Scrutiny Committee (CSC) requested the concerned police vigilance cell to conduct a detailed investigation and submit a report. The record shows that the CSC gave the Petitioner several opportunities to rectify the errors or attend the hearing before the CSC. However, the Petitioner, on one excuse or the other, refused to attend the proceedings before the CSC or vigilance cell.

5. The vigilance cell submitted its report to the CSC on 16/1/2020. On 18/1/2020 the CSC issued a show cause notice to the Petitioner along with a copy of the police vigilance cell report. Again, the Petitioner was granted a full opportunity to file his reply on the report or otherwise participate in the proceedings before the CSC.

6. The Petitioner, by his communication dtd. 5/2/2020, wrote to the CSC that it should pass an order in accordance with Sec. 4(2) of the Maharashtra Schedule Castes, Schedule Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis) Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes, Special Backward Category, (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of Caste Certificate) Act 2000 ( the said Act).

7. The CSC, based on the material before it, including the statements and police vigilance cell report, made the impugned order dtd. 15/2/2020 invalidating the Petitioner's caste certificate.

8. Based upon the CSC's order dtd. 15/2/2020, the MPA issued a charge memorandum dtd. 17/6/2020 charging the Petitioner with grave misconduct of obtaining an appointment as a Clerk on 26/10/1982 against a post meant for a reserved category belonging to the Scheduled Tribe and subsequently deriving promotional benefits of higher positions.

9. The Petitioner filed his written statement in defence on 25/7/2020, which was found to be unsatisfactory. The inquiry proceedings were held, and the inquiry officer submitted his report on 29/6/2021, holding that the charge against the Petitioner was proved.

10. By order dtd. 21/9/2021, the MPA proposed the withdrawal of the full pension sanctioned to the Petitioner with effect from 31/7/2018, i.e. the date on which the Petitioner retired on superannuation. However, it was also proposed not to recover any amount, including the pension already paid to the Petitioner. The Petitioner was granted an opportunity to submit his representation/reply within 15 days on the proposed penalty. The Petitioner submitted his representation on 5/10/2021.

11. On due consideration of the Petitioner's representation and the inquiry report, the Chairman and Competent Authority of the MPA ordered the permanent withdrawal of the full pension sanctioned to the Petitioner with effect from 31/7/2018. Still, he directed that there should be no recovery of the amount, including the pension already paid to the Petitioner, till the date of the order dtd. 29/10/2021.

12. Accordingly, the Petitioner instituted