Disciplinary proceedings under service rules are not 'other legal proceedings' under Section 3(1)(p) of Atrocities Act; mere knowledge of Scheduled Caste status insufficient without proof of caste-based malice. FIR quashed as service grievance counterblast.

JUDGMENT :

ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.

1. These proceedings are recorded in accordance with the decision of this Court in Hema Suresh Ahuja & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., 2024 SCC OnLineBom 784, as the subject matter pertains to an offence under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, “Atrocities Act, 1989”).

2. The Committee constituted in terms of the Notification No. P.1602, dated 09.09.2015, regarding Rules for the presentation and conduct of proceedings in person by parties, vide Office Report dated 31.01.2026, declined permission to Respondent No. 2 (Sreeramappa Chinnappa) to appear in person. On 06.02.2026, Respondent No. 2 appeared through VC and declined the appointment of an Advocate from the Legal Aid Panel. However, Respondent No. 2 pleaded for the appointment of an Advocate to assist this Court. Mr. A. P. Mundargi, learned Senior Counsel, was therefore requested to appear in this matter as an Amicus Curiae.

3. Heard Mr. A. P. Mundargi, learned Amicus Curiae, Mr. Sunip Sen, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners in both these petitions, and Mr. Tanveer G. Khan, learned APP for the Respondent – State.

4. Mr. A. P. Mundargi, learned Amicus Curiae, Mr. Sunip Sen, learned Senior Counsel, and Mr. Tanveer Khan submit that the subject matter of both these petitions is the FIR bearing No. II–1 / 2016 dated 24.05.2016 (for short “impugned FIR”), registered with the Tarapur Police Station, District Palghar, under Section 3(1) (viii) {i.e. Section 3(1)(p) of the amended Act} of the Atrocities Act, 1989. Accordingly, they request that both these petitions be taken up together and disposed of by a common order. Both these petitions are taken up together.

5. Kailash Chandra Purohit (Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1928 of 2016) is Accused No. 1, whereas Sanjay Sanyal (Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1927 of 2016) is Accused No. 2 in the impugned FIR.

6. Rule in both these petitions was issued on 05.02.2024, and the interim order dated 03.06.2026, granting a stay of the impugned FIR, was confirmed as the interim relief.

7. Material facts relevant to the present petitions, as derived from the petitions, are that Kailash Chandra Purohit was the Chairman and Managing Director of Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd. (NPCIL), whereas Sanjay Sanyal was the General Manager (H.R.) at NPCIL.

8. Respondent No.2 joined NPCIL at the Kaiga Generating Station, Karnataka, as a General Duty Medical Officer (GDMO) in the Grade of Medical Officer ‘C’ on 12.09.1994. Respondent No.2 was promoted thrice during his career in NPCIL under the Merit Promotion Scheme of the Department of Atomic Energy, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, applicable to Scientific and Technical Personnel, including Medical Professionals.

9. A report was received by the Director (H.R.), NPCIL, from the Site Director, NPCIL Tarapur, regarding serious acts of misconduct by Respondent No. 2 on the premises of TAPS Hospital on 21.08.2013. The reported misconduct included preventing the Acting Medical Superintendent of TAPS Hospital from performing his official duties; calling the Police from the nearby Panchmarg Police Station to the Acting Medical Superintendent's chamber and stating that Respondent No.