Back
Gauhati High Court
Ujjal Bhuyan, J.
Ex CT/GD Bikash Chandra Nath - Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Ors. - Respondent
WP(C) 451/2010
Decided On : 10-04-2015
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 - CRPF Act, 1949 - Section 11(1) – Removal from service - Committed misconduc - False ST certificate - Seeks a direction to reinstate him in service - Petitioner from service of Central Reserve Police Force as well as order dated passed by appellate authority affirming order of penalty - Petitioner further seeks a direction to respondents to reinstate him in service - Community is presently enlisted as an Other Backward Class - However by Constitution Scheduled Tribes Order Amendment Ordinance which was published in Gazette vide notification dated community was accorded status of Scheduled Tribe - Following same Government of in and BC Department issued Office Memorandum dated authorizing President/General Secretary of as well as President/General Secretary of District units to issue caste certificate to a member of community as per prescribed format - According to petitioner he possessed minimum physical standard required for general category candidate for State of Assam - He did not avail relaxation available to a candidate of Scheduled Tribe category - Petitioner was finally selected - It is stated that ultimately he was appointed as Constable in the CRPF and was allotted Force – Held, Public notice may also be issued eliciting views of interested persons or groups - Thereafter Scrutiny Committee may conduct such enquiry and pass appropriate order with brief reasons in support thereof - If certificate is found to be false same is required to be cancelled and thereafter intimated to concerned authority to cancel admission or appointment as case may be - Court in case of State of reported in had examined a decision of Government of declaring petitioner to be a member of community and not belonging to community which is an community - Referring to procedure laid down by Honble Supreme Court in this Court held that due procedure was not followed and that declaration made by State Government was contrary to law laid down by Honble Supreme Court - Question put forward by Honble Supreme Court was as to whether a person who has honestly in contra-distinction to falsely claimed consanguinity with a certain group which was later on found not belonging to Scheduled Tribe but to a backward class be visited with termination of employment - Which has vitiated decision making process culminating in decision to remove petitioner from service – Petition Allowed.
2. By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 09.06.2007, issued by the Commandant, 84 Battalion, removing the petitioner from the service of Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) as well as the order dated 04.05.2009, passed by the appellate authority affirming the order of penalty. Petitioner further seeks a direction to the respondents to reinstate him in service.
3. Case of the petitioner is that he belongs to the Koch-Rajbongshi community in the State of Assam. The Koch-Rajbongshi community is presently enlisted as an Other Backward Class (OBC). However, by the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order Amendment Ordinance, 1996, which was published in the Gazette vide notification dated 14.02.1996, the Koch-Rajbongshi community was accorded the status of Scheduled Tribe. Following the same, Government of Assam in the WPT and BC Department, issued Office Memorandum dated 15.03.1996, authorizing the President/General Secretary of Assam Koch-Rajbongshi Sanmilani as well as the President/General Secretary of the District units to issue caste certificate to a member of the Koch-Rajbongshi community as per the prescribed format. The caste certificate so issued was required to be countersigned by the Deputy Commissioner of the district or by the concerned Sub-Divisional Officer as the case may be.
4. Petitioner was issued a caste certificate by the President, Barpeta District Koch-Rajbongshi Sanmilani, on 20.07.1997, which was countersigned by the Deputy Commissioner, Barpeta, on 20.07.1997. By the said certificate, it was certified that petitioner belonged to Scheduled Tribe (Koch-Rajbongshi) community in the State of Assam.
5. In the year 2002, CRPF had issued an advertisement for filling up 90 (ninety) vacancies in the post of Constable (General Duty) for the State of Assam. Later on, a corrigendum was issued whereby notified vacancies were increased to 1715. 864 vacancies were reserved for general category, 93 for Scheduled Caste (SC), 170 of Scheduled Tribe (ST), 417 for OBC and 171 for ex-servicemen.
6. According to the petitioner, he possessed the minimum physical standard required for general category candidate for the State of Assam. He did not avail relaxation available to a candidate of the Scheduled Tribe (ST) category. Petitioner was finally selected. It is stated that ultimately, he was appointed as Constable (General Duty) in the CRPF and was allotted Force No. 031527768.
7. 4 (four) years after his appointment, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 12.01.2007 by the Commandant, 84 Battalion. It was alleged that petitioner was recruited in the CRPF by producing Scheduled Tribe (ST) certificate. The certificate was verified and as per verification report of the Deputy Commissioner, Barpeta, petitioner belongs to Yogi-Nath community, which belongs to OBC category. Therefore, petitioner committed misconduct by getting appointed in the ST category by producing false ST certificate, which is a misconduct under Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act, 1949.
8. Petitioner submitted his written statement on 20.02.2007, denying the allegations levelled against him.
9. The disciplinary authority, i.e., the Commandant, 84 Battalion decided to hold enquiry. Accordingly, one Assistant Commandant was appointed as the Enquiry Officer.
10. In the meanwhile, office of the Deputy Commissioner, Barpeta, issued a communication to the Additional DIGP, Group Centre, CRPF, Guwahati, on 21.03.2007, submitting the verification report in respect of the caste status of the incumbents mentioned therein. At Serial No. 38, name of the petitioner was mentioned with the remark - OBC (Koch-Rajbongshi). It was mentioned that caste status of the Koch-Rajbongshi community was alte
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
