The validity of caste certificates must be examined by a designated Caste Scrutiny Committee, not administrative authorities, and the revival of stale complaints without new evidence is arbitrary.

ORDER :

1. The present writ petition has been instituted by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking quashing of the charge-sheet dated 29.01.2021 issued by the respondents under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Rules of 1958’), together with all consequential reliefs, including release of pensionary and service benefits.

2. Briefly stated that the facts of the case are that the petitioner belongs to the Santia community, which stands duly recognized as a Scheduled Caste in the State of Rajasthan. The petitioner was issued caste certificates by the competent authorities; the Tehsildar, Revenue Department on 10.08.1984 and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bikaner on 27.09.1984, affirming his Scheduled Caste status. The inclusion of Santia caste in the Scheduled Caste list is further corroborated by the report of the State Backward Classes Commission.

2.1. The petitioner was appointed as a Lower Division Clerk (LDC) on 24.10.1992 through a regular selection process in the pay scale of ₹950–1680. His service record, from inception, reflected his Scheduled Caste status. Over the years, he earned promotions; first as Upper Division Clerk (UDC) in the year 2012 and later as Assistant Administrative Officer (AAO) on 16.03.2018, under office order dated 03.04.2018. His career spanned almost three decades without any adverse remark, charge-sheet, or complaint.

2.2. Vide order dated 30.01.2020, the respondents notified that the petitioner would retire upon attaining the age of superannuation on 31.01.2021. The said order specifically recorded that no departmental or judicial proceedings were pending against him as of that date.

2.3. However, in a wholly unexpected and arbitrary turn of events, just two days prior to his retirement, the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet dated 29.01.2021 under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958. The sole allegation therein was that his initial appointment had been obtained by misrepresenting his caste status as Scheduled Caste (Santia). The charge-sheet was purportedly based on a complaint of 2014, allegedly made by his estranged wife Smt. Rama Devi; a document which neither bore her signature nor any date, and whose authenticity was never verified.

2.4. The petitioner promptly submitted a detailed reply on 02.02.2021, asserting that both caste certificates had been issued by competent authorities and that Santia caste is a duly notified Scheduled Caste. He further contended that the proceedings were initiated at the instance of certain individuals misusing his ex-wife’s name to settle personal scores. Notably, the very complaint had earlier been forwarded by the Additional Director, Local Fund Audit, on 26.05.2014, and after thorough examination, the matter was closed, as recorded in departmental note-sheets dated 28.05.2014 to 03.03.2017, which explicitly concluded that no irregularity was found in the petitioner’s caste status. Despite this closure, the respondents inexplicably resurrected the issue after a lapse of nearly six years and issued the impugned charge-sheet on 29.01.2021; an act which is ex facie arbitrary, mala fide, and unsustainable in law.

2.5. The petitioner had already been granted the first and second Assured Career Progressions (ACPs) vide orders dated 07.01.2002 and 11.04.2011, respectively, and became entitled to the third ACP on 24.10.2019. However, the said benefit, along with his annual increment for 2020 and post-retirement dues including provisional pension, gratuity, provident fund, and leave encashment, has been unjustifiably withheld, purportedly on account of the pendency of the said charge-sheet. Hence, the ins