JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

1. Heard Mr. Rahul Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Vikash Kumar, learned counsel for respondent no. 1, Mr. Prashant Pallav, learned counsel for respondent no. 2, Mr. Deepankar Roy, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Manish Yadav, learned counsel for respondent no. 5.

2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated 09.09.2022 contained in Annexure-6 of this petition, passed by the National Commission for Scheduled Castes in F. No. Jharkhand/2/2020-APCR, whereby, the Commission has directed for the arrest of the petitioner, who was Ex Vice Chancellor, Sido Kanhu Murmu University within 24 hours and has further directed for the Action Taken Report to be submitted within 7 days.

3. Mr. Rahul Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has approached this Court and vide order dated 20.12.2022, the order of no coercive steps against the petitioner has been passed by this Court and notices were issued upon the respondents. He further submits that initially FIR being Dumka SC/ST P.S. Case No. 1/2020 was registered on the written complaint of respondent no. 5 against Gourav Gangopadhyay, Dean Student Welfare, Sido Kanhu Murmu University alleging therein that on 06.01.2020 when the informant had gone to the office of Dean Student Welfare regarding some query in relation to his engagement on contractual basis, he had been abused by the Dean Student Welfare with castiest slur that 'on the basis of reservation you are seeking appointment and he would not get your doctoral degree invalidated by the Vice-Chancellor. The informant has further alleged that after the incident he became scared as the said Gourav Gangopadhyay would get his degree invalidated.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said FIR was investigated by the police and final form has been submitted and the petitioner has not been sent up for trial, however Gourav Gangopadhyay, Dean Student Welfare has been sent up for trial. He further submits that in this background, present complaint case has been filed before the National Commission for Scheduled Castes and pursuant to that, the impugned order has been passed. He also submits that the Commission is constituted under Article 338 of the Constitution of India only to limited extent to investigate, enquire and advise, however the Commission has exceeded its jurisdiction by directing to arrest the petitioner. He further submits that this aspect of the matter has been considered by Delhi High Court in National Seed Corporation Ltd. vs. National Commission for SC & ST and Another, (2013) SCC Online Del. 2229. On these grounds, he submits that the impugned order is lacking jurisdiction and the said order may kindly be quashed.

5. On the other hand, Mr. Prashant Pallav, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 submits that the power is there to the Commission in light of Article 338(5) of the Constitution of India. He draws attention of the Court to Article 338 of the Constitution of India and submits that how the Commission is having power, it is discussed in Clause (a) to (f) of the said Article. By way of placing this, he submits that the Commission was already having power and that is why the impugned order has been passed. There is no illegality in the impugned order. He further refers Rule 7.5 of Rules of Procedure of National Commission for Scheduled Caste and submits that by way of separate Rule, further power is conferred to the National Commission for Scheduled Castes. On these grounds, he submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order.

6. Mr. Deepankar Roy, learned counsel for the State submits that the police has investigated the matter and submitted charge-sheet and the petitioner has not been sent up for trial, however one Gourav Gangopadhyay has been sent up for trial. He submits that in view of the charge-sheet, it appears that the case has been maliciously filed by respondent no. 5.

7. So far as maintaina