The Commission does not have the power to adjudicate individual complaints or issue directions to authorities, and the impugned orders were beyond the power, authority, and jurisdiction vested in the Commission.

R.S. Jha, J.

1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant being aggrieved by order dated 17-10-2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 14313/2007 (S), whereby the petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy.

2. The facts in brief necessary for adjudication of the present appeal are that the respondent No. 6, who belongs to the Scheduled Caste category and is an Under Secretary working in the School Education Department filed a complaint before respondent No. 2/Madhya Pradesh. State Scheduled Caste Commission against the present appellant/petitioner alleging that the appellant/petitioner had deliberately delayed the writing of his Annual Confidential Reports relating to the years 2005, 2006 and 2007 and also made allegations that the appellant/petitioner was addressing and abusing the respondent No. 6 on the basis of his caste.

3. The issue was taken up by the respondent No. 3 in his capacity as Chairman of respondent No. 2 and vide order dated 22-9-2007 recorded a finding that the appellant/petitioner had deliberately delayed the writing of the Annual Confidential Reports of respondent No. 6 and was habitually addressing him and abusing him on the basis of his caste and on that basis himself took cognizance of the case and directed the Police Authorities to prosecute the appellant/petitioner under the provisions of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 with a further direction to Secretaries of the concerned departments to impose a punishment of stoppage of two increments cumulatively or of reversion and report compliance within fifteen days.

4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid direction issued by the respondent No. 3, the appellant/petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court, which has been dismissed by order dated 17-10-2007 on the ground that the appellant/petitioner has an alternative remedy of filing an appeal.

5. It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant/petitioner that the impugned order dated 22-9-2007 has been passed by respondent No. 3, who is neither a Departmental Authority nor has the order been passed in departmental proceeding and, therefore, an alternative remedy of filing an appeal under Rule 23 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966 is not available to the appellant/petitioner.

6. It is further contended by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/petitioner that the respondent No. 3 has no power, authority or jurisdiction to issue the order dated 22-9-2007 directing the Police Authorities to register a case against the appellant/petitioner under the provisions of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 or to direct the State Authorities to initiate departmental proceedings against the appellant/petitioner as such directions are beyond the purview of the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Anusuchit Jati Ayog Adhiniyam, 1995 (for brevity 'the Act of 1995').

7. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 has submitted that the impugned order has been passed by respondent No. 3 in exercise of powers under Sections 9 and 10 of the Act of 1995. Alternatively, it is submitted that the impugned order should be treated to be a recommendation only, which is yet to be acted upon by the State and, therefore, the petition and the appeal filed by the appellant/petitioner are misconceived.

8. During the course of arguments, it is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 that subsequent to the issuance of notice by this Court and arguments on the previous date of hearing before this Court the respondent No. 3 has modified the impugned order dated 22-9-2007 by order dated 1-5-2008 and that part where the Departmental Authorities have been directed to impose punishment upon the appellant/petitioner has been modified and a simple recommendation for i