SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(MP) 173

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH (GWALIOR BENCH)
GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA, J.
Bharat Singh Batham - Appellant
Versus
Life Insurance Corporation of India and Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 14571 of 2020
Decided On : 16-03-2021

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Girish Prakash Kekre.
For the Respondents:K.N. Gupta, Senior Advocate and Rinku Shakya.

The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between false certificate and forged certificate, and the application of relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) to define forgery and false information.

Headnote:

Forgery - Caste Certificate - IPC 463, 464, 182 - The court held that the caste certificate submitted by the petitioner at the time of his appointment was a forged caste certificate and was never issued by any competent authority. The court also clarified the difference between false certificate and forged certificate, stating that a forged caste certificate which was never issued by any competent authority is not required to be placed before the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee. The court dismissed the petition with a cost of Rs.25,000 to be deposited by the petitioner.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner was issued a caste certificate stating that he belongs to Manjhi Caste and was appointed on the basis of this certificate. The respondents initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, alleging that the caste certificate submitted by the petitioner was forged. The petitioner denied the charges, but the enquiry report exonerating the petitioner was not accepted by the respondent no. 1, who issued a show cause notice to the petitioner.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the caste certificate submitted by the petitioner was a forged document and was never issued by any competent authority. The court also clarified the difference between false certificate and forged certificate, stating that a forged caste certificate which was never issued by any competent authority is not required to be placed before the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee. The court dismissed the petition with a cost of Rs.25,000 to be deposited by the petitioner.

Issues: The main issue was whether the caste certificate submitted by the petitioner at the time of his appointment was forged or issued by a competent authority.

Ratio Decidendi: The court clarified the difference between false certificate and forged certificate, stating that a forged caste certificate which was never issued by any competent authority is not required to be placed before the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee. The court also referred to relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) to define forgery and false information.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition with a cost of Rs.25,000 to be deposited by the petitioner, and directed that if the petitioner fails to deposit the cost within the stipulated period, then the Principal Registrar shall register a suo moto contempt proceedings against the petitioner.

JUDGMENT :

Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia, J.

Through Video Conferencing

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed against notice dated 4-9-2020 issued by respondent no. 1, by which the petitioner has been called upon to show cause as to why his appointment be not declared as void ab-initio and why the proposed penalty of dismissal from service be not imposed and why gratuity and pensionary benefits should not be forfeited since, the petitioner has obtained his appointment on the basis of forged caste certificate which amounts to offence involving moral turpitude.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was issued a caste certificate to the effect that the petitioner belongs to Manjhi Caste and accordingly, the petitioner was appointed on 13-3-1981 against the post reserved for Scheduled Tribe category and at present he is working on the post of Assistant Administrative Officer under the respondent no. 1.

3. It is alleged that the respondents started disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner on the charges that the caste certificate submitted by the petitioner at the time of appointment in the year 1981 is forged. The disciplinary enquiry was initiated after 37 years of service of the petitioner and the petitioner has only 3 months of service remaining for his retirement. The charges leveled against the petitioner were denied. Thereafter, the enquiry officer, submitted his enquiry report dated 26-6-2020, thereby exonerating the petitioner from the charges and it was held that the charge leveled against the petitioner is not proved.

4. However, the respondent no. 1 did not accept the enquiry report, and issued the impugned notice dated 4-9-2020, thereby requiring the petitioner to show cause as to why the penalty of dismissal from service be not imposed and why his gratuity and pensionary benefits be not forfeited.

5. It is the case of the petitioner that the State Govt. has issued a circular dated 27-7-2017, by which it has been clarified that in the year 1996, there was no provision for making application for issuance of Caste Certificate and there was no format of the same. Even the record was not maintained in the office of the issuing authority. It was further mentioned that once, the caste certificate is issued, then it would be valid for all departments, and the same cannot be said to be a forged document, merely because it does not contain the endorsement of the office of Collector.

6. By another circular dated 1-1-2018, it was clarified that the persons who belong to Dhimar, Kewat, Kahar, Bhoi, Mallah etc and are having the Caste Certificate of Manjhi and have got appointment on the basis of said Caste Certificate, prior to 11-11-2005, shall be entitled to enjoy the benefits of the Caste Certificate. Circular dated 21-3-2013 has also been issued, mentioning thereby that the people who have already derived benefit of Manjhi Caste Certificate, status quo in respect of the same be maintained.

7. It is submitted that High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee has been constituted in the light of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Madhuri Patil Vs. Add. Commissioner, reported in AIR 1995 SC 94, and therefore, the validity of a Caste Certificate can only be looked into by the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee and the matter relating to caste certificate of the petitioner is already pending before the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee, therefore, the action of the respondent no. 1 in issuing a show cause notice to the petitioner is bad in law.

8. Per contra, the respondents have filed their return. It is their case that in pursuance of advertisement for the post of Peon, the petitioner submitted his application on 6-10-1980 along with a Caste Certificate. Since, the said Caste Certificate was not in proper format, therefore, the format of Caste Certificate was sent

          Click Here to Read the rest of this document
          1
          2
          3
          4
          5
          6
          7
          8
          9
          10
          11
          SupremeToday Portrait Ad
          supreme today icon
          logo-black

          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

          qr

          Scan Me!

          India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

          For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

          whatsapp-icon Back to top