Back
2016 Supreme(MP) 406
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
S.K. Gangele, J.
Chetram Meena v. State of M.P. and another
Review Petition No.166 of 2016 (Jabalpur); Decided on 11.5.2016.
Piyush Bhatnagar for applicant;
Prakash Gupta, Panel Lawyer for respondent/State.
Headnote:(1) Constitution of India -- Art.226 -- employment got by submitting forged caste certificate -- on complaint inquiry conducted by CID and complaint was found true -- High Level Scrutiny Committee after issuing notice and considering reply and in spite of service of notice petitioner not appeared before committee -- committee found caste certificate forged -- no prejudice caused to petitioner -- petitioner received forged certificate and he any how wants to prolong proceedings -- no error apparent on face of record -- review petition dismissed.
Held : It is contended that petitioner has not been afforded an opportunity of hearing. In my opinion, an opportunity was given by the Committee to the petitioner, he failed to appear before the Committee. He filed his reply. His reply was considered by the Committee. In such circumstance no prejudice is caused to the petitioner. Petitioner received a forged certificate and he any how wants to prolong the proceedings. (2013)8 SCC 320 followed.
(2) Constitution of India -- Art.226 -- rule of natural justice -- main contention of review petition is that High Level Scruting Committee without affording opportunity of hearing to petitioner passed order -- which is in violation of rules of natural justice -- observance of rule of natural justice is not mere formality -- a person has to establish that he has some right which is infringed -- opportunity given by committee but he failed to appear before committee -- he filed reply also -- petition dismissed.
Held : It is well settled principle of law that observance of Rules of natural justice is not mere formality. A person has to establish some fact that he has some right which is infringe or he has some ground to substantiate his claim and non-observance of Rules of natural justice has adversely affected his case. (2000)7 SCC 529 followed.
¼1½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq-226 && dwVjfpr tkfr izek.k&i= izLrqr dj fu;kstu izkIr fd;k && f'kdk;r ij lh vkb Mh }kjk tkWp lapkfyr dh rFkk f'kdk;r lR; ikbZ xbZ && mPp Lrjh; Nkuchu lfefr }kjk lwpuk tkjh djus rFkk tokc ij fopkj djus ds i'pkr~ rFkk lwpuk dh rkehy gksus ds ckotwn lfefr ds le{k ;kph mifLFkr ugha gqvk && lfefr us tkfr izek.k&i= dwVjfpr ik;k && ;kph ij dksbZ izfrdwy izHkko ugha && ;kph us dwVjfpr izek.k&i= izkIr fd;k og fdlh Hkh rjg dk;Zokgh dks foyafcr djuk pkgrk gS && vfHkys[k ns[kus ij dksbZ =qfV izdV ugha && iqufoZyksdu ;kfpdk [kkfjtA
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % ;g izfrokfnr fd;k x;k fd ;kph dks lquokbZ dk dksbZ volj iznku ugha fd;k x;kA esjh jk; esa] lfefr }kjk ;kph dks volj fn;k x;kA og lfefr ds le{k mifLFkr gksus esa vlQy jgkA mlus viuk tokc izLrqr fd;kA mlds tokc ij lfefr }kjk fopkj fd;k x;kA bu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa ;kph dks dksbZ izfrdwy izHkko dkfjr ugha gqvkA ;kph us dwVjfpr izek.k&i= izkIr fd;k rFkk og fdlh Hkh rjg ls dk;Zokgh dks foyafcr djuk pkgrk gSA ¼2013½ 8 ,l lh lh 320 vuqlfjrA
¼2½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq-226 && uSlfxZd U;k; ds fl)kar dk fu;e && iqufoZyksdu ;kfpdk dk eq[; izfrokn gS fd mPpLrjh; Nkuchu lfefr us ;kph dks lquokbZ dk dksbZ volj fn, fcuk vkns'k ikfjr fd;k && tks fd uSlfxZd U;k; fl)kar ds fu;e ds mYya?ku esa gS && uSlfxZd U;k; ds fl)kar dk vuqikyu ek= vkSipkfjdrk ugha && O;fDr dks LFkkfir djuk gS fd mlds ikl dqN vf/kdkj gS ftl dk mYya?ku gqvk && lfefr }kjk volj fn;k x;k ijarq og lfefr ds le{k mifLFkr gksus esa vlQy jgk && mlus tokc Hkh izLrqr fd;k && ;kfpdk [kkfjtA
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % fof/k dk ;g lqLFkkfir fl)kar gS fd uSlfxZd U;k; fl)kar ds fu;e dk vuqikyu ek= vkSipkfjdrk ugha gSA ,d O;fDr dks dqN rF; LFkkfir djuk gS fd og dqN vf/kdkj j[krk gS ftldk mYya?ku gqvk ;k mlds ikl vius nkok dks fl) djus ds fy, dqN vk/kkj gS rFkk uSlfxZd U;k; fla)kr ds fu;e dk vuqikyu u djus ls mldk ekeyk izfrdwy :i ls izHkkfor gqvk gSA ¼2007½7 ,l lh lh 529 vuqlfjrA
1. This review petition has been filed for review of the order dated 17.6.2015, passed in Writ Petition No.5940/2015. The Court dismissed the petition of the petitioner.
2. The petitioner was appointed in the year 1985 as Sub-Inspector in the Police Department from reserve category candidate on the ground that he belongs to Meena Caste i.e. Scheduled Tribe. He was promoted to the post of Inspector and finally on the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police in the year 2013. The petitioner retired from service on 30.4.2014. Some complaints were received by the department in regard to caste certificate submitted by the petitioner to the effect that petitioner does not belong to Meena Caste Scheduel Tribe. He got employment by submitting forged caste certificate. An inquiry was conducted by the CID and the complaint was found true. Thereafter, matter was referred to the High Level Scrutiny Committee. The petitioner had submitted his reply on 17.1.2015 before High Level Scrutiny Committee. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner to appear before the Committee on 26.2.2015. Notice was served on the petitioner. In spite service of notice petitioner does not appear before High Level Scrutiny Committee. After considering evidence and reply of the petitioner High Level Scrutiny Committee vide decision dated 16.2.2015 has held that petitioner procured a forged caste certificate of Meena Caste i.e. Scheduled Tribe. He does not belong to aforesaid caste and his certificate is hereby cancelled. Against the aforesaid order the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court, which was dismissed.
3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order the petitioner filed a writ appeal. Division Bench of this Court granted liberty to the petitioner to file review petition. The Division Bench observed as under :
“To overcome this situation, counsel for the appellants submit that one indulgence be given to the appellants who may go back before the same Court either by way of application for speaking to the minutes of the order or by way of review, as may be advised - in which proceedings the issue can be dealt with appropriately. We have no difficulty in showing this indulgence to the appellants, in the interest of justice.
As a result, we permit the appellants to withdraw these appeals and to resort to such other remedy as may be permissible in law. All questions in that behalf are left open.
Counsel for the appellants submit that since the appellants will go back before the learned Single Judge, the appellants be protected for a period of two weeks to enable the appellants to move the same Court by way of appropriate proceedings within such time and if that decision is adverse to the appellants, to approach by way of intra-Court appeal. This submission, no doubt, is opposed by the counsel for the State. However, in our opinion, if such permission is not granted, the appellants may face fait accompli situation, if the authority was to act upon the orders impugned in the writ petition or decision of the Committee which has been impugned in the writ petition.”
4. Thereafter present review petition has been filed. The main contention of the review petition is that the High Level Scrutiny Committee passed the order without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Hence, the decision of the High Level Scrutiny Committee is in violation of Rules of natural justice and same argument has been made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
5. It is well settled principle of law that observance of Rules of natural justice is not mere formality. A person has to establish some fact that he has some right which is infringe or he has some ground to substantiate his claim and non-observance of Rules of natural justice has adversely affected his case.
6. The apex Court in the matter of Aligarh Muslim University and others v. Mansoor Ali Khan, reported in (2000)7 SCC 529, held as under :
21. As pointed recently in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India [(1999)6 SC
