An employee must exhaust internal remedies, such as filing an appeal, before seeking judicial intervention against a suspension order.

ORDER

(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. M. Swaminathan, Judicial Member)

Aggrieved by the suspension order, dated 06.11.2024 issued by the respondent, the applicant has filed the OA for quashing of the said order and to pass such others as may be deemed fit in the interest of justice.

2. Brief facts of the case as submitted by the applicant are as follows:

The applicant, a member of the Koli Mahadev Scheduled Tribe (ST), was issued a caste certificate by the Tahsildar of Parner, Ahmed Nagar. The applicant's family members, including father and brother, also hold ST caste certificates. In 2001, the applicant applied for a recruitment process by the respondent and was appointed as a Junior Telecom Officer (JTO) on 21.05.2002. The applicant was promoted to Sub-Divisional Engineer in 2009 and to Divisional Engineer in 2022. On 16.05.2023, the applicant was suspended, and filed OA No.486 of 2023 challenging the suspension, with the Tribunal granting an interim order and directing the applicant to file an appeal. Subsequently, the applicant obtained a new caste certificate, and their relatives received validity for their caste certificates. On 06.11.2024, the applicant was suspended a second time for the same incident, leading to the filing of the present OA.

3. The applicant's counsel argues that it is well-established law that a caste certificate remains valid until cancelled by the competent authority or committee. In the applicant's case, no such cancellation has occurred, and the latest caste certificate issued in July 2023 is valid. Therefore, the suspension order is illegal and beyond jurisdiction.

4. The counsel further points out that the applicant's educational records reflect his ST status, and both his father and brother hold ST caste certificates. Additionally, the applicant's first cousin, Pawar Kaveri Vasanth, had her caste certificate validated by the scrutiny committee, as did other close relatives, including the applicant’s niece, Shivani, in October 2023. Hence, there is no doubt regarding the applicant's caste status, and it is unjust to suspend him based on mere speculation.

5. Lastly, the counsel refutes the reasoning in the suspension order, which claims a criminal investigation is pending against the applicant. There is no such complaint, and the suspension order was issued without proper consideration.

6. The counsel argued that since the suspension order issued in May 2023, several developments have taken place that affirm the applicant’s membership in the Koli Mahadev (ST) community. On 29.07.2023, the competent authority issued the applicant a caste certificate, and the caste status of the applicant’s niece, Shivani Pawar, was also confirmed on the same date. When considered together, these factors clearly establish that the applicant and his family belong to the Koli Mahadev (ST) community. Therefore, there is no justification for the applicant’s suspension. The counsel thus requested the relief sought in the present OA.

7. In response, the learned counsel for the respondent strongly opposed the applicant’s submissions, referring to the reply statement filed. He argued that the caste certificate issued to the applicant was declared invalid by the Scheduled Tribe Scrutiny Committee in its order No. TCSC/EDN-109/288, dated 06.06.1994. On 29.03.2023, the competent committee issued another order confirming the rejection of the applicant's online application dated 06.07.2022, citing the earlier order from 1994. Although the applicant submitted two additional online certificates via Form-C, he has yet to provide the necessary validated documents, as he had committed to do. Therefore, the ST status upon which the applicant’s employment with the respondent organization in 2002 was based was cancelled by the competent authority in 1994, resulting in the charge sheet being issued against him.

8. The counsel further argued that the applicant is bound by the BSNL CDA Rules 2008, which apply uniformly to all employees. He acknowledge