Failure to provide an opportunity for hearing and consider evidence leads to quashing of administrative orders.

O R D E R

( /3/2018)

The petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the order dated 17/07/2007 passed by the respondent no.2 and the order dated 6/09/2007 passed by the respondent no.1 thereby directing to cancel the caste certificate of the petitioner and to initiate departmental enquiry against him.

2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner was appointed as Accountant in the establishment of respondent no.3 vide order dated 30/12/1983. He was appointed through employment exchange and on the basis of caste certificate issued by MLA, Raisen. Thereafter, the petitioner continued to work on the said post however, some complaints were made against the caste certificate produced by the petitioner therefore, the respondent no.2 proceeded with the enquiry for scrutinizing the caste certificate issued to the petitioner. As per the petitioner, he belongs to Meena community which was notified as Scheduled Tribe as per the presidential notification. The caste certificate issued by the Naib Tahsildar also depicts that he belongs to Meena Caste however, due to typographical error the name of his caste was wrongly mentioned in the sub-caste of the certificate. On the basis of the complaint an enquiry was conducted by the respondent no.4 as well as by the Superintendent of Police. The respondent no.4 has given a report in favour of the petitioner stating that the petitioner belongs to Meena community thereafter, respondent no. 2 had issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 29/01/2007. The petitioner filed the reply to the said notice on 14/02/2007. He also prayed for adjourning the date so that he can attend the hearing however, without considering the prayer made by the petitioner the respondents have passed the impugned orders thereby cancelling the caste certificate of the petitioner as well as also directed for initiating the departmental enquiry against him. Hence, this petition.

3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner argues that the impugned orders are illegal and arbitrary and have been passed in utter violation of the principle of natural justice. He submits that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before passing of the impugned orders. He further submits that the petitioner belongs to the Meena community which was notified as Scheduled Tribe. It is submitted that the respondents have not followed the procedure as prescribed by the Apex Court in the case of Madhuri Patil. The High Power Committee while appreciating the case has not considered the report submitted by the Superintendent of Police as well as the Naib Tahsildar and has given a finding on their own. It is further submitted that the caste certificate was issued by the Naib Tahsildar on 8/11/1996, at that time, Meena Caste was included in the Scheduled Tribes however, by way of subsequent amendment in the year 1998 this caste has been excluded from the said list. In view of the aforesaid, he submits that the impugned orders be set aside and the petition be allowed.

4. The respondents have filed their return and in the said return it has been stated that the petitioner had obtained the caste certificate on 8/11/1996 issued by the Naib Tahsildar, Deori, District Raisen in which, in place of caste Meena it is clearly mentioned as sub-caste Meena. The petitioner has given the certificate of Scheduled Tribe showing him belongs to Meena sub-caste and on that basis he got the promotion on the post of UDC vide order dated 11/08/2003 getting the benefit of caste of Scheduled Tribe issued in his favour. A complaint was made in that regard to the Lokayukta Establishment and the Lokayukta has sent the compla