Orissa High Court
Jaydev Pradhan vs State Of Odisha & Others on 3 January, 2023
Author: M. S. Raman
Bench: M. S. Raman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.A. No.34 of 2020
Jaydev Pradhan .... Appellant
Mr. Susanta Kumar Mishra, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Respondents
Mr. Manoj Kumar Khuntia,
Additional Government Advocate
CORAM:
THE CHIEF JUSTICE
JUSTICE M. S. RAMAN
ORDER
03.01.2023 Order No. M.S. Raman, J.
02. 1. By way of this intra-Court Appeal filed under Article 4 of the Odisha High Court Order, 1948 read with Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, the Appellant-Petitioner has challenged the Order dated 25th November, 2019 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.23233 of 2012 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India whereby, the writ petition has been dismissed.
2. The Appellant-Petitioner being aggrieved by the decision dated 22nd March, 2012 taken in FCC No.474 of 2010 by the State Level Scrutiny Committee (SLSC) in the fake caste certificate case, approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.23233 of 2012. From the factual narration contained in the writ petition, it is transpired that though the Petitioner's adoptive father during pre-independence era W.A. No.34 of 2020 Page 1 of 8 // 2 // disclosed his surname as 'Pradhan', which he claimed to be 'Kandha' Tribe of Kandhamal in the State of Odisha. The said adoptive father, namely, Chakrapani Pradhan, who has serving as Havildar, was discharged from his service in the year 1968. Ignoring such document, it is claimed by the Petitioner that, the SLSC proceeded on the basis of report of the Vigilance Cell submitted pursuant to guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil & Another v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development & Others, AIR 1995 SC 94. After enquiry it was found that the Petitioner was "Pana Christian". The Petitioner alleged that principles of natural justice has not been adhered to before taking decision by the SLSC and having deprived the Petitioner by affording opportunity to cross-examine those persons based on whose statement the report was prepared, the learned Single Judge committed error in dismissing the writ petition.
3. In the writ appeal, it is submitted that on the basis of allegation made by Kui-Kula Samiti, Baliguda, the Vigilance Cell, Kandhamal sprung into action and collected material behind the back of the Petitioner. However, no opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses was extended to the Petitioner as they were never produced before the SLSC.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner relied on a Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Markesh Mallick v. State of Odisha & Others 2011 (Supp.-II) OLR 677. The decision of the SLSC dated 22nd March, 2012 is liable to be set aside and as a consequence thereof the impugned order of the learned Single Judge may not be sustained.
W.A. No.34 of 2020 Page 2 of 8// 3 //
5. Heard counsel for the both the sides.
6. The enquiry report submitted by CI, Sadar, Phulbani in the district of Kandhamal inter alia revealed that verification of School Admission Register transpired the religion of the Petitioner was shown to be 'Christian' which was subsequently corrected as 'Pana Christian'. Referring to State of Punjab v. Mohinder Singh, 2005 AIR SCW 1467 and Harekrushna Das v. Chairman 2004 (Supp.) OLR 895 = 99 (2005) CLT 43 it is held in Gitanjali Bisoi v. Bidyulata Muduli and Ors., 2005 (II) OLR 228 that the entries made in the School Admission Register has more probative value than any other documents. The Petitioner, in the instant case, has submitted no material to impeach the finding contained in the report based on the entries in the School Admission Register. In the present case, the report also reveals that official record indicates that the family members of the Petitioner are 'Pana Christian'.
7. The State Level Scrutiny Committee vide its Order dated 22nd March, 2012 clearly stated that notice was given to the Petitioner pursuant to which show cause reply was furnished and statement of the Petitioner was recorded. The said Committee held that the caste certificate of the Petitioner was fake one and assigned the following reasons to come to such conclusion:
"1) It is evident from the I.Os. report that the alleged I & his family members are Pano by caste and Christian by religion.
2) It is found from the statements of the alleged before the SLSC on 30.09.2009 that he belongs to Pana Christian by birth as his father Daniel Nayak was Christian. Further, he stated that after the death of his father when he was about 12/13 years, adopted to Chakrapani Pradhan who happens to be the W.A. No.34 of 2020 Page 3 of 8 // 4 // grandfather (Jejebapa) i.e., the maternal uncle of his late father. The said Chakrapani Pradhan along belongs to Christian community. But besides a photo copy of affidavit filed by Chakrapani Pradhan solemnized before the Executive Magistrate, G. Udayagiri on 9.4.1979, the alleged has not produced any adoption deed to this regard. Further, he has stated in his statement that he has stated in his statement that he along with his mother who re-
converted to Hinduism, but could not say the exact date of re-conversion, so also has not produced any documentary evidence with this regard.
3) From the school admission register of Nodal U.P. School, Kalinga attached to the I.O's report, it is found that the caste of the alleged was written Christian - and then it is corrected as Pana Christian. Similarly, the surname of the alleged laws corrected on the said - from Nayak to Pradhan. Thus the said record proves that the alleged belong to Pano Christian Community. Though he belongs to Pana Christian, he was entered his son Deepak Kumar Pradhan and daughter Bandita Pradhan, Bandana Pradhan, Baisali Pradhan & Deepanjali Pradhan in schools by mentioning their caste as ST and got stipend and other benefits under the said category.
4) From the RoR attached to the I.O's. report of Khata No.82, Mouza-Kalinga under G. Udayagiri Tahasil which stands recorded in the name of Daniel Nayak, father of the alleged and ROR vide Khata No.185 of mouza - Kalinga under G. Udayagiri Tahasil stands recorded in the name of Chakrapani Pradhan (deemed to be adopted father of the alleged) it is found that their caste has been mentioned as Pana Christian.
5) From the statements of the witnesses attached to the I.O's report it is found that the alleged belong to Pana Christian."
8. In Harekrushna Das v. Chairman 2004 (Supp.) OLR 895 = 99 (2005) CLT 43 the Court considered the value of the certificate W.A. No.34 of 2020 Page 4 of 8 // 5 // issued by the Board of Secondary Education with regard to age and it was held that certificate issued by the Board of Secondary Education is much more authentic and acceptable than the affidavit filed by a party without any supporting document with regard to the date of birth, as the certificate issued by the Board of Secondary Education is on the basis of the declaration made by the candidate in the School Admission Register. It is fact on record that no evidence as to adoption has been produced by the Appellant. On the basis of documents available and the evidence forming part of the report, the SLSC came to the conclusion that the Petitioner belongs to 'Pana' caste and 'Christian' by religion. The Committee further held that the Petitioner had admitted in his statement that he had shown his identity as belonging to Scheduled Tribe community in order to avail benefits declared by the Government. Further plea of re-conversion to Hinduism could also not be proved by the Petitioner. There is also no evidence on record to suggest that the Petitioner/Appellant has at any point of time filed any application before the SLSC seeking to cross- examine alleged witness(es). Therefore it is the opinion of this Court that Markesh Mallick v. State of Odisha & Others 2011 (Supp.-II) OLR 677 has no application to the fact-situation of the present case.
9. On 25th November, 2019, after hearing both the sides, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition and observed as follows:
"Considering the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, it appears that the petitioner has produced fake caste certificate and on the basis of such certificate he has availed certain benefits. Therefore, on the basis of complaint made against him, an enquiry was conducted by the District Vigilance Cell, Kandhamal, who submitted his W.A. No.34 of 2020 Page 5 of 8 // 6 // report to the Director (S.C/S.T) & Chairman State Level Scrutiny Committee for further action. Accordingly, the petitioner was called upon to show-cause and he submitted his reply which was received by the Chairman of the State Level Scrutiny Committee on 17.08.2009. The matter was placed before the State Level Scrutiny Committee on 30.09.2009 and the petitioner appeared and his statement was recorded and kept in record. In compliance of the order dated 02.09.1994 passed by the apex Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development, AIR 1995 SC 94, a copy of the enquiry report and statement submitted by the petitioner was sent to DWO, Kandhamal vide letter dated 23.11.2011 for publicity in the concerned village or locality by issuing a public notice by beat of drum inviting objection within 15 days. Accordingly, the DWO, Kandhamal published the notice in the locality through Tahasildar, G. Udayagiri on 11.01.2012 by beat of drum inviting objections, but no objection was received by the Chairman, State Level Scrutiny Committee within the stipulated period. Therefore, on the basis of the enquiry report and the relevant documents available on records, the State Level Scrutiny Committee held that the petitioner and his family members are Pano by caste and Christian by religion. It is also found, on the basis of the statements made before the State Level Scrutiny Committee on 30.09.2009, that he belonged to Pana Christian by birth as his father Daniel Nayak was Christian. He stated that after the death of his father when he was about 12/13 years, adopted to Chakrapani Pradhan who happens to be the grand father (Jejebapa), i.e. the maternal uncle of his late father. The said Chakrapani Pradhan also belonged to Christian community. Further from the School Admission Register of Nodal U.P. School, Kalinga attached to the I.O.'s report, it is found that the caste of the petitioner was initially written as Christian and then it was corrected as Pana Christian. Similarly, the surname of the petitioner was corrected from Nayak to Pradhan. Thus, the said record proves that the petitioner belonged to Pano Christian community which has also been spelled out by various documents produced before the State Level Scrutiny Committee including ROR. Otherwise also, the W.A. No.34 of 2020 Page 6 of 8 // 7 // witnesses, who have been examined by the I.O. have stated that the petitioner belonged to Pana Christian.
In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered view that the Order dated 22.03.2012 in Annexure-2 passed by the Collector, Kandhamal in FCC No.474 of 2010 holds good and does not require interference. Accordingly, the writ petition merits no consideration and the same is hereby dismissed."
In this connection it may be worthwhile to have reference to State of Uttar Pradesh Vrs. C. Tobit, AIR 1958 SC 414; Bhaskar Rout Vrs. Rambha Bewa, 39 (1973) CLT 774 (Ori), wherein it has been laid down that an admission is not conclusive proof of the matter admitted; but an admission is not conclusive unless it amounts to estoppels; however, an admission is very strong piece of evidence. The maker thereof is entitled to prove the admission to be wrong. The admission casts upon the person asserted the burden of proving that what was deliberately asserted is not a fact. But unless displaced by satisfactory explanation, an admission is also determinative of the facts admitted. It may be reiterated that no material is produced by the petitioner to controvert entries in the School Admission Register, which is strong piece of evidence showing the petitioner as "Pana Christian", meaning thereby "Pana" by caste and "Christian" by religion. Thus, this Court finds justification in the Order dated 25.11.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge upholding the decision dated 22nd March, 2012 of the State Level Scrutiny Committee.
10. Mere alleging non-compliance of principles of natural justice would not be sufficient to hold the proceeding, duly instituted, as invalid. There is no evidence placed by the Petitioner neither in the writ petition nor in the writ appeal to counter the finding of fact by W.A. No.34 of 2020 Page 7 of 8 // 8 // the SLSC to show that the entries in School Admission Register is erroneous and the Petitioner was adopted by 'Chakrapani Pradhan'. Furthermore, no scrap of document is furnished to show that the petitioner and his mother got re-converted to embrace Hinduism. No demand for cross-examination of witnesses being made by the petitioner at any stage before the fact-finding Authorities, the contention of the petitioner is, therefore, rejected.
11. In view of the foregoing reasons, this Court does not find any infirmity in the Order dated 25th November, 2019 of the learned Single Judge passed in W.P.(C) No.23233 of 2012 and consequently, the writ appeal is dismissed.
(Dr. S. Muralidhar) Chief Justice (M. S. Raman) Judge Laxmikant W.A. No.34 of 2020 Page 8 of 8