Jharkhand High Court
Brij Bihari Ram And Kanayya Prasad vs Steel Authority Of India Limited, ... on 31 October, 2006
Equivalent citations: [2007(2)JCR150(JHR)], 2007 LAB. I. C. (NOC) 268 (JHAR.) = 2007 (1) AIR JHAR R 800, 2007 (1) AIR JHAR R 800 (2007) 2 JCR 150 (JHA), (2007) 2 JCR 150 (JHA)
Author: Amareshwar Sahay
Bench: Amareshwar Sahay
JUDGMENT Amareshwar Sahay, J.
1. The petitioners' prayer in this writ application is to quash the orders as contained in Annexure-1 and 1/1 dated 29/09/1999, issued by the Respondents Bokaro Steel Limited (SAIL) by which the petitioners were dismissed from service after a departmental enquiry on the charge that they gave false information regarding their caste category for securing employment.
2. According to the petitioners, they joined the services of the respondent No. 1 on 24/06/1974. By issue of the charge sheets as contained in Annexure-2 and 2/1, it was alleged against the petitioners that they committed misconduct under the Standing Orders of the Company, by giving false information regarding their caste category for securing employment in Bokaro Steel Limited. Statements of allegations were also accompanied with the charge sheet, in which it was mentioned that the petitioners mentioned themselves, belonging to Scheduled Caste Community in the caste column in the interview particulars and in PD form, though they did ,not belong to the Scheduled Caste community and thereby obtained service in Bokaro Steel Limited against the reserve post for SC/ST.
3. An enquiry was conducted against the petitioners for the aforesaid charges. The Enquiry Officer by order as contained in Annexure-11 to this writ application came to the following conclusion. The relevant extract of the order is quoted hereinbelow:
In view of the analysis of facts and arguments forwarded by the prosecution and the defence, it is established that though the charge sheeted employees had joined service in Bokaro Steel Limited nearly 25 years back against SC/ST post. The onus to very the caste declared by the prospective candidates, whether it fell under the SC/ST category or not, rested squarely with the concerned recruiting agencies who cannot be absolved of their responsibility. Nevertheless, it is also true that S/Shri Brij Bihari Ram, Staff No. 322496, Field worker and Kanhaiya Prasad, Staff No. 322503, Health Inspector of TA deptt. Applied for and secured employment against posts reserved for SC/ST. The jobs were secured by them on the basis of caste certificates issued by SDO, Arrah, which clearly mentions that they belong to "TATWA" caste under Backward Community. Under the Principle of Natural Justice, S/Shri Brij Bihar Ram, Staff No. 322496, Field Worker and Kanhaiya Prasad, Staff No. 322503, Health Inspector of TA deptt. Were given sufficient. opportunity to produce their caste certificate issued by the competent authority but they failed to do so (ref. Sl. No. 11 of the FINDINGS).
4. In view of the above conclusion the Enquiry Officer held that the charges against the petitioner, leveled against them, were fully established.
5. Against the said findings of the Enquiry Officer, the petitioners made representations, challenging the findings arrived at by the Enquiry Officer. Thereafter, by order as contained in Annexure-1 and 1/1 to the writ application, the Disciplinary Authority, on the basis of the findings of the Enquiry Officer, passed an order for dismissal of the petitioners from service, against which the petitioners have filed the present writ application.
6. The main grounds for challenge of the orders as contained in Annexure-1 and 1/1 are firstly, that their own brother namely A.K.Prasad, Staff No. 303967, Traffic Department of Bokaro Steel Limited was also charge sheeted in the same way as that of the petitioners but he was exonerated against the said-charges. Since the allegations were identical, the petitioners were also entitled to the same treatment and secondly, that the petitioners are by caste "TATWA" which is a sub-caste of "TANTI" and the caste TANTI" comes under the category of Scheduled Caste and, therefore, the caste of "TATWA" which is a sub-caste of "TANTI" also comes under the category of Scheduled Caste.
7. The petitioners in support of such submissions relied on Annexure-5, i.e. the certificate dated 02.02.1999 issued by an Ex- MLA and Patron of Bihar Rajya Pan, Tanti, Swasi, Bunkar Samaj, Bihar, Annexure-6 Notification dated 25/09/1956, i.e. the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act 1956 and the letter dated 09/04/1958 as contained in Annexure-7 issued by the Special Officer, District Board, Singhbhum, the extract of the notification of 1975 contained in Annexure-8 and the letter of the Deputy Secretary -cum-Director, Welfare, Government of Bihar dated 27/02/1975 as contained in Annexure-9.
8. According, to the petitioners in the caste certificate issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Arrah, (Annexure-10), the caste of the petitioners was rightly mentioned as "TATWA" but it was wrongly mentioned therein that the same fell within the category of backward classes.
9. On the other hand, according to the Respondents, the petitioners belong to "TATWA" community, which comes under the category of Backward Classes and, therefore, the declaration of the caste by the petitioners as belonging to Scheduled Caste category was inconsistent with the Gazette notification showing "TANTI" (TATWA) caste as belonging to Backward Classes in the whole State of Bihar. Therefore, the claim of the petitioners that they belong to the category of Scheduled Caste was absolutely wrong. In the counter affidavit, it has further been stated that, it is wrong to say that Shri A.K. Prasad, the petitioners' relative was exonerated rather a fresh enquiry committee was constituted against him and the matter is pending before the High Court. It is further submitted that Annexure-10, i.e. the Caste Certificate of the petitioners, issued by the competent authority clearly disclosed that the petitioners belong to the Backward Class category. Annexure-C to the counter Affidavit is the list of the caste/community residing in the State of Bihar belonging to the Backward Classes and in the said list at SI. No. 27 the caste/community "TANTI" (TATWA) has been mentioned as Backward Classes in the entire State of Bihar.
10. In this view of the matter, there is no scope to hold that the petitioners, who belong to "TATWA" by caste, belong to the Scheduled Caste category. There is no dispute of the proposition that a declaration of a particular caste and community in the category of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes or Backward Classes is completely within the domain of the legislatures under the Constitution of India and a Court cannot declare a particular caste to be under the category of Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes or the Backward Classes. In the present case there is no dispute of the fact that the Government of Bihar has already issued a list of the caste/community belonging to the Backward Classes vide Annexure-C to the counter affidavit and in the said list the caste/community "TANTI" (TATWA) has been shown as the member of the Backward Classes. Therefore, the claim of the petitioners in the present writ application that they belong to the Scheduled Caste cannot be accepted. Therefore, the findings of the Enquiry Officer that the petitioners misconducted themselves in declaring themselves to be the members of the Scheduled Caste community and thereby on false information they secured their services in Bokaro Steel Limited, which was meant for the reserve category of the Scheduled Caste, is legal and valid.
11. Therefore, in my view, no interference is required in the orders as contained in Annexure-1 and 1/1 to the writ application. Accordingly, having found no merit, this application is dismissed.
In the facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs.