Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

796. He states that the Additional Secretary or Joint Secretary is not the Chairman of said Committee and Director of Tribal Development was also not associated with it. He also invites attention to the judgment in the case of Director of Tribal Welfare, Government of A.P. vs. Laveti Giri, reported at (1995) 4 SCC 32 and Baswant vs. State of Maharashtra, reported at (2007) 14 SCC 800, to urge that said direction in Madhuri Patil-(supra) is binding and mandatory. To demonstrate that there was no Research Officer involved in Vigilance investigation, he points out that Police Inspector has made enquiry as part of Vigilance Cell on 28.07.2003 and Research Officer has countersigned it on 29.07.2003. The attention is also invited to reply given by the petitioner to vigilance report to show that Research Officer had not accompanied said Police Inspector for field enquiries. The case of Madhuri Patil vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development, Thane, (supra), particularly para 5 therein is cited to buttress this contention. The learned counsel states that because of these lacunae, two documents relied upon by the petitioner which supported his case have not been looked into by the Vigilance Cell and the Committee. The first document according to him is caste certificate of his father issued on 05.10.1977 while the later document is dated 05.01.1927 and of cousin grand father. The attention is being drawn to para 5 of writ petition.

23 The judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Madhuri Patil vs. Additional Director, Tribal Development, (supra) contemplates a Committee of three officers and in case of Scheduled Caste, another officer who has intimate knowledge in the verification and issuance of the social status certificates, is prescribed. In the case of Scheduled Tribes candidate like the petitioner, the Research Officer who has intimate knowledge in identifying the tribes i.e. Tribal communities, parts of or groups of tribes or Tribal communities, is directed to be associated. In later judgment in the case of Madhuri Patil vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development, Thane, (supra) in para 5, the Hon'ble Apex Court has directed that along with Vigilance Cell, one Research Officer/ Tribal Development or Social Welfare Officer would be associated in finding the social status of eligibility of the officers. After this later judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the State Government has added two Research Officers as members of Scrutiny Committee and as per judgment in the case of Bharat vs. State of Maharashtra (supra), it is settled by Division Bench of this Court that Research Officer associated with Vigilance Cell and one functioning as Member of Scrutiny Committee are distinct persons. In this connection, Rule 10 of 2003 Rules framed under Act No. 23 of 2001 show Research Officer as part and parcel of vigilance cell. In Prajakta vs. State of Maharashtra, (supra), Division Bench of this Court has after considering this position, concluded that it is not necessary for this Research Officer to accompany Police Officer to conduct Police enquiry. This view is reached after considering the view reached by the learned Single Judge of this Court. The learned Single Judge in the case of Chhaya Namdeorao Binekar vs. State of Maharashtra, (supra) held that Vigilance Cell enquiry need not be strictly in accordance with exact words contained in Direction No. 5 in Madhuri Patil's judgment. The direction of the Hon'ble Apex Court is held by the Division Bench in para 14 to be fulfilled when the Research Officer functions as one of the Members of the Committee.

"In my view, since the State of Maharashtra has not specifically given effect to this part of direction No.5 of the Supreme Court in its Government Resolutions, as reproduced hereinabove and in its wisdom, it has left the manner of its investigation to be carried out by the vigilance cell to be an open question. The manner of investigation need not be strictly in accordance with the exact words of the Supreme Court as reproduced hereinabove and that merely because the investigation is not carried out strictly in accordance with the wordings of the Supreme Court referred to hereinabove, that by itself would not vitiate the final order of the Caste Scrutiny Committee, which would be subsequently passed after giving full opportunity to a claimant the petitioner to put forward his case regarding his caste, to receive the copy of the vigilance cell report with all annexures and even to point out the lacuna, if any, in the vigilance cell report and its enclosures, before the Scrutiny Committee. This, however, would not mean that the vigilance cell has a licence to carry out an investigation which is slipshod, negligent or unfair."

C.R. 268--Ramatai Madhukarrao Tapre vs. State Of Maharashtra, learned Single Judge of this Court followed view in Chhaya Namdeorao Binekar vs. State of Maharashtra, (supra) & also held that research officer is not required to conduct field investigation along with vigilance cell police officer.

25 Division Bench judgment in the case of Deorao G. Umredkar vs. State of Maharashtra, reported at 2007 (5) BCR 629 relied upon by Adv. Kaptan, holds in paragraph 30 after referring to judgment in Madhuri Patil that Research Officer is to be associated as an expert and he is not bestowed with any exploratory or investigative role. He has only consultative character and entire report of vigilance cell is only an opinion which does not bind the scrutiny committee. This Division Bench holds him an "aide" who steps in after completion of exploration & investigation by vigilance cell. His role is found not that of an adjudicator. Thus it is already held by this Court that research officer is not required to record his opinion through a reasoned order with objective analysis. Bharat vs. State of Maharashtra (supra) also does not lay down any such law.