Kum. Madhuri Patil & Anr vs Add1. Commnr., Tribal Development, ... on 28 April, 1997
"6. There is nothing on record to show any contra
material and/or any objection by any one on record. The
inquiry report itself supports the case of the Petitioner
based on all the traits, traditions, characteristics and
customs of his caste. There is nothing to disbelieve the
inquiry conducted by the Vigilance Cell. Respondent No. 2
wrongly rejected the documents placed by the petitioner as
caste is mentioned only as Musalman. In the Muslim
community, there are few cases in which the caste is
recorded regularly and/or properly in any Government
record. Therefore, the Committee ought to have considered
the Vigilance Cell report instead of relying solely upon the
documents placed on record by treating it to be unreliable.
The Committee must consider in such situation that unless
contrary material is placed on record and other documents
are not clear as not available in the particular community,
the Vigilance Cell report needs to be respected. There is no
question of discarding the Vigilance Cell report, the
purpose for which is well reconsidered and even recorded
Umesh
::: Uploaded on - 09/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 10/03/2020 03:58:26 :::
8/9 Judgment CWP.2674.2016.doc
by the Apex Court in Madhuri Patil's case and Dayaram's
case (supra).