‘Candidate Cannot Be Dismissed If Disputed Documents Are Not Cancelled’, Patna High Court Postpones Dismissal Order

A Division Bench of the Patna High Court comprising Justices PB Bajanthri and SB Pd. Singh set aside the dismissal order, observing that unless the disputed certificates were cancelled, the Authorities could not initiate Disciplinary Inquiry or impose punishment in the form of dismissal order.

Background

The Appellant was appointed as Assistant Engineer under Bihar Public Service Commission, Bihar on 23.06.1987. His father belonged to Uttar Pradesh but was posted in Bihar State. The Appellant had claimed that he belonged to ‘Chamar’ caste and hence his candidacy fell under the Scheduled Caste category. He got a residence permit in 3 years.^third Scheduled Caste Certificate in Sep 2014 & 04^he in Bihar in September 2014 to avail service benefits including monetary benefits.

In late 2017, the Authorities realized that the Appellant was not a permanent resident of Bihar and hence the certificates obtained by him were not in compliance with the law. A Departmental Investigation was initiated against the Appellant and the certificates were found to be fraudulent.

However, as per the law enacted by the State Government of Bihar called the Bihar Reservation of Vacancies in Posts and Services (for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes) Act, 1991, there was no provision under which the Caste Certificate would be valid. Leaves taken by Civil Servants may be cancelled. Therefore, the Appellant’s Domicile certificate and Scheduled Caste Certificate could not be cancelled.

The Respondents therefore commenced Disciplinary Inquiry against the Appellant, which dismissed him. The Appellant approached the Single Bench of the High Court, which ordered the rejection of his Petition by an order dated 08.10.2021.

Aggrieved by this situation, the Applicant filed an appeal.

Findings of the Court:

The Court observed that the certificates were not revoked prior to the Appellant’s dismissal. Kumari Madhuri Patil and Another Vs Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and Others Court reported in (1994) 6 SCC 241. Apart from this, even the caste certificate verification was pending before the authorities, the report was awaited and no further action was taken, the court added.

The court expressed dissatisfaction with the decision of the Single Judge stating that if the Caste Certificate dated 03.09.2014 had not been cancelled, it would have been premature to impose the penalty of dismissal.

Citing the Rules under Section 15 of the Bihar Reservation of Vacancies in Posts and Services (for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes) Act, 1991, the Court held that after the rules became framework, it became mandatory for the State Government to determine these posts. Competent authority for revocation of the certificate in dispute.

It has been observed that as per various Supreme Court judgments, if a certificate is to be cancelled, the State Government must constitute a committee for verification and cancellation of Caste Certificate and the Committee shall be chaired by a District Magistrate.

The Court further held that before initiating a Circuit Proceedings against the Appellant, the authorities should have established that the Appellant had misrepresented himself while obtaining the certificates, which amounted to misconduct which led to it being cited as grounds for dismissal from service under the Bihar CCA Rules. , 2005.

In addition, the Court examined the decision of the Coordination Board dated 06.02.2023 and concluded that initiating a disciplinary investigation and imposing a dismissal penalty while the Certificates have not yet been revoked is clearly immature.

With these opinions, both the dismissal and the Single Judge order were set aside.

The court relied on various decisions regarding cancellation of caste certificates and subsequent dismissal from service. Some of the decisions are as follows: Kumari Madhuri Patil and Another Vs Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and Others (1994) 6 SCC 241, Inspector of Post Offices and Ors. etc. R. Valasina Babu 2006 SCC Online SC 1412 and Bhubaneswar Development Authority vs. Madhumita Das and Others 2023 SCC Online SC 977.

Referring to the decisions, the court noted several important points:

• Intention is unimportant.
• Conservation undermines good governance.
• The decision of the Review Committee is final.
• Contact the educational institution or appointing authority.
• Certificate Verification.

Based on these points, the Court ruled that if the certificates are not revoked, neither the ministry can initiate action nor the authorities can impose penalties. Having made these observations, the Court concluded that the decision to dismiss was premature.

As a result, the Court directed the Defendants to take action to revoke both certificates within six months of receiving the order. He observed that if the authorities fail to cancel the certificates, all proceedings against the Appellant will be terminated.

Additionally, respondents were directed to pay all monetary and service benefits due to Appellant, including salary determination, within three months of the six-month period.

Case Title: Rajive Nandan Mourya v. State of Bihar and Ors

Appellant Counsel: Mr. Indu Bhushan, Advocate

Respondent’s Counsel: Mr. Anjani Kumar (Aag4)

Click Here to Download the Decision/Decision