1 2025:CGHC:29638 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3315 of 2017 1 - Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Aged About 55 Years Through Its Managing Director, Hitwar Parisar, Avanti Vihar, Raipur Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Scheduled Tribe Development, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh 2 - Chhattisgarh State Schedule Tribes Commission, Through Its Secretary, 61 Jalvihar Colony, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Paitrus Tirkey S/o Fransis Tirkey, Aged About 43 Years R/o House No. 3, Rajiv Vihar, V I P City, Lingiyadih, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents For Petitioner : Shri Abhishek Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 : Shri Dashrath Prajapati, P.L. For Respondent No.2 : Ms. Purnima Singh, Advocate. For Respondent No.3 : Shri Somnath Verma, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 01.07.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs:- SMT NIRMALA RAO -2- “10.1) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner for its kind perusal. 10.2) That, the order dated 06.04.2017 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent no.2 be kindly quashed and it be held that respondent no.2 has no jurisdiction to entertain the application filed by respondent no.3. 10.3) Any other relief or relief(s) which this Hon'ble Court may think proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that respondent No.3, who was working as an Assistant Accountant Officer with the petitioner/Corporation, made an attempt to misappropriate an amount of Rs.12,97,584/-. He was placed under suspension on 16.10.2014 and Article of Charge was issued on 30.10.2014. He would further submit that an enquiry report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer on 3.1.2015. He would contend that the Board, in its meeting held on 14.9.2015, took a decision to remove the petitioner from services, and a formal order was issued on 23.11.2015. He would also submit that the petitioner preferred an appeal, which was pending at the time of filing this petition. He would further contend that the petitioner approached respondent No. 2 seeking reinstatement. He would also contend that respondent No.2 while exercising powers under Sections 9 & 10 of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Anusuchit Janjati Ayog Adhiniyam, 1995 issued a direction to consider the claim of the petitioner for 3 reinstatement. He would state that respondent No.2 exceeded its jurisdiction, as the Commission has not been conferred with the power to pass an order of reinstatement. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. She would submit that respondent No.2 has merely made a recommendation for reinstatement of the petitioner and no direction has been issued. 4. Learned counsel for respondents No.1 & 3 would support the contention made by counsel for respondent No.2. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on the record. 6. The Commission has been constituted under the Chhattisgarh Rajya Anusuchit Janjati Ayog Adhiniyam, 1995 (for short ‘the Adhiniyam, 1995’). The functions and powers of the Commission have been prescribed in Sections 9 & 10 of the Adhiniyam, 1995, which are reproduced herein below:- “9. Functions of the Commission: (1) it shall be the function of the Commission. (a) to act as watch-dog Commission for the protection afforded to the members of the Scheduled Castes under the Constitution and under any other law for the time being in force; (b) To recommend to the State Government to take steps to add particular tribes or tribal communities or parts of or groups within tribes or tribal communities in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950; -4- (c) to watch the proper and timely implementation of programmes meant for welfare of Scheduled tribes and to suggest improvement in such programmes of the State Government or any other body or authority responsible for such programmes; (d) to tender advice regarding reservation for Scheduled Tribes in public services and admission in educational institutions; (e) to perform such other functions as may be assigned to it by the State Government. (2) The advice of the Commission shall, ordinarily be binding upon the State Government, where, however, the Government does not accept the advice, It shall record its reasons therefor. 10. Powers of the Commission: The Commission shall, while performing its functions under sub-section (1) of Section 9, have all the powers of a Civil court trying a suit and in particular, in respect of the following matters, namely. (a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person from any part of the State and examining him on oath; (b) requiring the discovery and production of any document; (c) receiving evidence on affidavits; (d) requisitioning any public record or copy hereof from any Court or office; (e) issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses and documents; and (f) any other matter which may be prescribed.” 7. Respondent No.3 was removed from service after a full-fledged departmental enquiry. An appeal was also preferred against the order dated 23.11.2015. 8. A bare reading of the provisions contained in Sections 9 & 10 of the Adhiniyam, 1995 would make it clear that the functions of the Commission are to protect the interests of members of the 5 Scheduled Tribes, particularly the protection afforded to them under the Constitution or any other law for the time being in force. The Commission is also responsible for ensuring the timely implementation of programmes meant for the Scheduled Tribes and for extending advice regarding their reservation in public services and admission to educational institutions. 9. The commission may summon and enforce the attendance of any person from any part of the State and examine him on oath. It may also receive evidence on affidavits; requisition public records, and issue commissions for the examination of witnesses and documents. However, there is no provision empowering the Commission to delve into service matters involving removal or termination from service. 10. In the present case, the petitioner was removed from services after a full-fledged enquiry and an appeal preferred by the petitioner was pending. Therefore, there was no occasion for the Commission to direct the petitioner to reinstate respondent No.3. The Commission thus exceeded its jurisdiction, and accordingly, the order passed by the Commission is hereby set aside. 11. Consequently, the present petition is allowed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi