2025:JHHC:28282 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P (S). No. 6223 of 2017 ------- Surya Mani Acharya, son of late Harendra Prasad Pandit, at present residing at Flat No. 102, B-Block, Harihar Estate, Harihar Singh Road, Morabadi, P.O. and P.S. Bariatu, District Ranchi. ……….. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi, Jharkhand. 3. Principal Secretary, Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasa Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi, Jharkhand. 4. Joint Secretary, Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasa Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi, Jharkhand. 5. Principal Secretary, Department of Social Welfare, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi, Jharkhand. 6. Tribal Welfare Commissioner, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi, Jharkhand. ……….. Respondents ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Petitioner : Mr. A. Allam, Sr. Advocate Ms. Sushmita Kumari, Advocate Mr. Faisal Allam, Advocate Ms. Asfia Sultana, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shubham Mishra, AC to SC(M)-II ---- 25/ 15.09.2025 The instant writ application was initially preferred for following reliefs: a. To quash the charge issued on 04.08.2011 (ANNEXURE-5) under the signature of Principal Secretary, Personnel Department (Respondent No. 3) on the basis of fake and unanimous complaint application (without date and signature) received in the office of the Commissioner, Government of Jharkhand (Hazaribagh) on 23.06.2006. b. To quash the entire report of the Caste Scrutiny Committee signed on 12.05.2017 and report of which was submitted before the respondent no. 3 on 18.05.2017 (Annexure-17) whereby and whereunder on the basis of summary proceeding in which petitioner was asked to appear, the entire report was prepared and final opinion was given without holding an enquiry and without examining any witness or documentary evidence. 2025:JHHC:28282 2 c. To quash the second show-cause notice, as contained in letter no. 7689, dated 04.07.2017 (Annexure- 18) whereby and whereunder petitioner was asked to submit his explanation without any enquiry that as to why he may not be dismissed. d. To quash dismissal order as contained in Memo No. 10529, dated 11.10.2017 [ANNEXURE-20], whereby and whereunder respondent no. 4 [Joint Secretary, Personnel, Administrative Reforms Department] has communicated order of dismissal which was passed on the basis of the documents already considered by the Hon'ble High Court and rejected in W.P.(S) No. 1538 of 2013 on 27.08.2015. e. To pay consequential benefits to the petitioner from the date of dismissal till the date of reinstatement as without any enquiry and in contrary to the order of this Hon'ble Court passed on 27.08.2015, dismissal order has been passed and the respondents may also be directed to pay other consequential benefits which was allowed pursuant to the order passed by the this Hon'ble Court on 27.08.2015 in W.P.(S) No. 1538 of 2013; 2. Thereafter, during pendency of this writ application the report of Caste Scrutiny Committee was annexed by the respondents, which was challenged by the petitioner by way of filing interlocutory application being I.A. 6687 of 2022, praying therein for amendment of the writ application and the same was allowed and the petitioner has further challenged the said order annexed as Annexure-17. 3. From records it appears that petitioner had earlier moved this Court against the order of dismissal. For brevity, relevant order passed in W.P.(S). No. 1538 of 2013 is extracted herein below: “Petitioner, an Officer of State Administrative Service appointed on 4.1.1996 pursuant to the recruitment exercise held under the 39th Bihar Public Service Commission Examination for the post of Deputy Collector, has been dismissed from service under Rule 49(7) of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 vide resolution dated 4.7.2013(Annexure-19) issued by the department of Personnel Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha. Petitioner has challenged the order of dismissal passed during the pendency of the writ petition where originally he had sought for quashing of the charge-sheet dated 4.8.2011 (Annexure-7), the enquiry report dated 31.12.2012(Annexure-14). The second show cause notice dated 23.2.2013 (Annexure-15) is also challenged by the petitioner.” 2025:JHHC:28282 3 4. The said writ application was disposed of on 27.08.2015, by a detailed order and the writ petition was allowed in favour of the petitioner. It was held as under: “Ideally speaking, when the question relating to the status of the caste of the petitioner was raised, the matter should have been referred to the Caste Scrutiny Committee duly notified by Government of Jharkhand where such issues are enquired into in a structured manner by conducting enquiry at various levels. Instead the entire departmental proceeding was conducted without any material witness or document produced before the Enquiry Officer, who in his wisdom found the charges established against the petitioner only upon the report of the Deputy Commissioner and the written statement submitting by the Presenting Officer. In essence it can be said that the findings in enquiry were based upon no evidence in the eye of law. If the enquiry report is based upon no evidence as such in the eye of law, it stands vitiated. The documents which are relied upon by the respondents through their counter affidavit are either related to the preliminary enquiry conducted behind the back of the petitioner or certain documents relating to mutation etc., which were never part of the enquiry proceeding. As a matter of fact, the complainant Sera Fenus Tirkey never appeared to support the allegation during the course of physical enquiry and may have been an anonymous person. If such serious charge of obtaining employment by relying upon certificate of a caste 'Lohra' i.e. Scheduled Tribe to which the petitioner did not belong was required to be enquired into, the enquiry ought to have been proceeded with all seriousness by observing the Principles of Natural Justice and also producing all relevant materials to substantiate the charge. If the proceedings have not been conducted in that manner, it would definitely prejudice the case of the petitioner who has been punished without proper departmental enquiry. The plea of the respondents about the non receipt of second show cause notice by the petitioner would not improve the serious deficiencies found during the course of the departmental proceeding in which the alleged charges were found to be established by the Enquiry Officer. In such circumstances, not only the proceedings are vitiated but the consequential order of punishment based upon that is unsustainable in the eye of law as well as on facts. In view of the reasons discussed herein above, the impugned order of dismissal dated 4.7.2013(Annexure-19) of the petitioner is accordingly quashed. Accordingly, petitioner shall be reinstated in service with consequential benefits. However, it is left open for the respondents to proceed afresh in the matter in accordance with law after giving due opportunity to the petitioner. The writ petition is allowed. Pending I.A. also stands closed.” 5. Ld. Senior Counsel has assailed the constitution of Caste Scrutiny Committee as well as its findings. He contended that the report prepared by the Caste Scrutiny Committee, was prepared on the basis of complaint of an unknown person, who was never examined. 6. During course of hearing, Ld. Sr. Counsel has also challenged the constitution of Caste Scrutiny Committee which was constituted vide notification of the Government dated 08.07.2004 itself. 2025:JHHC:28282 4 He further draws the attention of the Court towards judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil & Anr. Vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development & Ors. 1 and submits that the Hon’ble Apex Court has specifically directed to frame Caste Scrutiny Committee in order to verify the claim and counter-claims of the claimants claiming to be of a respective caste and further contended that the Government which has constituted the said Committee in the year 2004, is not in accordance with the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court. It has also been contended by Ld. Sr. Counsel that the petitioner was not even heard. It has also been contended that the Caste Scrutiny Committee, who has given the report, has relied upon the same document which was made by the complainant and also report of other Officers and it was done ex-parte. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that pursuant to the order passed by this Court, the Caste Scrutiny Committee has already found that the claim of the petitioner is not genuine and the Committee was duly constituted in view of the notification of the State Government issued in the year 2004. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents available on record, it appears that the learned Writ Court has allowed the prayer of the petitioner in earlier writ application while observing that “when the question relating to the status of the caste of the petitioner was raised, the matter should have been referred to the Caste Scrutiny Committee duly notified by Government of Jharkhand”. 9. At this stage itself, it is pertinent to mention here that the order passed by the Writ Court is dated 27.08.2015 and as per the supplementary counter-affidavit, the Caste Scrutiny Committee was constituted on 08.07.2004. In the backdrop of this; it is clear that the decision of the respondents for terminating the petitioner was held to be bad on the ground that the Caste of the petitioner was not certified 1 (1994) 6 SCC 241 2025:JHHC:28282 5 to be incorrect or correct by the Caste Scrutiny Committee; rather, it was done by the Officers themselves. 10. The learned Writ Court while allowing the writ application has further held, “in such circumstances, not only the proceedings are vitiated but the consequential order of punishment based upon that is unsustainable in the eye of law as well as on facts” and finally the Writ Court has granted liberty to the respondents by observing that, “it is left open for the respondents to proceed afresh in the matter in accordance with law after giving due opportunity to the petitioner”. 11. From the record it appears that the matter was referred to the Caste Scrutiny Committee which was duly constituted by the Government as per Notification dated 08.07.2004 and after going through the report of the Caste Scrutiny Committee (Annexure-17), it appears that it is well elaborated order running in seven pages. From perusal of the said report, it appears that the Committee has referred several documents and finally came to the conclusion that the claim of the petitioner that he belonging to Lohra Caste is not sustainable. It appears that the said report deals with the factual aspect of the matter and there is no hesitation in holding that when a Caste Scrutiny Committee has given its report based on the factual finding, this Court cannot interfere with the same on facts. 12. Accordingly, since the Caste Scrutiny Committee has considered the case of the petitioner and drawn finding against him so far as claimed caste is concerned; as such, the order of termination based on the ground of submission of false caste at the time of appointment does not deserves to be interfered with. 13. Having regard to the aforesaid observations, the instant writ application stands dismissed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) 15th September, 2025 Kunal