JUDGMENT
D.D. Sinha, J.
1. Heard Shri Pathrabe, learned Advocate for the petitioners, Shri Charde, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No. 2 to 5 and Smt. S.W. Deshpande, learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 6. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of parties.
2. The writ petition is directed against the impugned order dated 7-10-1999 passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee whereby the caste claim of the petitioner as belonging to Halba (Scheduled Tribe) came to be invalidated. Shri Pathrabe, learned Counsel for the petitioner challenged the impugned order on the ground that the Police Vigilance Cell report and the documents collected by the Police Vigilance Cell during such investigation has not been served on the petitioner before passing the impugned order by the Caste Scrutiny Committee. The learned Counsel contended that the petitioner has not received either the Police Vigilance Cell report nor the documents collected by the Vigilance Cell during the investigation of his caste claim. It is submitted that in view of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in a case reported in Madhuri Patil v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development, the impugned order is vitiated on the ground of non supply of the report of the Vigilance Cell to the petitioner before passing impugned order.
3. Smt. Deshpande, learned Counsel for the Caste Scrutiny Committee submitted that the Caste Scrutiny Committee referred the matter to the Vigilance Cell for investigation. The Vigilance Cell submitted its report on 5-10-1998. A copy of the Vigilance Cell report was supplied to the petitioner through respondent No. 3 (employer) by Registered A.D. letter dated 10-11-1998. The petitioner was called for hearing on 16-11-1998. It is further contended that since the petitioner did not appear before the Caste Scrutiny Committee on 16-11-1998, again a Registered A.D. letter dated 2-1-1999 was sent by the Caste Scrutiny Committee to the petitioner through employer, respondent No. 3. By this communication, the petitioner was called for hearing on 18-1-1999. Since the petitioner neither appeared before the Caste Scrutiny Committee nor informed the Caste Scrutiny Committee in this regard, again the Caste Scrutiny Committee, vide letter dated 19-6-1999 issued communication/letter to the petitioner through his employer whereby the petitioner was called for hearing on 29-6-1999. On 29-6-1999 since the petitioner again did not appear, the Caste Scrutiny Committee again sent a R.P.A.D. letter dated 10-9-1999 to the petitioner through his employer, respondent No. 3 whereby the petitioner was called for hearing on 29-9-1999. Smt. Deshpande, learned Counsel contended that since the petitioner did not appear even on 29-9-1999, the Caste Scrutiny Committee was left with no other alternative and decided the caste claim of the petitioner in his absence on the basis of the Police Vigilance Cell Report as well as taking into consideration the other circumstances. In short, the learned Counsel supported the order passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee.
4. Shri Charde, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the State stated in para 3 of the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents State stated that the petitioner has been informed by telegram dated 21-11-1998 to appear before the Caste Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur for personal hearing on 26-11-1998. It is further stated in the said para that the petitioner again was telegraphically informed on 15-1-1999 to appear before the Caste Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur for personal hearing on 18-1-1999. The learned A.G.P. therefore contended that in spite of the above referred communications to the petitioner by the respondent No. 3, the petitioner did not appear before the Caste Scrutiny Committee on the above referred dates and, therefore, it is the fault of the petitioner.
5. Shri Pathrabe, learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the telegram dated 21-11-1998 issued by the State was received by the petitioner on 25-11-1998 at Ratnagiri where the petitioner was serving with the respondent No. 5. It is further contended that by that telegram the petitioner was informed to appear before the Caste Scrutiny Committee on 26-11-1998. It is further submitted that there was no hearing fixed before the Caste Scrutiny Committee on 26-11-1998. The hearing in fact was fixed on 16-11-1998. Since the telegram received by the petitioner was on 25-11-1998, obviously he could not attend the hearing on 16-11-1998. There was no hearing fixed on 26-11-1998 before the Caste Scrutiny Committee. It is submitted by the learned Counsel that the petitioner suo motu appeared on 30-11-1998 before the Caste Scrutiny Committee. However, since the hearing was not fixed on that day, the Caste Scrutiny Committee informed that the next date of hearing will be communicated to him. The learned Counsel further contended that the telegram dated 15-1-1999 issued by the State was received by the petitioner after 18-1-1999. On 18-1-1999 the petitioner was at Bombay to appear in the departmental examination held by the department. It is submitted that the telephonic message was received by the petitioner on 18-1-1999 at Bombay from the respondent No. 5 whereby the petitioner was informed that he is required to remain present for hearing before the Caste Scrutiny Committee at Nagpur on 18-1-1999. The learned Counsel contended that since the message was received on 18-1-1999 itself, he could not remain present before the Caste Scrutiny Committee on that day. The learned Counsel made a categorical statement that there is no further communication or message received by the petitioner from his employer informing the dates of hearing fixed before the Caste Scrutiny Committee i.e. 29-6-1999 and 29-9-1999 and, therefore, the petitioner could not appear before the Caste Scrutiny Committee on the respective dates and the impugned order came to be passed behind the back of the petitioner.
6. Considered the contentions raised by the respective Counsel. It appears that in spite of the fact that the Caste Scrutiny Committee well within time communicated to the petitioner through respondent No. 3 vide letter dated 10-11-1998 to appear before it on 16-11-1998, the respondent No. 3 did not serve the said notice letter on the petitioner promptly. On the other hand, the telegram dated 21-11-1998 issued by the respondent No. 3 to the petitioner, whereby wrong date of hearing was communicated to the petitioner i.e. 26-11-1998. No hearing was fixed on 26-11-1998 before the Caste Scrutiny Committee. It is therefore clear that for want of communication from the employer to the petitioner well within time, the petitioner could not appear before the Caste Scrutiny Committee on 16-11-1998. Similarly, the letter dated 2-1-1999 issued by the Caste Scrutiny Committee to the petitioner through his employer, respondent No. 3, whereby the petitioner was called for interview on 18-1-1999, the message in this regard was communicated to the petitioner on telephone by the respondent No. 5 on 18-1-1999 at Bombay and, therefore, obviously it was not possible for the petitioner to attend the hearing at Nagpur on 18-1-1999.
7. As far as the communication dated 19-6-1999 and 10-9-1999 issued by the Caste Scrutiny Committee to the petitioner through his employer, respondent No. 3, whereby the petitioner was called for interview on 29-6-1999 and 29-9-1999 were not at all served on the petitioner by the respondent No. 3 and, therefore, the petitioner could not attend the hearing before the Caste Scrutiny Committee on 29-6-1999 and 29-9-1999. The affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent State is completely silent in this regard. There is no explanation coming forward from the respondent No. 3 as to why the petitioner was not informed about these dates i.e. 29-6-1999 and 29-9-1999 on which the hearing was fixed before the Caste Scrutiny Committee. This is in fact nothing but a sheer negligence on the part of the respondent No. 3 which has not only resulted in depriving the petitioner from contesting his caste claim before the Caste Scrutiny Committee but also resulted in quashing the impugned order being violative of the principles of natural justice. Petitioner also lost his job.
8. In many matters it is noticed that the employer is negligent in informing the concerned employee the date of hearing of the matter before the Caste Scrutiny Committee which has rendered many otherwise illegal orders to be quashed by this Court only on this ground. The present case in one of the glaring example where the respondent/State completely neglected to inform the petitioner well within time about the date of hearing though the communication was received in this regard by the State well within time from the Caste Scrutiny Committee. The negligence on the part of the State has further resulted in wasting the valuable time of this Court. Though on earlier occasions this attitude of the employer was deprecated, it appears that there is no noticeable improvement in this regard shown by the employers.
8-A. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, it is obvious that since the Vigilance Cell Report was not served on the petitioner before passing the impugned order, the order is therefore violative of procedure laid down by the Apex Court in Madhuri Patil’s case and cannot be sustained.
9. Similarly, due to negligence on the part of the respondents, petitioner was not informed about the date of hearing of the matter before the Caste Scrutiny Committee, he could not remain present on the dates on which the hearing was fixed before the Caste Scrutiny Committee and, therefore, the impugned order passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee without hearing the petitioner is violative of principles of natural justice and cannot be sustained.
10. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the impugned order is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Caste Scrutiny Committee. The Caste Scrutiny Committee is directed to serve the copy of the Vigilance Cell Report along with the documents to the petitioner on 17-8-2000 on that day petitioner undertakes to appear before the Caste Scrutiny Committee. The Caste Scrutiny Committee is further directed to dispose of the caste claim of the petitioner within a period of two months from 17-8-2000. Looking to the negligent attitude on the part of the respondents, this is a fit case, in my opinion, where State Government should be saddled with costs of Rs. 10,000.00. It is directed that an amount of Rs. 10,000.00 be paid to the petitioner within one week from today. State Government is entitled to recover the same from the person who is responsible for the act of negligence. Rule made absolute in above terms.