Item No. 6 Diary No 6856 2024 Consolidated

DiaryNo.
6856 / 2024
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

( Order XXI Rule 3( 1) ( a)
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
( Under Article 136 of the Constitution of India)
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. /2024
( Against the impugned Final order dated
13.10.2023 passed by the High Court of
Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur
in Writ Petition. No. 7848 of 2019).
IN THE MATTER OF:-

Jyoti Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. Respondents
WITH 4572
I.A NO……..OF 2024
APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING
CERTIFIED ORDER COPY OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT.
WITH 45723
I.A NO……..OF 2024
APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY
[PAPER BOOK]
(FOR INDEX KINDLY SEE INSIDE)
ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER:- M. SARADA

INDEX
SL. Particulars of Document Page No. of part to which Remarks

NO. in belong
Part 1 Part II
(Contents of (Contents
Paper Book) of file
alone)
(i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v)
1 Court fee
2. O/R Limitation A A
3. Listing Performa A1-A2 A1-A2
4. Cover Page of Paper Book A-3
5. Index of Record of Proceedings A-4

6. Limitation Report prepared by the A-5
Registry
7. Defect List A-6
8. Note Sheet NS1 to
9. Synopsis & List of Dates B –N

10. Against the impugned Final 1-22
order
dated13. 10. 2023passed
by the High Court of
Judicature at Bombay,
Nagpur Bench Nagpur in Writ
Petition No. 7848 of 2019
11 Special Leave Petition with 23-46

affidavit
12 ANNEXURE P- 1 47
True copies of caste certificate
dated 05.07.80
13 ANNEXURE- P- 2 48-50
True copies of
appointment letter dated
17.09.1980
14 ANNEXURE P- 3 51-52
True copy of reply dated
17.05. 2007 to the RTI by DM
15 ANNEXURE P- 4 53
True Copy of the letter
dated 07.09.2010
16 ANNEXURE P- 5 54
True copy of the memo
issued by the Dy. MD
17. ANNEXURE –P- 6 55
True Copy of the letter of
concerned Police Station
dated 26.06.2017
18 ANNEXURE –P- 7 56-66
True Copy of the Inquiry
Report dated 04. 04. 2018 in
NO. NCDC:7-1/2016-
ADMN
19 ANNEUXRE –P- 8 67-77
dismissal order dated 18.10.
2018 passed by the NCDC
20 ANNEXURE –P- 9 78-85

True copy of the The Appellate
Authority vide its order dated
10.06.2019 dismissed the appeal of the
petitioner.
21 ANNEXURE –P- 10 86-97
true copy of the order dated
06. 08. 2019 in O. A No. 2166/
2019 Passed by Central
Administrative
Tribunal, Mumbai Bench,
22 ANNEXURE-P- 11 98-143
True copy of the Writ Petition
No.7848/2019
before High Court of
Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur
Bench, Nagpur dated
15.10.2019
23 ANNEXURE –P-12 144-195
True Copy of the reply in Writ
Petition No.7848 of 2019
before High Court of
Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur
Bench, Nagpur
24 Application for exemption 196-197
from filing certified order
copy
25 Application for 198-199

Condonation of delay of the
SLP
26 V/A 200
A

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION ( C) NO. /2024
IN THE MATTER OF:-

Jyoti Petitioner
Versus
OFFICE REPORT ON LIMITATION

1. The petition is within time
2. The Petition is barred by time and there is a
delay of 32 days in filing the same against
order dated 13.10.2023 and application for
condonation of 32 days delay has been
filed.
3. There is a delay of ______ days in refilling the
petition and petition for condonation of _____
days delay in refilling has been filed.
BRANCH OFFICER
Place: New Delhi
Dated: 12.02.2024
A-1
II
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
06.10.2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CORAM : A. S. CHANDURKAR AND MRS VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J J .
NA
CIVIL
JYOTI
NA
NA
A-2
UNION OF INDIA
NA
NA
1800
1807
NA
NOT A SIMILAR DISPOSED MATTER

NOT A SIMILAR PENDING MATTER
NA
NO
NA NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
08.02.2024
M. SARADA
1651
B
SYNOPSIS
The sole point for consideration before this Hon’ble
Court is whether the respondent no.3 is justified in
reopening the issue of Caste Certificate Verification of the
petitioner at the fag end of her career i.e almost after 36
years of service especially on an anonymous complaint,
and merely on the written opinion of DM on the photocopy
of the petitioner’s certificate without even calling for
original is justified in law and whether in view of the
specific deposition of Naib Tahsildar which is recorded in
Inquiry Officer’s order dated 04.04.2018, letters dated
17.05.2007, 06.03.2017, that records of period 1979-80
are unavailable meaning thereby caste verification of
petitioner is not possible by any authority which fact is
totally ignored by respondent no.3 and the courts’ below
and which clearly amounts to atrocities on the SC/ST
community persons who are being harassed time to time in
the name of caste verification.
The petitioner has been harassed
innumerable times by the Respondent No.3 i.e the

C
petitioner joined service in 1981 through Employment
Exchange and at that time she submitted her documents and
caste certificate. Initially she was on probation. The
respondent no.3 accepted her documents and then verified it
and confirmed the services of the petitioner.
The petitioner was granted 3 promotions till 2004.
Again the respondent no.3 on the pretext of completing the
service record of the petitioner asked her to submit her caste
certificate as they misplaced the service record of the
petitioner, she duly submitted all the certificates.
The respondent no. 3 once again to harass the
petitioner demanded her caste certificate in 2010 (after 19
years) and issued a memo that her caste certificate is not
verified and it requires to be sent to caste scrutiny
committee. Petitioner while replying to the memo stated
that her caste certificate may be verified on the basis of her
father’s caste certificate, brother’s caste certificate and the
community issued certificate, as much time elapsed. On
07.09.2010 the respondent no.3 after due verification
closed the case of the petitioner after 29 years.

D
It is most respectfully submitted that it is not
open to the respondent no.3 to reopen the closed issue again
and again i.e the resp.no.3 again in 2016 on an anonymous
complaint issued memo to the petitioner at the fag end of her
career i.e after 36 years, just to harass and humiliate the
petitioner who had put in a meritorious service.
The petitioner duly replied that her case was
duly closed in 2010 but still Inquiry against her commenced
and the Resp. No.3 after suspending the petitioner in 2016
in a very haste manner without giving proper opportunity
to the petitioner and without considering the Inquiry
report dated 04.04.2018 wherein only 2 witness were
produced and who contradicted each other, from
depositions of both it is not proved that caste certificate
of petitioner is fake/forged, still passed the harsh
punishment of dismissal from service qua the petitioner.
The photocopy of petitioner’s caste certificate
was only doubted by DM because he couldn’t find her name
in record, of which he never explained the details, i.e record
No. Year No. Page etc. Moreover, the second witness
Naib Tahsildar
E
categorically stated that out of 5 courts during the
concerned period, two courts were not existing, remaining
records of 2 courts not available and the record of last one
court is in torn and dilapidated condition meaning thereby
the petitioner’s record is unavailable for verification, thus
making verification impossible after 38 years.
Thus, the Hon’ble High Court and the court’s
below failed to consider Inquiry report dated 04.04.2018,
the crucial evidence on record and proceeded on
assumptions and presumptions of the DM’s mere written
opinion on photocopy of the petitioner’s caste certificate,
and passed the dismissal from service order qua the
petitioner after her superannuation which is illegal and
arbitrary and requires to be set aside outrightly as the
petitioner’s honor, rights, reputation and 38 years of
service are at stake. It is humbly submitted that all her
retiral benefits have been forfeited which is gross injustice
to the petitioner.
The petitioner’s retiral benefits cannot be taken
away after 36/38 years of service due to laxity and incompetence
of the employer.
F
The petitioner humbly submits that the Parliamentary
Committee on the Welfare of SC and STs submits its
report every year on the atrocities committed on the
SC/ST communities especially on delayed verifications,
withholding of pension and other financial benefits at
the fag end of service which have been held to be a
regular practice which are detrimental to the interests
of the above communities.
In almost every report it is said that verification of caste
certificates to be done within 6 months of joining service
or before confirmation which ever is earlier and if its
not done then the certificate needs to be treated as
genuine. The caste verification case on anonymous
complaint cannot be reopened at the fag end of the career
as old records are unavailable.
It is most respectfully submitted that in the present
case also records are unavailable and petitioner cannot
be repeatedly subjected to caste verification especially at
the fag end of her career, and for no fault of her
dismissal from service is bad precedent in law.

G
12.02.2024: Hence this SLP.
LIST OF DATES
05.07.1980/
17.09.1980 The petitioner joined as Assistant in the
respondent no.3 NCDC office through employment
exchange which
recommended her name for ST candidate. She
submitted caste certificate dated
5.7.80 and joined service on 17.09.1980
True copies of caste certificate and
appointment letter dated 05.07.80 &
17.09.1980 are annexed herewith as
ANNEXURE P- 1 PAGES NO.47 &
ANNEXURE - P- 2 PAGES NO. 48-50
respectively.
The petitioner’s services were confirmed as
Assistant and subsequently she was promoted first
to the post of Program Officer and then to the
post of Assistant Director in the year 1996.
20.12.2004 After a long gap of 23 years, although the
petitioners’ caste certificate was duly verified
at the time confirming her services still the
respondent no. 3 issued memo to the petitioner
asking her to submit her original documents
regarding her
H
education and caste on the pretext of
completion of service record and the same was
duly complied with by the petitioner alongwith
her father’s and her brother’s caste certificate.
17.05.2007 The petitioner through RTI i.e after a lapse of
26 years approached the DM Nagpur
seeking information regarding her caste
certificate. The DM replied that the
records are unavailable, missing and in
dilapidated condition and middle pages are
missing. True copy of reply dated
17.05.2007 to the RTI by DM is annexed
herewith as ANNEXURE P- 3(51-52)
21.04.2010 The respondent no.3 asked the
petitioner to fill up form E for examination of her
claim of caste to caste scrutiny committee..
07.09.2010 After due communication the respondent no.3,
after 29 yrs, informed the petitioner that the
case pertaining to her caste status verification
has been closed and she was promoted to the
post of Deputy Director. True Copy of the
letter dated
I
07.09.2010 is annexed herewith as
ANNEXURE P- 4. (53)
09.06.2015 New M.D joined NCDC. The petitioner was
transferred to TOPIC (training institute of
Resp.no.3 at Gurugram) just 2 yrs prior to her
retirement. During the said period the petitioner
was issued various memos for inefficiencies
just to harass her. At this the petitioner
diligently replied to the said memos to prove the
falsity of allegations. The petitioner also said
that if this harassment is not stopped she will
approach the National Commission for Women.
30.11.2016 Because petitioner intimated that she will approach
NCW, the respondent no.3 issued fresh memo
after a lapse of 35 years by which issue of caste
certificate was reopened and Inquiry
proceedings commenced against the petitioner
just before 8 months before her retirement.
The DM did not even asked the petitioner

J
to submit the original caste certificate and
hastily in a most improper manner on the
photocopy of the caste certificate gave a mere
opinion that the caste certificate
appears to be forged. Simply on the basis of
that opinion petitioner’s services were
terminated. This action was taken on the basis
of an anonymous complaint by one Dhirender
Kumar whose whereabouts are itself
found to be fake and who never
appeared before the Inquiry Officer. True copy
of the memo issued by the Dy. MD is annexed
herewith as ANNEXURE P-
5.PA GES NO. 54
The petitioner was suspended on
22.12.2016 and charges were framed
against her for submitting false caste
certificate. The inquiry was conducted at
Nagpur although the
petitioner objected to it.

26.06.2017
The petitioner states that the
aforesaid person has no locus standi to
file complaint and upon verification from
concerned Police Station, it was found out that
the address was wrong and most

K
importantly the said person never appeared in
Inquiry proceedings also. True Copy of the
letter of concerned Police Station dated
26.06.2017 is ANNEXURE P- 6. PAGE NO. 55
31.08.2017 The petitioner retired.
04.04.2018 The Inquiry officer in utter haste after
examining only two witnesses who contradicted
each other submitted his report dated
04.04.2018 wherein the only two witnesses
contradicted each other. True Copy of the
Inquiry Report dated 04.04.2018 is annexed
herewith as ANNEXURE P- 7. (56-66)
The petitioner represented against the Inquiry

18.10.2018 Offficer’s report on 04.09.2018. The
Respondent No. 3 without considering the
representation of petitioner imposed the major
penalty of dismissal after her superannuation
illegally and unfairly on the petitioner and
held that all the retiral benefits of the petitioner
shall stand forfeited. True copy of the
dismissal order
L
dated 18.10.2018 is annexed herewith as
ANNEXURE A- 8 . (67-77)
06.12.2018/
10.06.2019 The petitioner appealed against the
dismissal order dated 18.10.2018 to Appellate
Authority. The Appellate Authority vide its
order dated 10.06.2019 dismissed the appeal of
the petitioner. True copy of the order dated
10.06.2019 is annexed herewith as
ANNEXURE P- 9. (78-85)
The petitioner approached the Ld. Central
06.08.2019 Administrative Tribunal,

Mumbai Bench, Camp at Nagpur in
O.A No. 2166/2019. The respondent no. 3
filed its Reply wherein categorically it
admitted to have misplaced the service
record of the petitioner. The Ld. Tribunal did
not apply its mind to the real issue in the
matter and also not considered evidence,
documents submitted by the petitioner
and dismissed the O.A without considering the
merits of the matter. True copy of the order
dated
M
06.08.2019 in O.A No. 2166/2019 is
annexed herewith as ANNEXURE P- 10
(86-97)
15.10.2019 Against the order of the Ld. Tribunal the petitioner

preferred Writ Petition being 7848/2019
before the High Court of Judicature at
Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur. True copy
of the Writ Petition No.7848/2019 is annexed
herewith as ANNEXURE P-
11.PAGE NO 98-143)
03.05.2022
The respondent no.3 filed its reply
wherein it is very clear that respondent was at
fault throughout. It is due to its incompetency
and laxity that petitioner’s entire career at
stake and apparently due to resp.no.3
incompetence the petitioner is being harassed
which is not only illegal but also unfair qua the
petitioner. True Copy of the Reply of the
respondent no. 3 to W.P. No. 7848/2019 is
annexed herewith as ANNEXURE P- 12(144-
195)
13.10.2023 The Hon’ble High Court without appreciating the
sensitivity of the case, documents on

N
record and evidence in the case dismissed the
Writ Petition, causing gross injustice to the
petitioner.
It is most respectfully submitted that
the Hon’ble High Court failed to consider that
the caste certificate of the petitioner pertains to
1980. The respondent No. 3 at that time, after
19 years as per the practice prevalent at that
time, verified the caste certificate on the basis
of documents i.e caste certificate of petitioner’s
brother, father’s caste certificate and also
certificate issued from “Mannewar” community
that she belongs to ST community and is a
member for more than 15 years. Reopening the
matter after 6 years of closing the matter
amounts to atrocities on the petitioner that too
on a anynomous complaint which is not
permissible. Especially when no records are
available to verify the caste certificate of the
petitioner.
12.02.2024 Hence this SLP.

2023:BHC-NAG:15040-DB
1
WP 7848-19 1 Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 7848/2019
Jyoti W/o S.K. Matia, Ex-Director NCDC, New Delhi,

aged about 62 years, R/o 162, Swamy Colony, Katol
Road, Aakar Nagar, Nagpur – 440 013. PETITIONER
.....VERSUS..…
1. Union of India, Through Secretary,

Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare,
Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi – 110 001.
2. The Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers

Welfare, Department of Agriculture, Co-operation
and Farmers Welfare, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi -
110 001, and Chairman, Board of Management,
National Cooperative Development Corporation,
Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi – 110 001.
3. The National Co-operative Development Corporation,

through its Managing Director, 4, Siri Institutional
Area, Hauz Khas, New Delhi. RESPONDENTS
Shri S.P. Dharmadhikari, Senior Advocate with Shri C.S. Dharmadhikari, counsel
for the petitioner.
Shri C.J. Dhumane, counsel for the respondent nos.1 and 2.
Mrs. B.M. Kasare, counsel for the respondent no.3.
CORAM : A. S. CHANDURKAR AND MRS VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ.

DATE ON WHICH ARGUMENTS WERE HEARD : JULY 27,
2023 DATE ON
WHICH JUDGMENT IS PRONOUNCED : OCTOBER 13, 2023
JUDGMENT (PER : A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.)
In view of notice for final disposal issued earlier, we have heard
the learned counsel for the parties by issuing RULE and making it returnable
forthwith.
::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 07/02/2024 02:01:24 :::
2
2. The challenge raised in the present writ petition is to the order
dated 06.08.2019 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur in
Original Application No. 2166 of 2019. By the said order the original
application preferred by the petitioner for challenging the orders passed in
the disciplinary proceedings resulting in dismissal of the petitioner from
service came to be rejected.
3. The facts relevant for considering the challenge as raised are
that the petitioner claims to belong to ‘Mannewar’ Scheduled Tribe. On the
basis of the tribe certificate dated 05.07.1980 issued by the District
Magistrate, Nagpur the petitioner came to be appointed on the post of
Assistant at the National Co-operative Development Corporation – ‘the
Corporation’ for short. According to the petitioner on rendering satisfactory
service she came to be promoted during the course of service. On
22.12.2004 the Corporation issued a memorandum to the petitioner calling
upon her to submit all original documents pertaining to her tribe claim. The
petitioner submitted the relevant documents alongwith her father’s tribe
certificate. The Corporation demanded further documents from the
petitioner from time to time which she claims to have been duly supplied.
On 21.04.2010 another memorandum was issued to the petitioner stating
therein that her tribe certificate was not yet verified by the competent
Scrutiny Committee. She was therefore called upon to submit all necessary
documents and further relevant information for this purpose. In response

3
the petitioner by her reply dated 24.05.2010 submitted that on an earlier
occasion memorandum dated 10.01.2005 had been issued in the same
matter and after considering the petitioner’s reply no further steps were
taken by the Corporation. It was stated that since the petitioner was
appointed in the year 1981 her issue with regard to her status ought to be
decided on the basis of the documents submitted by her from time to time.
On 07.09.2010 the petitioner was informed by the Corporation that her
representation had been considered and with the approval of the Competent
authority her case was closed.
4. According to the petitioner a complaint came to be made to the
Corporation by one Shri Dhirender Kumar raising a doubt about the tribal
status of the petitioner. Acting on the same, the Deputy Managing Director,
Personnel and Administration Division of the Corporation issued a
memorandum to the petitioner on 30.11.2016. The petitioner was called
upon to explain within a period of ten days as to why disciplinary action
should not be taken against her for adopting illegal means to secure a job in
the corporation by producing a fake/forged tribe certificate. The petitioner
replied to the same on 09.12.2016 but not being satisfied with the same,
memorandum dated 22.12.2016 came to be issued proposing to hold an
enquiry against the petitioner under Regulation 41 of the N.C.D.C. Service
Regulations, 1967 – ‘the Service Regulations’ for short. As per the statement
of Articles of Charge it was stated that the petitioner had furnished

4
certificate dated 05.07.1980 issued by the Executive Magistrate to claim
that she belong to Scheduled Tribe. It had come to the knowledge of the
Corporation that the certificate furnished by the petitioner was fake/forged.
In terms of the appointment order as the information furnished by the
petitioner was found to be false her appointment would be void ab-initio.
The services of the petitioner were also placed under suspension by another
order issued on 22.12.2016. A disciplinary enquiry was accordingly held
against the petitioner. On 18.07.2017 the Managing Director of the
Corporation informed the petitioner that the Disciplinary Authority had
ordered continuation of her suspension till her retirement that was to take
place on 31.08.2017. The petitioner had challenged the charge-sheet as
issued to her by filing Original Application No. 1216 of 2017 which came to
be dismissed by the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal,
New Delhi on 19.07.2018. A direction however was given to conclude the
disciplinary proceedings within a period of six months. The petitioner filed
another Original Application No. 3380 of 2017 raising a challenge to the
order dated 31.08.20178 by which her retiral benefits were withheld subject
to the outcome of the departmental proceedings. The said Original
Application was disposed of on 9.07.2018 by directing the Corporation to
release an amount of Rupees Five Lakhs tentatively towards the amount of
leave encashment. A further direction was issued to conclude the enquiry
within a period of six months.

5
5. On the conclusion of the departmental proceedings, the
Disciplinary Authority considered the enquiry report. After considering the
petitioner’s representation against the said enquiry report, the Managing
Director of the Corporation as Disciplinary Authority passed an order on
18.10.2018 and held that in the light of the material before the Enquiry
Officer it was found that the petitioner had secured employment in the
Corporation by producing a forged/fake tribe certificate and that the charge
as framed was fully proved against her. Her appointment was therefore
liable to be treated as void ab-initio. Accordingly, major penalty of dismissal
from service came to be issued. Similarly the post-retiral benefits excluding
the amount of Rupees Five Lakhs received by the petitioner came to be
forfeited. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the order of dismissal
and on 10.06.2019 the Appellate Authority confirmed the major penalty of
dismissal from service and dismissed the appeal.
Being aggrieved the petitioner approached the Central
Administrative Tribunal by filing Original Application No. 2166 of 2019 so
as to challenge the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority as confirmed
by the Appellate Authority. On the issue of reference of the petitioner’s
certificate to the Scrutiny Committee it was observed that since there was
no tribe certificate in existence as per the records of the District Magistrate
there was nothing that could have been referred to the Scrutiny Committee
either by the petitioner or by the Corporation. Since the petitioner’s service
was found to be void she was not entitled to any benefit whatsoever. The

6
Original Application accordingly came to be dismissed. As a consequence,
the Corporation on 13.11.2013 issued a communication to the petitioner
calling upon her to refund the amount of Rupees Five Lakhs to the
Corporation within a period of one month from the date of the order. This
was followed by various reminders being issued by the Corporation. It is in
this context that the petitioner has raised a challenge to the order passed by
the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 06.08.2019 alongwith various
ancillary prayers being made against the Corporation.
6. Shri S.P. Dharmadhikari, learned Senior Advocate for the
petitioner in support of the challenge to the order passed by the Central
Administrative Tribunal submitted that the respondent no.3 had accepted
the petitioner’s representation dated 24.05.2010 that was submitted in
response to the memorandum dated 21.04.2010 and had closed the case of
the petitioner in the matter of verification of her caste status vide
communication dated 07.09.2010. The petitioner had been subsequently
promoted to the post of Deputy Director and thereafter to the post of
Director. On the very same grounds the issue with regard to her social
status was sought to be re-opened vide memorandum dated 30.11.2016. It
was submitted that this was in the light of a complaint sought to be made by
one Shri Dhirender Kumar who had no connection whatsoever with the
affairs of the Corporation. The petitioner was being vexed twice on the
same issue and hence the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings was itself

7
misconceived. Despite responding to the said memorandum and bringing
this fact to the notice of the Corporation, the enquiry came to be held. It
was further submitted that the relevant records at the Office of the Naib
Tahsildar were stated to be not available. Without verifying the existing
record the Enquiry Officer arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner’s tribe
certificate was fake and forged. There was no evidence whatsoever to hold
that the said certificate was forged. It was also to be noted that the Enquiry
Officer had no authority in law to go into the question of validity of the
petitioner’s tribe claim. After rendering service of almost forty years the
punishment of dismissal was inflicted on the petitioner after her
superannuation. It was urged that the petitioner having superannuated on
31.08.2017 it was not permissible for the Enquiry Officer to have proceeded
further with the enquiry thereafter. Despite the petitioner’s protest the
enquiry was held even after her superannuation and the enquiry report was
submitted on 04.04.2018. Referring to Rule 2(d) of the Central Civil
Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (for short, ‘the Rules of 1972’) it was
submitted that since the petitioner was entitled to receive contributory
provident fund, the said Rules of 1972 and especially Rule 9(2) thereof on
which the Corporation sought to rely upon was not at all applicable to the
case of the petitioner. In other words, it was submitted that since the
provisions of Rule 9(2) of the Rules of 1972 were not applicable to the case
of the petitioner it was impermissible for the Enquiry Officer to continue
with the enquiry after the petitioner’s superannuation on 31.08.2017. In

8
that regard, the learned Senior Advocate placed reliance on the decisions in
Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Mahanadi Coalfields Limited Versus
Rabindranath Choubey [(2020) 18 SCC 71], Bhagirathi Jena Versus Board
of Directors, O.S.F.C. & Others [(1999) 3 SCC 666] and Dev Prakash Tewari
Versus Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Institutional Service Board, Lucknow &
Others [(2014) 7 SCC 260]. Despite urging all this before the Tribunal the
same were not considered in the proper perspective and the punishment
imposed by the Corporation was upheld. The petitioner could not be
deprived of the benefits that had accrued to her having rendered long
service of about forty years. It was thus submitted that after setting aside
the impugned orders, the reliefs prayed for by the petitioner be granted.
7. Ms B.M. Kasare, learned counsel appearing for the Corporation
submitted that the petitioner was appointed on a post that was reserved for
the candidates from the Scheduled Tribe category. In the order of
appointment dated 17.09.1980 it was clearly stated that if the declaration
given or information furnished by the petitioner was found to be false the
petitioner was liable to be discharged from service and the Corporation was
free to take appropriate action against her. Since it was found during the
course of enquiry that the tribe certificate dated 05.07.1980 was not
available on record of the concerned Authority it was clear that by
furnishing incorrect information that the petitioner belonged to Scheduled
Tribe she had secured employment. The proceedings that were closed in the

9
year 2010 were with regard to the requirement to seek verification of the
petitioner’s social status. The issue with regard to the genuineness of the
petitioner’s tribe certificate was not the subject matter of said proceedings.
The conduct of the enquiry on the basis of a complaint received was thus
justified in the facts of the case. Reference was made to Regulations 41 to
44 of the Regulations of 1967 to indicate that full opportunity was given to
the petitioner to rebut the charges levelled against her. The Disciplinary
Authority and thereafter the Appellate Authority had considered all relevant
aspects. The Tribunal being satisfied with action taken against the
petitioner it rightly did not interfere with the order of punishment as
imposed. It was permissible for the Corporation to continue the enquiry
after the petitioner’s superannuation in view of Rule 9(2) of the Rules of
1972. Since the post in question on which the petitioner was appointed was
reserved for members from the Scheduled Tribe category and it had been
found that there was no record of the petitioner’s tribe certificate it was
clear that the appointment of the petitioner was void ab-initio. The
petitioner was therefore rightly deprived of the benefits accruing to her on
her superannuation. The impugned order therefore did not call for any
interference.
Shri C.J. Dhumane, learned counsel for the respondent nos.1
and 2 adopted the submissions made on behalf of the Corporation and
supported the impugned order.

10
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and we have
also perused the documentary material on record. We have also given
thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions. At the outset, we may
consider the objection raised by the petitioner to the initiation of the
disciplinary proceedings pursuant to the memorandum dated 30.11.2016
proposing to enquire into the imputations made in the said memorandum.
It is the case of the petitioner that as the very same issue was considered by
the Corporation and the same was closed on 07.09.2010 with the approval
of the Competent Authority, it was not permissible for the Corporation to re-
open that very issue again. To consider this aspect it would be necessary to
note that the petitioner while seeking appointment on the post of Assistant
with the Corporation claimed to belong to ‘Mannewar’ Scheduled Tribe. She
had tendered certificate dated 05.07.1980 stated to be issued by the
Executive Magistrate, Nagpur. The tribe claim of the petitioner had not
been verified and therefore the petitioner was issued a memorandum on
21.04.2010 in which it was stated that since such verification by the
Scrutiny committee was a mandatory requirement, she was required to
submit all relevant documents and fill in the requisite forms giving various
details alongwith her affidavit. In response to this memorandum the
petitioner on 24.05.2010 issued a communication to the Managing Director
stating therein that the Corporation had issued the said memorandum on
the basis of an anonymous complaint received by it. She further stated that
the requirement of verification of the tribe certificate was only with regard

11
to an appointment made after 18.10.2001 since that was the date when the
provisions of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes De-
Notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes
and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of)
Caste Certificate Act, 2001 came into force. Since the petitioner was
appointed much prior to enforcement of that Act it was not necessary for
her to have her tribe claim verified. The petitioner therefore requested the
Corporation that the said issue be decided on the basis of documents that
were already submitted. The Administration Department of the Corporation
on 07.09.2010 informed the petitioner that her representation dated
24.05.2010 had been considered and with the approval of the Competent
Authority the case was closed.
It becomes clear on a perusal of the memorandum dated
21.04.2010 and the petitioner’s reply dated 24.05.2010 that the issue under
consideration was the requirement of having the petitioner’s tribe claim
verified by the Scrutiny Committee. With the response of the Corporation
dated 07.09.2010 stating therein that the said matter was closed the only
conclusion that could be drawn is that the Corporation did not deem it
necessary to require the petitioner to have her tribe claim verified. Beyond
this, no further inference can be drawn especially the inference that the
appointment of the petitioner had been made on the basis of a valid tribe
certificate dated 05.07.1980 that was submitted by her. Since the issue
with regard to the authenticity of the tribe certificate submitted by the

12
petitioner was not in issue when the memorandum dated 21.04.2010 was
issued, the contention of the petitioner that initiation of the departmental
proceedings pursuant to the memorandum dated 22.12.2016 sought to re-
open the issue that was already concluded cannot be accepted. This is also
clear on reading the statement of allegations and imputations of misconduct
that was part of the memorandum dated 22.12.2016. The conduct of the
departmental enquiry is therefore not with regard to a matter that was
considered earlier vide memorandum dated 21.04.2010. The initiation of
the departmental enquiry therefore was permissible.
9. Another objection raised by the petitioner is to the continuation
of the departmental enquiry which had commenced when the petitioner was
in service and was concluded after her superannuation. The departmental
enquiry commenced with the service of the memorandum dated 22.12.2016
alongwith which the statement of allegations was served on the petitioner.
On the same day the services of the petitioner were placed under
suspension. On expiry of a period of ninety days of suspension, an order
was passed on 20.03.2017 extending the period of suspension for another
120 days. The extended period of suspension was to expire on 19.07.2017
and hence on 18.07.2017 the period of suspension was continued till the
petitioner’s retirement on 31.08.2017. It is to be noted that the petitioner
had challenged the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings as well as had
prayed for setting aside the charge-sheet dated 22.12.2016 by filing Original

13
Application No.1216 of 2017. In the said proceedings, the issue with regard
to initiation of the disciplinary proceedings as well as its continuation after
her superannuation was challenged. This original application came to be
dismissed on 19.07.2018 holding that there was no ground made out to
interfere with the charge-sheet. This order passed by the Tribunal was not
subjected to any further challenge and the same attained finality. It is to be
noted that the petitioner had also filed Original Application No. 3380 of 2017
raising a challenge to the order dated 31.08.2017 by which her retiral
benefits such as gratuity, leave encashment, etc. were withheld making them
subject to the outcome of the departmental enquiry. Even in these
proceedings the issue with regard to continuation of the departmental
proceedings after the petitioner’s superannuation was raised. By the order
dated 19.07.2018 the Corporation was directed to release an amount of
Rupees Five Lakhs tentatively towards entitlement of the petitioner towards
leave encashment. A further direction was issued to the Enquiry Officer to
conclude the disciplinary proceedings within a period of six months from the
date of the order. The petitioner accepted the said order and did not
challenge the same any further.
10. We thus find from the aforesaid proceedings that the issue with
regard to initiation of the departmental enquiry and its continuation after
the petitioner’s superannuation was specifically raised by the petitioner in
the earlier proceedings filed before the Tribunal. The challenge of the
petitioner was not successful. The petitioner accepted the said orders as
14

15
well as the direction to co-operate in the expeditious conclusion of the
disciplinary proceedings. On this count the petitioner is now precluded
from seeking to re-open these issues that have attained finality in the earlier
round of litigation initiated by the petitioner. On principles analogous to
constructive res-judicata, it would not be permissible for the petitioner to
urge that the Corporation had no authority under the Rules of 1972 to
continue the departmental enquiry after her superannuation. Advisedly this
issue as regards authority of the Corporation to continue the departmental
enquiry after the petitioner’s superannuation was not specifically urged
before the Tribunal in Original Application No. 2166 of 2019 that was
decided on 06.08.2019 and which order is the subject matter of challenge in
this writ petition.
We therefore find that this issue with regard to continuation of
the disciplinary proceedings post superannuation of the petitioner cannot be
permitted to be agitated in the present proceedings.
11. Having found that there was no legal impediment before the
Corporation in continuing the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner
even after her superannuation, it would now be necessary to consider the
challenge to the order of the Tribunal on its merits. A perusal of the
proceedings before the Enquiry Officer indicates that the charge leveled
against the petitioner was that when the petitioner had sought appointment
on the post of Assistant with the Corporation on a post reserved for the

16
Scheduled Tribe candidates, she had furnished a certificate bearing Revenue
No.812/MRC.81/79-80 dated 05.07.1980 stated to be issued by the
Executive Magistrate. The said certificate stated that the petitioner
belonged to ‘Mannewar’ Scheduled Tribe. The charge further states that it
had come to the knowledge of the Corporation that the certificate
furnished by the petitioner at the time of her appointment was
fake/forged. As per the terms and conditions of her appointment if any
declaration or information furnished by her was proved to be false she
was liable to be discharged from the services of the Corporation besides
any other action which the Corporation could initiate. It was thus stated
that the appointment of the petitioner was vitiated by fraud, forgery and
illegality rendering it void ab-initio. The appointment was stated to be in
breach of the terms and conditions mentioned therein. In the statement of
allegations reference was made to the communication dated 14.10.2016
issued to the Office of the District Magistrate, Nagpur with a request to
verify the genuineness of the tribe certificate dated 05.07.1980 submitted
by the petitioner. It was further stated that the District Magistrate, Nagpur
by letter dated 04.11.2016 had informed that certificate bearing the same
number and date of the certificate submitted by the petitioner had been
issued to one Shri Panjabrao Harde and that there was no entry in any of
the registers maintained by the said Office of issuance of any tribe
certificate in the name of the petitioner.

17
12. In the enquiry proceedings on 12.07.2017 the petitioner denied
the charges framed against her. By the communication dated 03.08.2017 the
petitioner was requested to attend the proceedings on 18.08.2017 at the
Office of the District Magistrate, Nagpur. The petitioner refused to attend the
said hearing on 18.08.2017. Thereafter on 21.08.2017 at the request of the
petitioner a summons was issued to one Shri Dhirender Kumar to attend the
enquiry. However in view of the incomplete address furnished that notice was
not served. The petitioner thereafter sought for change of the Enquiry Officer
and by an order dated 13.12.2017 the Enquiry Officer was changed. The
Enquiry Officer then on 18.12.2017 issued a notice to the petitioner to attend
the hearing of the proceedings on 27.12.2017. The petitioner however by her
letter dated 26.12.2017 informed the Enquiry Officer that she had
approached the Tribunal raising a challenge to the enquiry proceedings and
prayed that the same be kept in abeyance. This request was accepted and
thereafter on 05.01.2018 notice was issued to the petitioner to attend hearing
on 12.01.2018. At the request of the petitioner the proceedings were
adjourned to 31.01.2018. Despite receiving notice of the said proceedings on
19.01.2018 the petitioner remained absent on 31.01.2018. Thereafter the
Enquiry Officer on 08.02.2018 requested the District Magistrate, Nagpur to
conduct the proceedings at its Office on 15.02.2018 at 10.30 A.M. in the
presence of the Tahsildar, Nagpur and others connected with the matter. The
petitioner was also directed to remain present on that date. On 15.02.2018
the petitioner failed to remain present despite having confirmed the
receipt of
18

19
the letter dated 08.02.2018. On the said date, the Presenting Officer showed
the Tahsildar, Nagpur the communication dated 04.11.2016 issued from the
Office of the Collector Nagpur and he stated that the contents of the said
letter were correct. As the petitioner was absent, the Tahsildar could not be
cross-examined. It is thereafter that the Enquiry Officer concluded the
proceedings with his opinion that the petitioner was guilty of production of
fake/forged certificate with a view to derive the benefit of concession meant
for the members from the Scheduled Tribe community.
13. The petitioner submitted her detailed representation against the
enquiry report on 04.09.2018 and after considering the same the Managing
Director and the Disciplinary Authority agreed with the opinion of the
Enquiry Officer and held that the charge was fully proved against the
petitioner. He treated the appointment of the petitioner as being vitiated by
fraud, forgery and illegality thus being void ab-initio. The Disciplinary
Authority proceeded to impose major penalty of dismissal from the services
of the Corporation. As a consequence the post-retiral benefits of the
petitioner were forfeited after noting that the amount of Rupees Five Lakhs
towards leave encashment had been paid to the petitioner tentatively.
The petitioner preferred an appeal against the order passed by
the Disciplinary Authority on 06.12.2018. The appeal was considered by
the Appellate Authority and the same was dismissed on 10.06.2019. The
findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and the punishment order issued
by the Disciplinary Authority were upheld.

20
14. The Tribunal while considering the challenge to these orders
observed that there was no tribe certificate of the petitioner in existence as
per the records of the District Magistrate, Nagpur and therefore there was
nothing that could be referred to the Scrutiny Committee for verification. It
was held that since the petitioner’s services were void, no benefit could flow
from the same. The original application was thus dismissed after which the
Corporation on 13.11.2019 sought refund of the amount of Rupees Five
Lakhs paid to the petitioner towards the amount of leave encashment.
15. The scope of judicial review while entertaining a challenge to the
outcome of a departmental enquiry is circumscribed by limits of correcting
errors of law or procedural errors leading to manifest injustice or violation
of principles of natural justice. An adjudication cannot be undertaken of the
case of merits as an Appellate Authority. Reference in this regard can be
made to the decision in Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) &
Others Versus Ajai Kumar Srivastava [(2021) 2 SCC 612] wherein it has
been observed that interference with the finding of fraud arrived at in
disciplinary proceedings would be permissible only in case of mala fides or
perversity. If there is some evidence available to support the findings
arrived at in the disciplinary proceedings the same is liable to be sustained.
Viewed from this legal perspective, we find that the communication dated
14.10.2016 by the Chief Vigilance Officer of the Corporation to the District
Magistrate, Nagpur seeking to confirm the tribe certificates dated 05.07.1980
and 26.05.1981 that were furnished by the petitioner with the signature and

21
stamp of the Magistrate/Executive Magistrate, Nagpur alongwith the reply
of the Collector and District Magistrate, Nagpur dated 04.11.2016 stating
that these certificates were not shown to be issued to the petitioner but to
the persons other than the petitioner are sufficient to sustain the finding
recorded by the Enquiry Officer that the charge framed against the
petitioner was duly proved. We do not find that there is any material
whatsoever to either hold that there was any procedural irregularity in the
conduct of the disciplinary proceedings or that it is a case where there is no
evidence to support the conclusion of the Enquiry Officer. The petitioner
had sufficient opportunity to substantiate her contention as regards
genuineness of the certificates dated 05.08.1980 and 26.05.1981 that were
produced by her. She failed to do so. The Presenting Officer brought on
record the material in the form of communication dated 04.11.2016 by the
District Magistrate Nagpur in which it was stated that these certificates were
not shown to be issued to the petitioner. The petitioner failed to rebut this
communication in any manner whatsoever. We therefore do not find any
reason whatsoever to interfere with the report of the Enquiry Officer.
16. Coming to the imposition of penalty of dismissal from service, it
is seen that the order of appointment issued to the petitioner on 17.09.1980
in clear terms states that the she was required to produce the certificate of
caste/tribe and further that if any declaration given or information
furnished by her was found to be false she was liable to be discharged from
services. The action in this regard taken by the Disciplinary Authority is in

22
terms of the petitioner’s order of appointment. Dismissal from service has
been provided as a major penalty under Clause 38 of the Regulations of
1967. It was urged that since the records from the Office of the Executive
Magistrate indicate that the same were in torn condition and were also not
traceable as indicated by the communication dated 17.05.2007 issued by
the Tahsildar, Nagpur to the petitioner’s counsel, it could not be said that
the certificate produced by the petitioner was fake/forged. This contention
cannot be accepted for the reason that the District Magistrate by his
communication dated 04.11.2016 in clear terms has stated that the
certificates dated 05.07.1980 and 26.05.1981 which the petitioner had
furnished to indicate that she belonged to ‘Mannewar’ Scheduled Tribe had
not been issued by the Office of the Executive Magistrate. In the light of this
clear position there could be no doubt that the said certificates produced by
the petitioner were false as was stated in the memorandum dated
22.12.2016. The documents could be said to be false in the present context
when it was shown that the same did not exist. The charge levelled against
the petitioner is specific and it states that all information furnished by her is
proved to be false. This charge is thus clearly brought home in the enquiry
proceedings. It was urged out that the Enquiry Officer in the proceedings
held on 15.02.2018 had observed that the certificate dated 05.08.1980
prima-facie appears to be forged. On the basis of such prima-facie
observation the petitioner could not have been dismissed from service. We
do not find that the Enquiry Officer has recorded any prima-facie finding in

23
his report. The entire material on record alongwith the enquiry report
clearly indicate that a conclusive finding has been recorded by the Enquiry
Officer that the petitioner had submitted fake/forged caste certificate. A
stray observation during the course of enquiry proceedings cannot be read
out of context. The enquiry report would have to be read as a whole.
17. Perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal indicates that it has
considered the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the
Appellate Authority. It has thereafter recorded a finding that the imposition
of penalty was after taking into consideration the law laid down by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in R.Vishwanatha Pillay Versus State of Kerala [AIR
2004 SC 1469] and Chairman and Managing Director, F.C.I. Versus Jagdish
Balaram Bahira & Others [AIR 2017 SC 3271]. In these circumstances the
Tribunal has refused to interfere with the order imposing penalty. We find
that the Tribunal has considered all the relevant aspects urged before it and
has rightly refused to interfere with the order imposing penalty. On the
aspect of there being no order of invalidation, the Tribunal has noted that
since there was no tribe certificate in existence relatable to the petitioner as
per the records of the District Magistrate, Nagpur, there was no question of
such document being referred to Caste Scrutiny Committee. This aspect of
the matter also does not require to be interfered with. Suffice it to observe
that in Jagdish Balaram Bahira & Others (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court
has observed in paragraph 44 that the expression “false” must be construed
in contra-distinction to that which is true, genuine or authentic. Since the

24
tribe certificate itself was not found to be existing the expression “false”
would have to be construed by holding that the claim made by the
petitioner was in contra-distinction to the existence of a validly issued tribe
certificate.
18. For aforesaid reasons we do not find that there is any case made
out for this Court to interfere in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The
punishment of dismissal has been inflicted upon the petitioner after
complying with the principles of natural justice and fair play. The petitioner
has not been able to rebut the material placed against her in disciplinary
proceedings. No other conclusion than the one drawn by the Disciplinary
Authority, confirmed by the Appellate Authority and affirmed by the
Tribunal is possible. The writ petition therefore stands dismissed. Rule is
discharged with no order as to costs. The petitioner is granted time of six
weeks to refund the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- [Rupees Five Lakhs] to the
Corporation.
(MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) (A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.)
APTE
TRUE COPY

25
(CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

[Under Order XXI Rule 3 (1) (a)]
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. /2024
(Against the impugned final order dated 13.10.2023 passed by

the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench,
Nagpur in Writ Petition No. 7848 of 2019 ).
WITH PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF
BETWEEN: - POSITION OF PARTIES

In the High Court In this Court
Jyoti
W/o S.K. Matia,
Ex- Director, NCDC,
Aged About 66 years,
R/ 0 162, Swamy Colony, Katol
Road, Aakar Nagar,
Nagpur- 440013. Petitioner Petitioner
Versus
1. Union of India through

Secretary,
Ministry of Agriculture
And Farmers Welfar, Krishi Bhawan
New Delhi- 110001
Respondent Contesting
No.1 …Respondent . No.1
2. The Secretary,Ministry of Agriculture

And Farmers Welfare, Department of
Agriculture, Cooperation and Farmers
26
Welfare, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi 100001, And

Chairman, Board of Management,
National Cooperative Development
Corporation, Krishi Bhawan,
New Delhi-110001
No.2 …Respondent No.2
3. The National Co-operative
Development Corporation through Its
Managing Director, 4, Siri
Institutional Area, Hauz Khas,
New Delhi
Also at
Ministry of Cooperation,
Atal Akshay Urja Bhawan, CGO
Complex,
New Delhi -110003
No.3 …Respondent. No.3
PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL UNDER
ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
To,
The Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India and His
Companion Justices of the Supreme Court of India.
THE HUMBLE PETITION OFTHE PETITIONERS
ABOVE NAMED.
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

27
1. The petitioner above named respectfully submits this
petition seeking leave to appeal against the impugned
judgment and final order dated 13.10.2023 passed by
the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur
Bench Nagpur Writ Petition No. 7848 of 2019
whereby the Hon’ble High Court did not consider the
merits of the matter, evidence on record and dismissed
the writ petition arbitrarily and illegally causing grave
injustice to the petitioner.
1A. That no appeal or other petition lies against the impugned
final order dated 13.10.2023 before the High Court except
the direction contained herein which is challenged before
this Hon’ble Court.
1B. That the Petitioner is only challenging the final order dated
13.10.2023 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Writ Petition No.
7848 of 2019 .
2. QUESTIONS OF LAW:
The following questions of law inter-alia arise for
consideration by this Hon’ble Court:

28
I. Whether the Hon’ble High Court was justified in
upholding the judgment of the Ld. Central
Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur dated 06.08.2019
especially when the Inquiry Officer in O.A
No.2166/2019 not the competent authority to
decide the genuineness of the Caste Certificate?
II. Whether the Hon’ble High Court and the Ld.
Tribunal failed to appreciate that the caste
certificate of the petitioner has not been
invalidated by any authority till date?
III. Whether the Hon’ble High Court and the ld.
Tribunal failed to appreciate that petitioner’s
entire service, reputation and retiral/financial
benefits were taken away irrationally, baselessly
by relying only upon an opinion of the DM on the
photocopy of the caste certificate who had not
placed any evidence to prove that the petitioner’s
caste certificate is fake/forged? Especially when
the witness no.2 states that record pertaining to
yrs. 79-
80 is unavailable meaning thereby both witnesses
contradicted each other?

29
IV. Whether on the opinion of the DM without any
evidence can the services of the petitioner be
dismissed particularly when the DM or the Inquiry
officer are not the competent authority to pass
judgment of the caste certificate of the petitioner?
V. Whether the Hon’ble High Court and the Courts’
below failed to appreciate that the caste certificate
of the petitioner is neither challenged till date and
nor been cancelled by the competent authority
making it a valid caste certificate ?
VI. Whether the Courts’ below were right in ignoring
the documents produced by the petitioner like the
father’s caste certificate and also certificate of
her brother to prove her caste. The petitioner also
produced certificates from her “Mannewar
Samaj” where she is a member for the last 15
years or more?
VII. Whether the Hon’ble High Court and Court’s below
were justified in upholding the order of dismissal
passed by the Respondent No.3,

30
particularly in view of the RTI reply dated
17.05.2007, 06.03.2017 of the District Magistrate
which says for verification of the petitioner’s caste
certificate reports from 5 Naib Tahsildars were
called, and as per the report received, it has been
learnt that two of the said offices were not in
existence in the year 1979-80, the record book of
the year 1979-80 is not traceable and the register
of the fifth office is dilapidated and the middle
pages are missing. Thus, the entire record for the
relevant period was lost, making verification
impossible?
VIII. Whether the Hon’ble High Court and the Courts’
below were justified in rejecting the case of the
petitioner in a routine and mechanical manner
without considering the report of the Inquiry
Officer which is based on no evidence at all, most
importantly the Inquiry Officer is not the
competent person to verify the caste certificate of
the petitioner.
IX. Whether the Courts below were justified in rejecting
the claim of the petitioner especially when
the state witness no.2

31
categorically stated that out of 3 records of years
79-80 2 are not available and the third one is in torn
condition and verification of petitioner ‘s
document is therefore not possible.
X. Whether the courts below failed to appreciate that as
per witness no.2 in the Inquiry proceedings is to be
considered then in fact there is no record available
from where petitioners certificate can be verified.
XI. Whether the Hon’ble High Court and the court’s
below failed to appreciate that due to laxity and
incompetence of Respondent no.3 which did not do
its duty of verifying the caste certificate in time
although the petitioner submitted her documents
while joining service and also as and when
demanded by the R-3, which has resulted in grave
injustice to the petitioner which is not permitted
by law?
XII. Whether the Hon’ble High Court and the Ld.
Tribunal were justified in passing the impugned
order in the light of the fact that

32
the issue of Caste certificate was closed way
back in 2010, itself vide letter dated
5.09.80 of the NCDC wherein the caste certificate
of petitioner’s father and brother were
submitted to the
respondent no.3 dept?

XIII. Whether the Hon’ble High Court and the Court’s
below failed to see that petitioner’s caste cannot be
different from her father’s and brother’s,
particularly when the Employer NCDC did not
challenge their certificates and accepted them and
thus closed the case of petitioner after 19 years
which is also a very delayed action?.
XIV. Whether the Hon’ble High Court and the Ld, Tribunal
were justified in allowing the NCDC
i.e RespNo.3 to harass the petitioner time and
again regarding caste certificate even at the fag
end of her career although the onus to get it
verified lies entirely on the resp. no.
3 and at the commencement of the career at the
earliest i.e six months from joining service?

33
XV. Whether the Hon’ble High Court and the courts’
below were justified in allowing/permitting the
respondent no.3 for reopening the case of
verification of caste certificate of petitioner
after a lapse of 35 years i.e at the fag end of the
service which delay is neither justified nor legally
correct as, at that time old records are
unavailable?
XVI. Whether the principle of estoppel applies to NCDC
resp.no.3 that once it closed the case of petitioner
in 2010, can it reopen the case on the basis of
anynomous complaint which is strictly unfair and
prejudicial to the interests of the petitioner as it is
also against the guidelines issued in this regard
which categorically states that Inquiry regarding
caste certificate on anynomous complaint requires
to be discouraged?
XVII. Whether the NCDC Respondent No. 3 is permitted to
take advantage of its own wrong, laxity and
incompetence in as much as relying merely on the
opinion of DM tehsildar that caste certificate of
the petitioner appears to be ingenuine at a very

34
belated stage when the petitioner is about to retire
especially when the actual records are not
available and thus how far inflicting the harsh
punishment of dismissal on the petitioner is
sustainable in the eye of law?
XVIII. Whether the impugned order of the Hon’ble High
Court and the Ld. Tribunals’ order are sustainable
in the eye of law in view of the law laid down in
O.A No 849/2023 (DB) Maharashtra
Administrative Tribunal. Nagpur Bench, Nagpur
and in view of other Supreme Court judgements i.e
Civil Appeal No. 5160/2010 J.Chitra Vs distt
collector and Chairman state level vigilance
committee, Tamilnadu & ors, Kumari Madhuri
Patil 1994 6 SCC 241 and Dayaram’s case 2012
1 SCC
333 ?
3. DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 3(2) :
The Petitioner states that no other petition seeking
leave to appeal has been filed by her against the impugned
final order dated 13.10.2023 passed by the High Court of
Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench Nagpur Writ
Petition No. 7848 of 2019

35
4. DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 5:
The Annexure P-1 to P-12 produced alongwith the Special
Leave Petition are true copies of the pleadings/documents
which formed part of the records of the case in the court
below and the High Court against whose order the leave to
appeal is sought for in this petition.
5. GROUNDS:
Leave to appeal is sought for on the following grounds
which are taken without prejudice to one another:
A) Because the Hon’ble High Court was not justified in
upholding the judgment of the Ld. Central
Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur dated 06.08.2019
especially when the Inquiry Officer in
O.A No.2166/2019 was not the competent authority to
decide the genuineness of the Caste Certificate of the
petitioner after 35 years.
B) Because the Hon’ble High Court and the Ld.
Tribunal failed to appreciate that the caste certificate
of the petitioner has not been invalidated by any
authority till date.

36
C) Because the impugned order of the Hon’ble High Court
and the Ld. Tribunals’ order are not sustainable in the
eye of law in view of the law laid down in O.A No.
849/2023 (DB) Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal.
Nagpur Bench, Nagpur and in view of other Supreme
Court judgements
i.e Civil Appeal No. 5160/2010 J.Chitra Vs distt
collector and Chairman state level vigilance
committee, Tamilnadu & ors, Kumari Madhuri Patil
1994 6 SCC 241 and Dayaram’s case 2012
1 SCC 333.
D) Because the Hon’ble High Court and the ld.
Tribunal failed to appreciate that petitioner’s entire
service of 38 yrs, reputation and retiremental/financial
benefits were taken away irrationally, baselessly by
relying only upon an opinion of the DM who had not
placed any evidence to prove that the petitioner’s caste
certificate is fake/forged, especially when the witness
no.2 states that record pertaining to yrs. 79-80 are
unavailable. Therefore simply on opinion which is not
based on evidence dismissal order of petitioner is bad in
law and is not sustainable in the eye of law.

37
E) Because on the opinion of the DM without any evidence
services of the petitioner cannot be dismissed
particularly when the DM or the Inquiry officer are
not the competent authority to pass judgment on the
caste certificate of the petitioner?
F) Because the Hon’ble High Court and the Courts’ below
failed to appreciate that the caste certificate of the
petitioner is neither challenged till date and nor been
cancelled by the competent authority thus making it a
valid caste certificate.
G) Because the Courts’ below were not justified in
ignoring the documents produced by the petitioner
like the father’s caste certificate and also certificate of
her brother to prove her caste. The petitioner also
produced certificates from her “Mannewar Samaj”
where she is a member for the last more than 15 years.
H) Because the Hon’ble High Court and Court’s below
were not justified in upholding the order of dismissal
passed by the Respondent No.3, when the issue of caste
certificate verification was closed by it in the year
2010 ie after 19 yrs of

38
joining service and particularly in view of the RTI reply
dated 17.05.2007, 06.03.2017 of the District
Magistrate which says for verification of the
petitioner’s caste certificate reports from 5 Naib
Tahsildars were called, and as per the report received,
it has been learnt that two of the said offices were not
in existence in the year 1979-80, the record book of the
year 1979-80 is not traceable and the register of the
fifth office is dilapidated and the middle pages are
missing. Thus, the entire record for the relevant
period was lost, making verification impossible.
I) Because the Hon’ble High Court and the Courts’ below
were not justified in rejecting the case of the
petitioner in a routine and mechanical manner
without considering the report of the Inquiry Officer
which is based on no evidence at all, most importantly
the Inquiry Officer is not the competent person to
verify the caste certificate of the petitioner.
J) Because the Courts below were not justified in
rejecting the claim of the petitioner especially in view
of the fact that the supporting documents like
petitioner’s father and brother both belong to

39
same caste and their certificates submitted to resp.no.3,
certificate from her community also submitted where
she is a member for more than
15 years and when the state witness no.2 categorically
stated that out of 3 records of years 79-80 2 are not
available and the third one is in torn condition and
verification of petitioner ‘s document is therefore not
possible. The respondent no.3 ought to have considered
the other material on record.
K) Because the courts’ below failed to appreciate that if
the statement of witness no.2 in the Inquiry
proceedings is to be believed/considered, then in fact
there is no record available from where petitioner’s
certificate can be verified. It is most respectfully
submitted that the earlier DM in his statement said he
verified records and found against the details of
certificate of petitioner, some other person’s name is
showing is totally baseless in view of witness no.2
statement. Further, the DM did not give details of
record book from which he verified as all the books
pertaining to year 79-80 are unavailable.

40
L) Because the Hon’ble High Court and the court’s below
failed to appreciate that due to laxity and incompetence
of Respondent no.3 which did not do its duty of
verifying the caste certificate in time although the
petitioner submitted her documents while joining
service and also as and when demanded by the R-3,
has resulted in grave injustice to the petitioner which is
not permitted by law. The resp. No.3 in undue haste was
bent upon to harass the petitioner and finally
without reason dismissed the petitioner from service
which is illegal and unfair.
M) Because the Hon’ble High Court and the Court’s below
failed to see that petitioner’s caste cannot be different
from her father’s and brother’s, particularly when the
Employer NCDC did not challenge their certificates
and accepted them and thus closed the case of
petitioner after 19 years which is also a very delayed
action. Thereafter reopening the case after 35 years on
an anyomous complaint is itself not permissible as per
guidelines as it amounts to harassment.
N) Because the Hon’ble High Court and the Ld, Tribunal
were not justified in allowing the NCDC

41
i.e RespNo.3 to harass the petitioner time and again
regarding caste certificate even at the fag end of her
career although the onus to get it verified lies entirely
on the resp. no. 3 and at the commencement of the
career at the earliest i.e six months from joining
service which admittedly the resp no. 3 failed to do.
O) Because the Hon’ble High Court and the courts’ below
were not justified in allowing/permitting the
respondent no.3 for reopening the case of verification
of caste certificate of petitioner after a lapse of 35
years i.e at the fag end of the service which delay is
neither justified nor legally correct as, at that time old
records are unavailable.
P) Because the principle of estoppel applies to NCDC
resp.no.3, that once it closed the case of petitioner in
2010, can it reopen the case on the basis of anynomous
complaint which is strictly unfair and prejudicial to the
interests of the petitioner as it is also against the
guidelines issued in this regard which categorically
states that Inquiry regarding caste certificate
on
42
anynomous complaint requires to be discouraged as it
amounts to harassment.
Q) Because the NCDC Respondent No. 3 is not permitted
to take advantage of its own wrong, laxity and
incompetence in as much as relying merely on the
opinion of DM, tehsildar that caste certificate of the
petitioner appears to be ingenuine at a very belated
stage when the petitioner is about to retire especially
when the actual records are not available and thus how
far inflicting the harsh punishment of dismissal on the
petitioner can be sustainable in the eye of law.
6. GROUNDS FOR INTERIM RELIEF :
A. That the petitioners have prima facie good case & are
likely to succeed before this Hon’ble Court.
B. That the balance of convenience is in favour of the
petitioner and against the respondents. The
respondent No.3 unfairly and illegally dismissed the
petitioner after her superannuation thereby impacting
the whole career of the petitioner and most
importantly
43
after serving for 38 years all her monetary benefits
were forfeited/withdrawn by the Respondent No.3
NCDC which is just abusing the process of law.
C. That if the stay is not granted against the impugned
final order dated 13.10.2023 passed by the High
Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench,
Nagpur, in Writ Petition No. 7848 of 2019 , the
petitioner will suffer irreparable loss & injury as the
direction is to pay back a sum of Rs. 5 lacs to
respondent no.3, released to the petitioner from her
retiral benefits.
7. MAIN PRAYER :
It is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble
Court may be pleased to:
a) grant special leave to appeal against the impugned
final order dated 13.10.2023 passed by the High
Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench,
Nagpur, in Writ Petition No. 7848 of 2019 ; and

44
b) quash, set aside dismissal from service order dated
18.10.2018 passed by the Disciplinary Authority; and
c) direct the respondents to regularize the period of
suspension for all purposes and treat petitioner as on
duty w.e.f 22.12.2016 till her superannuation on
31.08.2017 and grant arrears of pay with 18%
interest and forthwith release all post retirement
benefits which have been forfeited by respondents;
and
b) pass any other or further orders as may deem fit
and proper in the facts circumstances of the case.
8. PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF:
In view of the above mentioned facts and
circumstances, it is most respectfully prayed that this
Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to:
(a) stay the impugned final order dated 13.10.2023
passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay,
Nagpur Bench, Nagpur, in Writ Petition No. 7848 of
2019 whereby the petitioner was directed to pay a
sum of Rs. 5 lacs to respondent no. 3;

45
(b) pass such other and further orders as this Hon'ble
Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of
justice.
FILED BY
New Delhi (M SARADA)

Filed on : 12.02.2024 Advocate for the Petitioner
44

IN THE MATTER OF :-
Jyoti Petitioner
Versus
CERTIFICATE :-
Certified that the Special Leave Petition is
confined only to the pleadings before the Court
whose order is challenged and the other documents
relied upon in those proceedings. No additional
facts, documents or grounds have been taken
therein or relief upon except. It is further certified
that the copies of the documents/ annexures
attached to the SLP are necessary to answer the
question of law raised in the petition or to make
out grounds urged in the SLP for consideration of
this Hon’ble Court. This certificate is given on the
basis of the instructions given by the Petitioner/
persons authorized by the Petitioner whose
affidavit is filed in support of the Special Leave
Petition.
Filed by
NEW DELHI: [M SARADA]
DATED: 12.02.2024 Advocate for the petitioner
45
1
46
2
47
ANNEXURE –P-1
FORM OF CERTIFICATE TO BE PRODUCED BY SCHEDULED CASTES (SC) AND SCHEDULED TRIBES

(ST) CANDIDATES
FORM OF CASTE CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that Shri/ Jyoti Matia of Villages / Town Nagpur District/Division* Nagpur of
State/Union Territory*M.B. belongs to the Nagpur Scheduled Caste / Scheduled Tribe* under
:-
The Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 *
The Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 *
The Constitution (Scheduled Castes)
2. # This certificate is issued on the basis of the Scheduled Castes / Scheduled Tribes*
Certificate issued to Shri /Shrimati* Jyoti Matia father/mother* of Shri /Shrimati /Kumari*
S.K.. Matia of Village/Town* Nagpur in District/Division* Nagpur of the State State/Union
Territory* M.S. who belong to the Caste / Tribe* which is recognised as a Scheduled Caste /
Scheduled Tribe* in the State / Union Territory.
3. Shri/ Shrimati/ Kumari * and / or* his / her* family ordinarily reside(s)** in Village/Town*
of District/Division* of the State Union Territory
Dated 5.09.1980 Designation
With seal of the office
* Please delete the word(s) which are not applicable.
# Applicable in the case of SC/ST Persons who have migrated from another State/UT
TRUE COPY
48
ANNEXURE-P-2
REGISTERED POST.
RASHTRIYA SAHAKARI VIKAS NIGAM
(NATIONAL COOPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION)
(ADMINISTRATION DIVISION)
No.NCDC. 4-9/79-Adm. Dated: 17th Sep,1980
To,
Miss L. Jyoti,
C/O O.L, Sarevisi, T.0.A.R
Govt. Guest House, Ashoka Road,
New Delhi,
Subject: Appointment to the post of Assistant, in the National Cooperative

Development Corporation. Ne Delhi, With reference to the your
/recommendations of the Employment Exchange for the post of Assistant and on
the basis of your performance in the test and interview, you are hereby offered a
temporary post of Assistant in the National Cooperative Development Corporation,
Epos Apartments, 66, Nehru Place, New Delhi-110024, in the scale of Rs. 425-150-
500-20-560-2-700-EB-25-800.
You will also be entitled to draw. dearness and other allowances at the rates admissible
under the rules and orders in force from time to time, in the Corporation, subject to the
conditions laid down therein.
2. The terms of appointment are as follows: -
1) The appointment will be liable to termination on one month's notice on either side
without reasons being assigned. The Corporation, however, reserves the right of
terminating your services forthwith or before expiration of the stipulated period of
notice by making payment to you of a sum equivalent to the pay and allowances for the
period of notice or the unexpired cortio thereof.
ii) The appointment carries with it; the liability to service in any part of India.
49
iii) other conditions of service will be governed by the relevant rules and orders in force
from time to time.
3. The appointment will further be subject to:
i) Your being found medically fit for appointment to 'to join duties the post of
Assistant. You will be allowed “to join duties only after you Produce
medical fitness certificate from Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya Hospital”.
ii) In accordance with the orders in force in regard to4.the recruitment to
service under the Corporation, no candidate who has more than one spouse
living is eligible for appointment under the Corporation provided that the
Corporation may, if they are satisfied that there are special reasons for doing so,
exempt any person from the operation of this restriction. This offer of
appointment is, therefore, conditional upon satisfying the requirement
mentioned above, and to your furnishing to the Corporation a declaration as in
the form attached to this letter, along with your reply.
iii)On appointment, you will be required to furnish a declaration of Fidelity and

Secrecy in the prescribed form.
iv) You should also produce the following certificates:
a) Certificate of age and educational qualifications;

b) Certificate of caste (if you belong to a Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe
community).
4. If any declaration given or information furnished by proves to be false or if
you are found to have willfully suppressed any material information, you
will be liable to be charged from service and such other action as
Corporation may deem fit will be taken against you.

50
5. No Travelling Allowance will be allowed to you for joining the post.
6. If you are agreeable to join the post of Assistant on the afore- mentioned
terms and conditions, your acceptance should be communicated to this
Corporation within 15 days from the date of the issue of the letter and you
should If no reply is received report for duty in the Corporation. from you or
if you fail to report for duty by the prescribed date, the of fer will be treated
as cancelled.
7. You will be allowed to join duty for the post of Assistant after production
of necessary original certificates in support of educational qualifications,
etc.
Enclose : As above.
Copy to:-
1. Personal file.
2. Guard-file..
(B.S. Pathania )
Deputy Director(Adan.)
TRUE COPY
51
ANNEXURE –P-3
OW/Teh-Nag(C)/OD-253/07
Office of Tehsildar Nagpur (City)
Nagpur Dated: 17.05.2007
To
Shri. T. H. Bewali Advocate
R/o. 16/A, Mekosabagh, Nagpur
Sub: - Regarding verification of Caste Certificate...
Reference:-Your Office letter no. Pra-2/Tal-Nag(C)/OD-115 dated

02.04.2007.
Sir,
This has reference to above mentioned subject that, this office in receipt of
Caste Certificate of Mannewar caste in respect of Ms. Jyoti Narayanaswami
Lingamuri having no. 8/2/MRC-81/79-80.
Whereas, the caste matter has been received in this office vide
the said letter, accordingly, the report which had been received from the
court/office of 5 Naib Tehsildars of Tehsil office Nagpur, which is as
under:-
Name of the certificate holder as Caste Remarks

Naib Tehsildar mentioned in record book
Court No.
1 The court was not in existence ------- -----------
during the year 79-80 --
2 The record book of the year 79-80 ------- -----------
was not found --
3 The court was not in existence ------- -----------
during the year 79-80 --
4 Register is dilapidated and middle ------- -----------
pages not found --
52
5 The record book of the year 79-80 ------- -----------

was not found --
Similarly, while checking with report dated 05.05.2007 of Record Keeper

Officer, District Collector, Nagpur, it is found that there is no record of this
case in Computer also.
We are sending herewith the official report based on the above received
facts.
However, it is advised that the caste verification of above said person may
be done on your level through following officials:-
1) Scheduled Tribe Cast Certificate Verification Committee, Adiwasi Vikas

Bhawan, 2rd Floor, Giripeth, Nagpur.
2) Research Officer & Member Secretary, Divisional Cast Certificate

Verification Committee No.1, Somalwar Bhawan, Mount road, Sadar,
Nagpur.
Yours faithfully
Tehsildar Nagpur (City)
CC to
1) Hon'ble District Magistrate, Nagpur- for information please

2) Hon'ble Sub Divisional Magistrate, Nagpur- for information
please
3) Hon'ble Tehsildar, Nagpur (City)- for information please
TRUE COPY
53
ANNEXURE -P-4
NATIONAL COOPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

(Administration Division)
No.NCDC:13-8/2004-Admn. Dated: 07th September,2010
Subject: Verification of caste status-regarding
With reference to her representation dated 24/05/2010 to the Managing

Director, Smt. Jyoti Malia, Assistant Director (ICDP) is informed that her
representation has been considered and with approval of the competent
authority the case is closed.
(Manoj K. Acharjee)
Director
(P&A)
Smt. Jyoti Matia, Assistant

Director(ICDP), NCDC,
NEW DELHI
TRUE COPY
54
ANNEXURE-P-5
(Personnel & Administration Division)
No NCDC:7-1/2016-Admn. Dated: 30.11.2016
MEMORANDUM
Attention of Smt. Jyoti Matia, Director, is drawn to the Caste certificate bearing
No.812/MRC/81/79-80 dated 5.7.80 furnished by her in the Corporation in support of
her belonging ST category. On verification of the said certificate, the D.M., Nagpur,
has indicated that prima facie the certificate of Smt. Jyoti Lingamuri, bearing
No.812/MRC/81/79-80 dated 5.7.80 appears to have been forged.
2. Smt. Jyoti Matia thus appears to have furnished a fake/forged certificate in regard to
her caste status in order to avail the concessions meant for persons belonging to ST
communities under GOI orders.
3. Attention of Smt. Jyoti Matia is invited to Para-4 of her appointment letter

No.NCDC:4-9/79- Admn. dated 17.9.1980 stipulating that if any declaration or
information furnished by her proves to be false or if she was found to have willfully
suppressed any material information, she will be liable to be discharged from the
service of the Corporation and such other action, as Corporation may deem fit, will be
taken against her.
4. Smt. Matia is accordingly, directed to explain within 10 days from the issue of this
memo as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against her for adopting illegal
means to secure job in the Corporation by producing fake/forged caste certificate.
5.This issues with the approval of the competent authority
(D.N.Thakur)
Dy. Managing
Director
Smt. Jyoti Matia, Director,

NCDC, TOPIC, Gurgaon.
TRUE COPY
55
ANNEXURE-P-6
Type Copy—
Ref No. 739.C/SHO/HK dated 17/05/2017
Please refer to your comp. No. 739-C/SHO/HK at 17/05/2017 regarding Address of Sh.
Dhirendra Kumar 4/14 SEC. 4/74 Sec. @2 New Faridabad Colony it is inform that the
above address in unverified (as doesn't exists)-
Sd- 26/06/2017
Police Station Hauz Khas, New Delhi Ph.
26867876
26510077
TRUE COPY
56
ANNEXURE-P-7
REPORT OF INQUIRY IN THE MATTER OF SMT. JYOTI MATIA, DIRECTOR
IN NCDC, NEW DELHI
Under Regulation 41 of the NCDC Service Regulations, 1967 the Managing Director
appointed Shri Krishan Kumar, Chief Director, NCDC as Inquiry Officer for Inquiring
into the charges framed against Smt. Jyoti matia, Director (under suspension) vide
Memo No. NCDC: 7-1/2016-Admn. dated 20th March, 2017. A copy of the Memo
alongwith the Annexure containing the Articles of charges and the allegation In support
of the charges is as Annexure (1-IV).
2. Before dealing with the charges and the findings, it would be appropriate to briefly
deal with the events leading to the Institutions of the Disciplinary proceedings against
Smt. Jyoti Matia and her suspension. Smt. Jyoti Matia had joined NCDC as Assistant
under direct recruitment on the basis of interview conducted by the Corporation w.e.f.
17 September, 1980. After her appointment to the post, the Administration Division
forwarded to her the blank Attestation form to be filled-up for verification of her
Character Antecedents. Against the Column of caste for ascertaining as to whether she
belongs to SC/ST category, Smt. Jyoti Matia indicated 'Yes', that she belongs to ST
category and her Appointment to the post of Assistant was based on her being a ST
candidate.
3. Smt. Jyoti Matia was also promoted from the post of Programme Officer to Asstt.
Director against post reserved for ST Category. Thereafter, she was promoted from
Assistant Director to Deputy Director and Director. In compliance with the instructions
of Govt. of India, the Office of District Magistrate, Nagpur vide letter No. NCDC: 7-
1/2016-Admn, dated 14.10.2016 was requested to verify the genuineness of the
Scheduled Tribe Certificate Bearing No.812/MRC/81/79- 80 dated 5.7.1980 submitted
by Smt. Jyoti Matia (Jyoti Lingamuri) at the time of her appointment in the Corporation
57
In response, the District Magistrate, Nagpur vide letter dated 4.11.2016 has informed
that a Certificate bearing a same number and date of the certificate submitted by Smt.
Jyoti • Matia (Jyoti Lingamur), has been issued to a person viz. Mr. Thakur and there is
no entry in any Register maintained in their office about issue of Caste Certificate in the
name of Ms. Jyoti Lingamuri. After verification Distt. Magistrate, Nagpur has indicated
that prima-facie the CertificateBearing. No.812/MRC/81/79-80 dated 5.7.1980
furnished by Smt. Jyoti Matia (Jyoti Lingamuri) about her Caste-to be forged/fake.
4. The Managing Director, thereafter placed Smt. Jyoti Matia under suspension in
exercise of the power vested in her under Section 43 of the NCDC Regulations, vide
Memorandum dated 22.12.2016 and Smt. Jyoti Matia was directed to submit within 10
days of receipt of the Memorandum, a written statement of her defence.
5. Besides, the Appointment of Shri Krishan Kumar, Inquiry Officer, NCDC, Shri AS.
Meena, Deputy Director (P&A) was appointed as presenting Officer by the Managing
Director in exercise of the powers under Section 41 (5) of the NCDC Service
Regulations. The statement of Articles of charges against Smt. Jyoti Matia as contained
in memo of 22.12.2016 were as under-
ARTICLE-I
Smt. Jyoti Matia was appointed as Assistant in the Corporation against a post reserved
for ST Category in the year 1981. At the time of her appointment, she had furnished a
certificate Rev No. No.812/MRC.81/79-80 dated 5.7.1980 purported to have been
issued by Executive Magistrate that she belongs to Scheduled Tribe. It has now come to
the knowledge of the Corporation "that the Scheduled Tribe certificate -furnished by
Smt. Matia to Corporation at the time of her appointment is forged/fake". As per terms
and conditions mentioned of her appointment contained in letter No.NCDC:4-9/79-
Admn, dated 17.9.1980, if any declaration or information furnished by her is proved to
be false or if it is found that she was willfully suppressed any material information, she
will be liable to be discharged from the service of the Corporation besides such other
action as the Corporation may deem fit. This, appointment of Smt. Matia is vitiated by
fraud, forgery and illegality and hence her appointment is void ab initio.
58
Appointment of Smt. Matia to the services of the Corporation is in breach of terms and
conditions stipulated in her offer of appointment.
ARTICLE-II
Smt. Jyoti Matia was offered the post of Assistant against quota reserved for Scheduled
Tribe Community, in the Corporation vide letter No.NCDC:4-9/79- Admn. dated
17.9.1980. In Para-4 of her offer of appointment it was stipulated that if any declaration
or information furnished by her is proved to be false or if it was found that she was
willfully suppressed any material information, she will be liable to be discharged from
the service of the Corporation besides such other action as the Corporation may deem
fit. Smt. Jyoti Matia, after accepting the terms and conditions contained in the said
letter, joined the Corporation as Assistant w.e.f. 17.1.1981. in support of her claim of
being a member of ST category, she had fumished a certificate bearing No.
812/MRC/81/79-80 dated 5.7.1980 issued from the office of Executive Magistrate,
Nagpur. Smt. Jyoti Matia was also promoted from the post of Programme Officer to
Assistant Director against post reserved for ST category. In compliance with the
instructions of Govt. of India, the office of District Magistrate, Nagpur, vide letter No.
NCDC/7- 1/2016-Admn, dated 14.10.2016 was requested to verify the genuineness of
the ST caste certificate submitted by Smt. Matia at the time of her appointment in the
Corporation. In response, the District Magistrate, Nagpur, vide letter dated 04.11.2016
has informed that a certificate being the same number and date of the certificate
submitted by Smt. Matia has been issued to a person viz., Mr. Thakur and there is no
entry in any of registers maintained in their office about issue of caste certificate in the
name of Ms.Jyoti Linnamuri After verification District Magistrate Nagpur has
indicated.
That prima facie the certificate bearing No.812/MRC/81/79-80 dated 5.7.1980

furnished by Smt. Jyoti Matia about her caste appears to be forged/fake. Therefore,
appointment of Smt. Matia in the Corporation is vitiated by fraud, forgery and
illegality.
59
6. With a view to enquiring into the charges, Shri Krishan Kumar, Inquiry Officer,
NCDC held hearings, in compliance to the order of the disciplinary authority. Notice
for preliminary hearing on 27.3.2017 was issued to Smt. Jyoti Matia charged officer by
Shri Krishan Kumar, Inquiry Officer on 21.3.2017. Further, Smt. Jyoti Matia was
informed that she is entitled to have the assistance of any employee of the
Corporation/Government to present her case on herself with the advice to given in
writing the name of such person whom she wants to engage as her defence assistant
alongwith a letter of consent from that person. Vide letter dated 25.3.2017 Smt. Jyoti
Matia had asked copies of approval of disciplinary authority for instituting disciplinary
proceedings and note signed by disciplinary authority regarding appointment of Inquiry
Officer and Presenting Officer. Further, she had requested to for the preliminary
hearing after two weeks.
7.Accordingly, on her request, the copies of required documents were made available
by Shri Krishan Kumar, Inquiry Officer vide letter dated 29.3.2017 and the preliminary
hearing of the case was adjourned to 10.4.2017. Smt. Jyoti Matia had again failed to
appear the preliminary hearing on 10.4.2017.
8. Shri Krishan Kumar, Inquiry Officer received a notice dated 6.4.2017 from her legal
counsel regarding deferment of the preliminary hearing scheduled for 10.4.2017 for a
week. Though, there was no ground for deferment of preliminary hearing. however, in
the interest of justice the Inquiry proceedings was adjourned by one week i.e. from
10.4.2017 to 17.4.2017 and a letter dated 10.4.2017 was issued to the Charged Officer.
In the meantime, the departmental proceedings were kept in abeyance as per the interim
order dated 11.4.2017 passed by Hon'ble CAT, New Delhi in OA filed by the charged
officer. With the modification in the Interim order dated 11.4.2017 passed by Hon'ble
CAT vide order dated 19.4.2017, departmental proceedings were resumed and
preliminary hearing was fixed on 11.5.2017 and a notice to this effect was issued to the
charged officer. Further, the charged officer was advised to give in writing immediately
the name of defence assistant alogwith a letter of consent from the defence assistant.
The charged officer was requested to attend the hearing on 11.5.2017
60
at 10.30 a.m. In the office of Shri Krishan Kumar, Inquiry Officer, NCDC failing which
the proceedings will be continue ex-parte
9. Shri Krishan Kumar, Inquiry Officer had received an e-mail dated 10.5.2017 from
the charged officer enclosing therewith a medical certificate from Dr. Sunil Tuli,
advising her bed rest for two weeks. Taking into cognizance the medical certificate, the
next hearing was fixed on 29.5.2017 at 10.30 a.m. The charged officer was accordingly
informed vide letter dated 15.5.2017 to attend the hearing on 29.5.2017. Vide e-mail
dated 27.5.2017, the charged officer had again sent a medical certificate dated
24.5.2017 from Dr. Sunil Tuli advising her bed rest for 2 weeks from 24.5.2017. In
response, Shri Krishan Kumar, Inquiry Officer vide letter dated 29.5.2017 advised the
charged officer to furnish a medical certificate
.Govt, Doctor/hospital in support of her claim of illness within 5 days i.e. by 2.6.2017
.Further , the changed officer as asked to furnish the details regarding engagement of
defence assistant by 2.6.2017 failing which it will be presumed that she does not
require the service of any defence assistant.
10. The charged officer on 2.6.2017 sent an e-mail enclosing therewith a medical
certificate from the office of Medical Superintendent, AIIMS, New Delhi advising her
rest for 5 days w.e.f. 31.5.2017. Further, the charged officer had informed that she
wants to engage Mrs. S.D. Srivastava, Retd. NCDC Officer as her defence assistant and
indicated that her defence assistant shall be present in NCDC on 29.5.2017 before
10.30 a.m. and gave her consent in this regard to NCDC. But neither the defence
assistant Smt. Srivastava appeared before the Inquiry Officer nor had sent any consent
in this regard.
11. Taking into consideration the medical certificate from AIIMS advising the charged
officer rest for 5 days, next date for hearing was fixed on 8.6.2017 at 11.00a.m. Further,
the charged officer was advised to give a letter of consent from her defence assistant to
assist the charged officer during the proceedings.
12. The charged officer on 7.6.2017 sent an e-mail enclosed therewith a medical
certificate dated 5.6.2017 from the office of Medical Superintendent, AIIMS, New
Delhi advising her rest for 5 days w.e.f. 5.6.2017. Since Doctor has advised rest upto
9.6.2017, the inquiry proceedings were adjourned to 14.6.2017. Vide e-mail
61
dated 13.6.2017, the charged officer has informed that Doctor has advised her to revisit
the hospital on 14.6.2017 for review. Taking this into cognizance, the next date of
hearing was fixed for 19.6.2017. On 19.6.2017, on inquiry, the charged officer
informed that she has not received any mail regarding hearing on 19.6.2017 and she is
still under medical treatment. Accordingly, the inquiry proceedings were adjourned to
23.6.2017 and a Notice to this effect was issued to the charged officer.
13. Vide e-mail dated 22.6.2017 wherein the charged officer made an allegation of
fixing of hearing in haste and also issuing of proceedings in an illegal manner. In this
regard, it was informed that no haste has been shown in conducting the proceedings
which is evident from the above that ample opportunities have been afforded to the
charged officer to defend her case.
14. Time and again, the charged officer was advised to send the name of defence
assistant whom she wants to engage for her defence. Despite giving ample
opportunities/reminders, the charged officer had not furnished consent letter from the
person she wants to engage as her defence assistant.
15. From the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the charged officer
was deliberately delaying the inquiry proceedings. It also appears that the charged
officer was not interested in presenting her case which is apparent from the fact that in
spite of so many opportunities being provided. No Defence Assistant has been engaged.
16. The first hearing of Inquiry was held at 10.30 a.m. on 12.7.2017 in the office of
Shri Krishan Kumar, Inquiry Officer, NCDC in which Shri A.S. Meena, Dy.
Director/Presenting Officer, Smt. Jyoti Matia (under suspension) charged officer and
Shri Sandeep Singh, Assistant Director/Prosecution Witness attended the inquiry
proceedings. The document mentioned in the list of documents were taken on record
and Charged Officer was also provided copies thereof. Shri A.S. Meena explained
statement of articles of charges and statement of allegations and imputation of
misconduct related to the articles of charges made against Smt. Jyoti Matia charged
officer confirmed that she has received the charge- sheet and understood the charges.
Smt. Jyoti Matia denied the charges framed
62
against her as per Memorandum No.NCDC: 7-1/2016-Admn. dated 22.12.2016. Shri

Sandeep Singh, Prosecution Witness was examined by Presenting Officer in the
presence of charged officer during the Inquiry proceedings. Thereafter, the charged
officer was asked to cross examine the Prosecution Witness. The charged officer, Smt.
Jyoti Matia stated that she was appointed in the Corporation in the year 1981and
therefore, Shri Sandeep Singh who has joined the services of the Corporation in the
year 2012, cannot be a witness in her case. On this aspect, the Presenting Officer
informed that contention of the charged officer is not valid and since at present Shri
Sandeep Singh is the custodian of the documents whereby the charged is to be
substantiated, therefore, he has been made prosecution witness. Further, Smt. Jyoti
matia did not cross examine prosecution witness and not raised any doubt the
originality of the verification of caste certificate as received from the Office of District
Magistrate, Nagpur.
17. Shri Krishan Kumar, Inquiry Officer, NCDC, after number of correspondences to
Smt. Jyoti Matia charged officer, decided that as per the Central Vigilance Commission
(CVC) guidelines, the departmental proceedings is to be completed in a time bound
manner and Smt. Jyoti Matia, Director (under suspension) is going to be superannuated
on 31.8.2017 and in the interest of justice, the inquiry proceedings to be held at District
Magistrate Office, Nagpur to facilitate examination of witnesses posted.. at Nagpur and
also to facilitate inspection of documents made available thereby the concerned
officials, vide letter dated 3.8.2017, Smt. Jyoti Matia charged officer was requested to
attend the hearing on 18.8.2017 at 10.30 AM at District Magistrate, Nagpur. Smt. Jyoti
Matia refused to attend the hearing at District Magistrate, Nagpur.
18. The second hearing of Inquiry was held at 11.00 AM on 21.08.2017 In the
presence of Smt. Jyoti Matia charged officer, Shri Dhirendra Kumar resident of 4/74,
Sector 22, New Faridabad Colony, Faridabad, Haryana was also requested to
participate in the hearing on 21.08.2017 at 11.00 AM, on the request of Smt. Jyoti
Matia charged officer, summons were issued to Shri Dhirendra Kumar vide letter
No.NCDC/A:1/2017-CD (GA) dated 3.8.2018 through Speed Post. However,
Department of Post returned to Speed Post with the remark "incomplete address".
Accordingly, proceedings were adjourned.
63
19. Finally, Shri Krishan Kumar, Inquiry Officer, NCDC on dated

25.9.2017 issued notice to Sm Jyoti Matia charged officer, to attend inquiry
at District Magistrate, "Nagpur on 4.10.2017 at 10.30 AM. Smt. Jyoti Matia
vide her letter dated 29.9.2017 informed that she has requested the
disciplinary Authority of NCDC for change of Inquiry Officer.
20. Vide NCDC's P&A Division No.NCDC: 7-1/2016-Admn. dated

13.12.2017, Managing Director, NCDC issued an order which is as under.
1. WHEREAS, an inquiry under Regulation 41 of National Cooperative
Development Corporation Regulations, 1967 is being held against Smt.
Jyoti Matia, Director (now Retired).
2. WHEREAS, vide Order No.NCDC:7-1/2016-Admn. dated

20.3.2017, Shri Krishan Kumar, Executive Director, NCDC was appointed
as the Inquiry Officer by the Disciplinary Authority to inquire into the
article of charge framed against Smt. Jyoti Matia.
3. WHEREAS, vide letter dated 11.08.2017 addressed to Additional

Secretary, DAC & FW, the Charged Officer has made a request for change
of Inquiry Officer alleging therein, inter-alia, that Inquiry Officer is
conducting the Inquiry contrary to the law and rules.
4. WHEREAS, as per the rule position settled in CCS(CCA) Rules,.the

disciplinary proceedings were stayed and the application of the Charged
Officer for change of Inquiry Officer alongwith the relevant material was
referred to the Reviewing Authority viz. Secretary, DAC & FW & Chairman,
Board of Management, NCDC for considering the same and passing
appropriate order thereon.
5. NOW, THEREFORE, the Chairman, Board of Management, NCDC in

exercise of the powers, conferred under the said rules appoints Shri
64
Mukesh Kumar, Executive Director, NCDC as Inquiry Officer vice Shri

Krishan Kumar, Executive Director.
21. In compliance to the aforesaid order of the Disciplinary Authority dated

13.12.2017, the undersigned collected the file and documents related with Inquiry
Proceedings of Smt. Jyoti Matia charged officer from Shri Krishan Kumar, Inquiry
Officer, NCDC on dated 14.12.2017 and continued departmental Inquiry against Smt.
Jyoti Matia charged officer.
22. The undersigned vide letter No.IA-2/2017-ED (Lib.) dated 18.12.2017 issued
Notice to Smt. Jyoti Matia charged officer to hold hearing of case on 27.12.2017 at
10.30 AM in the chamber of Inquiry Officer, NCDC, New Delhi and requested her to
attend the hearing on scheduled date and time. Smt. Jyoti Matia confirmed the receipt
of the notice, but she failed to attend the hearing. Smt. Jyoti Matia charged officer vide
her letter dated 26.12.2017 informed that she has filed her case in Hon'ble CAT, New
Delhi and next date on hearing in CAT is scheduled for 3.1.2018 and requested to keep
the Departmental inquiry in abeyance till such time the Hon'ble CAT makes a
judgment. However, in the interest of justice, the inquiry proceedings were adjourned
to 3 1 2018
23. The undersigned on dated 5.1.2018 issued notice to Smt. Jyoti Matia charged
officer to attend the hearing on 12.1.2018 at 10.30 AM in the chamber at NCDC, New
Delhi. Smt. Jyoti Matia charged officer confirmed the receipt of the notice. But, she
failed to attend the hearing, Smt. Jyoti Matia vide her letter dated 10.1.2018 informed --
that next date of hearing in Hon'ble CAT, New Delhi is in 13 April, 2018, so she is
proceeding to her native place at Nagpur. Smt. Jyoti Matia requested to Inquiry Officer
that correspondence may be made at given address in Nagpur. So, in the interest of
Justice, the inquiry proceedings were adjourned till 31.1.2018.
24. Vide letter dated 19.1.2018, the undersigned issued notice to Smt. Jyoti Matia
charged officer to attend the hearing on 31.1.2018 at 10.30 AM in NCDC, New Delhi.
Smt. Jyoti Matia confirmed the receipt of the notice. But she failed to attend the
hearing. Smt. Jyoti Matia vide her letter dated 25.1.2018 informed that Disciplinary
Inquiry against her is illegal as Regulations 41 of the NCDC Scheme
65
Regulation 1967. As a result, the undersigned in the presence of Shri A.S. Meena,
Presenting Officer decided to visit at District Magistrate Office, Nagpur on 15.2.2018
for verification of Caste status of Smt. Jyoti Matia and witness of Tehsildar, Nagpur
City, Nagpur in the office of DM, Nagpur who had submitted verification report.
25. The undersigned vide letter dated 8.2.2018 requested District Magistrate, Nagpur
to allow Inquiry Officer alongwith Shri A.S. Meena, Presenting Officer to hold the
Inquiry Proceeding in District Magistrate Office at Nagpur on 15.2.2018 at 10.30 AM
in the presence of Tehsildar, Nagur City, Nagpur and others related with the matter.
Smt. Jyoti Matia charged officer was also requested to be present in District Magistrate,
Nagpur as per scheduled date and time Le. on 15.2.2018 at 10.30 AM.
26. The undersigned alongwith Shri A.S. Meena, Presenting Officer visited Office of
District Magistrate, Nagpur on 15.2.2018 and met Shri Sachin Kurbey, IAS, District
Magistrate, Nagpur on 15.2.2018 at 10.30 AM and requested for verification of Caste
status of Smt. Jyoti Matia (Jyoti Lingamur) and witness of Tehsildar, Nagpur City,
Nagpur and others who are related with verification of Caste Certificate etc. Smt. Jyoti
Matia confirmed the receipt of the letter dated 8.2.2018. But she failed to attend the
Inquiry Proceedings. So, in the absence of Smt. Jyoti Matia charged officer and with
the permission of DM, Nagpur, the Inquiry Proceedings was held and completed on
15.2.2018, in the presence of Shri AS. Meena, Presenting Officer, NCDC, Shri J.B.
Pohankar, Tehsildar (Home) and Shri A.N. Waghmare, Naib Tehsildar, Nagpur City
(witness of DM, Nagpur). A copy of Minutes of Proceedings of the hearing held on
15.2.2018 and point-wise verifications of documents and statements of
witness/Representative of District Magistrate Office, Nagpur against Smt. Jyoti Matia
charged officer, is enclosed as Annexure (1-4).
27. From the verifications/statements of the witness appeared before the Inquiry
Officer and also taking into account the statement of the witness/representation of the
District Magistrate, Nagpur, the undersigned is of the opinion that Smt. Jyoti Matia
submitted forged/fake Caste Certificate in support of her belonging to
66
Schedule Tribe (ST) Community. The undersigned, therefore, holds her guilty of the
Charge of production of forged/fake Caste Certificate in order to derive the benefit of
concession meant for ST Community.
( Mukesh Kumar)
Executive Director!
Inquiry Office,
NCDC
TREU COPY
67
ANNEXURE –P-8
.No.NCDC:7-1/2016-Admn. Dated: 18.10.2018
ORDER
WHEREAS, Smt. Jyoti Matia, was offered the post of Assistant against a post reserved
for ST category Vide letter No.NCDC:4-9/79-Admn. dated 17.09.1980 and as per terms
and conditions of her appointment contained in letter No.NCDC:4-9/79- Admn. dated
17.9.1980, if any declaration or information proved to be false or if it is found that she
has willfully suppressed any material information, she will be liable to be discharged
from the service of the Corporation besides such other action as the Corporation may
deem fit.
2. AND WHEREAS, Smt. Jyoti Matia, after accepting the terms and conditions
contained in the said letter, joined the Corporation as Assistant w.ef.17.1.1981. In
support of her claim of being a member of ST category, she had furnished a certificate
bearing No.812/MRC/81/79-80 dated 5.7.80 issued from the office of Executive
Magistrate, Nagpur. Smt. Jyoti Matia was subsequently as

68
Programme Officer and then to Assistant Director against post reserved for ST
category.
3. AND WHEREAS, NCDC received a complaint raising a question mark on
genuineness of caste status a, stating that Smt. Matia working in NCDC had obtained
ST certificate from Nagpur in fraudulent manner and the certificate produced by her for
securing the job in NCDC, is fake.
4. AND WHEREAS, considering the gravity of the allegation and having regard to the
fact that the allegation made by the complainant is verifiable fact and NCDC is duty
bound to verify the veracity of the caste certificate to ensure that the reservation benefit
goes to the rightful claimant. In compliance with the instructions of Govt. of India, the
office of District Magistrate, Nagpur, vide letter No. NCDC/7-1/2016-
5. AND WHEREAS, in response to NCDC letter dated 14.10.2016, the District
Magistrate, Nagpur, vide letter dated 04.11.2016 has informed that against the
certificate bearing No.812/MRC/81/79-80 dated 5.7.80, there is no entry in office
record in the name of Kumari Jyoti Lingamuri now Smt. Jyoti Matia). On verification
of the aforesaid caste certificate, DM Nagpur has informed that the caste certificate of
Smt. Jyoti Matia appears to be forged/fake.

69
6. AND WHEREAS, considering the gravity of the matter and in compliance of
Regulation 40 of NCDC Service Regulations, 1967, with the approval of the
disciplinary authority, Smt. Matia, vide memorandum No.NCDC:7-1/2016-Admn.
dated 30.11.2016 was given an opportunity requiring her to explain within 10 days
from the issue of the memo as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against
her for adopting illegal means to secure job in the corporation by producing fake/forged
caste certificate.
7. AND WHEREAS, vide letter dated 9.12.2016, Smt. Matia in response to memo
dated 30.11.2016 submitted her submissions. Having gone through the submissions
made by Smt. Jyoti Matia, the competent authority found that she failed to produce any
documentary evidence/cogent reasons establishing thereby that the caste certificate
produced by her in support of claim to be a candidate of ST category is genuine.
8. AND WHEREAS, Smt. Matia had failed to submit any documentary evidence in
support of her claim, with the approval of the disciplinary authority, departmental
proceedings for imposing major penalty against Smt. Jyoti Matia were initiated vide
memorandum No.NCDC:7-1/2016-Admn. dated 22.12.2016 with the following charge
requiring her to submit within 10 days of receipt of

70
memo a written statement of her defence and also to state whether she desires to be
heard in person:-
Smt. Jyoti Matia was appointed as Assistant in the Corporation against a post
reserved for ST category in the year 1981. At the time of her appointment, she had
furnished a certificate Rev.No.812/MRC81/79-80 dated 05.07.1980 purported to have
been issued by Executive Magistrate that she belongs to Scheduled Tribe. It has not
come to the knowledge of the Corporation that "the Scheduled Tribe certificate
furnished by Smt. Matia to Corporation at the time of her appointment is forged / fake".
As per terms and conditions mentioned in her appointment contained in letter
No.NCDC-4-9/79-Admn dated 17.9.1980, if any declaration or information furnished
by her is provided to be false or if it is found that she has willfully suppressed any
material information, she will be liable to be discharged from the service of the
Corporation besides such other action as the Corporation may deem fit Thus,
appointment of Smt. Matia is vitiated by fraud, forgery and illegality and hence her
appointment is void ab initia. Appointment of Smt. Matia to the services of the
Corporation is in breach of terms and conditions stipulated in her offer of appointment.

71
9.AND WHEREAS, considering the gravity of charges, Smt. Jyoti Matia was also
placed under suspension vide order No. NCDC:7-1/2016-Admn. dated 22.12.2016.
10. AND WHEREAS, in response to memorandum dated 22.12.2016, Smt. Matia vide
letter dated 02.01.2017, submitted a written statement of defence and also requested for
a personal hearing. In her written statement of defence, Smt. Matia made allegations on
the inquiry conducted by the Office of DM, Nagpur. Smt. Matia had not produced any
documentary evidence to substantiate her submission/ allegation. The written statement
of defence of Smt. Matia was duly considered by the competent authority. Further, Smt.
Matia was afforded a personal hearing by the disciplinary authority on 03.03.2017 at 12
noon.
11. AND WHEREAS, with the approval of the competent authority, Shri Krishan
Kumar, Executive Director was appointed as Inquiry Officer to inquire into the charge
vide order dated 20.3.2017. The inquiry officer issued notice for preliminary hearing on
27.3.2017. The charged officer was also informed that she was entitled to have the
assistance of any employees of the Corporation/Government to present her case on her
behalf with the advice to give in writing of such person whom she wants to engage as
Defence Assistant.
72
12. AND WHEREAS, aggrieved with disciplinary proceedings and her suspension,
Smt. Matia had approached the Hon'ble CAT, Principle Bench, New Delhi and filed an
O.A. No.100/2016 seeking relief from Hon'ble CAT to quash and set aside the
impugned charge memo and suspension orders. Vide interim order dated 11.4.2017, the
Hon'ble CAT, while giving notice to the Respondents to be heard on interim prayer on
19.4.2017, passed an order that the Respondents shall not act upon the charge- sheet
dated 22.12.2016.
13. AND WHEREAS, vide interim order dated 19.4.2017, the Hon'ble CAT has
allowed the Respondents Le. NCDC to proceed with the departmental inquiry,
however, final report shall not be submitted. With the instructions of the Hon'ble CAT,
the departmental proceedings re-started.
14. AND WHEREAS. during pendency of departmental proceedings, while she was
under suspension, on attaining the age of superannuation. Smt. Iyoti Matia retired !!
from the services of the Corporation on 31.08.2017. Given the fact that the disciplinary
proceedings were underway vide order dated 31.08.2017, release of payment of post-
retirement benefits L.e. gratuity, employers' share of CPF, GSLI, leave encashment and
superannuation benefit were withheld until the conclusion of proceedings/decision of
Hon'ble CAT and issue of final orders thereon.

73
15. AND WHEREAS, Smt. Matia had filed another 0.A.No.3380/2017 before Hon'ble
CAT, Delhi seeking directions to NCDC to release her retirement benefits namely
Gratuity, Employers' Contribution towards PF, Leave Encashment & NCDC
Superannuation Benefits with 18% Interest withheld by NCDC, vide order
dated31.08.2017.
16. AND WHEREAS, vide letter dated 11.8.2017 addressed to the disciplinary
authority, the charged officer made a request for change of inquiry officer alleging
therein, inter alia, that inquiry officer is conducting the inquiry contrary to the law and
rules. The disciplinary proceedings were accordingly, stayed and the application of the
charged officer for change of inquiry officer alongwith the relevant material referred to
reviewing authority for considering the same and passing appropriate order thereon..
17. AND WHEREAS, as per the order passed by the reviewing authority vide order
dated 13.12.2017, Shri Mukesh Kumar, Executive Director, NCDC was appointed as
Inquiry Officer vice Shri Krishan Kumar. The inquiry officer conducted the inquiry
and fixed the date of hearing on 27.12.2017 and subsequently on 12.1.2018, 31.1.2018
which the charged officer had failed to attend. The inquiry officer had fixed the final
hearing on 15.2.2018 at 10.30 am. In the office of DM, Nagpur to examine the
department witness. A notice to this

74
effect was served to the charged officer well in advance giving her an opportunity to
cross examine the departmental witness. The charged officer had failed to attend the
final hearing on 15.2.2018.
18. AND WHEREAS, the inquiry officer having inquired into the matter completed
the departmental proceedings. However, the inquiry report could not be submitted to
the disciplinary authority as per the direction of Hon'ble CAT vide interim order dated
19.4.2017.
19. AND WHEREAS, vide order dated 19.7.2018 Hon'ble CAT dismissed OA
No.100/2016 filed by Smt. Matia and directed NCDC to proceed with the
departmental proceedings and conclude the disciplinary proceedings within a period of
6 months from the date of order. Pursuant thereto, the inquiry report was placed before
the disciplinary authority for taking further needful action in the matter. Having
perused the inquiry report, the disciplinary authority passed an order to the effect that a
copy of the inquiry report be served to the charged officer. In compliance thereof, vide
memorandum dated 24.8.2018, a copy of the Inquiry Report was supplied to the
charged officer Smt. Jyoti Matia with the advice that if she wishes to make any
representation or submission in this regard, she may do so in writing to the
undersigned within 15 days of receipt of this communication.

75
20. AND WHEREAS, in response to memo dated 24.8.2018, vide letter dated
6.9.2018, Smt. Matia has made her submissions on the inquiry report.
21. AND WHEREAS, I have gone through the entire record of the case including the
submissions made by Smt. Matia on the inquiry report referred at paragraph 20 above,
and, duly applied my mind while referring to the relevant laws, rules and procedures.
22. AND WHEREAS, I have duly considered all the matters pertaining to this case and
found that the submissions made by Smt. Matia are without any basis, on the following
grounds:
 That the charged officer was afforded an opportunity to attend the hearing at
Nagpur on 15.02.2018 to cross examine the departmental witness
(representative of DM, Nagpur) which she failed to attend.
 That the charged officer has failed to produce any documentary evidence to
contradict the letter dated 4.11.2016 from the office of District Magistrate,
Nagpur stating that the caste certificate of Smt. Jyoti appears to be forged.
 That the charged officer had the remedies to substantiate her claim by either
getting her caste certificate dated 05.07.1980 validated from ST

76
Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur or getting a new caste certificate
issued from the authorities competent to issue a caste certificate and get the
same validated from ST Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur. The charged
officer has failed to avail the remedy.
23. AND WHEREAS, in the light of the evidence of the witnesses, documents,
position of law and records, I, Sundeep Kumar Nayak, Managing Director, NCDC
being the competent authority, hold that Smt. Jyoti Matia has secured job in the
Corporation by producing a forged/fake caste certificate and therefore the Article of
Charge is fully proved against her. Thus appointment of Smt. Jyoti Matia is vitiated by
fraud, forgery and illegality and hence her appointment is liable to be treated as void ab
initio.
24. AND WHEREAS, in the light of the evidence of the witnesses, documents,
position of law and records, I, Sundeep Kumar Nayak, Managing Director, NCDC
being the competent authority, hold that Smt. Jyoti Matia has secured job in the
Corporation by producing a forged/fake caste certificate and therefore the Article of
Charge is fully proved against her. Thus I treat the appointment of Smt. Jyoti Matia
which is vitiated. by fraud, forgery and illegality as void ab initio.
25. NOW THEREFORE, after due application of mind and in exercise of the powers
conferred under Regulation 39 read with Regulation 38 of NCDC

77
Services Regulations, 1967, I, Sundeep Kumar Nayak, Managing Director, NCDC, as
disciplinary authority, hereby order imposition of major penalty of "dismissal" from the
services of the Corporation. In compliance with the orders of Hon'ble CAT dated
19.7.2018, in 0.A. No.3380/2017, NCDC has made a tentative payment of Rs.5.00 lacs
towards leave encashment. With the imposition of the penalty of dismissal on Smt.
Jyoti Matia, the remaining post- retirement benefits Le. gratuity, employers' share of
CPF, GSLI, medical facilities and superannuation benefit of Smt. Jyoti Matia, shall
stand forfeited.
26. This order, pronounced today, the 18th of October 2018, during office hours at
NCDC Head Office, New Delhi be communicated forthwith to the concerned, Smt
Jyoti Matia by the Officer concerned in Personnel & Administration Division, NCDC.
The order is also addressed to Smt Matia.
(Sundeep Kumar Nayak)
Managing Director
Disciplinary Authority
Smt. Jyoti Matia,
Ex.Director - NCDC,
162/A Swami Colony,
Phase-I Kato! Road,
Nagpur-440013, Maharashtra.
Copy: CD (P&A), NCDC
TRUE COPY
78
ANNEXURE -P-9
No.NCDC:7-1/2016-Admn. Dated: 10.06.2019
ORDER
WHEREAS, vide order No.NCDC:7-1/2016-Admn. dated 18.10.2018, the
Managing Director, NCDC, being the disciplinary authority, while holding
that the appointment of Smt. Jyoti Matia in NCDC is vitiated by fraud,
forgery and illegality and thus her appointment is void ab initio, has
imposed major penalty of 'dismissal' from the services of the Corporation on
Smt. Jyoti Matia on the charge of securing employment in NCDC on the
strength of forged/fake caste certificate.
2. AND WHERAS, under Regulation 46 of NCDC Service Regulations,
1967, Smt. Jyoti Matia filed an appeal dated 06.12.2018 before the
Appellate Authority against the impugned order dated 18.10.2018 passed by
the Disciplinary Authority.
3. AND WHEREAS, I, being the Appellate Authority, have afforded a
personal hearing on 04.06.2019 at 10.30 a.m. Vide email dated

79
30.05.2019, Smt. Matia has requested to advise NCDC to provide return air-
tickets to enable her to attend the hearing citing financial constraints.
4. AND WHEREAS, in the Interest of justice and equity, Smt. Matia was
afforded another personal hearing on 07.06.2019 at 3.00 pm. to enable her to
present her case before the undersigned. Further, she was provided with
return air tickets apart from stay arrangement and local conveyance
facilities.
5. AND WHEREAS, Smt. Matia appeared before the undersigned on
07.06.2019 at 3.00 p.m. I heard Smt. Matia in person on the aforesaid date
and time. During the personal hearing, Smt. Matia has made the following
submissions:-
1) That she worked in NCDC for 37 years and during this period she got 4
promotions. NCDC had instituted departmental proceedings against her with
malafide intention on a pseudonymous complaint.
II) NCDC, having investigated the same, had closed the matter. vide letter
No.NCDC:13-8/2004-Admn. dated 27.4.2011.
Ill) That the inquiry conducted by NCDC after her retirement is illegal for
the reason that there is nothing in NCDC Service Regulations which

80
allows continuation of disciplinary proceedings against an employee of the
Corporation even after his/her retirement.
IV)That the Central Government Pension Rule 9 (2) relied upon by NCDC
to continue with the department proceedings are not applicable to NCDC for
the reason that the NCDC employees are not covered under Central
Government Pension Rules. Therefore action on the part of NCDC to
withhold her gratuity employer's share of provident fund, GSLI and
superannuation benefit is illegal.
V) That the contents of the DM, Nagpur letter dated 04.11.2016 with regard
to verification of her caste certificate are not correct in the light of RTI reply
dated 17.5.2007 received from the office of Tehsildar, Nagpur (City) stating
that the record-book of the pertinent period in respect of Court No.2 & 5 are
not available. Further, the register in respect of Court No.4 is dilapidated
and middle pages not found.
6. AND WHEREAS, on perusal of the records, I found that Smt. Jyoti
Matia has raised all points mentioned in Para-5 above, in O.A.
No.1217/2017 filed by her before the Hon'ble CAT Principal Bench, New
Delhi. With regard to her contention that NCDC had instituted the
departmental proceedings against her with malafide intention on a

81
pseudonymous complaint when she was on the verge of retirement,
Hon'ble CAT vide judgement dated 19.7.2018 has clarified that
"the principles of latches or limitation hardly apply to matters of this
nature. As a matter of fact, in the order of appointment itself, it is clearly
mentioned that in case the particulars furnished by the applicant for found to
be incorrect at any stage of service, suitable action would be taken.”
“Whatever be the desirability of fixing time for conducting inquiry into
other aspects, the one as regards the genuineness of the caste certificate,
stands at a different footing. The reason is that the social status, if accepted
once, would confer benefits not only on the concerned official, but also on
his children and other family members. If the caste certificate is not genuine,
it would be a case where a bona fide ST was denied of his opportunity of
being appointed, and the employee enriches and benefits himself on the
strength of a false certificate. Therefore, the question of latches cannot be
accepted in matters of this nature.
7. AND WHEREAS, with regard to her contention that NCDC has acted in
violation of NCDC Service Regulations by continuing with the department
proceedings even after her retirement, Smt. Matia has

82
failed to show any rule restraining NCDC to this effect. On the contrary, I
found that Regulation 68 of NCDC Service Regulations provides that in
such matters which are not covered under NCDC Service Regulations the
corresponding rules of central government shall apply. This point was also
raised in O.A. No.3380/2017 filled by. Smt. Matia before the Hon'ble CAT
Principal Bench, New Delhi, after her retirement which was set aside by
Hon'ble CAT vide order dated 19.7.2018 and thereby, allowing NCDC to
continue with the departmental proceedings against her.
8. AND WHEREAS, as to averment of Smt. Jyoti Matia regarding closure
of matter in the year 2011, I found that no formal departmental proceedings
were initiated at that point of time. The matter was closed in view of the fact
that (1) no reply was forthcoming from DM, Nagpur as to caste verification
of Smt. Jyoti Matia and (ii) Smt. Matia had refused to furnish the required
information to get her caste certificate verified from ST Scrutiny
Committee. Also, Hon'ble CAT in its order dated 19.7.2018 made an
observation to the effect that "the applicant has not been able to produce the
so called proceedings through which the decision is said to have been taken
to drop the proceedings. Such

83
a letter was issued just on a request made by the applicant, and it cannot be
said to have been issued after enquiry or verification."
9. AND WHEREAS, I observed that reliance of Smt. Matia on RTI reply
dated 17.5.2007 to substantiate her claim is not tenable for the reason that
the same reply states that the caste verification of said person may be done
through ST Caste Certificate Verification Committee, Nagpur. Thus, onus to
prove that she is a bonafide ST candidate and her caste certificate dated
05.07.1980 is genuine, lies with Smt. Jyoti Matia.
10. AND WHEREAS, in the interest of justice and equity, I apprised Smt.
Jyoti Matia that she can substantiate her claim by either producing a new
caste certificate or getting her the caste certificate dated 05.07.1980
validated from ST Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur Under
Maharashtra Scheduled Tribes (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of
Certificate Rules, 2003.
11. AND WHEREAS, Smt. Jyoti Matia has expressed her inability in getting
a new caste certificate at this stage. On being asked whether she is ready to
get her caste certificate dated 05.07.1980 validated from ST Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur, Smt. Matia contended that the Maharashtra
Scheduled Tribes (Regulation of

84
Issuance and Verification of) Certificate Rules, 2003 are not applicable to
her case on the ground that her caste certificate was issued in the year 1980
and the said rules came into existence in the year 2003 Contention of Smt.
Jyoti Matia that her case is not covered under said rules has no merit as
caste certificate is material verifiable facts and there is nothing in the rules
exempting the certificates from scrutiny that were issued prior to enactment
of the rules.
12. AND WHEREAS, I have gone through the entire records of the case
including the submissions made by Smt. Matia in her appeal dated
06.12.2018 and during the course of personal hearing on 07.06.2019, and,
duly applied my mind while referring to the relevant laws, rules and
procedures.
13. AND WHEREAS, I, having duly considered all the matters pertaining to
the case, found that Smt. Matia has been given sufficient opportunity to
defend her case and that the inquiry had been conducted as per established
procedures, I agree with the findings of the Inquiry Officer as well as the
Disciplinary Authority that Smt. Matia had secured employment in NCDC
on the strength of forged/fake caste certificate.

85
14. AND WHEREAS, I found that the Disciplinary Authority has not
committed any irregularity and illegality in passing the aforesaid order dated
18.10.2018 and thus the said order deserves to be maintained. However, it is
open to Smt. Jyoti Matia to approach ST -Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur, and
Maharashtra to get her caste certificate validated. In case, the ST Scrutiny
Committee validates genuineness of her caste certificate, Smt. Jyoti Matia
can re-appeal.
15. NOW THEREFORE, after due application of mind and in exercise of
powers conferred on me by Regulation 46 of NCDC Service Regulations,
1967, I, Sanjay Agarwal, Secretary, DAC&FW and Chairman, Board of
Management, NCDC, being the Appellate Authority, uphold that the
appointment of Smt. Jyoti Matia in NCDC is vitiated by fraud, forgery and
illegality and thus her appointment is void ab initio. 1, therefore, confirm the
major penalty of dismissal from the services of the Corporation imposed on
Smt. Jyoti Matia vide order No.NCDC:7-1/2016-Admn. dated 18.10.2018.
(Sanjay Agarwal)
Secretary-DAC&FW
Chairman - BOM,
NCDC
TRUE COPY
86
ANNEXURE -P-10
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
TRUE COPY
98
ANNEXURE -P-11
7848
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
44A. It is submitted that, the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribun424ambai
Bench, Camp at Nagpur, in its judgement and order dated 06.08.2019, while
holding that the employment of the petitioner is void, also observed that the
authority may examine the question of taking steps for recovery of any payments
made to the petitioner. It is submitted that Respondent No.3 addressed a
communication dated 13.11.2019, received by the petitioner on 18.11.2019 after
filing of the present petition, calling upon the petitioner to refund the amount of
Rs. 5,00,000/- paid to her towards part payment of her leave encashment
pursuant to order dated 19.07.2018 passed by the Hon'ble Central Administrative
Tribunal, Principle Bench, New Delhi in Original Application No. 3380/2017,
within one month from the date of receipt of the said communication. Annexed
hereto and marked as ANNEXURE-AQ is the true copy of the letter dated
13.11.2019 for ready reference by this Hon'ble Court. In light of the said demand
so made by Respondent No. 3, it has become necessary in the interest of justice
that the effect and operation of order dated 06.08.2019 passed by the Learned
Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Camp at Nagpur, order dated
10.06.2019 passed by Respondent No.2, the Secretary, Ministry Of Agriculture
and Farmers Welfare, Department of Agriculture, Cooperation and Farmers
Welfare Government Of India, and order dated 18.10.2018 passed by
Respondent No.3, the Managing Director, National Cooperative Development
Corporation, New Delhi, be stayed by this Hon'ble Court, it kindly be so stayed
by it.
140
141
142
143
TRUE COPY
144
ANNEXURE -P-12
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
TRUE COPY
196

IN THE MATTER OF :-
Jyoti Petitioner
Versus
I.A NO 45722/2024
APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING
CERTIFIED COPY OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT.
TO
THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA
AND HIS OTHER COMPANION JUDGES
OF THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
THE HUMBLE PETITION OF

THE PETITIONER ABOVE
NAMED:-
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:-

1. That the petitioner has filed the aforesaid special
leave petition against the final order dated
13.10.2023 passed by the High Court of Judicature
at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur, in Writ Petition
No. 7848 of 2019
197
2. That the detailed facts and circumstances leading to

the present application has been set out in the
Special Leave Petition which are part and parcel of
this application and further the said facts are not
repeated herein for the sake of brevity and in order to
avoid repetition.
3. That the certified order copy has been applied for and
the petitioner undertakes to file it as and when it is
received and in the meantime the petitioner is filing
the SLP with the plain copy of the Impugned order
and is seeking exemption from the filing the certified
copy of the same.
PRAYER
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that your
lordships’ may graciously be pleased to :
(a) Allow the application and exempt the petitioner from
filing certified order copy of the Impugned final
judgment and order dated 13.10.2023 in W.P No.
7848/2019 in the interest of justice and/or
(b) pass any other order or directions as this Hon’ble
Court deems fit and proper.
AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE PETITIONER
SHALL AS IN DUTY BOUND EVER PRAY.
Filed by:-
[M. SARADA]
New Delhi
Advocate for the Petitioner
Filed on: 12.02.2024
198

IN THE MATTER OF :-
Jyoti Petitioner
Versus
I.A NO 45723/2024
PPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY
TO
THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA
AND HIS OTHER COMPANION JUDGES
OF THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
THE HUMBLE PETITION OF

THE PETITIONER ABOVE
NAMED:-
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That the present special leave petition is being preferred
against the final judgment and order dated 13.10.2023 in
W.P No. 7848/2019 passed by the High Court of
Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur.
The petitioner prays to refer to and rely upon the contents
of the same at the time of hearing of this application.
199
2. That the delay caused in approaching this Hon’ble Court

against the order dt. 13.10.2023 is due to the fact that the
petitioner’s counsel before the High Court was very unwell
and therefore further course of action in the matter could
not be advised. Thereafter, since the time was running
out, petitioner took a decision to approach this Hon’ble
Court. Therefore, the delay of days occurred in filing the
SLP as the petitioner approached the undersigned counsel
only in the first week of January 2024.with all relevant
papers Therefore, for preparing the SLP & then finalising
the entire case delay occurred.
3. Therefore, in view of the above submissions the delay
occurred in filing the SLP may be condoned as it is neither
intentional nor deliberate.
PRAYER
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that your
lordships’ may graciously be pleased to :
a. Allow the application and condone the delay of 32
days in filing the present Special Leave Petition against the
final judgment and order dated 13.10.2023 in W.P No.
7848/2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature
at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur.
b. pass such other order or orders as are deemed fit and
proper in the interest of justice.
Filed by
(M SARADA)
Filed on:12..02.2024 Advocate for the Petitioner
New Delhi
200

Item No. 6 Diary No 6856 2024 Consolidated

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Item No. 6 Diary No 6856 2024 Consolidated

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DiaryNo.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

IN THE MATTER OF:-

Union of India & Ors. Respondents

ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER:- M. SARADA

SL. Particulars of Document Page No. of part to which Remarks

(i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v)

3. Listing Performa A1-A2 A1-A2

4. Cover Page of Paper Book A-3

5. Index of Record of Proceedings A-4

9. Synopsis & List of Dates B –N

11 Special Leave Petition with 23-46

20 ANNEXURE –P- 9 78-85

25 Application for 198-199

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

IN THE MATTER OF:-

Union of India & Ors. Respondents

OFFICE REPORT ON LIMITATION

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

CORAM : A. S. CHANDURKAR AND MRS VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J J .

NOT A SIMILAR DISPOSED MATTER

The sole point for consideration before this Hon’ble

Court is whether the respondent no.3 is justified in

reopening the issue of Caste Certificate Verification of the

petitioner at the fag end of her career i.e almost after 36

years of service especially on an anonymous complaint,

and merely on the written opinion of DM on the photocopy

of the petitioner’s certificate without even calling for

original is justified in law and whether in view of the

specific deposition of Naib Tahsildar which is recorded in

Inquiry Officer’s order dated 04.04.2018, letters dated

17.05.2007, 06.03.2017, that records of period 1979-80

are unavailable meaning thereby caste verification of

petitioner is not possible by any authority which fact is

totally ignored by respondent no.3 and the courts’ below

and which clearly amounts to atrocities on the SC/ST

community persons who are being harassed time to time in

the name of caste verification.

The petitioner has been harassed

innumerable times by the Respondent No.3 i.e the

petitioner joined service in 1981 through Employment

Exchange and at that time she submitted her documents and

caste certificate. Initially she was on probation. The

respondent no.3 accepted her documents and then verified it

and confirmed the services of the petitioner.

The petitioner was granted 3 promotions till 2004.

Again the respondent no.3 on the pretext of completing the

service record of the petitioner asked her to submit her caste

certificate as they misplaced the service record of the

petitioner, she duly submitted all the certificates.

The respondent no. 3 once again to harass the

petitioner demanded her caste certificate in 2010 (after 19

years) and issued a memo that her caste certificate is not

verified and it requires to be sent to caste scrutiny

committee. Petitioner while replying to the memo stated

that her caste certificate may be verified on the basis of her

father’s caste certificate, brother’s caste certificate and the

community issued certificate, as much time elapsed. On

07.09.2010 the respondent no.3 after due verification

closed the case of the petitioner after 29 years.

It is most respectfully submitted that it is not

open to the respondent no.3 to reopen the closed issue again