1. Heard Mr. S.K. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel along with Mr. S.K. Lenka, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A. Tripathy, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State.

2. Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition inter alia challenging the final order passed by the State Level Scrutiny Committee (in short “Committee”) on 04.01.2014 in Fake Certificate Case No.73/2012 under Annexure-4. Vide the said order, Caste Certificate issued in favour of the petitioner having belong to Scheduled Tribe category in RMC No.1023 of 1998 was cancelled and various directions were issued.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that petitioner obtained the caste certificate in terms of the order passed in RMC No.1023 of 1988 having belong to Caste “Kandha” which is notified as a Scheduled Tribe in the presidential order issued in the year 2002, with seal and signature of Tahasildar, G. Udayagiri dated 03.10.1988. Petitioner also produced the transfer certificate issued by Govt. High School, Tikabali vide Sl. No.32 dated 22.03.1982 showing to have passed Class- VII.

3.1. It is contended that in terms of the caste certificate issued in his favour in RMC No.1023 of 1988 and the transfer certificate produced by petitioner from Govt. High School, Tikabali, petitioner was appointed as a peon on being sponsored in the State Guest House, Bhubaneswar on 08.03.1990. Pursuant to the said order, petitioner joined as a peon in the said Guest House on 17.03.1990.

3.2. It is contended that while so continuing basing on the allegation made by Nikila Bharat Kui Samaj, Kandhamal, Collector, Kandhamal directed Tahasildar, G. Udayagiri to enquiry into the caste and religion of the petitioner. Basing on the report submitted by the Tahasildar, G. Udayagiri that petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste his Caste being “Pano”, petitioner was placed under suspension w.e.f. 12.10.2009.

3.3. It is contended that after being placed under suspension, basing on the enquiry report submitted by the Inspector of Police, Vigilance Cell-cum-Addl. I.I.C., Tikabali Police Station on 10.07.2012 under Annexure- 1, petitioner was issued with the notice by the Committee vide letter dated 07.09.2012 under Annexure-1.

3.4. It is contended that on being served with the notice dated 07.09.2012 under Annexure-1 along with the enclosed enquiry report submitted by the Tahasildar, G. Udayagiri, petitioner submitted his reply on 21.09.2012 under Annexure-2 inter alia taking a plea that the caste certificate as well as transfer certificate so issued by the School were all obtained by his father and petitioner has no knowledge regarding the veracity of the said certificates.

3.5. It is also contended that the Enquiry Report was submitted taking into account the recording of the caste of the petitioner in the ROR of Khata No.40 in Mouza- Gudagaon of G. Udayagiri Tahasil. It is contended that since the Caste „Kui‟ was included as „Schedule Tribe‟ in the presidential order 2002, petitioner seeking correction of the caste so reflected in the ROR of Khata No.40, approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.836 of 2008 with a prayer to correct the caste so reflected in the ROR.

3.6. It is contended that pursuant to the order passed by this Court, petitioner filed a Revision Petition before RDC-cum-Special Administrator, Phulbani for correction of the Caste in the ROR issued vide Khata No.40.

3.7. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contended that on the face of the show-cause filed by the petitioner under Annexure-2, O.P. No.3 without proper appreciation of the materials produced passed the impugned order on 04.01.2014 in FCC Case No.73 of 2012 under Annexure-4. Vide the said order, O.P. No.3 held the petitioner having not belong to Scheduled Tribe Community and accordingly issued various directions for initiation of criminal proceeding and recovery of the benefit received by the petitioner for his employment in the Guest House etc.

3.8. It is however contended that in view of the interim order passed by this Court on 10.04.2014, no coercive action has been taken basing on the direction issued in the impugned order. It is also contended that because of the impugned order even though petitioner in the meantime has retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation, petitioner is yet to get the retiral benefits.

3.9. Making all these submissions, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law and requires interference of this Court.

4. Mr. A. Tripathy, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand placing reliance on the stand taken in the counter affidavit so filed by O.P. No.7 as well as O.P. No.3, contended that by using the caste certificate issued in favour of the petitioner in RMC No.1023 of 1988 by the Tahasildar, G. Udayagiri, petitioner‟s caste was mentioned as „Schedule Tribe‟, petitioner‟s name was sponsored as a Schedule Tribe Candidate for the post of Peon in the State Guest House, Bhubaneswar.

4.1. It is also contended that in support of his qualification petitioner also produced the transfer certificate issued by Govt. High School, Tikabali. In the said transfer certificate, it was indicated that petitioner has passed Class-VII.

4.2. It is contended that taking into account the caste certificate obtained by the petitioner in RMC No.1023 of 1988 and the transfer certificate issued by the School in question, petitioner after being duly sponsored was appointed as a peon in Stage Guest House, where he joined on 17.03.1990, basing on the order of appointment issued on 08.03.1990.

4.3. It is contended that basing on the allegation made against the petitioner that petitioner does not belong to Schedule Tribe, when enquiry was made, Tahasildar, G. Udayagiri, vide his letter No.1599 dated 15.07.2009 under Annexure-D/3, intimated that no such caste certificate was issued in favour of the petitioner vide RMC No.1023 of 1988. It is also intimated that vide RMC No.1023 of 1988, Caste Certificate was issued in favour of one Aditya Pradhan, S/o-Madan Mohan Pradhan of Village-Jhimangia but not to the petitioner. Tahasildar, G. Udayagiri vide his letter dated 13.06.2012 under Annexure-E/3 also intimated to the enquiring officer that no caste certificate has been issued to the petitioner vide RMC No.1023 of 1988.

4.4. It is also contended that Headmaster Govt. High School, Tikabali vide his letter dated 07.06.2012 under Annexure-F/3 also intimated that no such transfer certificate has been issued in favour of the petitioner vide Sl. No.32 dated 22.03.1982 showing the petitioner having passed Class-VII.

4.5. It is contended that basing on the report submitted by O.P. No.7 and on the face of the report submitted by the Tahasildar, G. Udayagiri under Annexure-D/3 and E/3 as well as the letter issued by the Headmaster Govt. High School, Tikabali under Annexure-F/3, petitioner was issued with the show- cause by O.P. No.3 vide letter dated 07.09.2012 under Annexure-1. In the said letter, the Enquiry Report submitted by O.P. No.7 was also enclosed. Enquiry Officer-O.P. No.7 after causing due enquiry, came to a definite conclusion that petitioner does not belong to Scheduled Tribe Community and the certificate produced by him vide RMC No.1023 of 1988 is a forged one.

4.6. It is contended that even though petitioner filed a reply to the show-cause on 21.09.2012 under Annexure-2 but no documents were produced disputing the stand taken by the Enquiry Officer-O.P. No.7 in his Enquiry Report dated 10.07.2012 so enclosed to the notice dated 07.09.2012 under Annexure-1.

4.7. It is contended that the actual name of the petitioner is Dasarath Digal, S/o- Choudhury Digal and in the ROR issued in the name of the petitioner vide Annexure-C/3 under Khata No.175/2012 in Mouza- Gudagaon as well as Khata No.40 issued in the name of petitioner‟s father under Annexure-B/3, Caste of the petitioner is indicated as “Pano”.

4.8. It is contended that on the face of the show-cause issued under Annexure-1 with the Enquiry Report submitted by O.P. No.7 on 10.07.2012, save and except filing the reply to the show-cause under Annexure-2, no supporting documents were produced by the petitioner showing that petitioner has been issued with the Caste Certificate by the Tahasildar, G. Udayagiri vide RMC No.1023 of 1988 and the transfer certificate by the Headmaster, Govt. High School, Tikabali.

4.9. It is also contended that since in the ROR issued in the name of petitioner vide Annexure-C/3 his name has been reflected as Dasarath Digal, S/o- Choudhury Digal with his Caste as “Pano”, it is quite apparent that by producing a fake certificate vide RMC No.1023 of 1988, petitioner got the benefit of appointment as Peon in State Guest House, Bhubaneswar as a Scheduled Tribe category candidate.

4.10. It is contended that since no contrary evidence was produced or laid either documentary or oral, showing that petitioner does belong to Scheduled Tribe Category and the certificate issued in favour of the petitioner vide RMC No.1023 of 1988 is a genuine one, no illegality of irregularity can be found with the impugned order passed by the O.P. No.3 on 04.01.2014 in FCC Case No.73 of 2012 under Annexure-4.

4.11. It is also contended that the stand taken by O.P. No.3 as well as O.P. No.7 in their respective counter affidavit has not been controverted by the petitioner by filing any reply. It is also contended that pursuant to the order passed by the Committee under Annexure-4, a criminal proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner before JMFC, G. dayagiri in G.R. Case No.67 of 2014. But because of the interim order no further progress could be made to the said G.R. Case.

4.12. Making all these submissions, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate contended that the impugned order has been rightly passed and it requires no interference.

5. To the submissions made by learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contended that since the caste certificate so issued in favour of the petitioner in RMC No.1023 of 1988 was issued in terms of the provisions contained under Odisha Caste Certificate (for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe) Rules, 1980, in view of the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Sridhar Kumar Dalai Vrs. State of Odisha and Others, reported in 2023 (1) OLR 614. O.P. No.3 is not competent to decide the issue in terms of the directions issued by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and Another Vrs. Addl. Commissioner Tribal Development and Others, reported in AIR 1995 SC 94.

5.1. It is also contended that since for cancellation of such certificate there is a provision in Odisha Caste Certificate ( for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe) Rules, 1980, the Committee was not competent to take up the issue in terms of the order passed by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil as cited (supra).

6. I have heard Mr. S.K. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel along with Mr. S.K. Lenka, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. A. Tripathy, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State. On the consent of the learned counsels for the parties and with due exchange of the pleadings, the matter was taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that basing on the caste certificate issued in favour of the petitioner by the Tahasildar, G. Udayagiri in RMC No.1023 of 1988, wherein petitioner was declared having belong to Scheduled Tribe Community, petitioner got the benefit of appointment as a Peon in State Guest House, Bhubaneswar vide order of appointment issued in his favour on 08.03.1990, where he joined on 17.03.1990. Petitioner in order to get the benefit of appointment also produced the transfer certified issued by Govt. High School, Tikabali vide Sl. No.32 dated 22.03.1982 as a 7th Class pass student.

7.1. But as found from the record, Tahasildar, G. Udayagiri vide his letter dated 15.07.2009 under Annexure-D/3 as well as letter dated 13.06.2012 under Annexure-E/3 clearly indicated that vide RMC No.1023 of 1988 no such certificate was ever issued in favour of the petitioner. Not only that Vide Annexure-D/3 and E/3, it was clearly indicated that vide RMC No.1023 of 1988, Caste Certificate was issued in favour of one Aditya Pradhan, S/o-Madan Mohan Pradhan of Village- Jhimangia in the district of Kandhamal who belongs to “Kandha” by caste.

7.2. It is also found from Annexure-A/3 letter dated 07.06.2012 so issued by the Headmaster Govt. High School, Tikabali, no such transfer certificate vide Sl. No.32 dated 22.03.1982 was ever issued in favour of the petitioner. It is also found that the Caste of the petitioner has been reflected as “Pano” in the ROR issued in favour of the petitioner under Annexure-C/3 and ROR issued in the name of Petitioner‟s father vide Khata No.40 under Annexure-B/3, caste of petitioner‟s father is also indicated as “Pano”. It is not disputed by the petitioner that RORs under Annexure-B/3 and C/3 have been issued in favour of petitioner‟s father and in the name of self, save and except taking a stand that appropriate application has been moved to change the caste from “Pano”.

7.3. Since no contrary document has been produced by the petitioner either before the State Level Scrutiny Committee along with the show-cause submitted under Annexure-2 nor before this Court that the Caste Certificate in RMC No.1023 of 1988 has been issued in his favour nor any document has been produced before this Court or before the Committee that such a transfer certificate was issued by the Headmaster Govt. High School, Tikabali vide Sl. No.32 dated 22.03.1982, this Court finds that no illegality or irregularity with the impugned order passed by the State Level Scrutiny Committee on 04.01.2014 under Annexure-4 in FCC Case No.73 of 2012.

7.4. It is also the view of this Court that the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Sridhar Kumar Dalai as cited (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case as no such certificate was issued in favour of the petitioner in RMC No.1023 of 1988 in terms of Odisha Caste Certificate (for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe) Rules, 1980. Therefore, in any view of the matter, this Court finds that no illegality or irregularity with the impugned order passed under Annexure-4 and accordingly is not inclined to interfere with the same.

8. The Writ Petition accordingly stands dismissed.

9. Interim order passed earlier stands vacated.