wp1395-2024+1.odt 1/18

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

WRIT PETITION NO. 1395 OF 2024

Sanjay s/o Laxman Dandare

Aged about 57 years Occ.

r/o A-1, 26 Bhagirath Swavlambi

Nagar Nagpur – 440022

...PETITIONER

VERSUS

1.Maharashtra State Electricity

Transmission Company Ltd. Through

its Chairman-cum-Managing Director

o/o Prakashganga C-19 7

th

Floor

Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra (East)

Mumbai 400051

2.The Executive Engineer

EHV Project Division 1 2

nd

Floor

Vidyut Bhavan Katol Road Nagpur

440013

3.State of Maharashtra

General Administration Department

Through its Secretary, Madam Cama

Marg, Hutatma Rajguru Square,

Mantralaya Mumbai – 32

...RESPONDENTS

WITH 2026:BHC-NAG:2384-DB

wp1395-2024+1.odt 2/18

WRIT PETITION NO. 5990 OF 2024

Sanjay s/o Laxman Dandare

Aged about 58 years Occ.

r/o A-1, 26 Bhagirath Swavlambi

Nagar Nagpur – 440022

...PETITIONER

VERSUS

1. Schedule Tribe Certificate Scrutiny

Committee Nagpur through its

Chairman, Adivasi Vikas Bhavan

Goripeth Nagpur - 440010

2.Maharashtra State Electricity

Transmission Company Ltd.

Through its Chairman-cum-

Managing Director o/o

Prakashganga C – 19 7

th

Floor Bandra

Kurla Complex Bandra (East)

Mumbai-400051

3.The Executive Engineer

EHV Project Division - 1 2

nd

Floor

Vidyut Bhavan Katol Road Nagpur

440013

...RESPONDENTS

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Shri A.M. Sudame, Advocate for petitioner

Shri A.S. Fulzele, Addl.GP for respondent/State

Shri D.M. Kale, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 & 2 in WP 1395/2024 &

respondent Nos. 2 & 3 in WP 5990/2024

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CORAM : SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR AND

NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ.

wp1395-2024+1.odt 3/18

RESERVED ON : 23.01.2026

PRONOUNCED ON :11.02.2026

JUDGMENT (PER : NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J. )

Both these writ petitions are being disposed of by this

common judgment since the petitioner in the present petition is the

same, and the subject matter of the present petition is somewhat

overlapping.

2.The Writ Petition No. 1395/2024 challenges the order of

termination dated 09.02.2024 passed by the respondent No. 2 and

confirmed by the Appellate Authority on 15.04.2024.

Writ Petition No. 5990 of 2024 challenges the order dated

18.09.2024 passed by the Schedule Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny

Committee, invalidating the caste claim of the petitioner.

3.Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith in both matters.

Heard finally by the consent of the parties.

4.The facts as are emerging from both petitions are under:

On 22.06.1982, the Executive Magistrate, Nagpur, issued a Caste

Certificate in favour of the petitioner certifying that he belongs to

wp1395-2024+1.odt 4/18

the ‘Halba’ Schedule Tribe, however, the same was invalidated by

the Director of Social Welfare on 25.10.1982. The said order of

invalidation of the caste claim was challenged by the father of the

petitioner, he being a minor, under the provisions of the

Government Resolution dated 29.10.1980. On 04.09.1985, this

Court decided Writ Petition No. 2294/1984, Milind Katware Vs.

State[1987 Mh.L.J. 572], and held that it was permissible to

enquire whether any sub-division of a tribe was part and parcel of

the tribe mentioned therein. In the said judgment, this Court also

declared that ‘Halba-Koshti’ is a sub-division of the main tribe, i.e.,

‘Halba’/‘Halbi’.

5.In an appeal filed by the State of Maharashtra, the Hon’ble

Apex Court on 14.07.1986 though did not stay the effect and

operation of the judgment of this Court, but directed that subject to

the condition that ‘Koshti’ will be entitled to admission to the seats

reserved for Scheduled Tribes on the basis of the High Court

judgment provided the authorities granting admission are satisfied

that they or their parents have an income less than Rs.7200/- per

annum. The Additional Commissioner Tribal Development, Nagpur,

on 09.10.1986, by a common order decided 45 appeals challenging

wp1395-2024+1.odt 5/18

their respective invalidation. The appeals were partially allowed in

view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, as also

the interim order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred supra.

6.In the backdrop of these facts, the erstwhile Maharashtra

State Electricity Board conducted interviews for the post of

Surveyors, wherein the petitioner was selected against the post

reserved for a Scheduled Tribe candidate. Thereafter, on

30.09.1989, the said employer, i.e., MSEB, requested the Additional

Commissioner, Tribal Development, Nagpur, to verify the claim of

the petitioner. The said authority, i.e., the Additional Commissioner,

called upon the petitioner to appear before him on 23.10.1989, on

which date the petitioner appeared and submitted a copy of the

judgment rendered by the Commissioner on 09.10.1986.

7.The MSEB issued an order of appointment appointing him on

the post of surveyor on 30.11.1989. Thereafter, on 28.11.2000 the

Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the

appeal filed by the State of Maharashtra wherein the judgment of

this Court was set aside. The Hon’ble Apex Court held that it is not

at all permissible to hold any enquiry or let in any evidence to

wp1395-2024+1.odt 6/18

decide or declare that any tribe or tribal Community is included in

the general name even though it is not specifically mentioned in

the entry concerned in the Constitution (Schedule Tribe) Order,

1950.

8.On 21.12.2019, with an intention to give effect to the

judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Food

Corporation of India Vs. Jagdish Bahira, the State of Maharashtra

issued a resolution according to which all employees whose caste

claim had been rejected, or had given up their caste claims, or had

obtained a validity certificate belonging to Special Backward

Classes, were placed on supernumerary post for a period of 11

months. Pursuant to this resolution, the respondent MSETCL issued

an Administrative Circular No. 563 for implementing the terms and

conditions of the said Government Resolution.

9.The respondent, MSETCL, thereafter, on 08.06.1922, issued a

show cause notice to the petitioner, calling upon him to get his

caste claim verified. The said notice was duly replied on

14.09.2022, but on 15.05.2023, the respondent MSETCL issued a

charge-sheet alleging misconduct against the petitioner for non-

wp1395-2024+1.odt 7/18

submission of a validity certificate. On a request made by the

petitioner to refer his caste claim for verification, the respondent

granted him the said permission vide order dated 22.12.2023.

However, on 09.02.2024, the respondent No. 2 passed an order

thereby terminating the services of the petitioner and treating the

service as void ab initio. It was further directed that a recovery of

the higher pay scale granted to the petitioner be made.

10.The petitioner challenged the said order of punishment

before the Appellate Authority, which vide order dated 15.04.2024

upheld the punishment and rejected the appeal of the petitioner.

Thus, in Writ Petition No. 1395/2024, both these orders are

challenged.

11.In the meanwhile, the Caste Scrutiny Committee invalidated

the caste claim of the petitioner vide its order dated 18.09.2024,

which is challenged in the said Writ Petition bearing No.

5990/2024.

12.We have heard Shri A.M. Sudame, learned Counsel for the

petitioner, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for

wp1395-2024+1.odt 8/18

respondent/State, and Shri D.M. Kale, learned Counsel for

respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in Writ Petition No. 1395 of 2024 and

respondent Nos.1 and 2 in Writ Petition No. 5990 of 2024.

13.Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that as can be

seen from the record, it is an admitted position that, the caste

certificate of the petitioner, after its invalidation by the Director of

Social Welfare, was challenged in an appeal filed before the

Appellate Authority which partly allowed the appeal by relying on

the judgment of this Court in the judgment of Milind Katware Vs.

State and the interim order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Thus,

the appointment order was issued after due verification of the

certificate and the judgment of the appellate authority. It is

therefore his submission that no charge of suppression or fraud

could have been levelled against the petitioner.

14.It is his submission that the orders imposing a punishment

and as confirmed by the Appellate Authority, suffered from non-

application of mind, since they do not consider the partial allowing

of appeal, challenging rejection of his caste validation, by the

appellate authority. He further submits that there is no question of

wp1395-2024+1.odt 9/18

fraud in the present case, as no conclusion has been recorded by

the authority that there exists a mens rea or a guilty mind, which is

a sine qua non for arriving at such a finding. It is his further

submission that there is a discrimination being practiced by the

employer MSETCL as in the case of one Subhash Narote, the said

employee has been placed on a supernumerary post, and the

petitioner has been terminated. As far as recovery of amount is

concerned, he submits that the same is also unsustainable, as the

office order dated 27.09 2006 specifically stipulates that those

employees who has stagnated in the same post for 6 years or 9

years without advantage of any promotion or higher pay scale were

granted the said benefit of higher pay scale and the said office

order does not spell out any condition under which the said higher

pay scale can be withdrawn by the employer. He therefore submits

that the action of the respondents and more particularly respondent

No. 2 is unsustainable in law and therefore liable to be quashed

and set aside.

15.Per Contra, Shri D.M. Kale, learned Counsel for respondent

Nos. 1 and 2 in Writ Petition No. 1395/2024 and respondent Nos. 2

& 3 in Writ Petition No. 5990/2024, i.e., the employer vehemently

wp1395-2024+1.odt 10/18

opposes the petition. He submits that as the appointment of the

petitioner was done on the basis of the Scheduled Tribe reserved

category, it was mandatory for him to submit the cast validity

certificate of the Scheduled Tribe. By taking us through the record

of the matter, the learned Counsel submits that despite repeated

letters by the then MSEB to the Deputy Director, regarding the

status of the caste validity certificate, there was no response. He

also submits that the employee, i.e., the petitioner herein, was also

issued various letters for submission of a validity certificate, but he

has conveniently chosen to ignore the same. He therefore submits

that the employer was left with no option but to issue a show cause

notice, and being dissatisfied by the same, to issue a charge sheet.

16.Placing reliance on Regulation No. 12 of the MSETCL

Employees Service Regulations, 2012, the learned Counsel submits

that the said Regulation stipulates that if an employee is found not

eligible in terms of Recruitment Regulations for initial appointment

in service or had furnished false information or produced a false

certificate, he shall not be retained in service. Similarly, he places

reliance on Regulation 16 of the MSEB Classification and

Recruitment Regulations, 1961, to buttress his submission. Thus, in

wp1395-2024+1.odt 11/18

the submission of the learned Counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and

2, the action of the respondents is perfectly legal and valid.

17.We have appreciated the contentions canvassed by the

learned Counsel for the respective parties and gone through the

record of the matter with their assistance. The facts as stated supra

are more or less undisputed. The only question, therefore, which

requires to be adjudicated in Writ Petition No. 1395/2024 is

whether the employee is guilty of any fraud being practiced on the

employer while securing employment. Issuance of caste certificate

in the name of the petitioner, its subsequent invalidation, and then

the appeal being partly allowed by the Additional Commissioner

Tribal Development, Nagpur, are admitted facts and also can be

seen from the record of the matter. It can also be seen from the

record that while securing appointment, the employer asked the

petitioner, i.e., the employee, to submit a caste certificate. The

authority, i.e., the Additional Commissioner of Tribal Development,

asked the petitioner to appear before it, which he accordingly

appeared, and then it was submitted to the employer.

wp1395-2024+1.odt 12/18

18.Thus, no fault can be found with the action of the employee,

i.e., the petitioner. It was a fact that the caste certificate was

invalidated, and then it was subsequently partially set aside was

well within the knowledge of the employer. Thus, there is no

question of any suppression or fraud being practiced by the

petitioner/employee. Nothing more was expected of him, and

therefore, it cannot be said that he procured employment on the

basis of a false caste certificate and/or practiced fraud upon the

employee. The order of the respondent No. 2, i.e., the Executive

Engineer, does not consider the said facts in their correct

perspective and goes on to impose punishment on the petitioner.

19.The order imposing punishment, in our view, therefore

cannot withstand the scrutiny of law, it being perverse in nature.

Similarly, the order of the Appellate Authority also mechanically

confirms the order of the disciplinary authority, and therefore, it

also is perverse in nature. In fact, the disciplinary authority has

recorded a finding that the caste certificate of the petitioner was

invalidated even before appointment. But this finding is contrary to

record in as much as the order of the Appellate Authority of partly

allowing the appeal was placed before it and also during

wp1395-2024+1.odt 13/18

departmental enquiry proceedings. As we have already recorded

that no fault can be found with the employee regarding suppression

or fraud, as he has been charged with. It would therefore be

necessary to quash and set aside the order dated 09.02.2024 and

the order of Appellate Authority vide order dated 15.04.2024.

WRIT PETITION NO. 5990/2024

20.As far as petition No. 5990 of 2024 is concerned, the

petitioner, claiming to be a ‘Halba’ Schedule Tribe, sent a proposal

through his employer for validation of his caste claim.

21.We have heard Shri A.M. Sudama, learned Counsel for the

petitioner, as also Shri A.S. Fulzele, learned Additional Government

Pleader for the contesting respondent/State.

22.Learned Counsel for the petitioner by taking us through the

impugned order passed by the respondent No.1, the Scrutiny

Committee, submits that non application of mind is writ large on

the face of the order impugned, since it fails to take into

consideration the vital fact that the appeal filed by the petitioner

against the invalidation of his caste claim was partly allowed, and

wp1395-2024+1.odt 14/18

not rejected, as has been recorded by the authority. It is therefore

his submission that the order is contrary to the record and,

therefore, perverse. He further submits that in the said appeal filed

by him, he had sought twin reliefs, first setting aside the order of

invalidation and declaration that the petitioner belongs to the

‘Halba’ Scheduled Tribe. The Appellate Authority vide its order

dated 09.10.1986 partly allowed the appeal in line with the interim

order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP No.

16372/1985. According to the said interim order, the appellants

were entitled to admission on the seats reserved for the Scheduled

Tribe. He submits that these vital aspects have been ignored by the

Scrutiny Committee, rendering the order erroneous.

23.It is further his submission that the Scrutiny Committee has

adopted a hyper technical approach in as much as doubting the

genuineness of the order dated 09.10.1986, which was a document

more than 30 years old, and by virtue of Section 92 of the Bhartiya

Saksha Adhiniyam, the Scrutiny Committee ought to have

presumed the genuineness of the said document. In nutshell, it is

the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the

order cannot withstand the scrutiny of law.

wp1395-2024+1.odt 15/18

24.Per Contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader, as

also the learned Counsel for the employer, submits that the

impugned order is perfectly legal and valid in as much as the

petitioner has suppressed the fact regarding his earlier invalidation.

Thus, the Additional Government Pleader, as also learned Counsel

for respondent Nos. 3 and 4 support the order passed by the

Scrutiny Committee and the action of recovery being undertaken by

the employer.

25.We have appreciated the rival contentions and gone through

the order of the Scrutiny Committee. The finding of the Scrutiny

Committee that the appeal filed by the petitioner, which was

decided on 09.10.1986, is rejected, is contrary to the record as has

been rightly submitted by the petitioner. As we have earlier held

supra that the petitioner cannot be termed to have played fraud

and/or suppressing the said fact from his employer, i.e., the

respondent Nos. 2 and 3, since the said facts were within the

knowledge of the said employer while granting him appointment

on 30.11.1989.

wp1395-2024+1.odt 16/18

26.However, the oldest document in support of the claim of the

petitioner belonging to ‘Halba’ is of the year 1966, which is a school

record of the petitioner himself. But the tax receipts issued in the

name of his great-grandfather, i.e., Kishan Laxman Koshti, depict

the caste as ‘Koshti’, and they are the oldest documents dating back

to the years 1991 and 1992.

27.Furthermore, as can be seen from the order of the Scrutiny

Committee, the petitioner himself had filed an affidavit on

29.04.2024 stating that he is forefitting his claim to ‘Halba’

Scheduled Tribe and is ready to avail the benefits of ‘Koshti’, which

comes in Special Backward Classes. Thus, even though it cannot be

said that the petitioner secured employment by practicing fraud or

suppressing facts, we cannot ignore an important aspect that the

petitioner cannot independently prove his claim that he belongs to

the ‘Halba’ Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner had secured

employment on the basis of the order of the Appellate Authority,

which was in turn based on the interim order of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court. The said order of the Appellate Authority cannot in

any way help the petitioner to prove his caste claim and he has to

do the said exercise independently. Thus, the petitioner has failed

wp1395-2024+1.odt 17/18

to prove his caste claim. We find no substance in the petition as far

as the challenge to the order of the Scrutiny Committee is

concerned. Thus, we find no merit in the petition, and the petition

is accordingly rejected.

28.We therefore pass the following order :

WRIT PETITION NO. 1395/2024

i)The Writ Petition is allowed.

ii)The impugned order of termination dated 09.02.2024,

passed by the respondent No. 2, Executive Engineer, EHV Project

Division – 1, Nagpur, is quashed and set aside.

iii)The order of the Appellate Authority dated 15.04.2024 is

also quashed and set aside.

29.Writ Petition is allowed in the above terms. Rule is made

absolute.

WRIT PETITION NO. 5990 2024

i)Writ Petition is partly allowed.

ii)As far as the challenge to the order of the Scrutiny

Committee is concerned, the same is rejected. However, for the

wp1395-2024+1.odt 18/18

reasons recorded by us in Writ Petition No. 1395/2024, the

communication dated 27.09.2024, thereby directing recovery of an

amount of Rs.19,54,244/-, is quashed and set aside.

30.The Writ Petition is disposed off in the above terms. Rule is

made absolute.

(NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.) (SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, J.)

Jayashree..