Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that an employee cannot be fired just because they did not provide a new caste certificate. The court ordered the reinstatement of a LIC employee who was dismissed after 33 years of service.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has reinstated a Petitioner who previously worked as a Development Officer at LIC. The court noted that firing an employee simply for not providing a new caste certificate is not a valid reason for dismissal. It emphasized that the respondent-Department cannot require the Petitioner to submit a new caste certificate after 33 years of service. The Petitioner had filed this case under Article 226 of the Constitution to challenge the show-cause notice, the Enquiry Report, and the Charge-sheet, along with the entire departmental inquiry process. During the case, the respondent issued a dismissal order.
Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla, on the Single-Judge Bench, stated, “The dismissal order, along with the loss of all financial benefits after 33 years of service due to not submitting a new caste certificate, is illegal, arbitrary, and unreasonable.” Senior Counsel A.K. Sethi represented the Petitioner, while Advocate Jyoti Tiwari represented the Respondent. The Petitioner was appointed in 1992 and had been serving continuously. After eight years, a complaint was made by someone from the same caste, claiming the Petitioner had submitted a false certificate, but this complaint was later withdrawn. However, another complaint was filed by Rajkumar Tamrakar against the Petitioner. The Petitioner contacted the District Collector in Indore about getting a new caste certificate, but the Respondent-Department issued a Show Cause Notice and started a Departmental Inquiry, leading to the dismissal order in 2023.
The respondents agreed with the dismissal based on a Circular from January 3, 2014. They argued strongly that the petitioner was not dismissed for submitting a false or forged caste certificate. Instead, the termination was due to the petitioner not providing an updated digital caste certificate as required by Clause-3 of the Circular. Conversely, the petitioner’s Counsel contended that the absence of records with the Revenue Authority did not mean the caste certificate from the Tehsildar was false or forged. The certificate was submitted in 1990, a time when no specific format existed. The report noted that the records used to issue the caste certificate were missing from the Tehsildar/Naib Tehsildar’s office.
The key question for the Bench was whether the petitioner’s services could be terminated under Clause 3 of the Circular. After reviewing the Circular, the Bench clarified that according to Clauses 1 and 2, if there is information about a false caste certificate, it must be sent to the relevant Revenue Authority for verification, and the employee must be asked for an explanation. Clause-3 states that if the issuing Authority cannot confirm the caste certificate’s status for any reason, such as the caste not being listed or missing records, a Charge-Sheet should be issued, and an inquiry must be conducted promptly.
The Bench stated that Clause-3 applies only when the issuing authority cannot confirm the status of a caste certificate for some reason, such as the caste not being listed as a scheduled caste. They emphasized that an employee cannot be dismissed simply for not providing a new caste certificate. In this case, there was no report indicating any complaint from the Revenue Authorities about missing records or any action taken against the issuing officer. The absence of records alone does not justify dismissal under Clause-3, especially since the petitioner’s request for a new caste certificate was still pending. Once the new certificate was issued, the petitioner would need to submit it to the respondents. The petitioner had provided documents showing he applied for a new caste certificate, which the authorities had not yet resolved.
The Bench concluded that dismissing the petitioner and forfeiting all benefits after 33 years of service for not submitting a new caste certificate was unlawful. They annulled the dismissal order and instructed, “The petitioner should be reinstated unless he has already reached the retirement age, along with all related benefits. Therefore, the petition is granted.”
Cause Title: Manoj Verma v. Life insurance Corporation & Ors. [Neutral Citation: 2024:MPHC-IND:32146]
Appearance:
Petitioner: Senior Counsel A.K.Sethi, Advocate Mayank Verma
Respondent: Advocate Jyoti Tiwari
