9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 1063X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the Commission can always assail the same in accordance with law or seek its vacation or modification but such observations are impermissible and contemptuous. The Commission appears to be unmindful of the limits of its powers and the decorum required to be maintained by it with regard to the Supreme Court and the High Courts. We refrain ourselves from taking any further action in the matter in the solemn hope that good sense shall prevail with the Commission in future. In view of the fact that the report has already been submitted by the Commission under Article 338 of the Constitution, the summons and warrants issued by it for personal appearance of the petitioner have lost their efficacy/relevance, as such, there is no need to quash the same at this stage, though, as observed earlier, issuance of the same was not justified. - Decided in favour of appellant. - Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 35566 of 2013. - - - Dated:- 9-4-2014 - Tarun Agarwala, Rajan Roy, JJ. ORDER By means of these writ petitions, the petitioner, who is Vice-Chancellor of the Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi (hereinafter referred to as 'the University') has challenged the summons and wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Chairman of the Commission alleging ill-treatment and discrimination. Besides this, other complaints were also filed by the respondent no. 9 on 17.03.2013 and 09.04.2013. Prior to it, an application was also made by her to the Vice-Chancellor on 11.03.2013 with a copy to the Commission. Some other complaints were also made. One Om Prakash claiming himself to be President of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes Protection Committee filed a complaint alleging irregularities in making appointments in the University. Another complaint was made by one Prof. Lal Chand Prasad regarding the constitution of Standing Committee for Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes. One Dr. Paramita Shuklabaidya is also said to have made a complaint to the Commission. Sri Mahendra Pratap Singh also submitted a representation regarding non-filling up of backlog vacancies in the University and non-compliance of certain office memos. The Commission took cognizance of the aforesaid complaints and issued summons to the petitioner for appearance on 18.10.2011, 14.08.2012, 31.08.2012, 15.10.2012,16.11.2012,07.12.2012,19.12.2012, 09.01.2013, 25.04.2013, 31.05.2013 and 17.06.2013. The Unive ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. Ultimately on 10.10.2013, warrant was again issued against the petitioner, which led to filing of the second writ petition i.e. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 59806 of 2013. This Court while entertaining the second writ petition on 27.10.2013 passed an order staying further proceedings before the Commission in respect of the complaints referred above. The matter was next taken up on 28th October, 2013 and an order was passed, relevant extracts of which are Quoted below: In addition to what has been recorded by us when the matter was taken up yesterday at the residence of one of us (Arun Tandon, J.) a query was made to Mr. Manoj Kumar Verma , learned counsel for the respondent nos. 8 and 9 as to what is the exact complaint against the Vice-Chancellor of the University. He only replied that the Assistant Registrar and the Registrar were unable to answer the query of the National Commission for the Schedules Castes, and, therefore, the Vice-Chancellor has been summoned. We are of the opinion that if the informations given by the Assistant Registrar and the Registrar do not satisfy the query made by the Commission, it is open to the Commission to take a final decision in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the Courts or had been decided by them, therefore, the same was barred by Rule 7.4.1.(e) (f) of the Rules. He also contended that the said complaints were not maintainable in view of Rule 7.4.1 (g) (h) of the Rules. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner also contended that the Commission was not at all justified in insisting upon the personal appearance of the Vice-Chancellor of the University, who is the head of the institution, as he was neither a witness to the subject matter of the complaints nor did he have any personal knowledge thereof. The Vice-Chancellor himself would be guided by the material on record of the University, which had already been placed before the Commission. He also referred to the provisions of Order XVI C.P.C. in this regard. He also contended that the insistence for personal appearance was guided by extraneous reasons and the same was not sustainable. The Commission did not apply its mind to the facts of the case nor to the replies submitted by the University nor did it conduct any investigation but in a mechanical and routine manner, the summons and warrants were issued repeatedly. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner also made refe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he aforesaid category of teachers/employees. She further submitted that the report contained in Annexure C.A. 4 was an attempt to contravene and contradict the reservation policy of the Government of India, which was applicable in the University. She also submitted that the subsequent complaints made by her in her capacity as General Secretary of Anusuchit Jati Jan Jati Kalyan Samiti, were in respect of non implementation of the reservation policy and harassment to the scheduled caste teachers and employees in the University, as such, these were cognizable by the Commission. Learned counsel for the private respondents namely Mahendra Pratap Singh and Ms. Paramita Shuklabaidya, contended that the opposite party no. 8 i.e. Mahendra Pratap Singh was not an employee of the University but his complaint was in respect of non-implementation of the reservation policy in the University. The complaint of Ms. Paramita Shuklabaidya, was in respect of her grievances relating to her service and harassment meted out to her. We have heard Sri Ravi Kant, learned Senior counsel assisted by Sri Tarun Agarwal, for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State of U.P., Dr. Indu Chou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Act or Rules or directions which have been violated. Rule 7.4.1 reads as follows: 7.4.1 The following aspect may be kept in mind while filing complaints before the Commission. (a) The complaint should be directly addressed to the Chairman/Vice-Chairman/Secretary,National Commission for Scheduled Castes, New Delhi or the heads of its State Offices (b) The complainants should disclose his full identity and give his full address and should sign the representation. (c) Complaints should be legibly written or typed and, where necessary, supported by authenticated documents. (d) Complaints should clearly disclose the violation of Reservation policy, DOPT OMs, Government of India Orders, State Government Orders, PSUs and Autonomous Bodies orders or any other violation Rules of Reservation. (e) No action will be taken on matters, which are subjudice. Hence subjudice matter need not be referred to the Commission as complaint(s). (f) Cases pending in courts or cases in which a court has already given its final verdict may not be taken up afresh with the Commission. (g) The cases of Administrative nature like transfer/posting/grading of ACRs will not be taken ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n from any part of India and examining him/her during the course of investigation and inquiry by the Commission shall provide at least 15 days' notice to the person directed to be present before the Commission from the date of receipt of the summons. In serious cases of atrocities, three days notice will be given to the person directed to be present before the Commission from the date of receipt of the summons by him/her. The first complaint was made to the Commission by Dr. Indu Choudhary on 05.10.2011, a perusal of which reveals that the complainant had prayed for stay on the proceedings initiated against her by the University, withdrawal of the charge sheet dated 28.09.2011 issued to her as well as refund of the amount deducted from her salary for the month of June, 2011. However, in the body of the complaint, the facts and grievances as narrated by her, related to her illegal eviction, the alleged discrimination in charging higher rent, ill-treatment by the then Warden Professor D.K.Singh and the Warden In-charge Prof. Deepa Rani Saxena etc.. The Commission immediately acted upon the aforesaid complaint dated 05.10.2011 and issued summons dated 18.10.2011 for appearan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tration of the faculty guest house in presence and with the help of the Proctorial Board and all her belongings were returned to her along with a copy of the inventory of all the items. With regard to the allegations of threatening letters being issued to her, it was submitted that when the complainant did not vacate the room in question, in spite of disposal of her writ petition and the requests made to her on 21.06.2010, wherein she was warned that disciplinary action may be initiated against her, a letter was again sent to her on 06.01.2011 under the orders of the Vice-Chancellor, but she did not respond. Neither she vacated the room nor paid the room rent of ₹ 10,600/- up to 30.11.2009. Further, she did not pay the rent from 01.12.2009 till 17.12.20011. In view of non-compliance, strong letters were written to her as is normally done in such cases, which cannot be treated as threatening letters to harass her. It was also stated that the residential quarter in Tyagraj colony was far better than the bachelor quarters in the campus. The University also submitted its reply regarding the deductions from her salary, alleging violation of certain rules of the Central Civil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondent from complying with the same. The complaint relating to eviction, discrimination in charging rent etc. was clearly barred by Rule 7.4.1 (f) of the Rules. Dr. Choudhary was very well aware of the terms and conditions of allotment as mentioned in the allotment order as also the rent payable and accepted the same, therefore, the allegations of discrimination were clearly unfounded. Her occupation of the room in the guest house was held to be illegal by this Court, even then she did not vacate the same till 26.11.2011. In view of the judgment dated 12.03.2010, the bar of Rule 7.4.1 (f) was attracted. So far as the allegations relating to the alleged theft and atrocities during the month of May 2008 is concerned, the same was clearly subjudice, even as per the complainant's own admission, before the court concerned, therefore, it was also barred by Rule 7.4.1 (e). The allegations against the two Wardens namely Prof. D.K.Singh and Prof. Deepa Rani Saxena were also the subject matter of the case pending before the Court in which charge sheet had been filed and the said persons had also filed writ petition in the High Court wherein their arrest had been stayed. Rul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... c.. The said complaint also related to administrative/disciplinary matters and there was nothing indicative of any caste based harassment nor deprivation of any right of the complainant as a scheduled caste. It is the complaint dated 09.04.2013 submitted by her, which is quite revealing. This complaint was made by Dr. Indu Choudhary, in her capacity as the General Secretary SC/ST Employees Welfare Association (Regd.) BHU Varanasi (UP) on the letter pad of the said association, a copy of which is annexed with the writ petition. The said complaint/letter pad mentions the name of the Chairman of the Commission, as the Chief Patron of the said Association and the complaint is also addressed to him by name. The aforesaid Association is said to have been registered as a society on 07.04.2012 i.e. during the pendency of individual complaints of Dr. Indu Choudhary before the Commission. From the pleadings in the Writ Petition No. 35566 of 2013 and the array of the parties, we find that the then Chairman of the Commission was impleaded by name as the respondent no. 2 and in paragraphs 58 to 61 thereof, the following allegations were made against him: 58. That it is stated here tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , clearly there is no rebuttal by the respondent no. 2 of the facts as asserted in paragraphs 58 to 61 of the writ petition. It is the respondent no. 9, Dr. Indu Choudhary, who has tried to reply the aforesaid paragraphs of the writ petition in paragraphs 9 (v) to 9 (x) of her counter affidavit. Though she has stated that Dr. P.L.Punia is not the chief patron of the SC/ST Employees Welfare Association but the document annexed by her as Annexure C.A. 43 in support thereof belies her claim to the extent that the said document, which is a news item dated 16.05.2013, states that Dr. Punia had been removed as chief patron of the aforesaid association in the meeting of the executive committee held last week i.e. about 7 days prior to 16.05.2013 i.e. on or after 08.05.2013. Even if the assertions contained in the news item are accepted on face value, it only goes to show that prior to 9th May 2013, Dr. Punia was the Chief Patron of the complainant association as is borne out from the documents filed by the complainant herself. The summons for personal appearance as also the warrant in question were issued during the period 18.10.2011 to 19.06.2013,with the approval of the aforesa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . O.N.Srivastava before the Commission nor was he ever summoned, therefore, reference to the document dated 01.11.2011 by her is of no relevance in the instant case. One Sri Om Prakash claiming himself to be the President of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Protection Committee also filed a complaint dated 04.07.2012 addressed to the Visitor of the University alleging irregularities in the appointments made by the University but there was no reference to denial of any safeguard to scheduled castes, therefore, it was clearly outside the domain of the Commission. The said complaint did not even contain the relevant details of the complainant, such as address etc. and was clearly not maintainable in view of Rule 7.4.1 (b), (d) (h) of the Rules but it appears that the Commission some how took cognizance of the same. The said complaint does not refer to any rule or order pertaining to the provisions of reservation for the scheduled castes which could be alleged to have been violated. Therefore, the same was also not in accordance with Rule 7.4.1 (d), (g) (h) of the Rules. The complaint of Professor Lal Chand Prasad others dated 02.04.2012 pertained to reconstitution ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Indira Gandhi University and the payment of arrears. This complaint was addressed to the Vice-Chancellor of the University with a copy to the Chairman of the Commission Dr. P.L.Punia. The subject matter of the aforesaid complaint was purely administrative in nature, therefore, we fail to understand as to how cognizance of the same could have been taken by the Commission in view of the provisions of Article 338 of the Constitution of India read with Rule 7.4.1 (a) to (h) of the Rules framed by the Commission itself under Article 338 (4) of the Constitution. Moreover, the University was already seized with the matter in pursuance of her earlier representations and had informed Dr. Paramita Shuklabaidya vide its letter dated 04.01.2012 that her past services rendered at Tagore Arts College, Pudduchery could not be counted for the purpose of G.P.F. and other service benefits. In view of the above, such complaint was out side the domain of the Commission. As per the University, the grievances of the Dr. Shuklabaidya have been redressed. In view of the above discussions the Court finds that the Commission had entertained some of the above mentioned complaints without due and p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the rights of the parties nor to issue any direction or injunction on merits. The scope of its powers has already been considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Bilaspur vs. Ajit P.K. Jogi and others reported in [(2011) 10 SCC 357]. In the said case, the Commission had decided the validity of a caste certificate after summoning the records and recording extensive finding on merits based thereon. The supreme Court disapproved the action of the Commission and observed that the duties under clause 5(b) of Article 338 did not extend to either issue of caste/tribe certificate or to revoke or cancel a caste/tribe certificate or to decide upon the validity of the caste certificate. Having regard to sub-clause (b) of clause (5) of Article 338, the Commission could no doubt entertain and enquire into any specific complaint about deprivation of any rights and safeguards of Scheduled Tribes. When such a complaint was received, the Commission could enquire into such complaint and give a report to the Central Government or the State Government requiring effective implementation of the safeguards and measures for the protection and welfare and socio-economic development of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mine the facts of each case and if it is found that such appearance of a person is necessary for the purpose of inquiry or investigation, only then the summons should be issued. It would be appropriate that the reasons and the purpose for issuance of such summons is mentioned. Under Order XVI Rule 1, the concerned party desirous of obtaining any summons for the attendance of any person is required to file an application stating therein the purpose for which the witness is proposed to be summoned. The Supreme Court in the case of the Union of India vs. Orient Engg. Commercial Co. Ltd. and another reported in [(1978) 1 SCC 10] had the occasion to consider the requirements of Order XVI Rule 1 C.P.C. and it observed as under: 3. In this case, a list of witnesses was furnished by the 1st respondent and the Registrar of the High Court, in the routine course, granted summons, perhaps not adverting as to why the arbitrator himself was being summoned. That was more or less mechanical is evident from the fact that the reason given for citing the arbitrator is the omnibus purpose of proving the case of the party-not the specific ground to be made out. We should expect application of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase of Chitranjan Singh vs Chandra Bhushan Pandey reported in (1998 All.L.J. 134) while dealing with a contempt proceeding considered the necessity of summoning a person for examination and after referring to the provisions of Order XVI Rule 14 C.P.C., held that a special case has to be made out even under Order XVI, Rule 14, C.P.C., for summoning witnesses as Court witnesses. In the instant case some of the grievances were beyond the Commission's jurisdiction as has already been mentioned earlier. The record reveals that after receiving the initial summons issued by the Commission, detailed point-wise replies were filed by the University, from a perusal whereof, it is found that there was sufficient material before the Commission to form an opinion in the matter relating to reservation policy for scheduled castes etc. for the purposes of sending a report as per Article 338 (5) (d) (e) of the Constitution. In its detailed replies, which have been noted by the Commission itself in its report sent to the Government of India, it was stated that the reservation roster for the teaching and non-teaching posts (cadre-wise) was prepared in the University as per Post-Based ro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were to be re-advertised due to non-availability of the eligible candidates, non-suitability of the candidates and on account of no application having been received from the candidates of the said category. With regard to the non-teaching posts also the requisite figures were given, which revealed that out of 22 posts of Group-'A' reserved for the SC category, 21 posts had been filled up and the remaining 1 post had been advertised. No back-log vacancy (permitted by UGC) under direct recruitment, existed in Group-'B', 'C' 'D'. The requisite figures for the ST and OBC categories were also furnished by the University but in the instant case since we are concerned only with the SC category, reference to the figures of other categories is not necessary. We also find that the University had also submitted replies to the complaints of Prof. Lal Chand Prasad Sri Mahendra Pratap Singh regarding alleged non-implementation of the reservation policy and non-filling up of the back-log vacancies. In this regard it was stated that the Post-Based reservation roster for various teaching posts in the University had been prepared cadre-wise as per quota o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on which it was dissatisfied and should have asked the University to furnish its additional reply in respect thereof. But this was not done, in stead, repeated summons were issued for the personal appearance of the Head of the Institution, failing which, warrants were issued. Even the summons did not mention the purpose for which the petitioner was required to appear in person. The impugned action was taken in a routine and mechanical manner without due and proper application of mind. It was only after passing of the order dated 04.07.2013 that it issued a letter dated 08.08.2013 to the petitioner mentioning that the assistance provided by the Registrar and the Deputy Registrar who appeared before it on 08.10.2012, 05.11.2012 and 09.11.2012 and the Assistant Registrar who appeared before it on 17.06.2013 was not adequate as they were unable to answer the queries of the Commission and were not aware of the relevant facts, as such, the Member of the Commission Sri Raju Parmar had decided to discuss all the above cases with the petitioner i.e. the Vice-Chancellor in person on 19.08.2013 at 12.00 Noon in his chambers. Vague allegations were also made therein regarding violation of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
