“Civil Death Without Due Process Is Unacceptable”: Gauhati HC Quashes Blacklisting Over SC Certificate, Orders Reinstatement
Sanchayita Lahkar
The Gauhati High Court, Single Bench of Justice Kardak Ete quashed the termination and blacklisting order issued by Oil India Limited against a candidate on the grounds of an allegedly fake Scheduled Caste (SC) certificate. The court directed the reinstatement of the petitioner while granting liberty to the respondent authority to initiate fresh proceedings concerning the validity of the caste certificate in accordance with prescribed legal procedures.
The petitioner, who was appointed as Assistant Operator-I/Assistant Mechanic-I/Assistant Technician-I (Field Engineering), Grade-V, with Oil India Limited (OIL), was terminated from service via a letter dated June 23, 2022. The termination was predicated on the claim that the petitioner submitted a fake SC certificate during the recruitment process. Further, the petitioner was blacklisted from applying to any future vacancies in OIL.
According to the petitioner, the SC certificate in question was issued by the Sub-Divisional Scheduled Caste Development Board, Sadiya on February 5, 2004. The petitioner asserted that the certificate was genuine, bearing Serial No. 127, and that a similar certificate was issued to his brother on the same date. He contended that no opportunity was provided to present his case before the termination was affected, violating the principles of natural justice.
The petitioner’s counsel, Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, argued that the termination was initiated based on letters and reports issued by authorities without any notice or opportunity of rebuttal to the petitioner. He submitted that the verification process was conducted behind the petitioner’s back and relied on incorrect conclusions.
It was further contended that the petitioner was appointed under the unreserved category based on merit and not under the SC quota. This aspect, according to the petitioner, nullified the relevance of the alleged discrepancies in the caste certificate for the purpose of employment.
The respondents, including the Oil India Limited, the Revenue and DM (LR) Department, and the Sub-Divisional authorities of Sadiya, defended the termination on the basis that the caste certificate submitted by the petitioner did not match the records. Mr. A. Sarma, standing counsel for OIL, submitted that as per the company’s recruitment policy and appointment terms, if any document was found to be fake or incorrect, the appointment could be terminated automatically without prior notice.
The respondents also stated that the petitioner’s certificate was not traceable in the official register and that the Chairman of the Scheduled Caste Development Board confirmed non-issuance of such a certificate. The company invoked Clauses 2.0, 5.1.5, 5.7.1, and 5.7.6 of the appointment letter and Clause F(h) of the recruitment advertisement.
Government counsel for respondents No. 2 to 4 submitted that the caste certificate submitted did not match official records and the verification report deemed it fake.
The court noted, "The petitioner having been totally deprived of an opportunity to represent his case, has been subjected to grave prejudice... in total violation of the principle of natural justice."
Justice Kardak Ete observed that the SC certificate was declared false or fake based solely on reports from certain authorities without proper adjudication. The court stated, "The declaration of SC certificate to be false or fake would certainly entail denuding the status of a person being SC."
It further recorded, "The SC certificate issued by the competent authority cannot be declared to be false/fake without proper determination in terms of the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court."
The court referenced the Supreme Court's judgment in Kumari Madhuri Patil v. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development, which mandates that a designated Scrutiny Committee must adjudicate disputes regarding caste certificates.
On the issue of blacklisting, the court stated, "It is a settled principle of law that any order having civil consequences should be passed only after following the principles of natural justice." The judgment noted the gravity of blacklisting, describing it as "civil death" for the individual, and stated that such action could not be taken without due process.
While the respondents relied on Om Prakash Mann v. Director of Education (Basic), the court held that the facts of that case were inapplicable since no departmental enquiry had been initiated in the present matter, and the petitioner had not been afforded an opportunity to defend himself.
The Gauhati High Court issued the following directions:
- "The action of the respondent authorities Oil India Limited in issuance of impugned termination letter dated 23.06.2022 is not sustainable and accordingly, the same is set aside and quashed."
- "The respondent authorities are directed to reinstate the petitioner forthwith."
- "It would be open to the respondent authorities to proceed afresh against the petitioner with regard to his caste certificate by following the due process of law as indicated herein above."
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: G N Sahewalla, K Bhattacharyya, H K Sarma, S Todi, M Sahewalla, Md Aslam
For Respondents: S Dutta, A Talukdar, S Baruah, A Sarma, Lentso, M Hussain, K Kalita
Case Title: Amit Das v. The State of Assam and Others
Neutral Citation: GAHC010202422022
Case Number: WP(C)/6589/2022
Bench: Justice Kardak Ete
[Read/Download order]
