Chhattisgarh HC Quashes IAS Officer’s Uraon ST Certificate Cancellation, Orders Fresh Inquiry With Cross-Examination

The petitioner held a 1981 caste certificate identifying him as a member of the Uraon Scheduled Tribe and was appointed as a Deputy Collector in 1991.

The Scrutiny Committee cancelled the certificate in 2007; in 2018, the High Court set that order aside and remanded the matter for proper inquiry, and the Division Bench dismissed the State’s appeal in 2019.

Following fresh proceedings, the Committee again cancelled the certificate by order dated 24/27 February 2023.

The petitioner challenged that order, alleging, among other things, non-compliance with the remand directions and denial of a fair opportunity to present and test evidence.

Under the 2013 Act and Rules, caste-status verification must follow the prescribed statutory procedure; the Committee’s decision must also comply with principles of natural justice.

Section 14 places the initial burden of establishing social status on the claimant, but, as the Court held, that provision does not displace the claimant’s right to a fair procedure, including the opportunity to rebut adverse material and cross-examine adverse witnesses; after prima facie evidence is produced, the State must rebut it with lawful and verified material.

The Court relied on Kumari Madhuri Patil v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development, (1994) 6 SCC 241, and Director of Tribal Welfare, Government of A.P. v. Laveti Giri, (1995) 4 SCC 32, concerning the proper procedure for scrutiny of social-status claims.

It further held that the absence of pre-1950 documentary evidence cannot, by itself, be fatal; the Committee must consider the totality of the material, including inquiry evidence and relevant social and ethnological material.

The Court rejected the jurisdictional objection because the proceedings arose directly from the earlier High Court remand, making a fresh reference under Section 6 unnecessary in this second round of litigation.

However, the Committee had invited the petitioner to seek a hearing and adduce evidence, yet did not provide an effective opportunity to test adverse witness statements or lead rebuttal evidence.

The Committee also treated the absence of pre-1950 documents as decisive without properly assessing the totality of the evidence, including historical revenue records.

The Court held that this approach both breached natural justice and prevented the petitioner from meaningfully discharging the burden under Section 14.

It quashed the order and remanded the matter to the Scrutiny Committee for fresh determination.

The Committee must provide the petitioner with the inquiry reports, an opportunity to adduce oral and documentary evidence, and the opportunity to cross-examine adverse witnesses; it must issue a reasoned decision, preferably within 90 days.

Until then, no coercive or adverse action affecting the petitioner’s service, salary, or retiral/pensionary benefits may be taken on the basis of the quashed order.