Chhattisgarh HC Upholds Excise Officer’s Discharge In Tribal Man’s Alleged Fake Attendance Case, While Shop Supervisor Faces IPC Proceedings

The appellant, who belongs to a Scheduled Tribe, alleged that respondent No. 3 obtained his identity and educational documents on the pretext of arranging employment, then caused his name and signatures to be entered in a liquor shop’s attendance register, although he had never worked there.

During an inspection, respondent No. 2 identified the appellant as the person selling liquor above the prescribed price; a newspaper report later published details of the incident.

The Special Judge found no sufficient ground to proceed against respondent No. 2, but directed respondent No. 3 to face proceedings under IPC Sections 419, 468, 469, 471 and 500.

Both respondents were discharged under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.

The appellant challenged the order under Section 14A(1) of that Act.

The appeal was brought under Section 14A(1) of the SC/ST Act.

For an offence under Section 3(2)(v) of that Act, the victim’s Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe status alone is insufficient; the material must also support that the alleged act was committed on the ground of that status.

At the stage under review, the court considered whether the Special Judge’s assessment disclosed illegality, perversity or material irregularity warranting interference.

The alleged IPC offences were Sections 419, 468, 469, 471 and 500; the court left the truth of the allegations and respondent No. 3’s involvement for determination at trial.

No precedent was cited.

The inspection material and attendance register supported the circumstances in which respondent No. 2 identified the appellant, but did not specifically show that respondent No. 2 obtained the appellant’s documents, knowingly made false register entries, used a forged document, or deliberately caused the newspaper report to be published.

The finding that there was no sufficient ground to proceed against respondent No. 2 therefore disclosed no apparent illegality or perversity.

By contrast, the allegations and documents concerning respondent No. 3 raised matters requiring examination at trial, so the court declined to disturb the direction that he face proceedings for the IPC offences.

The record did not indicate that the alleged acts were committed because the appellant belonged to a Scheduled Tribe; discharge under Section 3(2)(v) was therefore justified.

Respondent No. 2 remained discharged; respondent No. 3 remained subject to proceedings for the specified IPC offences but discharged under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.

The trial court was directed to decide the pending matter independently, without being influenced by the High Court’s observations.