Not A Case Of Discrimination: Calcutta High Court Says Commission For Scheduled Caste Not Justified In Entertaining Disgruntled Employee's Plea

The Calcutta High Court on Friday directed the National Commission for Scheduled Castes (Commission) to recall and withdraw the recommendations by which it directed the Department of Health and Family Welfare, Government of West Bengal to reinstate an ex-employee who was dismissed from service, on the ground that the Commission has acted beyond its jurisdiction.

The single judge bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya observed:

“… the complaint of the respondent no. 3 before the Commission was not related to any discrimination, violation of safeguards or deprivation of the rights of the respondent no. 3 as a member of the Scheduled Caste. It was a case of a disgruntled employee who took his dissatisfaction to the Commission as a last resort. The Commission, on its part, travelled beyond its jurisdiction to issue the impugned recommendations, not only for reinstatement of the respondent no. 3, but also for payment of his salary with effect from 23.6.2021.”

The respondent no. 3 was an employee of the Department of Health and Family Welfare, Government of West Bengal. He first resigned from service on January 5, 2021 and further gave a second letter of resignation on January 27, 2021 through proper channel citing his inability to serve in Alipurduar.

Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the respondent no. 3 which culminated in an order of dismissal on April 5, 2023.

The respondent no. 3, in the meantime, lodged a complaint before the Commission on July 5, 2022 stating that he belonged to Scheduled Caste and therefore, suffered injustice from the State Government machinery since January 27, 2021.

The Commission called the petitioner (Department of Health and Family Welfare, Government of West Bengal) and respondent no. 3 for a hearing in which correspondences were exchanged between the parties in this regard and culminated in the minutes of hearing dated February 3, 2023 where both the parties were present.

The impugned recommendations were part of the minutes and were communicated to the petitioners on February 9, 2023. The impugned recommendations are as follows:

1. The respondent no.3 shall be allowed to join his duty in the Department of Health and Family Welfare.
2. The respondent no. 3 shall be paid his salary with effect from June 23, 2021
3. The concerned competent authority of the Department was directed to appear before the Commission on the scheduled date of hearing and submit an Action Taken Report within 15 days.

The State of West Bengal and the officials of Department of Health and Family Welfare filed the present writ petition before the High Court praying for issuance of mandamus commanding the Commission and the Vice Chairperson of the Commission to rescind the impugned recommendations made by the Commission on February 3, 2023 and not to give any further effect.

The Advocate General, S. N. Mookherjee submitted that the impugned recommendations suffer from a lack of jurisdiction as the complaint made by the respondent no. 3 related to a service matter and hence the Commission does not have the power to adjudicate on the complaint.

It was further submitted that the Commission could not have directed the petitioners to submit an Action Taken Report as the same is beyond the jurisdiction of the Commission under Article 338 of the Constitution.

The Deputy Solicitor General, Billwadal Bhattacharya appearing for the Commission contended that Article 338A(8) empowers the Commission to investigate any matter and that the Commission has been vested with all the powers of a civil court trying a suit including summoning any person from any part of the country.

The Counsel appearing for the respondent no. 3 (complainant) submitted that the respondent no. 3 is a member of a Scheduled Caste and has been harassed by the concerned Department of the State.

The question before the High Court was whether the recommendations made by the Commission vide the Minutes of Hearing dated February 3, 2023 were within the powers and duties vested in the Commission under Article 338 of the Constitution?

The Court made following observations regarding the nature of the complaint:

1. The complaint merely states that the respondent had suffered injustice from the Government machinery for participating in the West Bengal Legislative Election 2021 and that the complainant/respondent no. 3 belonged to a sub-caste of the Matua community. There is no case of discrimination or violation of the safeguards provided to the Scheduled Caste or any deprivation of rights suffered by the respondent no. 3 as a member of Scheduled Caste in the complaint.
2. The letter of the Department of Health and Family Welfare dated November 22, 2022 refers to departmental proceedings initiated against the respondent no. 3 on violation of service norms. The letter emphasizes that the matter does not relate to caste discrimination.
3. The impugned Minutes/recommendations refer to an application filed by the petitioner/respondent no. 3 in the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata, in 2021 and an order passed by the Tribunal on August 13, 2021 directing the Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare to consider the application of the respondent no. 3 for withdrawal of resignation and for resumption of duty by passing a reasoned order within 8 weeks from the date of communication of the order. The Tribunal further directed that the respondent no. 3 shall have to join at Alipurduar at his transferred place of posting.

The Court noted that the investigation and inquiry made by the Commission must relate to specific complaints involving discrimination, deprivation or violation of the safeguards accorded to members of the Scheduled Castes.

The Court held:

“The present complaint does not fall within the purview of the constitutional mandate with regard to the jurisdiction of the Commission. The impugned recommendations also make it clear that the Commission has virtually acted as an appellate forum with reference to the order passed by the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal by recommending the reinstatement of the respondent no. 3.”

With regard to demanding an Action Taken Report from the petitioners in pursuance of recommendations, the Court relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in All India Indian Overseas Bank SC and ST Employee’s Welfare Association v. Union of India (1996) 6 SCC 606 wherein it was held that the powers of the Commission under Article 338(8) are essentially to facilitate an investigation or inquiry but that such powers do not convert the Commission into a Civil Court and therefore, Commission does not have the power of the civil court in granting injunction, whether temporary or permanent.

“Any action or decision taken in excess or in the absence of jurisdiction would not only nullify the very initiation of proceedings but all that follows post-initiation,” the Court added.

Thus, the Court allowed the writ petition and directed the Commission to recall and withdraw the impugned recommendations and further directed that Commission shall not act in terms of the recommendations or give effect to the same.

Case Title: State of West Bengal & Ors. v. The National Commission for Scheduled Castes & Ors.

Coram: Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya

Click Here to Read/Download Judgment