PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK Vs. VILAS GOVINDRAO BOKADE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have had the benefit of seeing the order passed by Justice H.K. Sema directing the dismissal of the appeals filed by the Punjab National Bank. I would chose to give my reasons while agreeing with my learned Brother that the appeals deserve to be dismissed. The followings are my reasons:

(2.) The High Court after referring to the Government Resolution dated 30.6.2004 and relying on the reported decision of this Court in State of Mahrashtra vs. Milind & others [(2001) 1 SCC 4], allowed the writ petition setting aside the order of termination. The Resolution dated 30.6.2004 emanates from the Government Resolution dated 15.6.1995. The corresponding para 4 of the Resolution dated 15.6.1995 reads as under:

(3.) Shri Mehta, learned counsel for the appellant Bank contended firstly that the High Court was not right in relying upon the decision in Milind s case (supra). For this he relied on the judgment in State of Maharashtra & Ors. Vs. Sanjay K. Nimje [2007 (2) Scale 214] where this Court also made a reference to the Government Resolution dated 15.6.1995 in paragraph 13 of the judgment and held that since the respondent therein was appointed on 29.6.1995, the protection of Government Resolution dated 15.6.1995 was not available in his case. Shri Mehta also pointed out that in the latter part of the judgment this Court made a reference to the enactment called Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De- notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Caegory (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 and went on to hold that since the petitioner therein was not protected by the Government Resolution dated 15.6.1995, he would be covered under the said enactment and more particularly under Section 10 thereof which provided that the benefits secured on the basis of false caste certificate would be withdrawn and such person cannot continue to reap the benefits on the basis of the caste certificate which was found to be incorrect. Shri Mehta referred to paras 13, 14 and 17 of that judgment and urged that the situation was no different in this case. He further pointed out that the Division Bench had referred to Milind s case (supra) and had observed in para 21: