STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. LUTHER KONDHPAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent herein secured employment in the appellant's establishment against a post reserved for the Scheduled Tribes on the basis of a Scheduled Tribe certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Nowrangpur. Subsequently the Tahsildar cancelled the said certificate after it was found that the respondent does not belong to a Scheduled Tribe. This order was passed under Rule '7 of the Orissa miscellaneous Certificate Rules and Rule 8 (2) of the Orissa Caste Certificate (for SC/st) rules. Under such circumstances the appellant decided to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the respondent for having committed gross misconduct in terms of para 521 (4) (n) of the Sastry Award.

(2.) The charge against the respondent was that he secured the appointment by fraudulent means by submitting a false Scheduled Tribe certificate. The respondent filed his explanation. The appellant after giving an opportunity to the respondent terminated his services. The respondent challenged the order of termination of service in the High Court of orissa under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of India. The High Court of Orissa on a plea that the respondent was not confronted with the order of cancellation of certificate passed by the Tahsildar, Nowrangpur during enquiry, held that the respondent was denied opportunity to show cause. Consequently, the high Court set aside the order of termination. It is against this order the appellant has come up before this Court by means of a special leave petition.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the order of cancellation of certificate passed by the tahsildar, Nowrangpur was part of the record of disciplinary proceedings and the respondent was apprised of the said order and the view taken by the High Court was erroneous. The record of the disciplinary proceedings is annexed with the record of the special leave petition and on its perusal we find that the respondent was given a copy of the order of cancellation of the certificate passed by the tahsildar, Nowrangpur and lie also signed in lieu of the receipt of the copy of the said order. In view of the fact that the petitioner was given a copy of the order of cancellation of certificate the High Court was not justified in holding that the respondent was not confronted with the order of cancellation of certificate. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent then urged that the respondent was denied an opportunity of personal hearing before the disciplinary authority. We have perused the reply filed by the respondent to the show-cause notice. In the said reply it is nowhere stated that the respondent desires personal hearing. Under such circumstances the order of termination cannot be held to be vitiated on that account.