UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. PRAKASH ANTHONY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Letters Patent Appeal arises out of an order passed by a learned single Judge of this Court whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent against an order of his removal from service as a measure of punishment has been allowed and the orders passed by the disciplinary and appellate authorities quashed.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the filing of the petition have been set out in detail in the order passed by the learned single Judge. The same need not, therefore, be recalled over again. All that need be mentioned is that the respondent had been appointed as an Assistant Typist way back in the year 1987 against a vacancy reserved for a Scheduled Tribe candidate. Five years later, the respondent applied for promotion to the next higher post of Assistant Administrative Officer which claim was rejected on the ground that he did not belong to Scheduled Tribe community. He was, at the same time, called upon to show cause why action be not taken against him for having submitted false information regarding his caste. He was also asked to submit documentary proof in support of his claim that he belonged to Scheduled Tribe category. The petitioner, in response, produced a certificate issued by the Block Development Officer which was to the following effect : ?BLOCK OFFICE BETTIAH CASTE CERTIFICATE No. 208 Date : 23.3.1996 This is to certify that Shri Prakash Anthony S/o Shri M. Anthony Alexander is a resident of Mohalla Christian Quarters, Dargah, Police Station Bettiah, Distt. West Champaran, originally belonged to Lohar tribe but has embraced Christianity. Block Development Officer Bettiah West Champaran 23.2.1996?

(3.) The certificate aforementioned notwithstanding, the appellants initiated disciplinary proceedings against the respondent in which the only charge against him was that he had furnished false information regarding his being a Scheduled Tribe candidate at the time of his recruitment in the year 1987. The petitioner was told that he had, by making such a false claim, failed to maintain absolute integrity under Rule 3(1)(i) and thereby committed misconduct within the meaning of Rule 4(4), 4(16) and 4(20) of General Insurance (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1975.