Vineet Saran - (1.) -Since the facts of both these writ petitions are common, they are being decided together. Counter and Rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, these writ petitions are being disposed of at the stage of admission.
(2.) FOR certain posts of Assistants in the Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as the 'Corporation') which were reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, the petitioner also applied. The application was accompanied with a certificate dated 5.10.1970, issued by the Additional District Magistrate (Executive), Gorakhpur, certifying that the petitioner was 'shilpkar' by caste, which falls within the category of Scheduled Caste. After undergoing the selection process, the petitioner was issued an appointment letter on 6.12.1971 and was posted at branch office of the Corporation at Gorakhpur. The petitioner continued to work as Assistant in the Corporation. Regarding his work, there was no complaint nor there was any adverse entry in the service record of the petitioner during the entire period of his service. After about 12 years of service, on 5.10.1983, the petitioner was asked by the Corporation to submit his original caste certificate, which the petitioner submitted on 5.12.1983. It has been stated by the petitioner that it was not known to him as to on what complaint, the said dispute regarding his caste had arisen. Thereafter, in response to a request made by the Corporation on 26.8.1985 to the District Magistrate, the Corporation received a report dated 4.2.1988 from the Additional District Magistrate stating that on inquiry, it was found that the petitioner Shiv Kumar Sharma was a 'badhai' by caste and not a 'shilpkar'. After receipt of the said report from the Additional District Magistrate, the Corporation issued a charge-sheet dated 22.3.1988 stating therein that the petitioner had secured employment as Assistant in the Corporation on the strength of a false/ wrong caste certificate. It was also mentioned that the petitioner had wrongly stated in his application that he was 'shilpkar' by caste whereas he belonged to 'badhai' caste, which is not a Scheduled caste. As such, it was stated that the petitioner had deliberately given wrong information about his caste and that he thus practiced fraud upon the Corporation. In response to the aforesaid charge-sheet, the petitioner submitted his reply on 18.8.1988 stating therein that the certificate dated 5.10.1970 issued by the Additional District Magistrate, Gorakhpur, certifying that he belonged to 'shilpkar' caste was given after due verification and that the charges levelled against him were baseless. Thus, the petitioner prayed that the charges against him be dropped and if the Corporation in-tended to hold any discip?inary inquiry against him, it was requested that he may be furnished copies of the relevant documents on the basis of which the charges had been levelled so as to enable him to defend himself. The Corporation appointed an inquiry officer on 7.10.1988 and a depart-mental inquiry was initiated against the petitioner. Since the petitioner claimed that the report of the Additional District Magistrate (Executive) Gorakhpur, dated 4.2.1988 was an ex parte report, issued without holding any proper inquiry, the petitioner moved an application before the District Magistrate, Gorakhpur, requesting him that the report regarding his caste submitted by the Additional District Magistrate be recalled and a fresh report may be given after getting a thorough inquiry conducted. Thereafter the Additional District Magistrate got a proper inquiry from the Tehsildar of the area as well as the Harijan and Social Welfare Officer of the district, who submitted their reports dated 28.11.1988 and 13.12.1988. Based on the same the Additional District Magistrate gave his fresh report on 26.12.1988 certifying that the petitioner belonged to the 'shilpkar' caste.
(3.) NOT being satisfied with the aforesaid contradictory reports, the Corporation again wrote to the District Magistrate to clarify about the caste of the petitioner. In response thereto, the District Magistrate, vide his letter dated 25.10.1989, wrote to the Corporation that regarding the verification of the caste of petitioner, inquiry was made from the concerned Departments, on perusal of which the position relating to the alleged caste of the petitioner appears to be doubtful and it transpires that the petitioner belongs to "badhai" caste. The conclusion arrived at by the District Magistrate, which is in Hindi, is as under : ""� ??� ��� ??� ��� ?�� ?�S��??� �S��� � ?"U ?� ?��� "U�?�� "�U- ?U��� S�� �� ʰ� o���� ??� o? �??� ? �?� � "U�?�� "�U �?� ��� �?ʸ ��� ??� '...?U߸ "ҥU-"" Admittedly, the report was submitted by the District Magistrate without giving any notice to the petitioner or affording him any opportunity. On 11.8.1990 the inquiry report was submitted by the inquiry officer which was primarily based on the aforesaid report dated 25.10.1989 of the District Magistrate. The earlier reports of the Additional District Magistrate were ignored on the ground that the District Magistrate, being a higher authority, his report should be relied upon in preference to the reports of the Additional District Magistrate. The three documents filed by the Corporation in support of the charges were, the charge-sheet dated 22.3.1988 ; report of the Additional District Magistrate dated 4.2.1988 ; and the report of the District Magistrate dated 25.10.1989. The petitioner submitted 18 documents in support of his case. The documents of the petitioner were not considered in the inquiry report on the ground that all of them were of prior to 25.10.1989. The inquiry officer gave his finding that the petitioner did not adduce any evidence to disprove the report of the District Magistrate dated 25.10.1989 and thus held that the charges levelled against him were proved.;