D.P. Kundu, J. - (1.) The writ petitioner was an employee of Garden Reach Shipbuilders and Engineers Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as GRSE). A departmental enquiry was initiated against him on the ground that he had committed acts unbecoming of an officer of GRSE, which amounted to and constituted misconduct under sub-rule (4) of Rule 5 and sub-rule (20) of Rule 5 of the Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, (for short CDR) of GRSE. The allegations against the writ petitioner were- "(i) that you had obtained appointed and subsequent promotions in the Company taking advantage for your being S. C. candidate; (ii) that on verification of your caste certificate, it reveals that the "Mahishya" community that you belong to and declared by you to be SC community, is not included in the Scheduled Caste List and also the authority who had issued you the Caste Certificate is not competent to issue such certificate, as per the Government of India instructions; (iii) that you were advised vide our letter No. PERS/OS/Int/70/94 dated 18-3-94 and letter No. PERS/OS/Int/88/94 dated 11-4-94 to produce the Caste Certificate from the Competent Authority which you did not submit; (iv) that it appears you had taken entry into the services of the Company and obtained privileges, dishonestly furnishing false information in regard to your belonging to S. C. community;" An inquiry was conducted in respect of the aforesaid charges against the petitioner and the petitioner was found guilty of the charges and ultimately by an order dated 27th September, 1995 the petitioner was dismissed from service of GRSE with immediate effect. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of dismissal, the petitioner preferred a representation to the Chairman and Managing Director of GRSE. The said representation was rejected by the Chairman and Managing Director of GRSE. Thereafter by a notice dated 25-11-95 the petitioner was asked to show cause why his gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 should not be forfeited. The petitioner pursuant to the said show cause dated 25-11-95 by his reply dated 14-12- 95 showed cause but the cause shown by the petitioner was not accepted and by a letter dated 13-3-96 the petitioner was communicate that because of the gravity and nature of the proved misconduct of the petitioner, GRSE had decided that his gratuity would be wholly forfeited.
(2.) The writ petitioner initiated the present writ proceeding challenging the charge-sheet dated 11-5-95 (Annexure 'E' of the writ application), enquiry report dated 22-6-95 (Annexure 'G' of the writ application), second show cause notice dated 11-8-95 (Annexure 'H' of the writ application), the order of dismissal dated 27-9-95 (Annexure 'I' of the writ application) and the order dated 12-3-96 (Annexure 'J' of the writ application) forfeiting the whole gratuity of the petitioner.
(3.) The learned Advocate for the petitioner argued that in the notice inviting application (Annexure 'A' of the writ application) for the post of Assistant Stores Officer, it was not mentioned that the post was reserved for Scheduled Caste. He argued, therefore, declaration made by the writ petitioner in his application to the effect that he belonged to Scheduled Caste community for initial appointment in GRSE could not be considered as a misconduct committed by him. It is true that in the notice inviting application for the post of Assistant Stores Officer it was not stated that the vacancy was reserved for Scheduled Caste. But it was clearly mentioned in the said notice "Relaxation of experience/qualifications and reservation of vacancies for SC/ST com munities will be as per Government Rules. SC/ ST candidates should made specific mention in their application that they belong to SC/ST". (Emphasis added). It appears from the Bio-Data submitted by the petitioner along with the application for his appointment to the post of Assistant Stores Officer that he, in his Bio-Data, categorically stated that he belongs to Scheduled Caste community. The relevant part of the Bio Data reads as follows : JUDGEMENT_29_LAWS(CAL)9_1999.html The case of the GRSE is that after scrutiny of the applications seven candidates including the petitioner were called for interview and out of these seven candidates only four candidates including the petitioner appeared for interview on 5th December, 1980. The interview board found the petitioner suitable for appointment for the post of Assistant Stores Officer. The Secretary of GRSE recorded a remark that there had been acute shortage of candidate belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes with requisite qualifications and experience and in fact scheduled castes/scheduled tribes candidates, in accordance with the Government policy, ace entitled to relaxation in age, qualifications and experience. It is the case of.GRSE that accordingly the petitioner, on being considered as a scheduled caste candidate was selected, although he was young and not very experienced. The learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that since there was no mention that the post was reserved for scheduled caste in the notice inviting applications and since the notice inviting applications related to only one post of Assistant Stores Officer, the said one post of Assistant Stores Officer could neither be reserved for scheduled caste nor be filled up by a candidate only on the consideration that he belonged to scheduled caste community. The learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that therefore the petitioner did not commit any misconduct by describing himself as a person belonging to scheduled caste community, in his bio-data. In support of his contention that a single post cannot be kept reserved for Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community, the learned Advocate for the writ petitioner referred to and relied upon (i) Dr. Chakradhar Paswan v. State of Bihar reported at AIR 1988 SC 959 : (1988 Lab IC 619 ) and (ii) Indra Sawhney v. Union of India reported at AIR 1993 SC 477 : (1993 Lab IC 129 ) learned advocate submitted that the statement made by the writ petitioner declaring him as a person belonging to the Scheduled Caste community is nothing but a pure mistake and the certificate produced by him in support of his claim was a mistake committed by a judicial officer. The learned Advocate for the petitioner argued that the mistake committed by the petitioner describing him as a person belonging to the Scheduled Caste community in his bio-data was principally based upon the certificate issued by the judicial officer. It was.argued that due to the mistake committed by the judicial officer by certifying that the petitioner belonged to "Mahishya" community recognised as a Scheduled Caste in the State of West Bengal, the petitioner also committed mistake.;