- (1.) Challenge in this writ application is to the order dated 31.07.2004 (Annexure-39) passed by the Respondent No. 2, Managing Director and the order dated 12.10.2004 (Annexure-41) passed by the Respondent No. 3, Chairman (SAIL), whereby the petitioner's services were terminated.
(2.) The facts of the petitioner's case in brief is as follows: The petitioner was appointed as Management Trainee (Administration) under the Respondent No. 1. After having rendered continuous service for more than fifteen and half years, he was served with the chargesheet, on the charge that in his original application for recruitment as Management Trainee, he had furnished a false information, claiming himself to belong to the scheduled caste category and on such misrepresentation, had succeeded in gaining his appointment in the reserved category. A departmental proceeding was initiated, which was challenged by the petitioner, vide a writ application filed by him before this Court. The writ application was disposed of by a Single Bench giving liberty to the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy. The petitioner thereafter filed an appeal against the oder of the Single Judge, but subsequently, withdrew the appeal. Later, at the conclusion of the departmental proceeding, he was found guilty of the charge. After offering him opportunity to explain, as to why he should not be punished with termination of service and after receiving his explanations, the impugned order of termination of service, was passed. Against the impugned order of the Managing Director, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Respondent No. 3, the Chairman (SAIL), who, vide the impugned order (Annexure-41), dismissed the appeal of the petitioner.
(3.) Learned senior counsel, Shri Baban Lal, appearing for the petitioner, has assailed both the impugned orders on the following grounds: (i) The impugned order has been passed in a most arbitrary, illegal and perverse manner, without appreciating the petitioner's case in proper perspective. (ii) Undisputedly, even though the petitioner had indicated in his application that he belongs to the scheduled caste category, he had also declared in his application that he belongs to the 'TELI' community and had also annexed the caste certificate issued to him by the competent authority of the State Government. In the letter issued by the respondents, by which the petitioner was called upon to appear at the interview, it was stipulated that the result of the interview would be subject to the verification of the caste certificate. The petitioner had faced the interview and later, he was given his appointment letter, in which also it was declared that his joining on the post, pursuant to the appointment letter, would be subject to the verification of his caste certificate. The petitioner was allowed to join thereafter and to continue to discharge his duties on the post offered to him for more than fifteen and half years.;