JUDGMENT :

A.V. Sesha Sai, J.

1. Heard Sri S. Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri N. Harinath, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India for the respondents.

2. Challenge in the Writ Petition is to the order dated 23.07.2005 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”), Hyderabad Bench, in O.A.No.154 of 2002. Unsuccessful applicant in the aforesaid Original Application is the petitioner in the present Writ Petition.

3. The applicant-petitioner herein was initially appointed as a Lower Division Clerk in Naval Dock Yard, Visakhapatnam in the year 1978 and initially he was posted against a causal vacancy. Subsequently, in the year 1982, the services of the applicant-petitioner were regularized in the said category. Obviously, on a complaint received by the respondent-organization, the respondent-organization addressed a letter bearing No.CE/2721/SSN/LDC, dated 19.02.1991 to the District Collectors of Visakhapatnam and Vizianagaram Districts, requesting them to verify and to submit a report with regard to social status of the applicant-petitioner. In response to the said letter, the District Collector, Visakhapatnam, vide letter bearing D/Dist/No.2121/91/TW, dated 28.10.1992, informed the respondent-authorities that the enquiry revealed that the petitioner belongs to “Koppulavelama”, backward community, but not “Kammara” Scheduled Tribe. The District Collector, Vizianagaram, vide letter D/Dis. No.1662/91/C7, dated 28.01.1993 informed the respondent-authorities that the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kothavalasa Mandal, reported that there is no such person by name Sabbavarapu Sanyasi Naidu, S/o Samudram in Ganisettipalem of Kothavalasa Mandal and there are no “Konda Kapu” people in the village and there are no families of surname as “Sabbavarapu” in the said village. Obviously, basing on the said letters received from the office of the District Collectors, Visakhapatnam and Vizianagaram, the General Manager, vide Memorandum No.VAE/1111/C/Major/SSEN, dated 20.04.1993 issued charge memo, framing the following two Articles of charge:

“Article-I: That the said Sri Sanyasi Naidu, Lower Division Clerk of Naval Armament Depot, Visakhapatnam did falsely claim him social status as “Kammara” scheduled tribe at the time of his recruitment/ appointment to the post of LDC although he belongs to “Koppalavelama” backward community and secured the said job under Eastern Naval Command, Visakhapatnam with effect from 20 May 78 against the vacancy reserved for scheduled tribe.

By the above said act Sri Sanyasi Naidu, sought and secured the government employment against the vacancy reserved for Scheduled Tribe by fraudulent means.

Article-II: That the said Sri Sanyasi Naidu, Lower Division Clerk while functioning as Lower Division Clerk under the Eastern Naval Command, Visakhapatnam did furnish false information at serial number 9(b) of Attestation from dated 05 Jun 78 to the effect that he belongs to “Kammara” Scheduled Tribe whereas, he actually belongs to “Koppalavelama” Backward Community.

By the above said act Sri Sanyasi Naidu, Lower Division Clerk exhibited conduct unbecoming of a government Servant and thereby violated rule 3(1)(iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and also contravened the warning contained in the attestation form.”

4. According to the petitioner, responding to the said charge memo, he submitted his explanation on 11.05.1993. Thereafter, regular enquiry was initiated by appointing an enquiry officer, who submitted a report on 11.01.2001 holding that the charge framed against the petitioner stood proved. The disciplinary authority, after receipt of the report of the enquiry officer, issued a show-cause notice, enclosing a copy of the enquiry officer’s report to the petitioner. In response to the same, the petitioner herein submitted an explanation on 05.02.2001, denying the charges and petitioner eventually requested the disciplinary authority to drop further action in the matte