MANJU GOEL, J.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition seeks quashing of orders dated 14. 9. 2000, 7. 2. 2001 and 6. 11. 2001 whereby the petitioner was removed from his service with the respondent and his appeal and revision were dismissed by the appellate authority.

( 2 ) THE petitioner was a muster roll employee on daily wages being appointed on 15. 5:1984 by the Chief Engineer (Slum), Delhi Development authority (in short 'dda' ). Subsequently on account of regularization of the employees of the muster roll the petitioner was appointed for the temporary post of work-charged establishment in the pay scale of Rs. 800-15-1010-EB-20-1150 with all other service benefits. At the time he was regularized he was required to file essential documents including school leaving certificate etc. The petitioner produced a school leaving certificate issued by the Principal, SGTB Khalsa Boys Senior Secondary School, Dev nagar, Delhi and a caste certificate issued by the SDM, Karol Bagh. Subsequently it was discovered by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 that the school leaving certificate was bogus and the caste certificate had been acquired by furnishing wrong information to the office of SDM. A charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner and during the enquiry that followed the petitioner admitted the charge of producing false and bogus certificates regarding his caste and educational qualification. Thereafter a notice to show cause was issued suggesting removal of the petitioner from service. The petitioner was thereafter removed from service. His appeal and subsequently his review application were also rejected. Hence the writ petition.

( 3 ) IT is contended on behalf of the petitioner that although the petitioner has produced two false/fake certificates that should not have been treated as such a grave misconduct as to remove him from service. It is submitted that the punishment to remove was so utterly disproportionate to the misconduct that it shocks the conscience of the court. It is contended that neither the caste certificate nor the educational certificate were at all material for the employment of the petitioner who was only to be appointed as a work-charged employee without the benefits of future promotion etc. According to the petitioner's counsel no minimum qualification for the job nor any caste certificate were at all required for converting the petitioner from muster roll to a regularized work-charged employee.

( 4 ) ON behalf of the respondents it is submitted that the offence was grave enough to invite the punishment of dismissal. Two judgments have been cited by the respondents. The first judgment is of Kendriya vidyalaya Sangathan v. Ram Ratan Yadav, AIR 2003 SC 1709 in which the petitioner had submitted incorrect informations and had taken the plea that he did not understand the question which was in English. The Supreme court disbelieved this theory of the petitioner not understanding English and therefore giving wrong information. The second plea of that petitioner was that the concealment was about pendency of a criminal proceeding and that the offence in which the petitioner was involved did not involve moral turpitude and, therefore, were not of any consequence in appointment. The supreme Court's opinion on the aspect of the importance of the mis-declaration or suppression was as under:

"12. The object of requiring information in columns 12 and 13 of the attestation form and certification thereafter by the candidate was to ascertain and verify the character and antecedents to judge his suitability to continue in service. A candidate having suppressed material information and/or giving false information cannot claim right to continue in service. The employer having regard to the nature of the employment and all other aspects had discretion to terminate his services, which is made expressly clear in para 9 of the offer of appointment. The purpose of seeking information as per columns 12 and 13 was not to find out either the nature or gra