1. Heard Mr. P. Kataki, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The respondent Brahmaputra Valley Fertilizer Corporation Ltd., Namrup (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Management’) is represented by the learned senior counsel Mr. M. Z. Ahmed.

2. The petitioner after due selection was appointed as Tradesman (Instrumentation) in the Corporation on 15.5.1985 at the Namrup-III Project and his service was confirmed in that post on 21.3.1986. The appointee was promoted as Technician Grade-III (Inst.) w.e.f. 31.7.1987 and subsequently he was promoted on 4.12.1995 to the Technician Grade-II cadre. But while securing promotion to the Technician Grade-II cadre, the petitioner was considered against a ST vacancy because of the ST certificate produced by him and while securing promotion 4.12.1995, the petitioner superseded his senior colleague Mr. B.K. Phukan in the General category. Subsequently the petitioner was again promoted as Technician Grade-I on 12.9.2001.

3. On 1.6.2006 (Annexure-XII), the Management issued a charge memo where it was alleged that at the time of his promotion from Technician Grade-III to Technician Grade-II against a ST quota vacancy, the petitioner furnished a false ST certificate although he does not belong to the tribal community and accordingly he was asked to show cause to the charge of misconduct. In his reply dated 7.6.2006 (Annexure-XIII), the petitioner admitted that he belongs to the Ahom (OBC) community but had mistakenly submitted the ST certificate and accordingly he apologied for his lapses and applied for exoneration, to enable him to continue in service. Unsatisfied with the reply, an Enquiry Officer was then appointed. The petitioner participated and pleaded guilty to the charge before the Enquiry Officer. Consequently the charges were found to have been proved in the report dated 12.10.2006 (page 35).

4. The disciplinary authority accepted the inquiry finding and issued the 2nd show cause notice proposing the penalty of dismissal. In his reply dated 21.11.2006, the petitioner applied for leniency by projecting that he cooperated with the disciplinary proceeding and that he secured his initial appointment with the Corporation on merit after due selection as a general category candidate. However through the order dated 18.12.2006 (Annexure-XVIII), the disciplinary authority ordered for dismissal of service under Clause 39(ii)(d) of the Standing Order for the Namrup Unit of the Fertilizer Corporation of India (re-named now as the Brahmaputra Valley Fertilizer Corporation Ltd.).

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner while accepting the charge of misconduct submits that the punishment is disproportionate to the misconduct. Mr. P. Kataki, learned counsel projects that it was the petitioner himself who first informed on 24.8.2001 of being an OBC category person, whereafter the Tribal Employees Association on 11.9.2002 made a complaint to the Management and accordingly it is argued that this factor should have been taken into account by the authorities, while imposing the punishment against the charged employee.

6.1. On the other hand, Mr. M.Z. Ahmed, the learned senior counsel argues that the petitioner secured promotion by furnishing a false ST certificate although he was well aware that he belongs to the Ahom (OBC) community and in this circumstance the Management contends that the punishment is proportionate to the misconduct, as the employee superseded his General category colleagues, while getting undeserved promotion to the Technician Grade-II cadre, in the Corporation.

6.2. The Management’s counsel relies on (2008) 4 SCC 612 (Union of India vs. Dattatray) and (2005) 7 SCC 690 (Bank of India vs. Avinash D. Mandivikar) to argue that when undeserved service benefit is secured by a person with false certificate, he can’t claim equitable relief from Courts in a challenge to a disciplinary proceeding.

7. In the present case, the petitioner by virtue of his misrepresentation sec