JUDGMENT :

ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA, J.

1. Heard Mr. T.C. Chutia, learned counsel for the appellants and Ms. M. Hazarika, learned senior counsel for the respondent No. 1 Smt. Bornali Tamuli. It is noticed that the respondent No. 2 is the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam in the WP T&BC Department, respondent No. 3 is the Assam Public Service Commission, respondent No. 4 is the Principal Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Personnel (B) Department, respondent No. 5 is the Commissioner, Central Assam Division and the respondent No. 6 is the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. In other words, all the respondents other than respondent No. 3 are various officials under the Government of Assam. The appeal is instituted by the State of Assam through the Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Co-operation Department. Considering the incongruity as indicated above, we deem that this is a writ appeal by the State of Assam represented by the Chief Secretary instead of it being through only the Co-operation department. Mr. T.J. Mahanta, learned senior counsel has represented the respondent No. 3 Assam Public Service Commission (APSC).

2. The respondent No. 1 Smt. Bornali Tamuli who is a person otherwise of the general category, married to Sri Mridul Kumar Borah in the year 1992, where Sri Mridul Kumar Borah belong to the Schedule Caste community. On the strength of her marriage with Sri Mridul Kumar Borah, the respondent No. 1 was issued a Schedule Caste certificate as per the certificate No. 4218 dated 20.08.1996 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Nagaon. The respondent No. 1 appeared in the combined competitive examination of the year 1998-99 conducted by the APSC as a Schedule Caste candidate, wherein the aforesaid certificate dated 20.08.1996 was relied upon. In the combined competitive examination, the respondent No. 1 was selected on merit as a Schedule Caste candidate and on the basis of such selection by the APSC she was appointed as an Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies in the Co-operation Department of the Government of Assam. Later on, various complaints were received by the authorities in the Government of Assam that under the law the respondent No. 1 is not entitled to the benefit of a Schedule Caste certificate and therefore, she could not have appeared in the combined competitive examination as a Schedule Caste candidate.

3. The complaints resulted in certain process being undertaken by the Cooperation Department of the Government of Assam which resulted in a satisfaction being arrived at that under the law, the respondent No. 1 Smt. Bornali Tamuli is not entitled to the benefits of the law of reservation to be employed on the strength of the Schedule Caste certificate dated 20.08.1996. It is stated that in the meantime, the Schedule Caste certificate dated 20.08.1996 issued to the respondent No. 1 Smt. Bornali Tamuli had been cancelled.

4. In the aforesaid conspectus of facts, a proceeding under Rule 9 of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 (in short Rules of 1964) was initiated against the respondent No. 1 as per the show-cause notice dated 22.04.2010 of the Secretary to the government of Assam in the Co-operation Department. The allegation of misconduct against the respondent No. 1 in the said disciplinary proceeding was that the respondent No. 1 by concealing certain actual prevailing fact had submitted false documents to get a caste certificate from the office of the Deputy Commissioner and had used such certificate to enter into Government service under the law of reservation.

5. The proceeding resulted in the order dated 19.12.2015 of the Principal Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Co-operation Department. The Principal Secretary in the order dated 19.12.2015 had given its consideration to the disciplinary proceeding initiated against the respondent No. 1, took note of the report of the state enquiry officer on the allegation against the respondent