Adarsh Kumar Goel, J.

1. This petition seeks quashing of order dated 23.8.2007, Annexure P.9, whereby penalty of removal with superannuation benefits as due without disqualification for future employment, was imposed, which has been affirmed by the appellate authority vide order dated 3.10.2007, Annexure P. 11.

2. Case of the petitioner is that he joined service of the bank as a Messenger on 3.4.1997. On 20.9.2000, his explanation was sought as to why action be not taken for his having not disclosed that he was a Matriculate which was a disqualification for the job. Charge sheet dated 6.3.2001 was issued to him and an Enquiry Officer was appointed on 4.1.2002 who gave his report dated 22.5,2002 in favour of the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer observed that Gazette notification showing that the petitioner passed Matric, was not produced in original and a photo copy of the document could not be relied upon. Reliance was also placed on a DB judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in Prem Lal Sharma V/s. State Bank of India and another, 2000(4) SLR 258. In the said judgment, it was held that qualification of "Under Matric" prescribed was the minimum and there could not be discrimination against the persons possessing higher qualification. Reliance was placed on judgments of the Honble Supreme Court in Y. Srinivasa Rao V/s. J. Geeraish, AIR 1993 SC 929 and H.D. Singh V/s. Reserve Bank of India and others, 1985(4) SCC 201. In Y. Srinivasa Rao (supra), it was held that higher qualification could not be disqualification forgiving of a fair price shop. In HD Singh (supra), order of retrenchment was set aside on the ground that the same was passed without following Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The employer directed holding of de novo enquiry vide order dated 10.10.2002. The petitioner challenged the said order in CWP No. 19434 of 2002, which was allowed by this Court on 17.2.2004 on the ground that option was available for the employer to disagree with the findings of the Enquiry Officer instead of holding of de novo enquiry. The employer served show cause notice dated 21.2.2006 on the petitioner and after considering his reply, passed the impugned order of punishment.

3. Stand of the respondents is that under the rule applicable, qualification prescribed was "8th Class pass but not 10th class pass". The petitioner filed affidavit Annexure R3/2 that he was not 10th Class pass. Later, it was found that the petitioner was 10th class pass from the result of the Punjab School Education Board, Annexure R3/3. This Court in Sukhwinder Singh V/s. State of Punjab and others, 2003(2) SCT101 (P&H)CWP No. 17256 of 2000, decided on 14.2.2003, Annexure R3/1, held that when an employee plays a fraud by furnishing a false affidavit, he could not be given any benefit. Same view was taken in Dhani Ram Chaudhary V/s. State ofHaryana, 2005(1) SCT 571 (P&H). and Kerala Solvent Extractions Limited V/s. A. Unnikrishnan and another, 1994 LLJ (SC) 888, 2006(13) SCC 619.

4. While issuing notice of motion on 25.9.2007, operation of the impugned order was stayed and thus, the petitioner appears to be continuing in service.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the charge of concealment of furnishing false affidavit was not established as neither the affidavit of the petitioner, copy of which was produced as Annexure R3/2 was produced in original nor the Gazette showing that the petitioner had passed 10th, copy of which was Annexure R3/3, had been produced in original. He also submitted that passing of Matriceven if established, could not be taken against the petitioner as it will amount to discrimination against a person holding higher qualification which could not be sustained.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that laying down of a qualification was a managerial function of the Bank, which could not be interfered with unless th