Disciplinary removal from service was found to be disproportionate, emphasizing timely verification of caste status and the principle of proportionality in disciplinary actions.

JUDGMENT

Arindam Lodh, J. - Heard Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. Biswanath Majumder, learned CGC appearing for the respondents.

2. The brief facts of the case, are that, the petitioner was appointed as Constable under the respondents in the year 1994. The petitioner was/is a member of Tribal Community recognized in the State of Tripura. The petitioner was removed from his service in the year 2009 by the Revisional Authority vide order dated 29.01.2010 on the allegation that at the time of entry into service, he had produced a forged ST certificate. The background was that, in the year 2007 there was an inquiry about the verification of the documents, the petitioner had submitted at the time of his entry into service in the year 1994. The competent authority of the State i.e. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Agartala had informed the respondents that no such certificate was issued in favour of the petitioner. Simultaneously, the competent authority had made a request to the respondents to ask the petitioner to surrender the ST certificate, which he had produced at the time of his entry into service and to procure a fresh ST certificate by way of submitting fresh application. Accordingly, the petitioner had surrendered the said ST certificate dated 19.03.1991. Thereafter, the SDM, Sadar, who is the competent authority had issued a fresh certificate dated 07.05.2007 declaring the petitioner as a member of Scheduled Tribe Community. After receipt of the said fresh ST certificate, the petitioner had produced the same before the respondents. Thereafter, the respondents herein again verified the said ST certificate when the SDM, Sadar had confirmed the genuinity of the said certificate dated 07.05.2007. Thereafter, a departmental inquiry was initiated against the petitioner by the respondents.

3. During the proceeding of that departmental inquiry, the petitioner has categorically stated that he had no knowledge of that certificate which was obtained by his father. He has also stated that they belonged to tribal community staying in the rural area of the State of Tripura and they are very innocent.

4. It was true that the petitioner belonged to tribal community recognized by State of Tripura and it was proved by issuance of a fresh certificate by the competent authority. After completion of the departmental inquiry, the disciplinary authority imposed punishment. In the final order dated 17.07.2009, the punishment, as declared by the respondents, is as under:

"In view of the above fact the Higher Authority has agreed to the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiring Authority. Accused battalion member at the time of entry into service as Constable he submitted fake ST certificate issued vide No. 1695 F.X 11-2/SDO/SDR/TW/91-92 dated 24.08.1991, although he was really belonged to ST community. The accused battalion member has committed serious offence by submitting fake ST certificate at the time of entry into service."

5. Subsequently, all on a sudden, the petitioner had received a show-cause notice issued by the Revisional Authority, asking him to show-cause as to why the aforesaid punishment of withholding of next increment would not be enhanced and as to why he should not be removed from service.

6. Having received that show-cause notice dated 20.08.2009, the petitioner had submitted a representation on 07.09.2009 but, the Revisional Authority by an order dated 06.10.2009 had rejected the representation of the petitioner and removed him from service. Having dis-satisfied with the said order, the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the appellate authority of the respondents on 29.01.2010. The appellate authority after considering the representation had maintained the order of removal passed by the Revisional Authority. Thereafter, the petitioner had submitted an application seeking some documents but, they were not given. The petitioner had again applied through RTI. Thereafter, the de