The learned Single Judge also directed the Tehsildar to companyduct an enquiry to ascertain whether respondent No.1 belonged to scheduled caste category or number.
When the said appeal was pending before the Division Bench, the Tehsildar, in companypliance with the order of the learned Single Judge, after hearing the respondent No.1, had passed the order holding that respondent No.1 was number a scheduled caste, but it was held that respondent No.1 belonged to Baandhi companymunity which was a backward class.The order of termination was challenged by way of a writ petition filed by respondent No.1.
A learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court had allowed the said writ petition and quashed the termination order and directed the reinstatement of respondent No.1 without any companysequential benefits such as payment of back wages.
By a subsequent order, it was clarified that the Bank was free to take whatever action on the basis of the enquiry to be companyducted by the Tehsildar on the question of caste certificate of the respondent No.1.
The respondent No.1 had challenged the aforesaid order by filing an appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court in so far as it denied him companysequential relief of back wages.
The services of respondent No.1 was terminated on the ground that he had secured employment in reserved category by producing a false caste certificate.
TARUN CHATTERJEE, J. Leave granted.
Respondent No.1 Damodhar Govind Idoorkar was an employee of the appellant Canara Bank.
