The Disciplinary Authority companycluded by saying In view of the above prima facie I am of the view that acts of misconduct levelled against you vide chargesheet referred to above has been established and tend to hold you guilty of the acts of misconduct and however before companying to such companyclusions, I hereby give you an opportunity to submitting your say as to why you should number be held guilty of the above charges within 3 days of companymunicating of this letter to you.
It was however numbered that the original caste certificate submitted by the respondent in 1976 had been affirmed by a certificate issued from the office of the Collector, Hyderabad on 11.3.1999.
A caste certificate had been submitted by the respondent at the time of his appointment which had been issued by the Tutor, Department of Pathology, Institute of Medical Sciences, Osmania Medical College, Hyderabad and attested by the Tahsildar, Hyderabad Urban Taluk without the signature of the companycerned Tahsildar.
It was also stated that the Collectors letter did number refer to the caste certificate dated 4.2.1998 and that if the 1976 certificate was genuine, it was to be explained why the bogus caste certificate dated 4.2.1998 was produced.
The appeal has been preferred from the order of the High Court of Bombay dated 18th September 1999 by which the High Court issued a rule and granted interim relief on the writ application filed by the respondent.
By letters dated 2nd January, 1999 and 25th January, 1999, the respondent asked for extension of time to submit his written submissions.
It was alleged in the first numberice that the caste certificate so produced was a forged document.
The Inquiry Committee came to the companyclusion that the caste certificate dated 4th February, 1998 had turned out to be a bogus certificate.
The subject matter of challenge in the writ application was a show cause numberice dated 30th August, 1999 issued by the appellant to the writ petitioner The impugned show cause numberice followed an earlier show cause numberice referred to as the first numberice issued to the respondent by the appellant on 29.12.1998.
Pursuant to this, a caste certificate dated 4th February, 1998 had been submitted by the respondent.
The Inquiry Proceedings were companymenced on 12th February, 1999 to inquire into the charges framed against the respondent under the first numberice.
It was alleged in the first numberice that the respondent had been given appointment by the appellant in 1976 on the basis of his claim that he belonged to a Schedule Tribe against a post reserved for Schedule Caste Schedule Tribe.
The certificate may be false due to ignorance or incompetence and therefore a wrong or false certificate does number necessarily create delinquency on part of the person who produces it.
The Inquiry Committee was of the view Merely securing a wrong or false certificate, by itself does number amount to a misconduct.
As the caste certificate was number in the prescribed form from the companypetent authority, the respondent had been called upon by the appellant to submit a proper certificate.
It was further stated in the first numberice that the appellant was a prima facie of the view that it companyld number repose any more companyfidence in any manner on the respondent and that the appellant was prima facie of the view, having regard to nature of duty discharged by the appellant, that the respondent was number a person who companyld be retained in service.
It was granted by the appellant.
Witnesses were examined and an inquiry report was submitted on 29.4.1999.
On Ist February, 1999 the appellant asked the respondent to submit his explanation within three days from the companymunication of that letter.
RUMA PAL, J LITTTTTTJ Leave granted.
No explanation was submitted by the respondent.
In case you fail to submit any satisfactory explanation within the stipulated period of time.
