1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2979 OF 2007 Yuvraj S/o Kadu Pawar .. .. Petitioner Versus 01. The Union of India and another .. .. Respondents Shri S. R. Barlinge, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri Alok Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General of India for Respondent No. 1. Shri D. R. Kale, A.G.P. for the Respondent No. 2. CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL, AND N. D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 31ST MARCH, 2010. ORDER [Per N. D. DESHPANDE, J. ] : 01. Heard both sides. 02. The petitioner above named by this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeks to challenge the impugned 2 order of his dismissal dated 04.01.2007 issued by respondent No. 1/Union of India by writ of mandamus, so also by writ of certiorari for quashing communication dated 22.07.2005 issued by the Tahsildar, Jalgaon to respondent No. 2. 3. The Material relavant facts can be stated as under : The petitioner came to be appointed as a constable in Central Reserve Police Force (for short CRPF) on 07.09.2001 on the foot of caste certificate as Tokare Koli (Scheduled Tribe) to which he allegedly belong. The impugned certificate he had received on 19.07.1989 from the office of the Executive Magistrate, Jalgaon. He continued his service till January 2007 i. e. for near about 6 years and came to be dismissed from service vide impugned order dated 04.01.2007. The petitioner further stated that while he was in service as constable in CRPF, in the year 2005, respondent No. 1 without any notice to the petitioner after holding summary inquiry came to be dismissed from the service vide the impugned order. It was "bolt from blue". Said order of dismissal is also under challenge in this petition. The petitioner contended that the impugned order of dismissal came to be passed pursuant to certain inquiry made by the respondent No. 1 with the office of Executive Magistrate, Jalgaon regarding 3 the correctness of Scheduled Tribe certificate issued to the petitioner. The Tahsildar, Jalgaon vide his letter dated 22.07.2005 informed to the respondent No. 1 that there is no entry in respect of the alleged certificate of the petitioner found in the register maintained for issuance of caste certificate. It prompted respondent No. 1 to hold a summary enquiry and the impugned order of dismissal dated 04.01.2007 came to be passed. The respondent No. 1 also directed Additional D.I.G., Talegaon, Pune to initiate criminal proceeding against the petitioner and two others by letter dated 03.10.2007, for they had fraudulently obtained employment on the basis of forged/false and fake caste certificate. 4. In short, respondent No.2 negatived the petitioner’s caste claim as "Tokre Koli". The petitioner has challenged the whole process alleging that no notice of hearing or opportunity of hearing was given to him and he was not heard when his caste claim was being considered. Petitioner strongly condemned the authority for giving decision against him without following due procedure. 5. We have perused affidavit-in-reply of respondent 4 No.1. It was admitted that the Executive Magistrate, Jalgaon was requested to verify the issuance of the impugned certificate to the petitioner but they did not find any entry in the register maintained for issuance of caste certificates in the name of the petitioner. Respondent No.1 ordered summary inquiry and held petitioner guilty. It is seen that during the course of hearing sufficient opportunity of hearing and cross-examination was given to him to make statement or to call witnesses in defence during ROE (recording of evidence). During the summary trial punishment of dismissal from the service was ordered after giving the petitioner full opportunity. The said dismissal is on the basis of misconduct and false declaration about caste on the basis of false and forged document/a caste certificate. 6. After hearing both the sides and upon consideration of the record, affidavit and in the light of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the petitioner has not made out prima facie case. On the contrary, the case of misconduct and false declaration is proved on the basis of preponderance of probabilities and the dismissal of petitioner from service is fully justified despite his service tenure of 06 5 years. 7. The authorities concerned have held preliminary enquiry and it was found that the said subject caste certificate was not issued by the authorities. This being a serious matter and the petitioner was working with Central Reserve Police Force, the employer took abundent precaution and decided to take stern action. We do not notice any inherent lack of authority in the view adopted by the employer. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment delivered by the Division Bench of this Court (Coram : Dr. S. Radhakrishnan & N. V. Dabholkar, JJ.) in Writ Petition No. 6300 of 2007, dated 28th March, 2008. We have perused the same. 9. In the facts of the case, we find that the petitioner could not establish that the caste certificate was issued by the concerned office. In view of the glaring facts, the employer decided to take action. It cannot be forgotten that the petitioner was discharging the duties in the Central Reserve Police Force, which requires total honesty and complete dedication to the 6 work. We do not find that the employer committed serious error in taking action against the petitioner. Considering all these factors, we have dealt with this case. 10. In exercise of extra ordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, we are not inclined to entertain the petition and grant reliefs to the petitioner as prayed for. Writ petition is dismissed. [ N. D. DESHPANDE, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] bsb/Mar.10