JUDGMENT : P.C. Misra, J. - The Petitioner, an employee of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (for short, 'the Corporation'), has prayed in this writ petition to quash Annexure-12, the order dated 14-9-1981 passed by the Managing Director-opposite party No. 1 imposing on him the penalty of removal from the service of the Corporation, and Annexure-18, the appellate order dated 3-3-1982 passed by the Chairman-opposite party No. 2 confirming the said imposition of penalty on the Petitioner. 2. The Petitioner was first appointed as an Organizer in the Bombay Life Insurance Company Limited in the year 1949 and was confirmed in the said post in the year 1951. Consequent upon an enactment of the Parliament in the year 1956, the Corporation came into existence whereafter the private Life Insurance Companies, including the Bombay Life Insurance Company Limited, were merged in the Corporation. Upon the merger, the services of the employees working under the private Life Insurance Companies were transferred to the Corporation whereafter they became the employees of the Corporation. The services of the Petitioner being thus transferred, he was designated as the Field Officer in the Corporation and the said post was further redesignated as the Development Officer. The date of birth of the Petitioner was noted as 22-1-1922 in his service particulars maintained by the Bombay Life Insurance Company Limited where he was previously serving and after the merger, the Petitioner was called upon to submit the certificate in support of his date of birth. The Petitioner submitted the original of the Senior Cambridge School Certificate Standard Examination conducted and issued by the National College of Learning, Banaras, pursuant to the direction of the Corporation in the year 1960 which was duly verified by the concerned authorities of the Corporation and the original certificate was returned to the Petitioner retaining an attested true copy thereof in the personal file of the Petitioner, the Petitioner has annexed the said certificate to this writ petition as Annexure-I. The Petitioner was promoted in the year 1971 to the Class-I post of Publicity Officer and in the year 1974 he was transferred to a similar Class-I post as the Assistant Branch Manager, Development. He was further promoted to the post of Branch Manager, Keonjhar, in the year 1978. He was further promoted to the post of Branch Manager, Keonjhar, in the year 1978. It has been alleged in the writ petition that in the year 1974 the Zonal Office of the Corporation at Calcutta once again insisted upon verification of the age of the Petitioner in response to which he intimated the said office that the relevant document was in his personal file which might be referred to for the purpose. It is stated that the Zonal Office being satisfied about the age of the Petitioner as per the certificate in Annexure-I, recorded his date of birth to be 22-1-1922 in the service records of the Petitioner maintained in the Zonal Office. It has been alleged by the Petitioner that he received a charge-sheet-cum-show cause notice dated 14-10-1980 as per Annexure-4 issued by the Managing Director of the Corporation-opposite party No. 1 calling upon him to show cause within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of the notice as to why the proposed penalty of removal from service would not be imposed on him on the allegations that the certificate produced by the Petitioner was not from a recognised institution for which he was guilty for failure to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty, for failure to serve the Corporation honestly and faithfully, and for acting in a manner prejudicial to good conduct thereby violating the provisions of Regulations 21, 24, and 39(1) of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 (for short, 'the Staff Regulations'). The charge-sheet-cum-show cause notice in Annexure-4 contains the narration of events relating to the verification of the age of the Petitioner wherein it was stated that in the year 1960 and in the year 1974 the authorities recorded the actual date of birth of the Petitioner to be 22-1-1922 on the basis of an entry made in the Senior Cambridge School Certificate Standard Examination. But later on it came to light that the institution which granted the aforesaid certificate was neither recognised by the Government nor its examinations were recognised by the Board of High Schools and Intermediate Education, U.P. Allahabad. It was also alleged in Annexure-4 that the Petitioner had knowingly produced a document before the authorities with the sole purpose of getting his date of birth admitted. It was also alleged in Annexure-4 that the Petitioner had knowingly produced a document before the authorities with the sole purpose of getting his date of birth admitted. The Petitioner showed his cause vide Annexure-5 refuting the charges made against him and contending that the notice in Annexure-4 was in the nature of a second show cause notice which should have been preceded by an enquiry as postulated in Regulation 39 of the Staff Regulations and at any rate, the charges made in the notice did not constitute any contravention of Regulations 21, 24 and 39(1) of the Staff Regulations. It was also stated in the cause shown that the Petitioner had never madeany representation that the National College of Learning at Banaras which granted the certificate in Annexure-1 was recognised by the Government or the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P. and for any reason, the same was not acceptable to the authorities, any other procedure for ascertaining and verifying the age of the Petitioner could have been adopted. According to the Petitioner, he had never done anything to mislead the authorities in the matter of acceptance or the date of birth as mentioned in Annexure-I. On receipt of the cause shown by the Petitioner in Annexure-5, the Petitioner was asked by the Corporations Central Office at Bombay to make over the original of the Senior Cambridge School Certificate Standard Examination issued by the National College of Learning, Banaras, to the Divisional Manager of the Corporation at Cuttack vide Annexure-6 which was duly complied with by the Petitioner. It has been alleged that an Enquiry Officer was appointed to go into the charges made against the Petitioner. The grievance of the Petitioner is that he had filed an application in Annexure-7 before the Enquiry Officer to the effect that the materials on the basis of which the charges were framed be supplied to him and another application in Annexure-7(a) praying therein to allow him to be represented by a lawyer. But no order was passed on any of those applications. The Petitioner also took objection to the non-compliance of the directions of the Enquiry Officer by the presenting Officer to disclose the documents relied upon by him and also for supply of the copies of the documents to the Petitioner. But no order was passed on any of those applications. The Petitioner also took objection to the non-compliance of the directions of the Enquiry Officer by the presenting Officer to disclose the documents relied upon by him and also for supply of the copies of the documents to the Petitioner. The enquiry, according to the Petitioner, was conducted in a perfunctory manner and on the basis of the enquiry report, a second show cause notice dated 17-7-1981 was issued to the Petitioner vide Annexure-9 by the Managing Director-cum-Disciplinary Authority proposing the punishment of removal from the service of the Corporation which was confirmed by the Managing Director in Annexure-12 without considering the cause shown by the Petitioner in Annexure 11. The Petitioner thereafter preferred an appeal before the Chairman of the Corporation, namely, the Appellate Authority, which was rejected by order dated 3-3-1982 in Annexure-18. The Petitioner has, therefore, prayed in this writ application to quash the orders in Annexures 12 and 18. 3. In order to appreciate the contentions of the Petitioner, it is necessary to quote Regulations 21, 24 and 39(1)(f), (2) and (3) of the Staff Regulations which are as follows: 21. Every employee of the Corporation shall at all times maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty, shall conform to and abide by these Regulations and shall observe, comply with and obey all orders and directions which may, from time to time, be given to him in the course of his official duties by any person or persons under whose jurisdiction, superintendence or control he may, for the time being, be placed. 24. Every employee shall serve the Corporation honestly and faithfully and shall use his utmost endeavours to promote the interest of the Corporation and shall show courtesy and attention in all transactions. 39. (1) Without prejudice to the provisions of other regulations, anyone or more of the following penalties for good and sufficient reasons, and as hereinafter provided, be imposed by the disciplinary authority specified in Schedule I on an employee who commits a breach of regulations of the Corporation, or who displays negligence, inefficiency or indolence or who knowingly does anything detrimental to the interest of the Corporation, or conflicting with the instructions or who commits a breach of discipline, or is guilty of any other act prejudicial to good conduct. (a).... (b).... (c).... (d).... (e).... (a).... (b).... (c).... (d).... (e).... (f) removal from service which shall not be a disqualification for future employment. (2) No order imposing on an employee any of the penalties specified in Clauses (b) to (g) of Sub-regulation (1) supra, shall be passed by the disciplinary authorities specified in Schedule I without the charge or charges being communicated to him in writing and without him having been given a reasonable opportunity of defending himself against such charge or charges and of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken against him. (3) The disciplinary authority empowered to impose any of the penalties (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), or (g) may itself enquire into such of the charges as are not admitted or if it considers it necessary so to do, appoint a board of enquiry or an enquiry officer for the purpose. In the charge-sheet-cum-show cause notice in Annexure-4, the narration of the facts goes to the extent of alleging that the Petitioner had submitted a certificate from the National College of Learning, Banaras, for the purpose of admitting his date of birth. Later on the authorities in the Corporation found that the aforesaid institution was neither recognised by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P., Allahabad, nor the Government. On the basis of the said allegations, charges were framed against the Petitioner that he had purposely misled the Corporation in admitting his date of birth and qualification in the service records by means of a document purporting to have been issued by an institution which was not recognised by the competent authority in this behalf and thus, the Petitioner was guilty for failure to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and for failure to serve the Corporation honestly and faithfully, and for acting in a manner prejudicial to good conduct expected of him. A close scrutiny of Annexure-I would go to suggest that the examination for which the certificate was granted is equivalent in standard to Matriculation examination and that the National College of Learning which granted the certificate does not purport to be under any of the Universities in the State. The National College of Learning is not mentioned to be a recognised one either by, the State or by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P., Allahabad. The National College of Learning is not mentioned to be a recognised one either by, the State or by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P., Allahabad. It has already been stated that the said certificate in Annexure-1 was the subject-matter of verification in the years 1960 and 1974 by the concerned authorities in the Corporation and on both these occasions, the certificate was accepted as the basis for verifying and recording the date of birth of the Petitioner. We fail to understand in what manner the Petitioner misled the Corporation in the matter of acceptance of the certificate produced by him. It is not the case of the Corporation nor it was alleged at any time that the certificate in Annexure-I was a spurious document forged for the purpose. It has rather been admitted that an educational institution is running in the name and style of National College, of Learning, Banaras, which granted the certificate to the Petitioner clearly mentioning that the said examination was equivalent to Matriculation examination. No query was made from the Petitioner either in 1960 or in 1974 as to whether the National College of Learning, Banaras, was a recognised institution nor the Petitioner was asked to substantiate his date of birth by any other alternative authentic records. The Petitioner was not appointed by the Corporation but his services were transferred from the private Insurance Company pursuant to the creation of the Corporation by an Act of the Parliament. His previous service record maintained in the private Insurance Company, i.e. the Bombay Life Insurance Company Ltd., recorded his date of birth to be the same as is found in the certificate in Annexure-1 on the basis of the horo-scope and the Petitioner appears to have done nothing during his continuance as an employee under the Corporation for acceptance of the date of birth except producing the said certificate as and when called upon to do so. In our considered view, assuming the entire narration Annexure-4 to be correct, we do not find that the Petitioner is guilty of misleading the authorities in the Corporation in the matter of acceptance of his date of birth as previously recorded in his service record. 4. In our considered view, assuming the entire narration Annexure-4 to be correct, we do not find that the Petitioner is guilty of misleading the authorities in the Corporation in the matter of acceptance of his date of birth as previously recorded in his service record. 4. The learned Counsel appearing for the opposite parties has invited our attention to the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Verification of Date of Birth of Employees) Instructions, 1970 (for short, 'the Instructions') issued by the Chairman of the Corporation under Regulation 4 of the Staff Regulations. The Instructions (Annexure-6) deal with verification of date of birth of the employees of the Corporation. Clause 7(a) of the Instructions provides that where an entry has been made on the basis of the listed document after the date of issue of these Instructions and there is reason to believe that the document relied on did not record the correct date of birth of the employee or in any case where the date of birth is deemed to have been entered by virue of Clause 4(3) of the Instructions, the competent authority may call for or procure such other listed documents as may be available and pass orders confirming or altering the date of birth previously entered in the staff record. 'Listed document' as defined in the Instructions is one of the several categories of documents given in the first Schedule. The first Schedule amongst other documents mentions a Matriculation certificate or S.S.L.C. certificate or a certificate issued by a school or other educational institution recognized by the appropriate governmental authority to be a listed document. It is not contended before us by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that Annexure-I is one of the categories of listed documents as per the schedule to the Instructions. The certificate which was produced by the Petitioner, if not a listed document, was liable to be ignored at any time when the competent authority found that the entry already made is not on the basis of a listed document and could call for or procure such other listed documents as might have been available. By no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the production of a document which is not a listed document as per the Instructions would amount to misconduct on the part of the Petitioner. By no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the production of a document which is not a listed document as per the Instructions would amount to misconduct on the part of the Petitioner. Our attention was also drawn to Clause 13 of the Instructions which provides that an employee shall render himself liable to disciplinary action in accordance with the provisions of the Staff Regulations if he makes a false statement or submits any false document or withholds or refuses to produce any document or to furnish any information or furnishes any false information in any proceeding. It has not been found as a fact that the date of birth as given in Annexure-1 was false or that Annexure-I itself was a false document. From the plain language of the aforesaid clause, it can be said with emphasis that the Petitioner does not come within any of the acts or omissions enumerated in the said clause. 5. Assuming for the sake of argument that the Petitioner having the knowledge that the National College of Learning, Banaras was not a recognised institution, submitted the certificate obtained by him for the purpose of admission of his age which was not enquired into by the authorities before accepting the same blindly, the Petitioner was within his rights to pursue the authorities to accept the date of birth as given in Annexure-1 which evidently is a genuine document though not from a recognised institution. If for any reason the age as given in Annexure-I was not acceptable to the authorities, the Petitioner could have been asked to submit further proof of his date of birth as per the normal procedure prescribed in the Staff Regulations and the authorities could have made such further verification for ascertaining the same as would have been deemed fit and proper. The acts on the part of the Petitioner complained of in Annexure-4 do not violate any of the requirements of Regulation 21 or Regulation 24 so as to attract the penalty under Regulation 39 of the Staff Regulations. 6. The acts on the part of the Petitioner complained of in Annexure-4 do not violate any of the requirements of Regulation 21 or Regulation 24 so as to attract the penalty under Regulation 39 of the Staff Regulations. 6. Some arguments have been advanced by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that unless in the Staff Regulations an act or omission is prescribed as misconduct, it is not open to the employer to find out some conduct as misconduct and punish him even though the alleged misconduct would not be comprehended in any of the enumerated misconducts. This submission of the learned Counsel is evidently based on the decisions in the case of A.L. Kalra Vs. Project and Equipment Corporation of India Ltd., (at page 1368) and in the case of Rasiklal Vaghajibhai Patel v. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and Anr. We are in respectful agreement with the law so clearly enunciated in the aforesaid decisions. Nothing in the Staff Regulations has been brought to our notice except Regulations 21 and 24 from which it can be said that the Petitioner is guilty of any misconduct enumerated in the Staff Regulations assuming the allegations made in annexure-4 to be correct. The irresistible conclusion would, therefore, be that the penalty imposed on the Petitioner is without any basis as no reasonable man would come to a finding that the Petitioner is guilty so as to attract the penalty provisions in Regulation 39. 7. In the result, the writ application is allowed and Annexures 12 and 18 are quashed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there would be no order as to costs. B.K. Behera, J. 8. I agree. Final Result : Allowed