Order S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. The petitioner, an employee of Bank of India (Bank for short) was dismissed from the service of the Bank vide order dated 22nd July' 97. He preferred appeal against the same which was dismissed vide order dated 13th September' 97. The aforesaid orders of dismissal, as affirmed by the appellate authority are under challenge in the present writ petition. 2. The main allegations as was levelled against the petitioner is that he submitted false caste certificate, claiming to be Scheduled Tribe and obtained employment on that basis which amounts to gross misconduct under Clause 19.5 (m) of the first Bipartite Settlement (dtd. 10th October' 66). It is for the said reason, it is not necessary to discuss all the facts, except the relevant one. 3. The petitioner applied for appointment under the Bank on 7th May, 76 claiming to be a Scheduled Tribe candidate and enclosed a caste certificate therewith. The Bank vide letter dated 3rd July, 76 asked the petitioner to collect printed application form and to apply. The petitioner, accordingly, applied, called for interview held on 1st November, 77 and appointed in January, 1978. 4. After about 11 years, the Bank issued a show cause' notice on 25th November, 88 and alleged misconduct, as referred above. The petitioner, on receipt of the same denied the allegations vide his letter dated 27th December, 88. The Bank authorities being not satisfied, initiated formal departmental proceeding and charge-sheet was issued on 13th March, 89, as quoted hereunder: "Before seeking employment in the Bank you declared yourself belonging to Scheduled Tribe category and filled up the application form of the Bank to the effect that you belong to Scheduled Tribe category. 2. At the time of scrutiny of papers of your appointment in the service of the Bank you submitted a caste certificate which was issued by Sadar SDO, Munger. Even though you and your family ordinarily reside in Patna, you brought the alleged bogus certificate from the Sadar SDO, Munger who was not a competant authority to issue your caste certificate. 3. Subsequently when your case was referred to the District Magistrate, Patna the latter informed that you do not belong to the Scheduled Tribe category and that you and your family members ordinarily reside in Patna. 4. 3. Subsequently when your case was referred to the District Magistrate, Patna the latter informed that you do not belong to the Scheduled Tribe category and that you and your family members ordinarily reside in Patna. 4. Your aforesaid acts of submitting bogus/false certificate of caste and seeking employment on that basis if proved will amount to gross misconduct on your part in terms of clause 19.5(m) of the First Bipartite Settlement dated 10.10.1966, which has been added to the above mentioned First Bipartite Settlement by virtue of clause XIV of memorandum of settlement dated 17.9.1984. The said clause 19.5 (m) reads as follows: "19.5 (m)-Knowingly making a false statement in any document pertaining to or in connection with his employment in the bank." 5. It is pertinent to mention that petitioner earlier obtained a Caste Certificate No. 1060/73 on 18th October, 73. It appears (from Annexure-2) that he was shown a Scheduled Caste therein. Subsequently, when the Bank asked the petitioner to collect printed application forms and to apply, the petitioner obtained another Caste Certificate No. 253/76 on 15th July, 76, wherein he was shown to be a Scheduled Tribe candidate. The application form subsequently filled up by petitioner in January, 78 therein the caste Certificate No. 253/76 was enclosed, which was the basis to appoint the petitioner in the service of the Bank against Scheduled Tribe quota. 6. The petitioner initially challenged the proceeding itself in C.W.J.C. No. 7939/89 wherein an interim order of stay was passed. The writ petition was subsequently dismissed on 20th December, 96 and the Bank authorities were directed to conclude the enquiry immediately. The L.P.A., thereafter preferred by petitioner was also dismissed on 29th January, 97. For the said reason, the proceeding could not be concluded and final order was not passed. 7. It appears that prior to initiation of proceeding, the Bank was making a fact finding enquiry relating to caste certificate of petitioner. It made query from the District Magistrate, Patna vide letter No. 3167 dated 12th June, 86 in pursuance of which the District Magistrate, Patna informed the Bank vide his letter dated 4th August, 86 (Annexure-16) that on enquiry it has been found that the petitioner is not a member of Scheduled Tribe community. He has obtained wrong caste certificate from S.D.O. Sadar, Munger. He has obtained wrong caste certificate from S.D.O. Sadar, Munger. During the period the proceeding remained stayed, such queries were made by the Bank from other offices. The District Magistrate, Munger by his letter No. 126 dated 8th January, 91 informed the Bank that on perusal of file and• information, it appears that the caste certificate of petitioner is forged and he has made such forgery to obtain appointment against reservation. The Bank, in their turn, requested the District Magistrate, Munger to cancel the caste certificate of petitioner vide their letter dated 12th January, 91 and the office of the District Magistrate, Munger, on cancellation of caste certificate informed the Bank vide their letter No. 866 dated 14th February, 91 that the Caste Certificate has been cancelled. 8. After dismissal of C.W.J.C. No. 7937/89 and L.P.A. aforesaid, the enquiry started but not concluded, so another application was filed by the petitioner in the said writ petition. This Court, vide order dated 27th May, 97 directed the Bank to conclude the enquiry by 22nd July, 97 with stipulation that the charge-sheet shall stand quashed, if not concluded within the time schedule. 9. The petitioner took part in the day-to-day enquiry, led evidences, wherein-after the Enquiry Officer submitted report, holding the petitioner guilty of the charges. The Bank issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 18th July, 97 with proposed punishment of "dismissal from service without notice under clause 21 (4) (a) of the 6th Bipartite Settlement (14th February, 95)". 10. The petitioner filed show cause reply on 21st July, 97, wherein-after, the impugned order of dismissal was passed on 22nd July, 97. The appeal, thereafter, preferred by the petitioner was also rejected, vide impugned order dated 13th September, 97. 11. The counsel for the petitioner relied on the evidences and enclosures attached to the writ petition. It was submitted that the charges were wrong. In the charge-sheet, it was alleged that the petitioner submitted a caste certificate issued by S.D.O., Sadar Munger, though he and his family ordinarily reside in Patna. It was submitted that the aforesaid question of fact cannot be treated to be a charge as •the petitioner made clear in his original application that he resides in Patna and in the caste certificate, the S.D.O. Sadar, Munger also mentioned that the petitioner generally resides at Patna. 12. It was submitted that the aforesaid question of fact cannot be treated to be a charge as •the petitioner made clear in his original application that he resides in Patna and in the caste certificate, the S.D.O. Sadar, Munger also mentioned that the petitioner generally resides at Patna. 12. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no evidence on record to suggest that the caste certificate was bogus/false. In absence of such evidence, it cannot be held that the petitioner sought employment on the basis of bogus/false certificate. One or other evidence, in this respect, was relied to show that the certificate, in question, was issued by S.D.O., Sadar Munger and it was not bogus nor forged. Reliance was placed on the enquiry report and the counsel for the petitioner submitted that the finding is merely based on one or other information given by the District Magistrate, Patna and/or by the office of the District Magistrate, Munger. It was contended that the certificate having granted by the District Magistrate, Munger, the District Magistrate, Patna was not competent to state whether the certificate was bogus/false. So far as letter issued by the District Magistrate, Munger and the order of cancellation of certificate, as communicated vide letter dated 12th January, 91, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that the aforesaid letter having issued and certificate having cancelled, without notice and hearing the petitioner, the same should not have been taken into consideration by the authorities of the Bank to hold the charges proved. 13. Reliance was also placed on the application, as was preferred by the petitioner (Annexure-I and Annexure-F to the counter affidavit) to show that the petitioner disclosed his place of living at Patna; the religion Christianity and caste (Scheduled Tribe), enclosing the caste certificate issued by S.D.O. Sadar, Munger. 14. There was some doubt relating to evidence as taken into consideration by the Enquiry Officer. Prima facie, it appeared at the time of hearing that the Enquiry Officer took into consideration certain documents which were not cited as evidences either by the prosecution or by the defence. For example, Caste Certificate No. 1060/73 issued on 18th October, 73 by the District Welfare Officer was not shown as a subject matter in the charge sheet. Prima facie, it appeared at the time of hearing that the Enquiry Officer took into consideration certain documents which were not cited as evidences either by the prosecution or by the defence. For example, Caste Certificate No. 1060/73 issued on 18th October, 73 by the District Welfare Officer was not shown as a subject matter in the charge sheet. The allegation was in respect of caste certificate issued by S.D.O. Sadar, Munger i.e. Caste Certificate No. 253/76, as was issued on 15th July, 76. It is the 1976 Certificate, which was enclosed by the petitioner with the application form (Annexure-F to the counter affidavit). 15. From the enquiry report and finding given by the disciplinary authority, first impression of the Court was that the authorities inficted punishment on the basis of Caste Certificate No. 1060/73 as was issued on 18th October, 73, though such caste certificate was not assailed in the charge-sheet. It is for the said reason, it directed the counsel for the Bank to produce the original file relating to departmental proceeding of the petitioner. The same was produced by the Respondents before the Court. 16. From the charge-sheet and list of evidences cited by the prosecution, it appears that the authorities of the Bank made no reference in respect of 1st caste certificate obtained by petitioner (No. 1060/73 dated 18th October, 73). The Caste Certificate No. 253/76 dated 15th July, 76 issued by the S.D.O. Sadar, Munger was the evidence cited by the Bank. The application form filed by petitioner while marked as Ext. M-3, the Caste Certificate No. 253/76 attached with such form is Ext. M-7. The original application preferred by petitioner dated 7th May, 76 shows that he declared himself as a member of Scheduled Tribe (Ext. M-9), though the Certificate No. 253/76 appears to be not available with him on the said date (7th May, 76) as, according to the Petitioner, the same was issued subsequently. 17. To find out as to how the authorities gave reference to Caste Certificate No. 1060/73, which was neither submitted by petitioner nor made prosecution evidence, I have gone through the entire file. It appears that the aforesaid Certificate No. 1060/73 was produced by the petitioner as his defence exhibit (D-2). 17. To find out as to how the authorities gave reference to Caste Certificate No. 1060/73, which was neither submitted by petitioner nor made prosecution evidence, I have gone through the entire file. It appears that the aforesaid Certificate No. 1060/73 was produced by the petitioner as his defence exhibit (D-2). In the show cause, the petitioner took plea that as the certificate was issued by the District Certificate Officer and Bank wanted a certificate of higher authority, second certificate (caste certificate No. 253/76) was obtained from S.D.O. Sadar, Munger. 18. Taking into consideration the aforesaid two certificates letter issued from the office of the District Magistrate, Patna, District Magistrate, Munger, as referred above, and that the Caste Certificate No. 1060/73 was cancelled by the State authorities, the Enquiry Officer held the charges proved and similar view was taken by the disciplinary as well as the appellate authorities. 19. At this stage, it is pertinent to mention that the Caste Certificate No. 253/76 issued by S.D.O. Sadar, Munger, which was the basis to give appointment to petitioner, has not yet been cancelled by the State authorities. From the letter issued by the State authorities, including the letter of District Magistrate, Patna dated 4th August, 86; letters of District Magistrate, Munger dated 8th January, 91 and 14th February, 91, it will be evident that their allegations were related to Caste Certificate No. 1060/73, which was cancelled. Nothing specific was stated in respect of Caste Certificate No. 253/76, which was the basis to provide appointment to the petitioner. 20. Admittedly, the Caste Certificate No. 1060/73 was held to be forged/bogus and was cancelled by State authorities without notice and hearing the petitioner. For the said reason, it appears that the petitioner moved before this Court against the order of cancellation of caste certificate in C.W.J.C. No. 2458/97. The said case has been disposed of by this Court on 2nd September, 98 (Annexure-22 series), wherein this Court set aside the decision of District Magistrate, Munger Sadar, whereby the caste certificate was held to be forged/false and was cancelled. The State authorities have been directed to examine the matter afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the petitioner has been given liberty to produce relevant materials before the State authorities in support of his claim that he is a member of Scheduled Tribe community. The State authorities have been directed to examine the matter afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the petitioner has been given liberty to produce relevant materials before the State authorities in support of his claim that he is a member of Scheduled Tribe community. Final Orders required to be passed, on such hearing and decision in terms with order and direction dated 2nd September, 98. 21. By the said order passed in CWJC 2458/97, while the decision of District Magistrate, Munger and cancellation of certificate were quashed, this Court observed that till the final decision on such remand is taken, the petitioner shall not be entitled to get any benefit in the capacity of Scheduled Tribe, unless final decision is taken by the District Magistrate, Munger. 22. From the aforesaid decision and order of the court date 2nd September, 98 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 2458/97, it will be evident that the evidences mainly relied by the Bank authorities though stand set aside by the Court's order, but the moot question as whether the petitioner is a member of Scheduled Tribe community or not, is still pending consideration before the competent authority. 23. As the decision relating to caste/tribe of petitioner cannot be taken by Bank and/or any other authority, except the State authorities competent under the law, and the matter is subjudice, I am not inclined to interfere with the order of punishment and appellate order for the present. 24. However, I may observe that if in view of remand made by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 2458/97, the District Magistrate, Munger gives a finding in favour of petitioner that the petitioner is a member of Scheduled Tribe community, in that case, the Bank authorities will be bound to recall the order of dismissal and the appellate order and petitioner will be entitled for reinstatement with full back wages. 25. On the other hand, if the District Magistrate, Munger decides the matter relating to caste/tribe of petitioner against him, the order of dismissal shall remain affirmed in terms with appellate order. 26. It will be open to the petitioner to bring the decision of the District Magistrate, Munger, if any, to the notice of the Bank, the moment it is decided. In such case, the Bank authorities will merely verify the genuinity of such decision from the District Magistrate concerned. 27. 26. It will be open to the petitioner to bring the decision of the District Magistrate, Munger, if any, to the notice of the Bank, the moment it is decided. In such case, the Bank authorities will merely verify the genuinity of such decision from the District Magistrate concerned. 27. The writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.