JUDGMENT : A.P. SHAH, J. 1. This petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the Awards (Part I) and (Part II) dated May 20, 1997 and October 17, 1997 respectively made by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Mumbai in Reference (CGIT) 11/46 of 1996 under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act.’ 2. The petitioner Kuldeo Prakash Bhagwandas Gond belongs to Gond caste. Under the Presidential Order Gond caste is declared as Scheduled Tribe by virtue of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act, 1976. However, the State of Uttar Pradesh has recognised Gond Caste as Scheduled Caste. In other States including the State of Maharashtra Gond Caste is continued to be regarded as Scheduled Tribe. Pursuant to the advertisement issued by a Banking Service Recruitment Board, the petitioner applied for the post of cashier-cum-clerk under Scheduled Tribe category. 3. In the application form the petitioner had mentioned that he belonged to Scheduled Tribe category. Alongwith the application he annexed caste certificate issued by the competent authority in U.P. and i.e. said caste certificate shows the caste of the petitioner as Scheduled Caste. By an appointment letter dated March 20, 1984 the petitioner was appointed in the service of the respondent Dena Bank as a cashier-cum-clerk. Nearly 9 years thereafter an enquiry was started against the petitioner on the ground that he had falsely shown that he belonged to the Scheduled Tribe. The charge framed against the petitioner reads as follows: “Securing employment in the Bank under reserved quota for ST category by submission of bogus documents/false statement.” 4. Pursuant to the above charge domestic enquiry was held against the petitioner and the enquiry officer found the petitioner guilty of making false statement to the effect that he belongs to Scheduled Tribe category. The enquiry officer however, held that the charge of filing false document is not proved against the petitioner. Consequently upon the report of the enquiry officer, the petitioner was discharged from service with effect from May 17, 1994. 5. The petitioner raised an industrial dispute which came to be processed and ultimately resulted in a reference to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Mumbai. By Award Part I the Tribunal held that the enquiry was fair and proper and that the findings of the enquiry officer are not perverse. 5. The petitioner raised an industrial dispute which came to be processed and ultimately resulted in a reference to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Mumbai. By Award Part I the Tribunal held that the enquiry was fair and proper and that the findings of the enquiry officer are not perverse. By Award Part II the Tribunal held that the action of the management was legal and justified and rejected the claim of the petitioner for reinstatement and backwages. 6. The main question involved in this petition is whether the petitioner had intentionally misled the Selection Committee. At this stage I may state that some controversy was created due to a letter issued by the Collector, Phulpur, Azam Garh that the petitioner belongs to Kahar community which is recognised as OBC. However, it seems that Kahar is an offshoot of Gond and even the enquiry officer had proceeded on the basis that the petitioner belongs to the Gond community. Prior to 1976 Gond Community was recognised as Scheduled Tribe as per the Presidential order. As indicated earlier from 1976, it has been declared as Scheduled Caste in the State of U.P. whereas in the other States it is still recognised as a Scheduled Tribe. In view of these peculiar circumstances it is difficult to hold that the petitioner had deliberately given false declaration that he belongs to Scheduled Tribe. It is undoubtedly true that in the application form submitted by the petitioner, it was mentioned that he belongs to scheduled tribe. But it cannot be ignored that along with the application, the petitioner had annexed a caste certificate and indeed the certificate showed the caste of the petitioner as scheduled caste. Surely the Committee had looked into the entire record including the caste certificate before issuing the appointment letter to the petitioner. It is all the more strange that this controversy has been raked up after 9 years solely on account of the fact that the petitioner while applying for promotion in the prescribed form, had not filled up the column pertaining to the caste. It seems that the petitioner had sought the appointment in open category and not against reserve post. Assuming that the petitioner made a mistake in claiming to belong to the Scheduled Tribe when he originally applied for the job, the punishment of depriving him of his job is, to my mind, grossly disproportionate and unfair. It seems that the petitioner had sought the appointment in open category and not against reserve post. Assuming that the petitioner made a mistake in claiming to belong to the Scheduled Tribe when he originally applied for the job, the punishment of depriving him of his job is, to my mind, grossly disproportionate and unfair. The Committee ought to have at that stage, sought a clarification from the petitioner and it is absurd that such a controversy has been raised after a passage of 9 years. In the totality of the circumstances in my view, the extreme penalty of discharge from service is wholly unwarranted. In my opinion, the ends of justice would be served if the petitioner is denied a part of the backwages. 7. In the result petition succeeds. The impugned orders of the Tribunal are quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service and 25% backwages. 8. Certified copy expedited.