Judgment ( 1. ) WE propose to decide both the appeals (LPA No. 216/98 : Lakhandas Manikpuri v. Central Warehousing Corporation and Ors. , and LPA No. 217/98 : Smt. Manjula Das v. Central Warehousing Corporation and Ors.) by this common judgment, since the question for consideration and decision are directed to almost on similar situation. ( 2. ) LAKHANDAS Manikpuri v. The Central Warehousing Corporation and Ors. (LPA No. 216/98): The appellant was sponsored by Raipur Employment Exchange for interview for the post Sweeper to clean godowns etc. , which was to take place on January 31, 1971, in the office of the Central Warehouse, Bhatapara, (Annexure P/l ). Thereafter, the post of daily rated Sweeper at the rate of Rs. 75 per month (Consolidated) was offered to him. He was directed to bring the original educational certificates and registration of Employment Exchange Card at the time of joining the post by memorandum dated February 1, 1971 (Annexure P/2 ). The petitioner was appointed daily rated Watchman at the rate of Rs. 3. 15 per day with effect from March 1, 1973, by office order dated 23rd Feb. , 1973 (Annexure P-2/a ). Pursuant to this appointment, the appellant joined the post on May 28, 1973. At the time of joining the post, the appellant furnished the certificate attested by Naib Tahsildar dated May 26, 1973 (Annexure P/3) to the effect that he belonged to panika caste of village Kholwa Patwari Halka No. , Police Station Bhatapara. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Warehouse Assistant Grade II (WAG-II) in 1981. He was again promoted to the post of Ware House Assistant-I (WAG-I) at the Central Warehouse, Nagpur, in the year 1984. In this capacity, he performed his duties at Khandwa, Raipur and Bhatapara, till dismissal from service by order dated December 2, 1997. ( 3. ) PRECEDING this, the respondents sought confirmation from the Collector, Raipur, whether "panika" was scheduled caste. The information dated August 8, 1996 received by the respondents is that the appellant did not belong to Scheduled Castes and the certificate furnished by him was forged. In the proforma prescribed by the respondents to be filled by the candidates, the appellant has mentioned against column No. 9 (A) that he is Hindu and against column 9 (b), requiring information whether he is a member of Scheduled Caste/scheduled Tribes, he describes "yes" panika. In the proforma prescribed by the respondents to be filled by the candidates, the appellant has mentioned against column No. 9 (A) that he is Hindu and against column 9 (b), requiring information whether he is a member of Scheduled Caste/scheduled Tribes, he describes "yes" panika. After receiving the report from the Collector, the respondents issued show cause notice to the appellant why disciplinary action be not taken against him. He explained his case vide Annexure P/5, in which he submitted that he was appointed on February 4, 1971 when his caste "panika" was in reserved category of Scheduled Castes/scheduled Tribes. However, afterwards, it was removed from this category in some districts. He also submitted that it was not fair for the respondents to take action after 25 years of his appointment etc. etc. By office memo dated October 16, 1996, he was again called for to show cause why disciplinary action be not taken against him, to which he replied by communication dated November 14, 1996. Thereafter, termination order followed by office order dated December 2, 1997 (Annexure P/8 ). ( 4. ) THE appellant filed an appeal against the termination order (Annexure P/9), which was rejected by memorandum dated March 19, 1998 (Annexure P/10 ). The appellant challenged the action of the respondents through Writ Petition No. 1749/98, which has been dismissed by order dated April 27, 1998, on the ground that no error was committed by the respondents by taking this action. The appellant is not satisfied with the decision of the learned Single Judge, hence, it has been challenged through this Letters Patent Appeal. ( 5. ) FROM perusal of the documents on record, it appears that the appellant was appointed daily rated Sweeper at the rate of Rs. 75/- p. m. (consolidated), sponsored by the Employment Exchange, Raipur. In absence of documents pointing out that he was appointed against the said post from the reserved category, it has to be taken that he was appointed without consideration of the caste requirement. Assuming that he was appointed against a post meant for reserved category, this caste was Scheduled Tribe as per the Government notification No. 8000-1905-VII-N-1, dated November 25, 1960, published in the M. P. Rajpatra, dated December 2, 1960. The certificate (Annexure P/3) has been produced by the appellant at a later stage, when he was appointed to the post of Watchman. The certificate (Annexure P/3) has been produced by the appellant at a later stage, when he was appointed to the post of Watchman. It simply mentions that he belonged to "panika" caste. He has not stated that "panika" is a reserved caste. The question arose after the appellant described himself as such in the proforma discussed above, sequel to the complaint, that was received by the respondents against the appellant. ( 6. ) THE question is whether the appellant secured appointment by production of false/forged certificate. This does not appear to be so. He had presented the facts before the respondents fairly, since it was known to him that his caste was a reserved caste, as per Government Notification dated November 25, 1960, but he did not know that this notification was superseded by subsequent notification dated December 8, 1971, whereby "panika" has been omitted from the category of Scheduled Tribes. It is understandable that for a person of tribe, it was difficult to notice the change, when it was not noticed by the respondents. ( 7. ) WITH this background, it is difficult to hold that the appellant made conscious attempt to procure false/forged caste certificate to secure the appointment. After all, it was issued by the Naib Tahsildar after verification of Patwari of the area. In any case, the certificate may have turned out to be inaccurate, but it is not forged nor obtained intentionally with a view to secure appointment. At the stage of procuring the appointment as daily rated Sweeper, he was Scheduled Tribe and the change took place afterwards when he was appointed Watchman. ( 8. ) SMT. Manjula Das v. The Central Warehousing Corporation and Ors. , LPA No. 217/98 : The appellant was appointed as Warehouse Assistant Grade II (WAG II) by order dated August 4, 1981 and she joined on August 8, 1981 (FM ). Thereafter, she was promoted as Junior Superintendent on ad hoc basis by order dated August 25, 1989 and confirmed as such on August 8, 1994, with effect from April 3, 1990. She received office order dated October 16, 1976 (Annexure P/5) as to why disciplinary action be not taken against her for producing false/forged caste certificate. This action was taken on the basis of report of the Collector dated August 8, 1996. She received office order dated October 16, 1976 (Annexure P/5) as to why disciplinary action be not taken against her for producing false/forged caste certificate. This action was taken on the basis of report of the Collector dated August 8, 1996. The appellant filed reply on November 15, 1996 (Annexure P/6), in which she stated that she was "manjhi" by caste, which is Scheduled Tribe, but converted to Christianity. Thereafter the appellant was dismissed from service by order dated December 2, 1997. Appeal against the said order was filed, which has been dismissed by order dated March 19, 1998 (Annexure P/11 ). ( 9. ) PERUSAL of the Government Notification dated November 25, 1980 (already referred in LPA No. 216/98) clearly mentions "manjhi" as a Scheduled Tribe. It continued to be Scheduled Tribe. The dispute is that by conversion, the appellant is no longer "manjhi", therefore, Scheduled Tribe. This controversy has arisen after period of 15 year of service, therefore, arbitrary, unreasonable and inequitable, the appellant having served the department in various capacities throughout. ( 10. ) BOTH the appellants are in service for past more than 15 years. They had served the department in various capacities and earned promotions from time to time. They did not procure the appointment on false/forged caste certificate, since in the case of Lakhandas Manikpuri, the caste was Scheduled Tribe right upto December 12, 1971 and the change was neither detected by him nor by the office. It was difficult to detect, since such changes are notified in official gazette, which is not available conveniently. At the stage of initial appointment in 1971, he was Scheduled Tribe. The caste of Smt. Manjula Das, namely manjhi was Scheduled Tribe and continues to be in Scheduled Tribe. After change of religion, she described herself manjhi as well as masih. However, looking to the fact that both the appellants have been in service for the past many years, would not be appropriate nor desirable in the interest of justice to terminate them from service. ( 11. ) CONSEQUENTLY, both the appeals (LPA No. 216/98 and LPA No. 217/98) are allowed and the orders of their termination are hereby quashed. They shall be deemed to be in service throughout, but entitled to 50% of salary with allowances for the period they remained out of service. ( 11. ) CONSEQUENTLY, both the appeals (LPA No. 216/98 and LPA No. 217/98) are allowed and the orders of their termination are hereby quashed. They shall be deemed to be in service throughout, but entitled to 50% of salary with allowances for the period they remained out of service. This period shall be taken to have been spent in service with all consequential benefits including pensionery benefits.