JUDGMENT : - Vineet Saran 1. SINCE the facts of both these writ petitions are common, they are being decided together. Counter and Rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, these writ petitions are being disposed of at the stage of admission. 2. FOR certain posts of Assistants in the Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as the 'Corporation') which were reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, the petitioner also applied. The application was accompanied with a certificate dated 5.10.1970, issued by the Additional District Magistrate (Executive), Gorakhpur, certifying that the petitioner was 'shilpkar' by caste, which falls within the category of Scheduled Caste. After undergoing the selection process, the petitioner was issued an appointment letter on 6.12.1971 and was posted at branch office of the Corporation at Gorakhpur. The petitioner continued to work as Assistant in the Corporation. Regarding his work, there was no complaint nor there was any adverse entry in the service record of the petitioner during the entire period of his service. After about 12 years of service, on 5.10.1983, the petitioner was asked by the Corporation to submit his original caste certificate, which the petitioner submitted on 5.12.1983. It has been stated by the petitioner that it was not known to him as to on what complaint, the said dispute regarding his caste had arisen. Thereafter, in response to a request made by the Corporation on 26.8.1985 to the District Magistrate, the Corporation received a report dated 4.2.1988 from the Additional District Magistrate stating that on inquiry, it was found that the petitioner Shiv Kumar Sharma was a 'badhai' by caste and not a 'shilpkar'. After receipt of the said report from the Additional District Magistrate, the Corporation issued a charge-sheet dated 22.3.1988 stating therein that the petitioner had secured employment as Assistant in the Corporation on the strength of a false/ wrong caste certificate. It was also mentioned that the petitioner had wrongly stated in his application that he was 'shilpkar' by caste whereas he belonged to 'badhai' caste, which is not a Scheduled caste. As such, it was stated that the petitioner had deliberately given wrong information about his caste and that he thus practiced fraud upon the Corporation. 3. It was also mentioned that the petitioner had wrongly stated in his application that he was 'shilpkar' by caste whereas he belonged to 'badhai' caste, which is not a Scheduled caste. As such, it was stated that the petitioner had deliberately given wrong information about his caste and that he thus practiced fraud upon the Corporation. 3. IN response to the aforesaid charge-sheet, the petitioner submitted his reply on 18.8.1988 stating therein that the certificate dated 5.10.1970 issued by the Additional District Magistrate, Gorakhpur, certifying that he belonged to 'shilpkar' caste was given after due verification and that the charges levelled against him were baseless. Thus, the petitioner prayed that the charges against him be dropped and if the Corporation in-tended to hold any disciplinary inquiry against him, it was requested that he may be furnished copies of the relevant documents on the basis of which the charges had been levelled so as to enable him to defend himself. The Corporation appointed an inquiry officer on 7.10.1988 and a depart-mental inquiry was initiated against the petitioner. Since the petitioner claimed that the report of the Additional District Magistrate (Executive) Gorakhpur, dated 4.2.1988 was an ex parte report, issued without holding any proper inquiry, the petitioner moved an application before the District Magistrate, Gorakhpur, requesting him that the report regarding his caste submitted by the Additional District Magistrate be recalled and a fresh report may be given after getting a thorough inquiry conducted. Thereafter the Additional District Magistrate got a proper inquiry from the Tehsildar of the area as well as the Harijan and Social Welfare Officer of the district, who submitted their reports dated 28.11.1988 and 13.12.1988. Based on the same the Additional District Magistrate gave his fresh report on 26.12.1988 certifying that the petitioner belonged to the 'shilpkar' caste. 4. NOT being satisfied with the aforesaid contradictory reports, the Corporation again wrote to the District Magistrate to clarify about the caste of the petitioner. In response thereto, the District Magistrate, vide his letter dated 25.10.1989, wrote to the Corporation that regarding the verification of the caste of petitioner, inquiry was made from the concerned Departments, on perusal of which the position relating to the alleged caste of the petitioner appears to be doubtful and it transpires that the petitioner belongs to "badhai" caste. In response thereto, the District Magistrate, vide his letter dated 25.10.1989, wrote to the Corporation that regarding the verification of the caste of petitioner, inquiry was made from the concerned Departments, on perusal of which the position relating to the alleged caste of the petitioner appears to be doubtful and it transpires that the petitioner belongs to "badhai" caste. The conclusion arrived at by the District Magistrate, which is in Hindi, is as under : xxx xxx xxx "Admittedly, the report was submitted by the District Magistrate without giving any notice to the petitioner or affording him any opportunity." On 11.8.1990 the inquiry report was submitted by the inquiry officer which was primarily based on the aforesaid report dated 25.10.1989 of the District Magistrate. The earlier reports of the Additional District Magistrate were ignored on the ground that the District Magistrate, being a higher authority, his report should be relied upon in preference to the reports of the Additional District Magistrate. The three documents filed by the Corporation in support of the charges were, the charge-sheet dated 22.3.1988 ; report of the Additional District Magistrate dated 4.2.1988 ; and the report of the District Magistrate dated 25.10.1989. The petitioner submitted 18 documents in support of his case. The documents of the petitioner were not considered in the inquiry report on the ground that all of them were of prior to 25.10.1989. The inquiry officer gave his finding that the petitioner did not adduce any evidence to disprove the report of the District Magistrate dated 25.10.1989 and thus held that the charges levelled against him were proved. 5. AFTER the inquiry report was submitted, the disciplinary authority issued a show cause notice to the petitioner proposing to impose upon him a penalty of removal from service in terms of Regulation 39 (1) (f) of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960. In response to the show cause notice, the petitioner submitted his reply on 30.1.1991. It was broadly contended therein that he was not given a copy of the complaint made against him ; that he had not been afforded adequate opportunity to produce witnesses to prove documents/certificates filed by him in support of his case that he was a 'shilpkar' by caste and the inquiry officer neither permitted him to produce the witnesses nor were they summoned. It was also contended that the report/order of the District Magistrate dated 25.10.1989, was issued behind his back without any notice or affording him an opportunity. It was further contended in the reply that the report of the Additional District Magistrate dated 26.12.1988 was issued after conducting thorough inquiry but was not considered by the inquiry officer as also the other reports/certificates filed by him in support of his case. As such, the petitioner had prayed that the charges levelled against him be dropped and he be exonerated as the inquiry report was not based on any proper evidence. Thereafter vide order dated 9.5.1991, passed by the disciplinary authority, the penalty of removal from service of the Corporation as proposed in the show cause notice was imposed on the petitioner. Against the said order, as provided under the Staff Regulations, the petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority, which was also rejected on 17.1.1992. 6. THE petitioner, Shiv Kumar Sharma has filed two writ petitions. THE first Writ Petition No. 8575 of 1992 has been filed challenging the order dated 25.10.1989 passed by the District Magistrate, holding that the petitioner belongs to 'badhai' caste, which is not a Scheduled Caste. THE second Writ Petition No. 23077 of 1992 has been filed against the orders dated 9.5.1991 and 17.1.1992 passed by the Corporation imposing on him the penalty of removal from service. I have heard Sri Vikram Nath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in both the writ petitions and Sri R. P. Goyal, learned senior advocate assisted by Sri Manish Goyal, on behalf of the respondent Corporation ; as well as the learned standing counsel for the State of U. P. The facts as stated above are common to both the writ petitions and the same have not been disputed by the learned counsel for the parties. 7. THE Writ Petition No. 8575 of 1992 was taken up and argued first. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the report/order dated 25.10.1989 issued by the District Magistrate, came to the knowledge of the petitioner only during the course of departmental inquiry proceedings after which he moved two applications before the District Magistrate for reconsidering his report after giving him due notice and opportunity on which the District Magistrate informed the petitioner on 14.11.1991 that there was no need for any further action in the matter. Thus, the writ petition was filed challenging the report/order of the District Magistrate dated 25.10.1989. 8. IT was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the initial certificate dated 5.10.1970 was validly issued by the Additional District Magistrate declaring the petitioner to be 'shilpkar' by caste, which falls in the category of Scheduled Castes. Thereafter a letter/report dated 4.2.1988 was issued by the Additional District Magistrate to the Corporation without conducting any inquiry and behind the back of the petitioner stating that the petitioner was 'badhai' by caste and not 'shilpkar'. Then, on an application of the petitioner, the Additional District Magistrate got a thorough enquiry conducted through the Tahsildar of the area as well as the Harijan and Social Welfare Officer of the district. Based on the inquiry reports of the said officers, the Additional District Magistrate gave his report dated 26.12.1988 as under : ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMMITED]... It was submitted by Sri Vikaram Nath that from a bare perusal of the aforesaid report, it is clear that due inquiry with regard to the caste of the petitioner was conducted by the Tahsildar of the area as well as by the District Harijan and Social Welfare Officer, Gorakhpur and based on their reports dated 28.11.1988 and 13.12.1988, the Additional District Magistrate found that the petitioner belonged to 'shilpkar' caste. He further submitted that the report/order issued by the District Magistrate on 25.10.1989 resulted in virtually cancelling the earlier certificates issued in favour of the petitioner and since the same had been issued without any notice or affording opportunity to the petitioner, the same was wholly illegal being violative of the principles of natural justice as substantive rights had accrued in favour of the petitioner after the issuance of earlier certificates dated 5.10.1970 and 26.12.1988. In support of this contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in Gulzar Singh v. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, 1999 AIRSCW 3871) which related to cancellation of Scheduled Caste certificate without issuing show cause notice or affording opportunity of hearing to the concerned person in whose favour the certificate had been issued. In support of this contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in Gulzar Singh v. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, 1999 AIRSCW 3871) which related to cancellation of Scheduled Caste certificate without issuing show cause notice or affording opportunity of hearing to the concerned person in whose favour the certificate had been issued. The Supreme Court held that "it cannot be denied that with the issuance of Scheduled Caste certificate certain rights accrued" and further that if such a certificate was to be cancelled, keeping in view the principles of natural justice, show cause notice requiring the appellant to explain why the certificate should not be cancelled ought to have been issued. The learned counsel also relied upon another decision of the Apex Court in Ratan Lal Sharma v. Managing Committee, Dr. Hari Ram Co-education Higher Secondary School, 1993 AIR SCW 2400 wherein it has been held that even with regard to administrative orders where rights of a party are affected, show cause notice and opportunity of hearing ought to be given. 9. SRI R. P. Goyal, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent corporation has submitted that the report dated 25.10.1989 did not cancel any earlier order. He further submitted that this Court in its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not decide or judicially review the veracity of a certificate given by the District Magistrate. As regards the opportunity of hearing and show cause notice to the petitioner, the learned counsel submitted that sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner before the inquiry officer to challenge the report of the District Magistrate dated 25.10.1989, and as such, it is wrong to contend that the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity. However, it has not been disputed that before the passing of the order/report dated 25.10.1989, the District Magistrate did not afford any opportunity to the petitioner. 10. IT was last contended by the learned counsel for the Corporation that the report/order dated 25.10.1989 had been issued by the District Magistrate whereas the earlier reports have been issued by the Additional District Magistrate. IT was thus urged that the District Magistrate being an authority higher in rank, his report/order would prevail over the order of the Additional District Magistrate. I do not find much force in this argument of the learned counsel for the Corporation. IT was thus urged that the District Magistrate being an authority higher in rank, his report/order would prevail over the order of the Additional District Magistrate. I do not find much force in this argument of the learned counsel for the Corporation. Additional District Magistrate carries out the functions of a District Magistrate to the extent to which powers are delegated to him. A perusal of the record would go to show that the applications for caste certificate were made to the District Magistrate by the petitioner and on the basis of the said applications, the Additional District Magistrate had issued the certificate on behalf of the District Magistrate. As such, the report/order issued by the District Magistrate himself would not in any way be superior to the one issued by the Additional District Magistrate under the authority of the District Magistrate. The other contention of the learned counsel for the Corporation that the said report/order dated 25.10.1989 did not amount to cancelling the earlier reports/orders issued in favour of the petitioner is incorrect. On the basis of the earlier reports issued in favour of the petitioner that he belonged to 'shilpkar' caste (which falls in the category of Scheduled Caste), valuable rights had accrued in his favour. It is a well established principle of law that if an authority is to change, modify or cancel its earlier order on the basis of which rights had been conferred on a party, the concerned party would be entitled to notice and an opportunity of being heard before the order in his favour is modified or cancelled. Even otherwise the earlier report/order dated 26.12.1988 issued by the Additional District Magistrate clearly states that the same is based on the reports of the Tahsildar as well as that of the Harijan and Social Welfare Officer, who had inquired into the matter relating to the caste of the petitioner and it was found that he belonged to 'shilpkar' caste. The order/report of the District Magistrate dated 25.10.1989 merely states that inquiry was got done from the relevant departments, without specifying any such department. Further it has been merely stated that the position relating to the caste of the petitioner appears to be doubtful and thereafter the District Magistrate has just held that the petitioner belongs to 'badhai' caste. The order/report of the District Magistrate dated 25.10.1989 merely states that inquiry was got done from the relevant departments, without specifying any such department. Further it has been merely stated that the position relating to the caste of the petitioner appears to be doubtful and thereafter the District Magistrate has just held that the petitioner belongs to 'badhai' caste. This order/report of the District Magistrate itself appears to be vague and is not based on any proper inquiry or report. The earlier report/order of the Additional District Magistrate gives the specific dates of the inquiry reports of the Tahsildar as well as the District Harijan and Social Welfare Officer on the basis of which the report had been issued. Considering the totality of the circumstances that the impugned order dated 25.10.1989 has been passed behind the back of the petitioner in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, which virtually amounts to cancellation of earlier orders by which valuable rights had already accrued in favour of the petitioner, and also the fact that the order/report of the District Magistrate is not based on any concrete evidence or inquiry, the report/order dated 25.10.1989 is liable to be set aside. The order dated 25.10.1989 is thus quashed. 11. NOW I shall go on to consider the merits of the other Writ Petition No. 23077 of 1992 challenging the orders imposing the penalty of removal from service. Sri Vikram Nath, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the inquiry report dated 11.8.1990 was primarily based on the report/order of the District Magistrate dated 25.10.1989. It was also submitted that in his report, the inquiry officer did not consider the earlier certificates/reports submitted by the Additional District Magistrate in favour of the petitioner. It was also contended that the petitioner had filed 18 documents, mention of which has been made at the end of the inquiry report but the inquiry officer did not consider any of such documents merely on the basis that the same related to dates prior to the order/report dated 25.10.1989 issued by the District Magistrate. It was also contended that the petitioner had filed 18 documents, mention of which has been made at the end of the inquiry report but the inquiry officer did not consider any of such documents merely on the basis that the same related to dates prior to the order/report dated 25.10.1989 issued by the District Magistrate. Although it has been contended on behalf of the respondent-Corporation that sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner to disprove the certificate dated 25.10.1989 but it has been specifically averred in the writ petition as well as in the reply to the show cause notice submitted after the filing of the inquiry report that the petitioner, despite having prayed for summoning his witnesses, the inquiry officer did not summon the persons who had issued the earlier reports and as such, the petitioners was not afforded adequate opportunity to prove that he belonged to 'shilpkar' caste. Merely because the documents which were filed by the petitioner related to the period before the issuance of the order/report of the District Magistrate, the same ought not to have been totally ignored by the inquiry officer. Before the inquiry officer, the petitioner was required to prove that he belonged to 'shilpkar' caste and had thus not submitted any false/forged certificate of his caste to secure his appointment ; whereas the inquiry officer as well as the disciplinary authority basing its entire findings on the report/order of the District Magistrate dated 25.10.1989 held that the petitioner belonged to 'badhai' caste. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that if the documents filed by the petitioner (which related to the authenticity of the earlier certificates issued in his favour) would have been considered by the inquiry officer or the disciplinary authority, the claim of the petitioner that he belonged to 'Shilpkar' caste would have been substantiated by him. 12. THE learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation has placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in G. Sundarsan v. Union of India, (1995) 4 SCC 644 . THE facts of that case were that when it was found that a false certificate had been submitted to procure appointment, the employee was dismissed from service even after 30 years, just 3 years before retirement. THE facts of that case were that when it was found that a false certificate had been submitted to procure appointment, the employee was dismissed from service even after 30 years, just 3 years before retirement. THE ratio of the said case would not apply to the facts of the present case as the certificate issued in favour of the petitioner, on the basis of which he got the appointment, has not been held to be false or fabricated and action has been taken by the Corporation in pursuance of a subsequent report of the District Magistrate. THE learned counsel also relied upon the judgment rendered in Union of India v. Bhaskaran, (1995) Supp (4) SCC 100. In this case, it was held that if an employment has been secured by submitting bogus and forged documents, the same would be voidable at the option of the employer. THE ratio of the said case would also not apply to the present case as there is no finding of fraud having been committed by the petitioner in obtaining the certificate on the basis of which he got employment in the Corporation. Accordingly, I am of the view that the inquiry officer as also the disciplinary authority committed an illegality in not having considered the documents filed by the petitioner merely on the ground that the same related to the period prior to the issuance of the report/order of the District Magistrate dated 25.10.1989. The impugned order of the disciplinary authority is based only on the inquiry report which in turns is completely based on the report/order of the District Magistrate dated 25.10.1989. As such, since in the earlier Writ Petition No. 8575 of 1992 the said order of the District Magistrate dated 25.10.1989 has already been quashed, the impugned orders dated 17.1.1992 and 9.5.1991 passed by the disciplinary authority, respondent No. 2 and confirmed by the appellate authority, respondent No. 1 deserve to be set aside and the same are hereby quashed. 13. IN the result, both the writ petitions are allowed. As a consequence thereof, the petitioner would be entitled to be reinstated in service with full back wages and consequential benefits.