JUDGMENT : 1. The Petitioner in this writ application prays for quashing the orders in Annexure-3 series, i.e., initiation of Departmental Proceeding, Annexure-8, i.e., a communication to the Petitioner intimating him that Enquiry Committee has been constituted to enquire into the charge levelled against him and allowing him to take the help of coworker to assist him in the enquiry, Annexure-12, i.e., the findings of the Enquiry Committee, Annexure-13, the order of removal of the Petitioner from service and Annexure-15, i.e., the order passed by the appellate authority. 2. The brief facts, as narrated in this writ application, tend to reveal as follows: The Petitioner joined the Rourkela Steel Plant on 6.12.1979 as an Assistant Teacher-cum-P.T.I. being duly selected through a selection process and was posted to I.L.S. School, Sector-3. Thereafter he was transferred to Ispat High School, Tensa. According to the Petitioner, he belongs to Scheduled Tribe community and basing upon the certificate granted therefore to him, he was appointed against the vacancy reserved for Scheduled Tribe. While the Petitioner was continuing as such, it was alleged that he had fraudulently obtained employment in the Rourkela Steel Plant by producing a false certificate showing him to be a member of Scheduled Tribe community. He was directed to show cause and accordingly the Petitioner submitted his written explanation through proper channel. Thereafter the Petitioner was served with memorandum dated 29.6.1994 along with statement of imputation and article of charge, list of documents proposed to be relied on and list of witnesses to be examined in support thereof, vide Annexure-8 series. The statement of imputation and article of charge against the Petitioner are as hereunder: Shri C.D. Nayak, PI. No. 41912, Senior Master, Ispat High School, Tensa of Education Department was interviewed and selected for the post of Assistant Teacher-cum-P.T.I. 'against the vacancy of Scheduled Tribe candidate and subsequently joined Rourkela Steel Plant on 6.12.1979. Shri C.D. Nayak had submitted the Caste Certificate NO. 2062/TO/C-75/76 dated 15.3.75 in support of his belonging to Scheduled Tribe Community. Based on this Caste Certificate and fulfilling other requirements Shri Nayak obtained employment in Rourkela Steel Plant as Assistant Teacher-cum-P.T.I. and was posted in Education Department under town Administration of Rourkela Steel Plant with effect from 6.12.1979. Subsequently on verification, it was found that the above said Caste Certificate submitted by Shri C.D. Nayak is not genuine. Based on this Caste Certificate and fulfilling other requirements Shri Nayak obtained employment in Rourkela Steel Plant as Assistant Teacher-cum-P.T.I. and was posted in Education Department under town Administration of Rourkela Steel Plant with effect from 6.12.1979. Subsequently on verification, it was found that the above said Caste Certificate submitted by Shri C.D. Nayak is not genuine. Shri C.D. Nayak has thus furnished false information at the time of employment. Shri C.D. Nayak by his above act has committed a grave act of misconduct and thereby violated Rule 5(4) of SAIL Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1977. 3. The Petitioner submitted his explanation refuting all the charges and indicating therein that the charges levelled against him are not correct; he had not furnished any false information at the time of his employment and the Caste certificate furnished by him in support of his claim that he belongs to Scheduled Tribe community is genuine and correct. The explanation of the Petitioner was rejected and as per Annexure-5, one man enquiry Committee was appointed to enquire into the charges levelled against him. Ultimately the Petitioner was found guilty of the charges levelled against him and the Disciplinary Authority passed the order dated 26.2.1999 imposing the punishment of removal from service, vide Annexure-13. The Petitioner has stated that initially the Enquiry Committee-cum-lnquiring Authority submitted a report on 16.11.1996 vide Annexure-7 concluding that there was no case against the Petitioner and, therefore, the charges setforth in the charge-sheet were not substantiated. The matter was thereafter remanded to the Enquiry Officer for further enquiry and Anr. Enquiry Officer was appointed and the enquiry was conducted in which it was ultimately found that the Petitioner was guilty and it led to the Petitioner's removal from service. The appeal filed by the Petitioner against the said order of punishment was also dismissed. The matter was thereafter remanded to the Enquiry Officer for further enquiry and Anr. Enquiry Officer was appointed and the enquiry was conducted in which it was ultimately found that the Petitioner was guilty and it led to the Petitioner's removal from service. The appeal filed by the Petitioner against the said order of punishment was also dismissed. It is further averred that the Management examined one Sri B.M. Sahoo, Vigilance Inspector, Vigilance Department, RSP, as Management Witness No. 2, who stated that he investigated the case, personally met the Tahasildar, Chandbali at his office with letter of A.C.V.O., RSP, produced the reply of the Tahasildar, Chandbali received by post and proved the contents of the letter basing upon which the Enquiry Officer found that neither the Caste Certificate bearing No. 2062 nor the certificate bearing No. 2067 was issued in favour of the Petitioner since those two documents were issued in favour of the Revenue Inspector, Motto in an encroachment case. Therefore, the Enquiry Officer came to a conclusion that the Caste Certificate issued by the Tahasildar basing upon which the Petitioner claimed to be a member of Scheduled Tribe community and got the appointment is a forged one. According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, there is no provision under the Rules governing the field to delegate power with regard to disciplinary action in respect of an employee of Petitioner's category. According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the Disciplinary Proceeding was initiated and conducted against the Petitioner under Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1977 of the SAIL. Rule 24 of the Rules envisages that the Board or the Disciplinary Authority, as specified in the schedule, may impose any of the penalties specified in Rule 23 on any employee. According to him, the schedule would clearly show that the Vice-Chairman, Managing Director, Chief Executive of the Units/Steel Plants have full powers with regard to all employees under their charge in the grade of Rs. 2550-3250/- or equivalent or below. According to the Petitioner, there cannot be any delegation of power in regard to disciplinary action in respect of an employee of Petitioner's category to Anr. officer, which was done in this case. Initiation of disciplinary proceeding by a Senior Manager (Education), appointment of one man Enquiry Committee by. 2550-3250/- or equivalent or below. According to the Petitioner, there cannot be any delegation of power in regard to disciplinary action in respect of an employee of Petitioner's category to Anr. officer, which was done in this case. Initiation of disciplinary proceeding by a Senior Manager (Education), appointment of one man Enquiry Committee by. Deputy General Manager (Tr.A), imposition of penalty by General Manager (P&A) and rejection of appeal by Executive Director are all without any authority of law. Again the Petitioner contended that the Caste Certificate having been verified at the time of registering the name of the Petitioner with the Employment Exchange, and no objection having been raised by the Employment Exchange at the time of registering the name nor by the O.Ps. while scrutinizing the certificate at the time of his appointment, the O.Ps. could not have initiated the disciplinary proceeding 14 years after his service as a teacher in the organization. Further ground taken by the Petitioner is that the letter of the Tahsildar addressed to the A.C.V.O., RSP, dated 9.5.1997 (Annexure-E) does not bear the seal of either the Tahasildar, Chandbali or the Tahasil office and the short signature of the Tahasildar, Chandabali is neither decipherable nor proved by anybody for which the Enquiry Officer should not have accepted the aforesaid letter of the Tahasildar in which it was disclosed that the certificate number shown by the Petitioner is not the certificate issued by the Tahasildar. 4. The O.Ps. have filed a counter affidavit stating that a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the Petitioner on the charge of obtaining employment of Rourkela Steel Plant by virtue of a forged Caste Certificate bearing NO. 2062/T.O./C-75/76 dated 15.3.1975 but during the course of enquiry the Petitioner himself stated that he was issued with original Caste Certificate bearing NO. 2067/T.O./C-75/76 dated 15.3.1975 and not 2062 dated 15.3.1975, on the basis of which the Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding that the charge was not established. Thereafter basing upon the disclosure of the Petitioner that he was issued with Caste Certificate bearing No. 2067 dated 15.3.1975, further verification was done and clarification was sought for from the Tahasildar, Chandbali, who by his letter dated 9.5.1997 (Annexure-E) reported that the certificate was a forged one. Considering the aforesaid, the Disciplinary Authority remanded the matter to the Enquiry Officer for further enquiry. Considering the aforesaid, the Disciplinary Authority remanded the matter to the Enquiry Officer for further enquiry. The Enquiry Officer after enquiry, submitted the report vide Annexure-12 holding that the Caste Certificate was not a genuine document and the charge brought against the Petitioner was established. The Disciplinary Authority considering the enquiry report passed the impugned order imposing penalty of removal from service. 5. So far as the allegation that the authority had no jurisdiction either to initiate or to inflict the punishment save and except the Managing Director, who is the Disciplinary Authority as per the provisions of the Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules of the SAIL, it is stated in the counter affidavit that the Deputy General Manager (Town Admn.) was the competent authority for appointment of Enquiry Committee to enquire into the charges levelled against the Petitioner. 6. After hearing learned Counsel for both the sides and on perusing the averments made in the writ application as well as in the counter affidavit and the various documents annexed thereto, we do not find any violation of the principles of natural justice nor any procedural defect in the Departmental Enquiry. 7. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner relied upon a decision of the apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Milind and Ors. reported in AIR 2001 SC 393 and drew our attention to paragraph-37 of the said judgment, which is reproduced herein below: Respondent No. 1 joined the medical course for the year 1985-86. Almost 15 years have passed by now. We are told he has already completed the course and may be he is practicing as doctor. In this view and at this length of time it is for nobody's benefit to annual his Admission. Huge amount is spent on each candidate for completion of medial course. No doubt, one Scheduled Tribe candidate was deprived of joining medical course by the admission given to Respondent No. 1. If any action is taken against Respondent No. 1, it may lead depriving the service of a doctor to the society on whom public money has already been spent. In these circumstances, this judgment shall not affect the degree obtained by him and his practicing as a doctor. xxx 8. If any action is taken against Respondent No. 1, it may lead depriving the service of a doctor to the society on whom public money has already been spent. In these circumstances, this judgment shall not affect the degree obtained by him and his practicing as a doctor. xxx 8. Relying upon the aforesaid observation, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that as the Petitioner has already served the organization for about 14 years, the impugned order should be quashed and the Petitioner should be allowed to join the service. The learned Counsel in support of his case further relied upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Prasanna Kumar Naik v. State Bank of India and Ors. reported in 7998 (I) OLR 323, wherein the order of dismissal was set aside after holding that the enquiry was vitiated as the Enquiry Officer took into consideration irrelevant facts, such as school certificate, college certificate and oral evidence. In the aforesaid case, the Disciplinary Authority committed error of law in not accepting the contention of the Petitioner before cancelling the Caste Certificate and also in not affording him opportunity of hearing. Both the judgments are of no help to the case of the Petitioner as in the case of Millind (supra), the apex Court took a lenient view considering the fact that the student took admission on the basis of a forged certificate and by them he had passed the Medical Examination and became a doctor. But here is a case where the Petitioner got the appointment against the post reserved for Scheduled Tribes person, utilizing a forged certificate, which was not issued by the competent authority. That apart, apex Court in exercise of its power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India can pass an order for doing complete justice, which this Court is not empowered to do. 9. For the reasons indicated above, we do not find any merit in this writ application, which is accordingly dismissed but without any order as to costs. A.K. Samantaray, J. 10. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed