JUDGEMENT. 1. The matter is part heard. The order impugned is the award delivered by respondent no.2 – CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Nagpur on 6.11.2006 answering the reference made to it in negative, and thereby upholding the action of respondent no.1 Bank in imposing penalty of dismissal w.e.f. 28.02.2003. The penalty has been imposed for not cooperating with the employer and the Scrutiny Committee for the purpose of verifying the caste claim of petitioner as belonging to Schedule Tribe / Bhungia. 2. It is not in dispute that the petitioner came to be appointed in November, 1977 in employment of respondent no.1 Bank as candidate belonging to Scheduled Tribe category, and thereafter was absorbed as such in permanent service. Till his dismissal by order dated 28.02.2003 he has worked with respondent no.1. 3. Since 1992, respondent no.1 Bank started procedure with a view to get the caste certificate of the petitioner verified or validated from the competent committee. He was advised to obtain caste certificate in prescribed proforma from the competent Magistrate, as per the order dated 12.03.1992. It appears that xerox copy of the alleged caste certificate submitted by the petitioner was forwarded to the Scrutiny Committee, but then the Scrutiny Committee sought original and certain other documents. Total 18 documents were sought for by the Scrutiny committee and petitioner submitted only some of them. He enclosed his birth extract, his primary school leaving certificate, his caste certificate and replied that extract of his admission register in the school was not available. Documents pertaining to his father were also not available as father was illiterate and his birth record was not available. In relation to 4 other documents, it was stated that his father was the only son of his grand father and therefore, other documents were not available. In relation to document of maternal uncle, it was replied that he was illiterate and no public record were available. It was further stated that no agricultural property was owned by the family and no 7/12 extracts were therefore available. It was also accepted that there was no document pertaining to the period prior to 1950. The petitioner while replying to the communication of the Bank dated 13.12.1999 insisting upon production of all documents, replied on 1.2.2000 that Bank need not to insist for submission of document as called for by the Committee. It was also accepted that there was no document pertaining to the period prior to 1950. The petitioner while replying to the communication of the Bank dated 13.12.1999 insisting upon production of all documents, replied on 1.2.2000 that Bank need not to insist for submission of document as called for by the Committee. It appears that he was given time till 15.04.2000, but then the documents were not submitted and original caste certificate was also not submitted to the employer. It is in this background that on 17.7.2000 a Charge Sheet for committing gross misconduct was issued to the petitioner. The learned counsel for the parties states that date of this charge sheet is 17.4.2000. It appears that a departmental enquiry was conducted and Assistant General Manager on 12.09.2000 passed order as per clause 19.5[e] of the Bipartite Settlement and imposed punishment of reducing basic pay of petitioner by one stage in the time scale of pay for one year. After this on 24.05.2001 again the Bank reminded the petitioner to submit document and in his reply to this communication submitted on 17.06.2001, the petitioner made grievance that after lapse of 12 years from his appointment, the Bank was advising him to submit documents for verification of caste certificate. On 6.11.2001 another charge sheet on same lines was issued informing the petitioner that he submitted only photostat copy and incomplete information. Petitioner was also informed that the same were forwarded to the Scrutiny Committee for verification, but Scrutiny Committee returned those documents as the same were found to be insufficient to get the caste claim verified. It was therefore, pointed out that the petitioner was being charged with commission of gross misconduct vide clause 19.5.[e] of the Bipartite Settlement. The Disciplinary Authority issued show cause notice to the petitioner informing him a proposed punishment of dismissal from service. He was given personal hearing by the said Authority and thereafter the impugned order of punishment of dismissal from service w.e.f. 28.02.2003 dated 26.02.2003 came to be passed. Copy of this dismissal order is not annexed with the present petition. 4. It appears that in the meanwhile the petitioner had approached this Court in Writ Petition No. 3179/2002 and this Court protected his service, but that order was vacated on 26.02.2003 as the petition came to be dismissed in view of the availability of alternate remedy. From perusal of the communication dt. 4. It appears that in the meanwhile the petitioner had approached this Court in Writ Petition No. 3179/2002 and this Court protected his service, but that order was vacated on 26.02.2003 as the petition came to be dismissed in view of the availability of alternate remedy. From perusal of the communication dt. 28.02.2003 at Annexure-7 with the Writ Petition, it appears that respondent no.1 had passed order of dismissal earlier to that but because of order dated 11.12.2001 passed by this Court, the said order was kept in abeyance for four weeks. Thereafter Writ Petition no.3179/2002 came to be filed and the High Court protected service of petitioner on 03.09.2002. 5. It is in this background the petitioner approached the CGIT in case No. 205/2003. Before the CGIT the fairness of departmental enquiry was not questioned and CGIT has recorded that perversity of findings recorded by the enquiry officer was also not assailed. Xerox copies of the orders and judgment of High Court were placed on record to contend that the petitioner was entitled to protection of his service, even if his caste certificate was presumed to be invalid. The CGIT found that petitioner did not file single document on record showing his case and he was refusing to submit the supporting document demanded by the Scrutiny Commission and never submitted the original to the Scrutiny Committee for verification. The CGIT also found that, if, he was really belonging to Scheduled Tribe he could have produced the caste certificate in time. 7.In this background I have heard Advocate Shri Narnaware, for petitioner and Advocate Shri Anilkumar for respondent no.1. 7. Advocate Shri Narnaware, has contended that the documents available and in custody of the petitioner were supplied and there was no question of original caste certificate being produced by the petitioner and petitioner was always ready and willing to supply the same to the Scrutiny Committee. He further placed reliance upon various xerox copies of orders and judgment of Hon'ble High Court to show that in view of the judgment of the Constitutional Bench in the case of Milind Sharad Katware .vrs. State of Maharashtra (2000 AIR SCW 4303) and subsequent judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court, the petitioner was entitled to protection of his services and his service could not have been terminated at all. State of Maharashtra (2000 AIR SCW 4303) and subsequent judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court, the petitioner was entitled to protection of his services and his service could not have been terminated at all. He states that the petitioner at this stage is ready to produce the original caste certificate before this Court and the same should be allowed to be verified. He contends that the benefit of past services of about 31 years could not be taken away like this. He further states that the punishment as imposed is disproportionate because in the present matter caste claim of the petitioner has not been verified at all in merits. He invites attention to the communication issued by the Additional District Magistrate to state that the Additional District Magistrate has verified the original caste certificate and reported accordingly to respondent no.1 on 30.01.1989 itself. He also specifically relies upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 2507/2003 dated 27.09.2005 to show that this Court has asked the Scrutiny Committee to verify the caste claim of petitioner there, though he did not produce original caste certificate. 8. Advocate Shri Anilkumar, for respondent no.1 on the other hand states that, from various replies placed on record and submitted by petitioner to charge sheet or his communications addressed to the Bank, it is more than clear that the petitioner was only interested in prolonging his continuation in service and for that purpose he did not produce original caste certificate at any point of time. He argues that even after first punishment was inflicted, no corrective steps were taken by him and after punishment for dismissal was proposed again he did not produce the original. He argues that the CGIT was approached, but before the CGIT the original caste certificate was never submitted and he further states that even before this Court while filing Writ Petition the original caste certificate has not been submitted. According to him, the petitioner only wanted to continue in the employment as he knew that he is not belonging to Scheduled Tribe, and for that purpose only he resorted to unnecessary correspondence. He further states that in these circumstances, various judgments on which reliance is being placed are not at all relevant and he contends that the protection sought by the petitioner is not available to him. He further states that in these circumstances, various judgments on which reliance is being placed are not at all relevant and he contends that the protection sought by the petitioner is not available to him. He invites attention to the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Raju Ramsingh Vasave .vrs. Mahesh Deorao Bhivapurkar (2008 (6) AIR Bom. R. 274), to support his contention. 9. In reply Advocate Shri Narnaware, states that in Writ Petition, the petitioner has stated that he is ready and willing to produce the original caste certificate. According to him judgment on which reliance has been placed also in paragraph no.35 protects the service of employee and hence the punishment is shockingly disproportionate. He has also invited attention to page nos. 148 and 149 of the Writ Petition to show that copy of original caste certificate dt. 12.05.1992 issued by the Executive Magistrate, Nagpur is appended to the writ petition and original is available with him for showing to this Court. 10. The facts mentioned above clearly show that the petitioner did not produce original caste certificate at any point of time before his employer. His caste claim sent for verification was returned back by the Scrutiny Committee for want of original caste certificate and thereafter also when employer communicated him the need of original specifically, the original was not supplied. The copy of caste certificate to which attention has been invites is dated 12.05.1992 and is issued by the Executive Magistrate, Nagpur in R.Case No. 2312/MP-61/91-92. The first charge sheet in the matter is issued on 17/07/2000 or 17/04/2000. The punishment in pursuance to departmental enquiry conducted thereafter was imposed on 12.09.2000. In spite of that punishment petitioner did not make any amends and hence second charge sheet was required to be issued and he was punished again after due previous warning with dismissal. His replies to employer only show that the petitioner was interested in seeking interim protection of his services and all orders placed on record also shows the same desire. 11. Even after dismissal of service when CGIT was approached request to accept original caste certificate was not made to CGIT or even to the employer. Till date employer has not been approached with the original caste certificate. 11. Even after dismissal of service when CGIT was approached request to accept original caste certificate was not made to CGIT or even to the employer. Till date employer has not been approached with the original caste certificate. In these circumstances, it is clear that the employer was justified in terminating the services of petitioner, as he was not cooperating in the matter of verification of caste claim. His caste claim was not being verified and it is only to be presumed that the petitioner did not want his caste claim to be verified and still wanted to continue on reserved post. Such a design of petitioner could not be encouraged by the employer and hence the employer was justified in inflicting the punishment of dismissal. 12. The judgment on which reliance has been placed considers the law on the point and importance of caste verification in such matters. In paragraph no.35 the Hon'ble Apex Court has given protection by exercising its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. The said protection is therefore not available to the petitioner, who has not come with clean hands and never cooperated with his employer or with Caste Scrutiny Committee in the matter of verification of his caste claim. Had petitioner approached the authorities with clean hands and cooperated with them, perhaps a different view in the matter of protection could have been taken. In the circumstances, I find that no interference is warranted in writ jurisdiction. Writ Petition is dismissed. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to cost.