JUDGMENT B.K. Sharma, J. 1. The Petitioner who was appointed as a Lower Division Clerk (LDC) under the Respondents is aggrieved by termination of her service pursuant to a departmental proceeding. 2. The Petitioner was appointed as LDC by Annexure-A order dated 17.2.1982. The petitions belongs to Manipuri Community and in paragraph 3 of the writ petition she has stated that she was made to understand that the said community belongs to Schedule Tribe and accordingly she made an application to the Sub-divisional Officer, Udaipur, South Tripura to issue an ST certificate. The certificate was issued in 1981. Thereafter, the Petitioner got the appointment as LDC. However, the Petitioner asserts that she was not appointed against any reserved quota. 3. While in service, the Petitioner was once again asked to submit ST certificate and accordingly she made another application to the authority to issue another certificate and the certificate was issued on 5.6.1992. The Petitioner submitted the certificate to the authority. However, the said authority asked the Petitioner as to why she had submitted another ST certificate to which the Petitioner furnished Annexure-B reply stating that she had lost the earlier certificate and hence applied for the second certificate. 4. In the year 1997, the Administrator of the school by his Annexure-C order dated 29.1.1997 placed the Petitioner under suspension in contemplation of a disciplinary proceeding. In the order it was stated that the Petitioner obtained the service by submitting false ST certificate. Thereafter, the memorandum dated 18.2.1997 was issued which is quoted below: MEMO Whereas Smt. Kunjabati Sinha, LDC Jolaibari H.S. (Class-XII) School, Tripura (s), (Now under suspension) joined as LDC on 1.4.1982 on the quota of Scheduled Tribe on the strength of S.T. certificate (showing Murasing Community) vide memo No. F.6(5)/SDO/CTZN/UDP/81 dt. 21.5.1981, submitted by her at the time of Interview and Joining. AND Whereas Smt. Sinha again submitted another S.T. Certificate No. F.6(4)-SDO/UDP/ CTZN/524/90 dt. 5.6.1992. On the plea ftat she had lost the original certificate No. F.6(5)/SDO/CTZN/UDP/81 dt. 1.5.81 and in it she has been shown as belonging to Tripuri Community. AND Whereas SDO, Udaipur, has conducted enquiry about the genuineness of both the certificates and after enquiry SDO, Udaipur has cancelled both the certificates issued in favour of Smt. Sinha. AND Whereas Smt. Kunjabati Sinha confessed her guilt to the SDO, Udaipur, vide her letter dt. 16.10.96. 1.5.81 and in it she has been shown as belonging to Tripuri Community. AND Whereas SDO, Udaipur, has conducted enquiry about the genuineness of both the certificates and after enquiry SDO, Udaipur has cancelled both the certificates issued in favour of Smt. Sinha. AND Whereas Smt. Kunjabati Sinha confessed her guilt to the SDO, Udaipur, vide her letter dt. 16.10.96. AND Whereas Smt. Sinha was placed under suspension for securing service by submitting false S.T. Certificate-vide order No. F.7 (1-2)-ADM/JHS/96dt 29.1.97. AND Whereas the charges brought against Smt. Sinha for securing service by submitting false S.T. Certificate are contemplated to be true and these acts on the part of Smt. Sinha are not only highly irregular but also violate service conduct rules and lack of integrity on her part. Now, therefore Smt. Kunjabati Sinha, LDC, Jolaibari H.S. (Class-XII) School (Now under suspension) is asked to state the satisfactory reasons as to why disciplinary action will not be taken against her for her alleged misconduct. Her reply should reach (through the H/M, Joaibari H.S. (Class-XII) School) to the undersigned within 15 (fifteen) days from the date of receipt of this Memo, failing which exparte decision will be taken on the issue. Smt. Sinha may be heard in person by the punishing authority if she has to say anything in her support. Sd/- IIlegible 18.02.97 5. In response to the said memorandum, the Petitioner submitted her reply stating that after putting long 15 years of continuous and unblemished service, her latches committed about two decades back might not contribute to any decision to impose punishment on her. In her reply, she also stated that her ST certificate was cancelled on the basis of the show cause notice by the SDO and she did not resist such cancellation. 6. A formal proceeding against the Petitioner was drawn up with definite article of charge vide Annexure-F memorandum dated 15.3.1997. The article of charge reads as follows: ARTICLE-1 That Smt. Kunjabati Sinha, LDC, Jolaibari H/S (Class-XII) School, Tripura South (now under Suspension) submitted false S.T. Certificate (showing herself belonging to Murasing Community) at the time of securing job in the said school in the post of LDC on the quota of scheduled tribe and joined as LDC in fee said school on 1.4.1982 on the strength of above mentioned ST. Certificate vide Memo. No. F 6(5)/SDO/CTZN/UDP/81 dt 1.5.1981. Certificate vide Memo. No. F 6(5)/SDO/CTZN/UDP/81 dt 1.5.1981. That again Smt. Sinha submitted another false S.T Certificate No. F.6(4)SDO/Udp/CTZN/ 524/90 dt. 5.6.1992 on the plea that she had lost the first original S.T. Certificate and in it she had been shown as belonging to Tripuri Community. That the SDO, Udaipur, Tripura South, has conducted enquiry about the genuineness of both the certificates and after enquiry, SDO, Udaipur, has cancelled both the certificates issued in favour of Smt. Sinha vide his letter No. F.6(4)SDO/UDP/Sc/Vol-2/94/3311-314 dt. 25.3.95. That Smt. Sinha subsequently confessed her offence to the SDO, Udaipur, vide her letter dt. 16.10.94. That the cancellation of both the S.T. Certificates by the SDO, Udaipur, is a good and sufficient proof of the fact hat Smt. Sinha willfully took resort to cheating and deception in production/submitting the two S.T. certificates mentioned above. Therefore, the willful and deliberate furnishing of false S.T. Certificate in securing a job is an offence of highest magnitude under service conduct rules and which is a good and sufficient reason within the meaning of Rule No. 4(3) of the Tripura Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Reservation of Vacancies in Service and Posts) Rule 1992, for proceeding against her. ********** Statement of imputation of misconduct or misbehavious in support of the Article of charges framed against Smt. Kunjabati Sinha L.D.C. Jolaibari H/S (Class-XII) School, Jolaibari, Tripura South (Under suspension) Smt. Kunjabati Sinha, LDC, Jolaibari H/S (Class-XII) School (Now under suspension) while securing the job of LD Clerk in the said school on production of S.T. Certificate No. F. 6(5)/SDO/CTZN/Udp/81 dt. 1.5.1981 issued by SDO, Udaipur, failed to maintain absolute integrity as the said certificate was proved a false S.T. Certificate which she managed to procure on concealment of fact. In order to conceal the fact willfully to the appointing authority she again managed to procure a second S.T. Certificate from SDO, Udaipur vide No. F. 6(4)SDO/Udp/CTZN/524/90 dt 5.6.92. It is also observed that the two S.T. Certificates are not identical in respect of her belonging to S.T. Community. The Act of procuring of 2 (two) S.T. Certificates, without obtaining duplicate certificate of the 1st S.T. Certificate No. F.6(5)/SDO/CTZN/Udp/81 dt. 1.5.1981, is highly irregular and unbecoming of an employee under Govt. aided school. It is also observed that the two S.T. Certificates are not identical in respect of her belonging to S.T. Community. The Act of procuring of 2 (two) S.T. Certificates, without obtaining duplicate certificate of the 1st S.T. Certificate No. F.6(5)/SDO/CTZN/Udp/81 dt. 1.5.1981, is highly irregular and unbecoming of an employee under Govt. aided school. The statement given by her to the SDO, Udaipur in regard to procuring the said S.T. Certificate, cannot be an excuse for avoiding the charges of concealment of facts at the time of securing the job which is/was purely reserved for S.T. Candidate. Since Smt. Sinha severally violated service Rules, reservation quota of Scheduled Tribes etc. the punishing authority issued a show cause notice to her for giving satisfactory reasons as to why disciplinary action would not be taken against her vide Memo. No. F.7(1-2)-ADM/JHS/96 Dt. 18.2.97. The statement submitted by Smt. Sinha in response to the same is not satisfactory. The above acts of Smt. Sinha, which are most unbecoming on the part of an employee, attracts the provision of Rule 18 of Grant-in-aid Rule, 1978 and which is a good and sufficient reason within the meaning of Rule 4(3) of the Tripura Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Reservation of Vacancies in Services and Posts) Rule, 1992, for proceeding against her under Rule 22 of Grant-in-aid Rules, 1978. 7. Along with the memorandum of charge sheet, the Petitioner was also furnished with the list of documents etc. It appears that the Petitioner did not respond to the proceeding and the Annexure-G memo dated 20.3.1997 was issued notifying the failure on the part of the Petitioner to submit any reply to the charge sheet and that as per rule, ex-parte decision would be taken. However, by the said memo, the Petitioner was intimated that an opportunity of personal hearing would be given to her on 22.3.1997. On completion of the proceeding the Enquiry Committee submitted its report holding the charge against the Petitioner to have been established. Thereafter, by Annexure-I memo dated 26.3.1997, while forwarding a copy of the enquiry report to the Petitioner, she was asked to make representation against the proposed penalty as per rules. 8. The Petitioner submitted her reply denying that she submitted false ST certificate twice for securing the job of LDC. Thereafter, by Annexure-I memo dated 26.3.1997, while forwarding a copy of the enquiry report to the Petitioner, she was asked to make representation against the proposed penalty as per rules. 8. The Petitioner submitted her reply denying that she submitted false ST certificate twice for securing the job of LDC. As regards the alleged admission on her part, she stated that the earlier admission on her part was not out of her own volition and that she could not follow as to what was written in the representation drafted by somebody else. 9. On conclusion of the proceeding, the disciplinary authority issued the Annexure-K impugned order dated 19.4.1997 terminating her services which she had obtain pausing herself as an ST candidate. A formal order of termination was also issued on 23.4.1997 by the authority (Annexure-L). The Petitioner made Annexure-M appeal to the Appellate Authority and the same was rejected by Annexure-N order dated 8.12.1997. Hence the writ petition was filed. Be it stated here that the writ petition was filed on 5.12.2000 i.e. after three years of rejection of the appeal. 10. The only plea of the Petitioner is that it is one thing to say that she does not belong to ST community, but it is another thing to say that she had produced the false ST certificate. According to the Petitioner it was her bonafide belief that she in fact belonged to ST community and accordingly, made an application to the authority to grant the same who upon verification issued the ST certificate to her. Another plea of the Petitioner is that although she had obtained the ST certificate, but she was not appointed against any ST quota post. 11. The Respondents in their counter affidavit have resisted the claim of the Petitioner by elaborate pleadings. It has been stated that the Petitioner obtained the employment against ST quota post falsely projecting herself as ST candidate. The Respondents have also stated that contrary to the stand in the writ petition, she had admitted her guilt relating to the charge levelled against her. It has been stated that the Petitioner knowing fully well that she does not belong to ST community, furnished wrong information to the SDO on the basis of which the ST certificate was issued to her, not only once, but twice. It has been stated that the Petitioner knowing fully well that she does not belong to ST community, furnished wrong information to the SDO on the basis of which the ST certificate was issued to her, not only once, but twice. However, on the basis of the admission of guilt by the Petitioner, the certificates were cancelled. It is the categorical stand of the Respondents that the Petitioner was appointed as LDC against the post earmarked for ST category candidate. As regards the disciplinary proceeding, the Respondents have stated that the same was conducted in a fair and transparent manner following the due procedure. 12. I have heard Mr. B. Das, learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. B. Chakraborty, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner as well as Mr. P. Datta, learned State Counsel. I have also gone through the entire materials on record and have given my anxious consideration to the same. 13. It is an admitted position that the Petitioner does not belong to ST community, which fact the Petitioner herself has admitted. Her only plea is that at the relevant point of time she bonafide believed that she belonged to ST community and accordingly applied for the ST certificate. It is on the basis of the misleading information furnished by fee Petitioner she was issued with the St certificate not only once but twice. It appears that she obtained the ST certificate for the second time as according to her she had lost the earlier ST certificate. Thus, the Petitioner repeated the falsity of truth for the second time. Had it been a case of wrong impression regarding her ST status, she would not have applied for the ST certificate second time. The time gap between the first and second certificate is significant, which is about 10 years. Further, the particulars furnished on both the occasions also varied. 14. The Petitioner by her Annexure-II letter dated 16.10.1996 addressed to the SDO (annexed to the counter affidavit) stated the following: Sir, With due respect I beg to draw your kind attention to the fact that at the time of obtaining a certificate from your honour due to ignorance; I informed you that I had come from a family belongs to S.T. community and accordingly your honor issued me the said certificate. Understanding my fault arisen from want of knowledge I now beg to request your honour kindly to given up the matter as to cancel the said S.T. Certificate and excuse my offence for which act of your kind and sympathetic consideration I shall remain ever grateful to your honour and thus obliged. Yours faithfully Smt. Kunjabati Sinha 15. By Annexure-III communication dated 20.3.1995, the SDO intimated the Director of Welfare for ST that the two ST certificates issued in favour of the Petitioner had been cancelled. It was stated in the said communication that the Petitioner obtained the two certificates by manipulation and managing the things. The Respondents have also annexed the copy of the advertisement by which the applications were invited for the post in question indicating therein reservation etc. There is no manner of doubt that the Petitioner was appointed against an ST post on the basis of the ST certificate falsely produced by her. By Annexure-VIII letter dated 10.4.1982 the Headmaster of the school sought for approval of the appointment of the Petitioner against the post for ST candidate. In the attestation form submitted by the Petitioner she categorically stated that she is a member of ST community. Thus, it does not lie on her mouth now to say that she did not mislead the authority. 16. The theory propounded by the Petitioner that while obtaining the ST certificate, she bonafide believed that she belonged to ST community is not at all acceptable. As noted above, not only once, but twice she managed to obtain the ST certificate with the significant gap period of 10 years. She obtained the employment on that basis. The Petitioner cannot take the plea that she was ignorant about the constitutional scheme of recognition of ST community and the Constitution (Scheduled Tribe) Order 1951, in which her community is not included as ST community. The submission made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner did not obtain the ST certificate fraudulently, but was obtained under a bonafide belief is not at all acceptable. 17. The Petitioner having admitted the fact has virtually admitted her guilt. As has been held by the Apex Court in Channabasappa Basappa Happali v. State of Mysore reported in AIR 1972 SC 32 , there is no distinction between admission of facts alleged and admission of guilt. The facts speak for themselves. 17. The Petitioner having admitted the fact has virtually admitted her guilt. As has been held by the Apex Court in Channabasappa Basappa Happali v. State of Mysore reported in AIR 1972 SC 32 , there is no distinction between admission of facts alleged and admission of guilt. The facts speak for themselves. It was a clear case of falsification of truth and manipulation. 18. Mr. B. Das, learned Sr. Counsel for the Petitioner placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Ministry of Finance v. S.B. Ramesh reported in 1998 (1) SLR 618 . That was a case of compulsory retirement, which was set aside by the Central Administrative Tribunal and upheld by the Apex Court. It was found that the order was based on no evidence and the due procedure was not followed. I have failed to understand, how this case can be of any help to the case of the Petitioner. In the instant case, the evidence of submitting false certificate is over whelming and the Petitioner herself admit the same. The very conduct of the Petitioner in the entire episode stares on the face of it. 19. The Apex Court in the case of Superintendent of Post Offices v. R. Valasina Babu reported in AIR 2007 SC 1126 under similar circumstances upheld the order of dismissal of the incumbent. As in the instant case, in the said case also, the Petitioner claimed himself to be a member of SC community. He was appointed as Postal Assistant against a vacancy reserved for SC community. When it was found that he infact did not belong to SC community, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him during the pendency of which his cast certificate was also cancelled. Bringing the order of cancellation on record, the services of the Petitioner was dispensed with. It was held by the Apex Court that once the certificate on the basis whereof the Petitioner obtained employment stood cancelled, even no question of allowing him to continue in service would arise, if he had been appointed on the basis of such a certificate. It was further observed that when a public employment is obtained on a vacancy reserved for a particular category of candidate, he must fulfill the criteria laid down therefor. If the selectee does not fulfill the said basic criteria, his appointment cannot be allowed to be continued. 20. It was further observed that when a public employment is obtained on a vacancy reserved for a particular category of candidate, he must fulfill the criteria laid down therefor. If the selectee does not fulfill the said basic criteria, his appointment cannot be allowed to be continued. 20. The instant case is squarely covered by the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court. Situated thus, there is no option left than to dismiss the writ petition, which I accordingly do. 21. The writ petition is dismissed, without, however, any order as to costs. Petition dismissed.