JUDGMENT B.N.MAHAPATRA, J 1. This Writ Petition has been flied with a prayer for quashing the final Order Dated 29.04.2009 (Annexure-1) passed by the State Level Scrutiny Committee (for short, 'SLSC') in Fake Certificate Case No.0.3 of 2009 and inquiry report dated 24.02.2008 (Annexure-2) passed by the Inspector of Police, Vigilance Cell SC & ST Development Department, IIC, Raikia Police Station in which the Inspector of Police opined that the Petitioner is a 'Pana' by caste and at the time of appointment he has forged his caste and got job and promotion in the post meant for Scheduled Tribe category. 2. In the impugned order, the SLSC has passed the following orders/directions: (1) The Committee direct the Tahasildar, G. Udyagiri to cancel the Caste Certificate issued to Shri Bipra Charan Digal, S/o Late Jalandhar Digal, Vill. Kajuri, P.S.Raikia and his family members, if not cancelled in the year 2000 when show cause notice was issued by Tahasildar under Rule 7 of the Orissa Miscellanies Certificate Rules, 1984, read Caste with Orissa Certificate (for ST & SC) Rules, 1980. (2) The Committee directed the DWO, Kandhamal to thoroughly investigate and assess the kind and quantum of financial benefit received by the alleged person and his family members such as stipend, loan, subsidy etc. as members of the ST and take appropriate steps to recover the same amount, if necessary by initiating OPDR cases against the alleged person and his family members within 3 months from the date of passing of this order. (3) The S.P. Kandhamal is to ensure instituting criminal proceedings against the candidate as well as the Government Officials of the Tahasil Office, G. Udayagiri, who helped in issue of such a fake certificate to the candidate for obtaining fake caste certificate with a view to illegally grab several benefits for himself/his family as provided by Government, DWO, Kandhamal shall file necessary FIR against the candidate and the concerned Government Officials within one month of the receipt of the order. (4) According to Rule 8(5) of the Orissa Caste Certificate (for SC & ST) Rules, 1980, the Tahasildar, G. Udayagiri shall initiate appropriate penal and disciplinary action against the concerned Revenue field Officials as per the relevant provisions of I.P.C. and O.C.S. (C.C.A.) Rules, 1962 for issuance of the wrong (fake) caste certificate to the alleged person. (4) According to Rule 8(5) of the Orissa Caste Certificate (for SC & ST) Rules, 1980, the Tahasildar, G. Udayagiri shall initiate appropriate penal and disciplinary action against the concerned Revenue field Officials as per the relevant provisions of I.P.C. and O.C.S. (C.C.A.) Rules, 1962 for issuance of the wrong (fake) caste certificate to the alleged person. Collector, Kandhamal/S.P., Kandhamal shall ensure the full implementation of this order in time. (5) The Commissioner-cum-Secretary to Government in Agriculture Department shall initiate appropriate action against Sri Bipra Charan Digal, who is working as Senior Grade Diarist in Agriculture Department and criminal proceedings may also be initiated within one month of the receipt of the order. 3. Mr. D. Parichha, Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that in response-to notice dated 19.01.2009 issued by the SLSC, the Petitioner filed show cause with a prayer for personal hearing in the matter. The SLSC without giving an opportunity of personal hearing and without permitting him to produce his evidence in support of his contentions raised in the show cause, passed the final Order Dated 29.04.2009 under Annexure-1. Therefore, the impugned order has been passed in clear violation of the principles of natural justice and the same is liable to be quashed. It was further argued by Mr. Parichha that by change of religion, caste in respect of a person never changes, therefore, the entire inquiry report and the proceedings thereon are vague and ambiguous. The materials available on record show that the Petitioner is a 'Pana' by caste. The said caste is a notified Scheduled Caste within the meaning of Article 341 of the Constitution. The Petitioner is the son of Ananta Digal. The primary revenue record issued in favour of the Petitioner's father clearly discloses that the Petitioner's grand father was 'Pana' by Caste which is categorized as Scheduled Caste. The Petitioner being 'Pana' by caste, obtained caste certificate indicating the caste as 'Pana' under Scheduled Caste category from the then local MLA, G. Udayagiri, who was the authority to issue such certificate. On the basis of such Caste Certificate, the Petitioner got appointment as a peon through the process of selection by the Agriculture Co-operation Department. While working as such, the Petitioner was served with a notice issued by the SLSC to show cause/explain about the position of his Caste. On the basis of such Caste Certificate, the Petitioner got appointment as a peon through the process of selection by the Agriculture Co-operation Department. While working as such, the Petitioner was served with a notice issued by the SLSC to show cause/explain about the position of his Caste. In the show cause reply, the Petitioner prayed before the SLSC for personal hearing and opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses cited in the enquiry report. The Investigating Officer prepared a genealogical chart without any material evidence. The Petitioner submitted his caste certificate at the time of interview. The Investigating Officer, without examining such caste certificate has submitted his report stating therein that the Petitioner has forged his caste as ST Kondha. However, no prior notice for personal hearing was given to the Petitioner before passing the order impugned. At the time of selection for the post of peon, the Petitioner submitted his caste certificate to the effect that he belongs to 'Pana' by caste. The Petitioner has also obtained similar Scheduled Caste certificate in favour of his children. The Petitioner does not know what has been recorded by the authority in his service book. Now Opp. Party No 3-State of Orissa, represented through Commissioner-cum-Secretary to Government, Department of Agriculture, being the employer of the Petitioner initiated departmental disciplinary proceedings against the Petitioner without any fault. The Petitioner filed his show cause in the departmental proceedings. The proceedings conducted by the SLSC is a parallel proceedings, which vitiates law. Concluding his argument Mr. Parichha submitted for quashing of Annexures 1 & 2. 4. Learned Government Advocate referring to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of Opp. Party Nos. 1 to 7, submitted that the procedure as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and another vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and others, AIR 1995 SC 94 , has been scrupulously adhered to before passing the impugned order. Therefore, there is no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the SLSC. As per the direction contained in paragraph-4 of the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra), the State Government vide Department Resolution No.18175 PCR (C), 09/2005/SSD dated 2nd May, 2006 constituted a "Scrutiny Committee". The SC & ST Development Department also constituted a Vigilance Cell to investigate the social status of the ST & SC candidates in relation to their caste. As per the direction contained in paragraph-4 of the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra), the State Government vide Department Resolution No.18175 PCR (C), 09/2005/SSD dated 2nd May, 2006 constituted a "Scrutiny Committee". The SC & ST Development Department also constituted a Vigilance Cell to investigate the social status of the ST & SC candidates in relation to their caste. All the officers of the Vigilance Cell have been imparted orientation training by the experts of SC, ST, RTI on the social status of SCs/STs, their deity, ritual, customs, mode of marriage, death, ceremonies, method of burial of dead bodies, etc. They have also been imparted practical training on field visit, case study and necessary guidelines have been prepared for them in the form of booklets for ready reference 5. It was further argued that the Nikhil Utkal Kui Samaj, G. Udayagiri, Kandhamal in their letter dated 17.03.2008 alleged issuance of fake caste certificate in favour of the Petitioner. The same was forwarded to the Agriculture Department by the Collector, Kandhamal along with his letter dated 18.07.2008. The I.I.C., Raikia Police Station conducted a detailed inquiry into the social status of the Petitioner as per the procedure laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) and thereafter came to a finding that the Petitioner cunningly managed to manipulate and produce fake Caste Certificate and that the allegation was found to be correct. The copy of such report of the Investigating Officer, Vigilance Cell-cum-IIC, Raikia PS was sent to the Petitioner in SC & ST Development Department Letter dated 19.01.2009 by registered post with A.D. asking him to submit representation or show cause reply in support of his claim to the Chairman, SLSC within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice. Pursuant to the said letter, show cause reply of the Petitioner was received by the Chairman, SLSC on 18.02.2009. Pursuant to the said letter, show cause reply of the Petitioner was received by the Chairman, SLSC on 18.02.2009. Notice was also issued to the Petitioner for appearing before the SLSC held on 25.04.2009 to adduce evidence in support of his claim, A copy of the show cause reply submitted by the Petitioner as well as that of the inquiry report of the Investigating Officer was sent to the D.W.O., Kandhamal vide Department letter No.14117/SSD dated 30.04.2009 for publicity in the concerned village or locality by issuing public notice by beat of drum or any other convenient mode inviting objection from any person or association within 15 days The copy of the enquiry report along with show cause reply of the Petitioner was published in the locality through Tahasildar, Raikia by beat of drum inviting objection from any person/association as reported by DWO, Kandhamal as per his letter dated 30.05.2009 but no objection was received within the stipulated period. 6 The further submission of Learned Govt. Advocate is that the SLSC duly considered the I.O.'s inquiry report, show cause of the Petitioner as well as written statement and other relevant records and unanimously held that the allegation of fake caste certificate in this case is established as the Petitioner is 'Pana (SC)' by Caste and Hindu by religion and not Kandha tribe (ST) as claimed. The Committee passed order for cancellation of the Caste Certificate issued in favour of the Petitioner as well as his family members giving reasons in support thereof. In consonance with the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra); the copy of the order passed by the SLSC was sent to the Collector and S. P., Kandhamal vide letter dated 02.05.2009 by registered post with A.D. with a request to ensure timely action at the earliest. Concluding his argument, Learned Government Advocate prays for dismissal of the Writ Petition. 7. On the rival contentions of the parties, the only question that falls for consideration by this Court is as to whether the Petitioner has furnished any forged Caste Certificate claiming his caste as "ST" Kondha to get appointment as a peon in the Department of Agriculture, Bhubaneswar on 13.12,1971 and subsequently got promotion on the basis of such forged Caste certificate. 8. 8. According to the inquiry report of the Inspector of Police, Vigilance Cell, SC & ST Development Department, IIC, Raikia Police Station, the Petitioner had filed a forged caste certificate to the effect that he belongs to "ST" Kondha and on the basis of that certificate, he has been appointed as a peon in the Agriculture Department and subsequently has got promotion. 9. The Petitioner's specific case is that he has never filed any such forged caste certificate to get appointment as a peon in the Agriculture Department in the year 1971. The Petitioner has been taking this specific stand all along. At this juncture, it is relevant to quote here the show cause reply dated 16.02.2009 filed by the Petitioner: 1. The I. O. has not examined the caste certificate which I had submitted to Agriculture Department at the time of interview; but blindly concluded that I had forged my caste certificate at the time of appointment. Thus, the report is not a complete one and therefore suffers from material irregularity and as such, my noble authority may not perhaps rely on it in taking a firm decision in the matter. 2. As stated by the I.O., I am a man of S.C. category (PANA) and at every point of time I have identified myself as a member of S.C. At the time of interview conducted by Agriculture Department for recruitment of Peon, I had submitted a taste certificate obtaining from the then MLA, G. Udyagiri namely Late Gopal Pradhan in which my caste was mentioned as S.C. But, due to mistake of somebody in Agriculture Department my caste has been mentioned as S.C. (sic) in my Service Roll which is maintained by the office. After getting an appointment, I had no scope of knowing about my caste as mentioned in my Service Roll. The Department have never intimated me about such wrong entry in records. But, whenever I came to know about the matter, I swore in an affidavit before the magistrate regarding my caste and intimated it to the Tahasildar. G Udayagiri and subsequently to the Agriculture Department. Thus, recording my caste as S.T. in the Service Records has been wrongly made by the Department; but the question of forging caste certificate does not arise. Once, a mistake has been made in the records, that has been continuing/rolling till date. G Udayagiri and subsequently to the Agriculture Department. Thus, recording my caste as S.T. in the Service Records has been wrongly made by the Department; but the question of forging caste certificate does not arise. Once, a mistake has been made in the records, that has been continuing/rolling till date. But, for no fault of mine I have been now charged shouted for the mistake for which I am not response (sic). 3. I being an S.C. man of little education do not know on which basis I have got appointment and promotion. The Department have never intimated me that I have been given appointment/promotion as an S.T. candidate. Had I known so, I must have got it rectified in records. But I have never got any scope of knowing the wrong entry of my caste in my service records. In view of the facts mentioned in the foregoing paragraphs, I pray your High Honour to be kind enough to call for the certificate I had produced at the time of interview post of peon from Agriculture Department and a judicious decision may kindly be taken basing on record/documents but not on the arbitrary and hypothetic enquiry report of the Inspector of Police, Vigilance Cell IIC, Raikia Police Station. & For this judicious action of your Highness I shall ever pray. Yours faithfully, Bhubaneswar Dt.16.02.2009 (Bepra Charan Digal). S.G. Diarist (UIS) Agriculture Department. 10. Form the above show cause reply, it is amply clear that the Petitioner has never claimed that he belongs to "ST" Kondha category. His further case is that due to mistake by somebody in the Agriculture Department his caste has been mentioned as "ST" in his Service Roll maintained by the Agriculture Department. After getting appointment, he had no scope to know what was mentioned in the Service Roll. The Office has also never intimated him such fact. When he came to know about the matter, he swore in an affidavit before the Magistrate regarding his caste and intimated to the Tahasildar, G. Udaygiri as well as the Agriculture Department. In his show cause reply, the Petitioner further prayed to call for the certificate which he produced at the time of interview, for the post of peon for Agriculture Department and to take a judicious decision based on the records and documents. 11. It is not disputed by the Opp. In his show cause reply, the Petitioner further prayed to call for the certificate which he produced at the time of interview, for the post of peon for Agriculture Department and to take a judicious decision based on the records and documents. 11. It is not disputed by the Opp. Parties that the Petitioner does not belong to Scheduled Caste. The case of the Opp. Parties is that the Petitioner has furnished a forged caste certificate claiming himself as Kondha Scheduled Tribe (ST) to get appointment as a peon in the Agriculture Department in the year 1971. In the impugned order there is nothing to show that before coming to the conclusion that the Petitioner had furnished forged caste certificate claiming himself to be Kondha Scheduled Tribe (ST) to get appointment as peon, the SLSC called for the certificate the Petitioner produced at the time of interview for the post of peon from the Agriculture Department as prayed for by the Petitioner in his show cause reply. On being asked by us, the Learned Government Advocate has not produced any material in support of the allegation that the Petitioner got appointment in the post of peon in the year 1971 in the Agriculture Department on the basis of forged caste certificate produced by him claiming himself to be ST Kondha. The record produced does not reveal that the Petitioner has furnished any certificate claiming himself to be ST Kondha. 12. In that view of the matter, the Petitioner cannot be held responsible if any wrong entry has been made in his Service Roll maintained by the Agriculture Department with regard to the Petitioner's caste. Undisputedly, the Petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste. Therefore, the allegation made in the inquiry report under Annexure2 that the Petitioner filed a forged certificate claiming himself to be "ST" Kondha to get appointment as a Peon in the Department of Agriculture in the year 1971 and acceptance of the same by SLSC in its final order passed under Annexure-1 is not supported by any evidence on record, and hence not correct. 13. In the facts situation, the order of the SLSC is modified to the extent that, no further promotion shall be given to the Petitioner on the assumption that he belongs to "ST" Kondha. 13. In the facts situation, the order of the SLSC is modified to the extent that, no further promotion shall be given to the Petitioner on the assumption that he belongs to "ST" Kondha. Since, any fault on the part of the Petitioner has not been proved, no other action shall be taken against him as directed by SLSC vide Order Dated 29.04.2009 under Annexure-1. 14. With the aforesaid observations and direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. I agree.