JUDGMENT Sanjay Karol, J. In this Letters Patent Appeal, State of Himachal Pradesh has assailed the impugned judgment dated 2.8.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP (T0 No. 8070 of 2008, titled as Pinjar Singh vs. State of H.P. and another. In terms of the impugned judgment action on the part of the State in removing the writ petitioner from service vide order dated 15.10.2001 (Annexure P-17) stands quashed. In terms of this order dated 15.10.2001 (Annexure P-17), the writ petitioner was imposed with the penalty from removal from service on the ground that by misrepresentation and furnishing a false certificate of a Scheduled Caste category, he got himself appointed to the post of a Patwari, which was actually reserved for a Scheduled Caste category. Writ petitioner does not belong to such category and as such was ineligible for being considered for appointment. 2. Learned Single Judge has primarily quashed this order on the ground that prior to the initiation of the departmental proceedings which culminated into passing of the aforesaid order of removal from service, writ petitioner stood exonerated in earlier two inquiries conducted by the department. Also what weighed with the learned Single Judge was the fact that inquiry reports of these two inquiries were not supplied to the writ petitioner. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record, we are of the considered view that the appellants have made out a case for interference and the impugned judgment needs to be set aside. 4. On 21.2.1984 writ petitioner was appointed as a Patwari. This post was reserved for a candidate belonging to a Scheduled Caste category. Writ petitioner joined on 28.2.1984. A complaint was received that he did not belong to the Scheduled Caste Category. As such, on 27.4.1994 he was asked to submit a photocopy of the certificate for investigation. Writ petitioner responded to the same clarifying that he belonged to a General category. It appears that during the course of preliminary inquiry, it was so found that the writ petitioner had actually furnished a certificate showing himself belonging to a Scheduled Caste category. Accordingly, a charge-sheet was issued to the writ petitioner for having produced a false certificate. Writ petitioner responded to the same clarifying that he belonged to a General category. It appears that during the course of preliminary inquiry, it was so found that the writ petitioner had actually furnished a certificate showing himself belonging to a Scheduled Caste category. Accordingly, a charge-sheet was issued to the writ petitioner for having produced a false certificate. Undisputedly vide communication dated 29/30-9-1997 the Enquiry officer absolve the writ petitioner on the ground that since the writ petitioner was not a government servant at the time of submitting of the certificate in question, hence he could not be penalized for having mis-conducted himself or violated any of the service conditions and the Rules. 5. The matter, however, did not rest there and the inquiry was entrusted to the Director, Departmental Enquiries. It is also a matter of fact that Director, Departmental Enquiries in his report dated 4.3.1999 exonerated the writ petitioner, inter alia, holding as under:- “In view of the above it cannot be proved beyond doubt that Sh.Pinjar Singh had presented himself as a S.C. candidate for selection and that by doing so he has mislead the office and fraudulently obtained a post reserved for S.C. Had he submitted this certificate alongwith application form at the time of making application the situation would have been different. Moreover, difference in signatures between the two documents i.e. the S.C. certificate and the signatures appended in the service book, further, creates a doubt whether the charged official is involved in the case or not. Moreover, he was registered as general candidate in the employment. In view of the above the charge is not proved.” 6. Thereafter vide communication dated 1.9.1999, certain additional documents were sent to the Director, Departmental Enquiries, but the same were returned back to the Director, Consolidation, reiterating the decision of the Government to the effect that only cases involving department of Consolidation decided to have the matter inquired by appointing a fresh Enquiry Officer from within the department. The writ petitioner was served with the Articles of Charges, four in number, on 23.12.1999. Significantly, out of the four charges only two charges were dealt with in the earlier inquiry proceedings. The writ petitioner was served with the Articles of Charges, four in number, on 23.12.1999. Significantly, out of the four charges only two charges were dealt with in the earlier inquiry proceedings. The department modified the charge-sheet by taking into account the fact that even though the Caste Certificate submitted by the writ petitioner was on record and the writ petitioner had made entries showing himself belonging to a Scheduled Caste category, in his own handwriting in the service book, yet before the Enquiry Officer he had denied this fact. This inquiry was initiated in compliance of Rule 15(1) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. 7. In this view of the matter, the vigilance angle was to be dealt by the Commissioner, Departmental Enquiries. 8. Significantly, writ petitioner joined these inquiry proceedings without any protest. It cannot be disputed that in these proceedings, adequate opportunity of hearing and representation was afforded to the writ petitioner. All the documents as sought for were made available to him. Most significantly, in these proceedings, writ petitioner himself made certain admissions, which by itself establish his guilt and conclusively proves the charges so levelled against him. The relevant portion of the admissions so made by the writ petition, as placed on record by him in the writ petition (Original Application), are extracted hereinbelow:- “Q3. Do you want to say anything regarding the charges? A. Yes Sir. Q4. Yes Sir. I am resident of Village Jong, Tehsil Karsog, District Mandi. I belong to Thamvi caste. This comes under OBC. The certificate of my belonging to Scheduled Caste, was procured for me by Sh. Tara Chand, who is son of my father’s sister and is working since 1984 as Class-IV in the office of Land Records and Consolidation Department Shimla. I did not apply forgetting Scheduled Caste certificate nor did I go to Assistant Commissioner, Shimla for certificate. Sh. Tara Chand, above mentioned might have obtained the certificate and produced at the time of interview of which I was not aware. Nor in my appointment letter it was written that my appointment has been made against Scheduled Caste category. I have not given anything in writing regarding belonging to Scheduled Caste. Now when I was prosecuted I have learnt that I have been appointed against Scheduled Caste category. Nor in my appointment letter it was written that my appointment has been made against Scheduled Caste category. I have not given anything in writing regarding belonging to Scheduled Caste. Now when I was prosecuted I have learnt that I have been appointed against Scheduled Caste category. I admit that this appointment has not been made according to rules, hence I may be taken out of Scheduled Caste quota and treated against General quota. Though Scheduled-Caste certificate has not been obtained by me, even then I consider my appointment against this quota as wrong. I have small kids and except service I have no source of income. Hence keeping in view my children and family, mercy may be shown to me and I may be pardoned. In future I shall not commit such mistake. Beyond this I do not want say anything. This case may be closed.” (Emphasis supplied) 9. Eventually the Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding the writ petitioner to be guilty of misconduct and copy of the inquiry report was furnished to him. After examining the same and the response thereto, the disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of removal of service vide orders dated 15.10.2001 (Annexure P-17). 10. Keeping in view all the abovementioned facts, we are of the considered view that the learned Single Judge erred in concluding that simply because the writ petitioner stood exonerated in the earlier two inquiries, no third inquiry could have been initiated against him. One cannot loose sight of the fact that the third inquiry pertained to two additional charges. Also writ petitioner, without any protest, participated in this inquiry and in fact admitted the case against him. He pleaded for mercy, which did not find favour with the department and as such he was rightly removed from service. Writ petitioner did not belong to the category for which the post was reserved. At the first instance he could not have been appointed on the said post. He was ineligible to have been appointed against the reserved post. Not only that he obtained and got furnished a false certificate as though he belonged to a category for which the post was reserved. 11. Technicalities with regard to noncompliance of procedure cannot be allowed to prevail over the admissions of fraud. He was ineligible to have been appointed against the reserved post. Not only that he obtained and got furnished a false certificate as though he belonged to a category for which the post was reserved. 11. Technicalities with regard to noncompliance of procedure cannot be allowed to prevail over the admissions of fraud. In view of the admissions so made by the writ petitioner, we are of the considered view that non-supply of two earlier inquiry reports would not vitiate the departmental proceedings in question. Hence the present appeal needs to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. Impugned judgment 2.8.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP (T) No. 8070 of 2008, titled as Pinjar Singh vs. State of H.P. and others, stands set aside and writ petition is accordingly dismissed.