I.A. Ansari, J;— Heard Mr. A. Ghosh, learned counsel, appearing for the appellant, and Mr. Somik Deb, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This is an appeal against the judgment and order, dated 02.08.2011, passed in W.P.(C) 346 of 2000, whereby a learned single Judge of this Court, while allowing the writ petition, directed the writ petitioner-respondents to make a representation against his removal from service with further direction to the respondents, particularly, respondent No. 1, namely, Secretary-cum-Commissioner to the Government of Tripura, Department of Health and Family Welfare, to consider, in accordance with the policy decision of the Government and in terms of the directions, given in the judgment under appeal, the representation of the writ-petitioner- respondent, if made. 3. Before we enter into the merit of the appeal, the facts, giving rise to the present appeal, may be set out as under: (i) The writ petitioner-respondent herein faced a disciplinary proceeding for allegedlly obtaining a false Scheduled Caste certificate by making misrepresentation of facts. The Article of Charge, served upon the writ petitioner-respondent, read as under :- 'That the said Dr.Bisnupada Biswas was appointed as Junior Medical Officer in Gr. V of T.H.S. on ad-hoc basis w.e.f. 6.11.82 and subsequently his service was regularized on the recommendation of the Tripura Public Service Commission w.e.f. 30.4.1983 considering him to be a member of the Scheduled Caste Community. That the said Dr.Bishnupada Biswas, Gr. V of THS. had obtained a Scheduled Caste Certificate bearing No. 187/DM/GL/W/72 dated 6.4.72 from the District Magistrate and Collector, West Tripura. That the Scheduled Caste Certificate so obtained and procured by Dr.Bishnupada Biswas has been cancelled by the District Magistrate and Collector, West Tripura vide Memorandum No. 2287-95/F.6(13) DM/GL/W/89 dated 16.6.92 as it was obtained by wilful misrepresentation of facts. Thus, Dr.Bishnupada Biswas by his above acts and its consequence has violated Rule 3 of the Tripura Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1988'. (ii) As the writ petitioner-respondent contested the charge by denying the same, an enquiry was held. On conclusion of the enquiry, the Inquiry Officer held the writ petitioner-respondent guilty of the charge. The Disciplinary Authority agreed with the finding of the guilt reached by the Inquiry Officer and passed an order, on 20.5.1999, imposing, on the writ petitioner-respondent, penalty of removal from the service. 4. On conclusion of the enquiry, the Inquiry Officer held the writ petitioner-respondent guilty of the charge. The Disciplinary Authority agreed with the finding of the guilt reached by the Inquiry Officer and passed an order, on 20.5.1999, imposing, on the writ petitioner-respondent, penalty of removal from the service. 4. Being aggrieved by the penalty, so imposed upon him, the writ petitioner-respondent put to challenge the order, dated 20.5.1999, aforementioned, by filing a writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, his case being, in brief, thus: (a) A press release was issued by the State Government, on 08.07.1991, whereby everyone was informed that the State Government had started investigation against the holders of Scheduled Caste certificates and that the Minister for Scheduled Caste Welfare had made a statement that if those, who had acquired fake Scheduled Caste certificates by illegal means, deposit their respective certificates with the Government on their own, the Government would take a very lenient view in the matter, but those, who would not deposit such a certificate, woud be severely dealt with if they are found to have obtained the fake Scheduled Caste certificate. (b) Induced by the promise, so made by the State Government and acting upon the same, the writ petitioner-respondent deposited his Scheduled Caste certificate admitting to the fact that the same was fake. After the writ petitioner-respondent had deposited the said certificate with the appropriate authority, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him, as already indicated above, and the same culminated into the writ petitioner-respondent's removal from the service. After the writ petitioner-respondent had deposited the said certificate with the appropriate authority, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him, as already indicated above, and the same culminated into the writ petitioner-respondent's removal from the service. (c) As the writ petitioner-respondent had acted on the promise, which the State Governnent had made, and he had altered thereby his position to his detriment believing in the State Government's promise and being induced thereby, the State Government could not have resiled from its promise and ought to have dealt with the writ petitioner-respondent leniently, which the State Government could have done inasmuch as it was within their power to deal with the petitioner-respondent leniently and the writ petitioner-respondent could not have been removed from service because the said removal was the maximum penalty, which could have been imposed on the writ petitioner-respondent, whereas the State Government ought not imposed to have, in the consequence of the promise made by it, imposed such maximum possible penalty on the petitioner- respondent. 5. Having found force in the case of the writ petitioner, the learned Single Judge, while not interfering with the order of removal, directed, by the judgment and order under appeal, the writ petitioner to make a representation to the Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Government of Tripura, Department of Health and Family Welfare, and further directed the Secretaiy-cum-Commissioner, Government of Tripura, Department of Health and Family Welfare, to consider the writ petitioner-respondent's representation, if made, as already indicated above. Being dissatisfied with the directions, so issued, in the writ petition, the State Government has preferred this appeal. 6. While considering the present appeal, it needs to be noted that the fact that the Government had made a promise of taking lenient view against those, who might deposit their false caste certificate, was never in dispute in the writ petition nor is it in dispute in this appeal. 7. 6. While considering the present appeal, it needs to be noted that the fact that the Government had made a promise of taking lenient view against those, who might deposit their false caste certificate, was never in dispute in the writ petition nor is it in dispute in this appeal. 7. The moot question, therefore, which arises for consideration, in the present appeal, is: Having made a promise in the manner, as indicated above, and having induced the writ petitioner to deposit his Caste certificate with the Government, whether the State Government could have gone back on its promise and punished the petitioner-respondent with the maximum possible punishment of removal from service, when the writ petitioner had, induced by the Government's promise and acting upon the same, had altered his position to his detriment? 8. While considering the question, posed above, it needs to be born in mind that the measure of penalty was for the State Government to decide. Though the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Reservation Act, 1991, which has come into force w.e.f. 02.10.1992, provides for dismissal of a person, who obtains or uses a false caste certificate knowing the same to be false, the case of the writ petitioner-respondent is, admittedly, not covered by the said Act inasmuch as the promise had been made by the Government as far back as on 08.07.1991 and the petitioner had deposited his caste certificate on 20.11.1991, this is, long before the said Act came into force. 9. Situated thus, it becomes crystal clear that it was within the ambit of the power of the State Government to choose the penalty against the writ petitioner-respondent for the purpose of punishing him for his act of obtaining false certificate or using the said caste certificate knowing the same to be false. As the Government had promised and induced the petitioner thereby to deposit the petitioner's caste certificate and thereby alter his (writ petitioner-respondent's) position to his detriment, the Government could not have gone back on its promise inasmuch as it was, as already mentioned above, within the ambit the powers of the State Government to impose such penalty on the writ petitioner as it would have deemed fit. The State Government could have taken a lenient view about the misconduct of the petitioner, but has chosen to deal with the petitioner with as much harshness as it was possible. 10. In the circumstances as indicated above the Government was found to have broken its promise and it could not have been allowed, and was rightly not allowed, by the learned Single Judge to remove the petitioner from his service. 11. Coupled with the above, the petitioner had substantiated his claim of having been discriminated against, because the Government had taken, in many similar cases, lenient view against its other employee, for example, Dr.(Mrs.) Mailasani and Ranendra Kumar Deb, whose Scheduled Caste certificates had been cancelled, were not removed or dismissed from service. Another similarly situated person, namely, Dr. P.K. Roy, who had, while entering into the Government service, obtained a false Scheduled Caste certificate, was not dismissed from service. Yet another example was of one Sri Samarendra Dos, an officer of the Department of Industries, Government of Tripura, whose Scheduled Caste certificate had to be cancelled, but he had been left with a warning only. Similar treatment was also meted out to two more persons, namely, Sri Kshitish Das and Sri Ratish Das. When the State Government had taken lenient view in the cases of many of its employees, who were similarly situated, as the writ petitioner-respondent was, the State Government could not have discriminated against the petitioner by imposing on him the maximum penalty of removal from his service, although it was, as already pointed out, within the scope of the power of the Government to choose the penalty in a case of present nature. 12. Viewed thus, we find no infirmity in the direction given by the learned Single Judge to the writ petitioner-respondent to make representation as indicated above. 12. Viewed thus, we find no infirmity in the direction given by the learned Single Judge to the writ petitioner-respondent to make representation as indicated above. There is, however, an impediment, on the part of the Secretary-cum-Commissioner to the Government of Tripura, Department of Health and Family Welfare, in considering the representation, if so made, inasmuch as the Commissioner and the Secretary to the Government of Tripura, Health and Family Welfare, having taken the decision and having imposed penalty of removal of service on the writ petitioner-respondent, could not have reviewed this decision, because he has no such power of review and the remedy of the petitioner, in such a case, lied, as rightly contended by Mr. A. Ghosh, learned Government counsel, in preferring appeal to the Governor of the State. 13. Considering the above facts, we find that the Government's action in removing the writ petitioner-respondent from service suffered from gross illegality We, therefore, deem it appropriate that the direction, given by the learned single Judge, to set aside the order, dated 20.5.1999, be effectively carried out. 14. Considering, therefore, the matter in its entirety and in the interest of justice, we set aside the order, dated 20.05.1999, aforementioned and do not interfere with the direction of the learned Single Judge, given by the judgment and order under appeal, to the writ petitioner-respondent to make his representation, as indicated in the order, to the Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Government of Tripura, Department of Health and Family Welfare, to consider his representation and to take a decision in the matter of quantum of punishment in accordance with the policy decision of the State Government, as evidenced by the Press Release, dated 8th July, 1991, and the observations made in the judgment of the learned Single Judge and also the observations made in this appeal. 15. With the above modification in the directions, contained in the judgment and order under appeal, this appeal stands disposed of. 16. No order as to costs. _____________