JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Ujjal Bhuyan, J. By way of this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 11.12.2012 passed by the Director of Higher Education, Assam terminating the service of the petitioner as Assistant Professor in the Department of Assamese in Pub-Kamrup College, Baihata Chariali, District-Kamrup with immediate effect. She further seeks a direction to the respondents to re-instate her in service. 2. Case of the petitioner as projected in the writ petition is that she belongs to the Scheduled Caste community in respect of which caste certificate dated 11.03.1996 was issued by the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Nalbari. As per the said caste certificate, petitioner has been certified as belonging to the Mali caste which is recognised as a Scheduled Caste under the Constitution (Scheduled Caste) Order, 1950 in respect of the State of Assam. Following a selection process, the Managing Committee of Pub-Kamrup College (College) adopted resolution dated 11.12.2002 to appoint the petitioner as Lecturer in Assamese against a vacant post reserved for Scheduled Caste category candidate. The Director of Higher Education, Assam by order dated 10.02.2003 approved the said resolution of the Managing Committee. Thereafter, the Principal of the College issued office order dated 11.02.2003 appointing the petitioner as Lecturer (now Assistant Professor) in Assamese in the said College. Petitioner joined on 13.02.2003 and started serving as such. 3. Based on a newspaper report that petitioner had obtained appointment by making a false claim of being a member of the Scheduled Caste community, the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (Rural) wrote to the petitioner vide letter dated 25.06.2012 stating that an enquiry was being conducted regarding her appointment as Lecturer in the College as Scheduled Caste candidate. Petitioner was asked to appear in the office chamber of the Extra Assistant Commissioner on 28.06.2012. Petitioner appeared before the said authority and submitted all the documents, including her caste certificate. Subsequently, the Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Nalbari also issued a letter dated 09.07.2012 to the petitioner requesting her to be present in his office on 11.07.2012 along with her original documents relating to proof of her Scheduled Caste certificate. Accordingly, petitioner appeared before the said authority on the date fixed. However, the outcome of the enquiry was not made known to the petitioner. 4. Deputy Commissioner, Nalbari also issued a letter dated 09.07.2012 to the petitioner requesting her to be present in his office on 11.07.2012 along with her original documents relating to proof of her Scheduled Caste certificate. Accordingly, petitioner appeared before the said authority on the date fixed. However, the outcome of the enquiry was not made known to the petitioner. 4. Be that as it may, the Director of Higher Education, Assam (respondent No. 2) issued order dated 11.12.2012 terminating the service of the petitioner with immediate effect on the ground of gross irregularities and production of forged/fake caste certificate at the time of appointment. The order was stated to have been issued pursuant to Government letter dated 01.12.2012. 5. Aggrieved, petitioner has preferred the present writ petition seeking the reliefs as indicated above. 6. Petitioner's contention is that no show cause notice or departmental proceeding was initiated against her before her termination. Copies of the enquiry reports prepared by the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (Rural) and Deputy Commissioner, Nalbari were not made available to her. According to the petitioner, the College was earlier receiving grants-in-aid from the Government. After coming into force of the Assam College Employees (Provincialisation) Act, 2005, the College was provincialised and by virtue of such provincialisation, petitioner became a Government employee. In any case, by virtue of Rule 15 of the Assam College Employees (Provinsialisation) Rules, 2010, petitioner would be governed by the provisions of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964. Consequently, no penalty could have been imposed on the petitioner without following the procedure prescribed under Rule 9 of the 1964 Rules. She has asserted that she belongs to the Scheduled Caste and vehemently disputed the findings to the contrary. 7. This Court by order dated 21.12.2012 passed an interim order to the effect that the vacancy caused due to termination of the petitioner should not be filled up. 8. Respondent No. 2 has filed affidavit on 08.01.2013. It is stated that one journalist had made a complaint before the authority regarding forged Scheduled Caste certificate produced by the petitioner at the time of appointment as Lecturer in Assamese in the College. After receiving the complaint, the Deputy Commissioner, Nalbari directed the Addl. Deputy Commissioner to conduct an enquiry in respect of caste of the petitioner and authenticity of her caste certificate. The Addl. After receiving the complaint, the Deputy Commissioner, Nalbari directed the Addl. Deputy Commissioner to conduct an enquiry in respect of caste of the petitioner and authenticity of her caste certificate. The Addl. Deputy Commissioner conducted the enquiry and thereafter reported before the Deputy Commissioner stating that the petitioner was able to get Scheduled Caste certificate from the Deputy Commissioner's office, Nalbari by producing misleading information/documents before the competent authority. It is further stated that the Extra Assistant Commissioner, Kamrup as per direction of the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup also conducted an enquiry and on 23.08.2012, she submitted her report before the Deputy Commissioner, Nalbari. Respondent No. 2 has contended that the enquiry has found that the petitioner does not belong to Scheduled Caste (Mali) community but belongs to the general Kalita community. Since she obtained initial appointment on the basis of the forged document, she is not entitled to the benefit of the principles of natural justice. 9. Petitioner in her reply affidavit filed on 23.01.2013 while reiterating the averments made in the writ petition, contends that the respondents have not cancelled her caste certificate. She has also raised questions relating to the conduct of enquiry by the Deputy Commissioner, Nalbari to contend that no fair procedure was followed in the said enquiry and, therefore, no credence can be given to such enquiry report. In so far her caste is concerned, petitioner has reiterated that she belongs to the Mali community, which is a recognised Scheduled Caste. Petitioner has given detailed explanation in support of her contention that she belongs to the Mali community. Relevant portion of the reply affidavit are as under:- "5. That the statements made in paragraph 7 of the Affidavit-in-Opposition being incorrect, are being denied and disputed by the answering deponent. In this connection, the Deponent states that, on 23.07.2012, the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Nalbari, Shri Adhar Bhuyan along with the Lat Mandal Shri Dhanashree Talukdar, visited the house of Shri Chandan Deka, who happens to be the first cousin of the deponent, at around 11:30 AM and asked him to write that he and his family members do not belong to the Scheduled Caste Community. The aforesaid Chandan Deka was further told that failing his giving such declaration, he will be given a notice and he will be arrested. The aforesaid Chandan Deka was further told that failing his giving such declaration, he will be given a notice and he will be arrested. Therefore, under such circumstances, he was dictated by the Additional Deputy Commissioner to write that his family members belonged to the General Caste. Following the aforesaid incident, Mr. Chandan Deka visited the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Nalbari and verbally informed the matter to Mrs. Jolly Raj Brahma, Additional Deputy Commissioner, Nalbari on which she assured that she would look into the matter. Thereafter, Shri Chandan Deka swore an Affidavit stating the aforesaid misdeeds by the Additional Deputy Commissioner Shri Adhar Bhuyan. Another family member of the deponent Mr. Prasanta Deka, who happens to be a cousin of the deponent and was arrayed as a so-called witness by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, was also dictated by the same very person to depose against the Deponent. It may be most pertinent to mention herein that, the said Shri Prasanta Deka was born and brought up in Darrang District away from his home and is an absolutely ignorant person in terms of his lack of knowledge about his caste. The same very fact was harped upon by the authorities as aforesaid while extracting the declarations in question. Therefore, it is evident from the aforesaid sequence of events, that the authorities had only been hoodwinking the legal procedures in the name of conducting an enquiry. In fact none of the witnesses arrayed as the family members were ever called to depose before the Inquiry Officer. Instead, the authorities themselves went to the respective homes of the aforesaid so called witnesses in order to extract a declaration under threat and coercion for reasons which can be anything but bona fide. Therefore, it is absolutely false to allege that the family members of the deponent had deposed before the Enquiry Officer that they do not belong to the Scheduled Caste (Mali) Community and they belong to the general Kalita Caste. Therefore, the said statement is being categorically denied hereby and the Respondents are put to strictest proof thereof. 6. That with regards to the statements made in paragraph 7 of the Affidavit-in-Opposition, the deponent further states that she belongs to the Mali Community, which is a Scheduled Caste. Therefore, the said statement is being categorically denied hereby and the Respondents are put to strictest proof thereof. 6. That with regards to the statements made in paragraph 7 of the Affidavit-in-Opposition, the deponent further states that she belongs to the Mali Community, which is a Scheduled Caste. Further, although the State Respondents have sought to project a picture that the deponent belongs to the general Kalita Caste, they have quite conveniently omitted to mention that the deponent belongs to the Saru Kalita Sub caste which is in fact a Scheduled Caste. It may be most pertinent to mention herein that, the Kalitas are divided into two main sub divisions. Bar and Saru, and into a number of professional sub castes. In Upper Assam, Bar Kalitas are said to decline to use the plough, though they occasionally work with the spade, but there is no such restriction in Kamrup, where the great bulk of the caste is found. The origin of the Saru Kalita stems either from offspring of persons who have not been united for three generations by the 'hom' ceremony or descendants of children born from the union of a Bar Kalita and a Keot woman. These two sub divisions of the caste are debarred from close intercourse with each other. Further, the Saru Kalitas are again sub divided into few functional sub divisions which are Mali, Sonari, Kamar, Kumhar, Napit, Nat, Suri and Dhoba. The deponent belongs to the aforesaid Mali Community, which is listed in the Schedule Caste Community. The aforesaid fact had already been certified by the Chairman of the Nalbari Sub Divisional Scheduled Caste Development Board, Mr. Khagendra Nath Das by his Certificate dated 22.08.2006. Most pertinently, the said fact had also been certified by the General Secretary of the Nalbari Jila Anusuchit Jati Parshad, Mr. Biraj Das by his certificate dated 23.08.2006. However, for reasons best known to him, the same very person has now issued a different certificate in the year 2012 stating therein that the deponent belongs to the general Caste. Further, it may be most pertinent to mention herein that, the mandate of the Hon'ble Apex Court in matters of disputed questions regarding caste is that, such dispute shall be referred to a Scheduled Caste Scrutiny Committee to be constituted as per the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Further, it may be most pertinent to mention herein that, the mandate of the Hon'ble Apex Court in matters of disputed questions regarding caste is that, such dispute shall be referred to a Scheduled Caste Scrutiny Committee to be constituted as per the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court. However, in the case of the deponent, the said procedure was given an absolute go-by, categorically violating the law as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court. 10. Heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. P. Bhattacharjee, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department. Learned Standing counsel has also produced the record in original relating to termination of service of the petitioner. 11. Mr. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that termination of service of the petitioner is wholly illegal. Petitioner being a Government employee, she is entitled to the protection under Article 311 of the Constitution as well as under the 1964 Rules. Termination of service without holding any enquiry and without putting the petitioner to notice is violative of the principles of natural justice and requires interference of the Court. On the issue of the caste certificate, learned counsel submits that in the event of any dispute being raised about the genuineness of such certificate, the matter is required to be placed before a Scrutiny Committee to be constituted for the purpose. In the present case, the matter was not placed before the Scrutiny Committee and was enquired into by the office of the Deputy Commissioner, that too, in a most perfunctory manner in violation of all norms of fair play. Even a copy of the report based on which petitioner's service was terminated was not furnished to the petitioner. He asserts that petitioner belongs to the Scheduled Caste and refers to the averments made in the reply affidavit, extracted above. In support of his submissions, learned counsel has placed reliance on the following decisions:- 1. (1994) 6 SCC 241 (Kumari Madhuri Patil and Anr. v. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and Ors.). 2. 2001 (2) GLT 215 (Sushma Chetri (Smt.) v. State of Tripura and Ors.). 12. Ms. P. Bhattacharjee, learned Standing Counsel on the other hand submits that petitioner's initial entry into service was based on a fraudulent document which has vitiated her appointment. (1994) 6 SCC 241 (Kumari Madhuri Patil and Anr. v. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and Ors.). 2. 2001 (2) GLT 215 (Sushma Chetri (Smt.) v. State of Tripura and Ors.). 12. Ms. P. Bhattacharjee, learned Standing Counsel on the other hand submits that petitioner's initial entry into service was based on a fraudulent document which has vitiated her appointment. When entry into the service is so tainted, non-observance of the principles of natural justice will not vitiate the order of termination since it was issued only to remove the initial illegality. She refers to a decision of this Court reported in 1997 (3) GLT 561 (Abdul Jabbar and Ors. v. State of Assam and Ors.). 13. Submissions made have been considered. 14. The record produced has also being perused. 15. A perusal of the record would show that the Extra Assistant Commissioner, Kamrup had submitted an enquiry report dated 23.08.2012 to the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup regarding caste certificate of the petitioner. She stated that the order for conducting enquiry was issued in pursuance of letter dated 16.06.2012 received from the Education Minister, Assam based on information received by a journalist under RTI Act. Since a doubt arose regarding the candidature of the petitioner as a Scheduled Caste candidate, an enquiry was desired by the Education Minister. The relevant portion of the said enquiry report reads as under:- "As such, Smti. Barnali Deka, Lecturer in Assamese, Pub Kamrup College was called for hearing and it was revealed from her statement and relevant documents received along with the letter under reference that she was selected for the post of Lecturer, Assamese, that was reserved for SC candidate and the interview for which was held on 24.11.2002 as per advertisement published on 29.10.2002. She was issued appointment letter vide memo No. PKC/61-A/2003 dated 11/02/2003. At the time of interview she produced Scheduled Caste certificate memo No. NA 1/96/264 dated 11/03/1996 issued to her by the O/O the Deputy Commissioner, Nalbari, as her residential address was at Nalbari. She also stated that nobody in her family obtained SC certificate from any authority. She claimed to belong to SC (Mali) family, ancestors of whom resided in Barnardi, Maltopara village, Nalbari. Biraj Das, President, Anusuchita Jati Parishad, Nalibari, Mantu Das Vice-President, Sub-Divisional SC Department Board, also asserted that the family of Barnali Deka belong to SC (Mali) caste. She also stated that nobody in her family obtained SC certificate from any authority. She claimed to belong to SC (Mali) family, ancestors of whom resided in Barnardi, Maltopara village, Nalbari. Biraj Das, President, Anusuchita Jati Parishad, Nalibari, Mantu Das Vice-President, Sub-Divisional SC Department Board, also asserted that the family of Barnali Deka belong to SC (Mali) caste. Xerox copies of certificate issued by Gaonburah, booklet about migration from Barnadi area etc. are produced in support of her claim of being Scheduled Caste candidate. As the SC certificate was issued by the O/O the Deputy Commissioner, Nalbari, long back in 1996, the present Deputy Commissioner was requested to inform about the authenticity of the certificate. Consequently Sri Adhar Bhuyan, ACS, Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Nalbari was entrusted to cause a field enquiry to verify the caste status of Smti. Barnali Deka. The enquiry report as submitted was forwarded by Deputy Commissioner, Nalbari on 08/08/2012. As per this report, Smti. Barnali Deka, W/O Sri Tapan Kalita, D/o Sri Gakul Deka does not belong to Schedule Caste (Mali), but she belongs to General Kalita caste and she was able to get the SC Certificate No. NA 1/96/264 dated 11/03/1996 by producing misleading information before the competent authority. It is worth mentioning that Sri Biraj Das, President, Anusuchit Jati Parishard, Nalbari, revealed contradictory facts about Smti. Barnali Deka's caste status while giving his statement before the undersigned and before the Enquiry Officer at Nalbari, which should be viewed seriously." 16. Thus, it can be seen that the Extra Assistant Commissioner did not give any definite finding about the genuineness or otherwise of the Scheduled Caste certificate of the petitioner but referred to the enquiry report of the Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Nalbari, which stated that petitioner does not belong to the Scheduled Caste (Mali) community but belongs to general Kalita caste and that she was able to get the Scheduled Caste certificate by producing misleading information before the competent authority. 17. That takes us to the enquiry report of the Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Nalbari dated 07.08.2012. The relevant portion of the said enquiry report is quoted hereunder:- "Findings of the enquiry are: No records are available in the PFC branch of DC's Office, Nalbari relating to Smti. Barnali Deka's SC Certificate No.NA-1/96/264 dated 11/03/1996. Smti. Barnali Deka was served notice to appear before the undersigned for hearing and verifying her original SC Certificate. The relevant portion of the said enquiry report is quoted hereunder:- "Findings of the enquiry are: No records are available in the PFC branch of DC's Office, Nalbari relating to Smti. Barnali Deka's SC Certificate No.NA-1/96/264 dated 11/03/1996. Smti. Barnali Deka was served notice to appear before the undersigned for hearing and verifying her original SC Certificate. After verification, the SC Certificate issued to Smti. Barnali Deka appeared to be authentic. The Certificate was issued by the Administration Branch, D.C's Office Nalbari signed by the then E.A.C., Nalbari. Thereafter, the statement of Smti. Barnali Deka was recorded. In her statement, she mentioned that she belongs to Scheduled Caste (Mali). Recorded Statement of Smti. Barnali Deka is enclosed as Annexure-'A'. Shri Gokul Deka, S/O Late Badan Deka, father of Smti. Barnali Deka is now a resident of Gopal Bazar, Nalbari. Late Badan Deka, grandfather of Smt. Barnali Deka was a resident of village Barnardi, P.S. Belsor in the District of Nalbari. Late Badan Deka has/had 4 (four) sons namely, 1. Late Bipin Ch. Deka. 2. Shri Gokul Deka. 3. Shri Mohan Ch. Deka. 4. Late Ramesh Deka. I conducted a field enquiry along with Smti. Dhanashri Talukdar, Lot Mandal of Vill-Barnardi, Mouza-Pakowa in the District of Nalbari. During field enquiry, I found that families of Late Bipin Deka and Late Ramesh Deka are presently residing at Vill-Barnardi. First, I met wife of Late Ramesh Deka and only son Shri Chandan Deka. Shri Chandan Deka is cousin of Smti. Barnali Deka. Statement of Shri Chandan Deka was recorded in presence of his mother and Lot Mandal Smti. Dhanashri Talukdar. As per recorded Statement of Shri Chandan Deka, cousin of Smti. Barnali Deka, their family does not belong to Scheduled Caste (Mali). They belong to General Kalita Caste. Recorded Statement of Shri Chandan Deka is enclosed at 'Annexure-B'. Shri Chandan Deka's mother who is aunt of Smti. Barnali Deka also verbally expressed that by birth, their family does not belong to Scheduled Caste (Mali). They belong to General Kalita Caste. I also personally met Shri Prasanta Kr. Deka, S/o Late Bipin Ch. Deka, cousin of Smti. Barnali Deka. His Statement was also recorded. As per recorded Statement of Shri Prasanta Kr. Deka, by birth their family does not belong to Scheduled Caste (Mali). They belong to General Kalita Caste. Recorded Statement of Shri Prasanta Kr. Deka is enclosed herewith at 'Annexure-C'. Smti. Deka, S/o Late Bipin Ch. Deka, cousin of Smti. Barnali Deka. His Statement was also recorded. As per recorded Statement of Shri Prasanta Kr. Deka, by birth their family does not belong to Scheduled Caste (Mali). They belong to General Kalita Caste. Recorded Statement of Shri Prasanta Kr. Deka is enclosed herewith at 'Annexure-C'. Smti. Dhanashri Talukdar, Lot Mandal of Vill-Barnadi working at the Office of the Circle Officer, Paschim Nalbari Revenue Circle also clarified that family of Smti Barnali Deka, D/o Shri Gokul Deka belongs to General Kalita Caste. Recorded Statement of Smti. Dhanashri Talukdar, LM is enclosed at 'Annexure-D'. I also enquired the matter from Shri Bishnuran Das, President, Scheduled Caste Developmetn Board, Nalbari. He also clarified that Smti. Barnali Deka, D/O Shri Gokul Deka belongs to General Kalita Caste. Recorded Statement of Shri Bishnuram Das, Chairman, SC Development Board, Nalbari is enclosed at 'Annexure-E'. Shri Nripen Deka, Govt. Gaonburha of Vill-Barnardi also clarified that Smti. Barnali Deka does not belong Scheduled Caste (Mali); she belongs to General Kalita Caste. Statement of Shri Nripen Deka, Govt. Gaonburha was also recorded and Statement is enclosed herewith at 'Annexure-F'. I also enquired that matter from Shri Biraj Das, President, Anushuchita Jati Parishad, Nalbari. He clarified that the family of Smti Barnali Deka does not belong to Scheduled Caste (Mali). Recorded Statement of Shri Biraj Das is enclosed herewith at 'Annexure-G'. Moreover, as per verbal Statement of Shri Prasanta Kumar Deka, cousin of Smti. Barnali Deka, no family member of Shri Prasanta Kumar Deka has SC Certificate; for example, Smti. Kalpana Deka, sister of Shri Prasanta Kumar Deka has no SC Certificate. Smti. Kalpana Deka is a student of MA. Another example is Shri Kishore Deka, brother of Shri Prasanta Kumar Deka. As per verbal Statement of Shri Prasanta Kumar Deka, Shri Kishore Deka is working in Veterinary Department, Govt. of Assam. He has no SC Certificate. Conclusion: On the basis of above findings, it appears that Smti Barnali Deka W/O Dr. Tapan Kalita, D/O of Shri Gokul Deka does not belong to Scheduled Caste (Mali). She belongs to General Kalita Caste. It also appears that Smti. Barnali Deka was able to get an SC Certificate from the Administration Branch DC's Office, Nalbari by producing misleading informations/documents before the Competent Authority. Submitted for favor of your kind information and necessary action." 18. Tapan Kalita, D/O of Shri Gokul Deka does not belong to Scheduled Caste (Mali). She belongs to General Kalita Caste. It also appears that Smti. Barnali Deka was able to get an SC Certificate from the Administration Branch DC's Office, Nalbari by producing misleading informations/documents before the Competent Authority. Submitted for favor of your kind information and necessary action." 18. A reading of the said enquiry report indicates that the enquiry officer was of the view that petitioner was able to get the Scheduled Caste certificate by producing misleading information/documents before the competent authority. However, what misleading information/documents were produced by the petitioner before the competent authority have neither been discussed nor indicated. The statement of the petitioner was also not discussed though it has been admitted by the enquiry officer himself that the caste certificate of the petitioner appeared to be authentic. 19. The record further discloses that the enquiry reports were forwarded to the Private Secretary to the Education Minister by forwarding letter dated 15.11.2012 with the noting that it should be brought to the notice of the Minister. On 17.11.2012, the Education Minister wrote to the Commissioner and Secretary, Higher Education stating that the enquiry report prima facie establishes the allegation that the petitioner does not belong to the Scheduled Caste and that she had got appointment as a Scheduled Caste candidate on the basis of forged certificate produced at the time of interview. The departmental Commissioner and Secretary was requested to put up the matter for taking necessary departmental action against the petitioner. This was followed by letter No. AHE.407/2012/48 dated 01.12.2012 issued by the Officer on Special Duty, Higher Education Department and addressed to the respondent No. 2 (referred to in the impugned order) enclosing therewith copy of enquiry report received from the Education Minister. Respondent No. 2 was requested to terminate the service of the petitioner immediately. Following the above, impugned order dated 11.12.2012 was issued. 20. A careful perusal of the impugned order would show that termination of service of the petitioner was based on Government letter dated 01.12.2012 as referred to above. Petitioner was terminated from service for gross irregularities and for production of forged/fake caste certificate at the time of appointment. Though the gross irregularities have not been mentioned, it can be presumed that the same is relatable to the petitioner's caste certificate. Petitioner was terminated from service for gross irregularities and for production of forged/fake caste certificate at the time of appointment. Though the gross irregularities have not been mentioned, it can be presumed that the same is relatable to the petitioner's caste certificate. Coming to the production of forged/fake caste certificate, as already noticed above, neither of the two enquiry reports say that the caste certificate of the petitioner is either forged or fake. What has been stated is that the said certificate was obtained by producing misleading information/documents before the competent authority. Presenting or producing "misleading" information or documents before the authority is one thing and producing forged or fake caste certificate is altogether another thing. In the case of the former, it is a matter of scrutiny while in the case of the latter there is an element of criminality. As a matter of fact, neither of the two enquiry officers say that the caste certificate of the petitioner is forged or fake. In fact, the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Nalbari recorded a finding that the Scheduled Caste certificate issued to the petitioner appeared to be authentic. Moreover, the respondents have not taken steps for cancellation of the caste certificate of the petitioner till date. 21. In the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court had prescribed a detailed procedure to be followed in case of dispute relating to social status certificate like caste certificate. In paragraph 13 of the said judgment, the Apex Court had held that in case of dispute regarding genuineness of caste certificate or ineligibility of the person to hold the caste certificate, enquiry should be conducted by a Scrutiny Committee. The Apex Court directed that all the State Governments should constitute a Committee of three officers, namely. 1. An Additional or Joint Secretary or any officer higher in rank of the Director of the department concerned, 2. The Director, Social Welfare/Tribal Welfare/Backward Class Welfare, as the case may be, and, 3. In the case of Scheduled Caste, another officer who has intimate knowledge in the verification and issuance of social status certificates. The Scrutiny Committee shall give reasonable opportunity of hearing to the candidate/parent/guardian to adduce all evidence in support of the claim. Public notice may also be issued eliciting the views of interested persons or groups. In the case of Scheduled Caste, another officer who has intimate knowledge in the verification and issuance of social status certificates. The Scrutiny Committee shall give reasonable opportunity of hearing to the candidate/parent/guardian to adduce all evidence in support of the claim. Public notice may also be issued eliciting the views of interested persons or groups. Thereafter, the Scrutiny Committee may conduct such inquiry as it may deem expedient and after considering the claims and counter claims, may pass appropriate order with brief reasons in support thereof. If the certificate is found to be false, the same is required to be cancelled and thereafter intimated to the concerned authority to cancel the admission or appointment, as the case may be. 22. Following the above decision of the Apex Court, this Court in the case of Sushma Chetri (supra) examined a decision of the Government of Tripura declaring the petitioner of that case to be a member of the Nepali community and not belonging to the Lepcha community, which is a Scheduled Tribe community. Referring to the procedure laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil and Anr. (supra), this Court held that the due procedure was not followed and that the declaration made by the State Government was contrary to the law laid down of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Accordingly, the said decision of the Government was set aside. 23. On the face of the materials on record, it is apparent that the procedure prescribed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court has not been followed in the present case by the respondents while taking the view that the petitioner had obtained her Scheduled Caste certificate by producing misleading information/documents before the competent authority. 24. At this stage, it may be pointed out that the Court is not entering into an examination as to the entitlement or otherwise of the petitioner to get the Scheduled Caste certificate. Petitioner in her reply affidavit has refuted the allegation that she does not belong to the Scheduled Caste and have explained the background facts on the basis of which she had based her claim as a Scheduled Caste candidate, which was granted by the competent authority at the relevant point of time. Petitioner in her reply affidavit has refuted the allegation that she does not belong to the Scheduled Caste and have explained the background facts on the basis of which she had based her claim as a Scheduled Caste candidate, which was granted by the competent authority at the relevant point of time. If any of the authorities had any doubt about the veracity or otherwise of such certificate, it was open to them to have sought for a scrutiny of the petitioner's caste certificate by following the procedure prescribed by the Hon'ble Apex Court as noticed above. Non-compliance with the procedure prescribed has vitiated the impugned decision taken. 25. There is another aspect to this matter. A reading of the impugned order would show that it is not a case of termination simpliciter. The order of termination cast aspersions on the character of the petitioner and is stigmatic in nature. In such circumstances, it was not open to the authority to have terminated the service of the petitioner without even issuing a show cause notice to her. 26. It is not disputed by the respondents that by virtue of the 2005 Provincialisation Act, the College is now a provincialised College pursuant to which the service of the petitioner would be deemed to be under the State Government. Being a Government servant, petitioner would be entitled to the protection under Article 311 of the Constitution as well as under the 1964 Rules. Rule 9 of the 1964 Rules clearly provides that no order imposing on a Government servant any of the penalties specified in Rule 7 shall be passed except after holding an enquiry in the manner provided in the said Rule. As already discussed, the nature of termination of the petitioner as can be seen from the impugned order is clearly in the nature of dismissal from service, being stigmatic in character. That being the position, termination of the petitioner from service without holding an enquiry in terms of the Rule 9 of the 1964 Rules cannot be sustained. 27. The case of Abdul Jabbar (supra) relied upon by the learned Standing Counsel was decided on a different factual foundation. In that case, the appointments to the college were made without any advertisement and selection. No prior approval of the Director of Higher Education was taken as required under the Rules. 27. The case of Abdul Jabbar (supra) relied upon by the learned Standing Counsel was decided on a different factual foundation. In that case, the appointments to the college were made without any advertisement and selection. No prior approval of the Director of Higher Education was taken as required under the Rules. In the contextual facts of that case, it was held that it was not necessary for the authority to observe the principles of natural justice before terminating the service of the petitioners. The said case is distinguishable and not applicable to the facts of the present case. 28. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order dated 11.12.2012 is hereby set aside and quashed. Petitioner shall be re-instated in service and shall be deemed to have continued in service all throughout. However, since during the period when the termination order was operative she had not rendered any service, the Court would not like to pass any order directing payment of salary for the said period. 29. Record produced by Ms. P. Bhattacharjee, learned Standing Counsel is returned back to her. 30. Writ petition accordingly stands allowed. 31. No cost.