JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta, J. 1. The petitioner had originally filed Original Application No.2805 of 1999 before the H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, Shimla challenging the order dated 27.9.1999 whereby his services were terminated. Since the Tribunal stands abolished vide notification issued by the Central Government the case was transferred to this Court in terms of the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (Transfer of Decided and Pending Cases and Applications) Act, 2008, the matter has been taken up by this Court and now registered as CWP(T) No.6137 of 2008. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that respondent No.3, Resident Engineer, Bassi Power House Division, HPSEB, Jogindernagar conducted interviews for filling up the posts of Beldars on 27.10.1986. The petitioner alongwith other candidates appeared in the interview. The petitioner was selected and duly appointed. 3. Three years after the appointment of the petitioner, Respondent No.3 sent a letter dated 18.4.1990 in which it was mentioned that the petitioner had not submitted the requisite documents at the time of joining the service. On 10.8.1990, the petitioner replied that when he had joined service he had submitted the original documents and had been permitted to join only after submission of the original documents. 4. According to the respondents, the petitioner had not submitted the documents and therefore he was again requested to submit the documents, the most important of which was the school leaving certificate to support the date of birth. He was again given an opportunity to supply this document by letter dated 3.12.1990. Again the petitioner replied that he had supplied the original school leaving certificate and prayed that his date of birth may be verified in the service book as in the original documents. 5. Not satisfied with this reply, the respondents again asked the petitioner vide letter dated 7.1.1991 to submit the certificates positively by 31.1.1991 failing which disciplinary action would be taken against him. The petitioner did not supply the requisite documents especially the school leaving certificate and show cause notice was issued to him on 12.12.1991 asking him to clarify his position failing which disciplinary proceedings would be started. Again the petitioner did not produce the school leaving certificate but insisted that certificate was produced by him in the year 1986. The petitioner was thereafter given one more opportunity to submit the original school leaving certificate within 15 days of the letter dated 20.2.1992. Again the petitioner did not produce the school leaving certificate but insisted that certificate was produced by him in the year 1986. The petitioner was thereafter given one more opportunity to submit the original school leaving certificate within 15 days of the letter dated 20.2.1992. When the petitioner failed to submit this certificate, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. 6. According to the respondents, the petitioner at the time of his initial appointment had furnished a photo copy of the school leaving certificate of M.M. High School Dhariwal, District Gurdaspur. This was only a photo copy not bearing any seal or signature of the issuing authority. The officials of the HPSEB sent letter to the Principal, M.M. High School Dhariwal to confirm the genuineness of the certificate and in response thereto the principal wrote that the certificate had not been issued by him. The petitioner however claimed that he had submitted a certificate issued by Vidya Parkash High School, Gurdaspur which has been closed down. The Inquiry Officer gave a finding against the petitioner and thereafter notice was given to the petitioner and after consideration of the reply his services were terminated. 7. The main grounds raised on behalf of the petitioner are that the documents were not supplied to him, the documents have not been proved on record, the order of the disciplinary authority is a non-speaking order and lastly that the Resident Engineer was biased and acted mala fide. 8. As far as the first ground is concerned, it may be true that the documents were not supplied to the petitioner but the fact is that he was permitted to inspect the entire record. Therefore, mere non supplying of the documents has not caused any prejudice to him. 9. The second argument is that the documents have not been proved in accordance with law and reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in Roop Singh Negi vs. Punjab National Bank and others, (2009) 2 SCC 570 , wherein the Apex Court held as follows: “14. Indisputably, a departmental proceeding is a quasi judicial proceeding. The Enquiry Officer performs a quasi judicial function. The charges leveled against the delinquent officer must be found to have been proved. The enquiry officer has a duty to arrive at a finding upon taking into consideration the materials brought on record by the parties. Indisputably, a departmental proceeding is a quasi judicial proceeding. The Enquiry Officer performs a quasi judicial function. The charges leveled against the delinquent officer must be found to have been proved. The enquiry officer has a duty to arrive at a finding upon taking into consideration the materials brought on record by the parties. The purported evidence collected during investigation by the Investigating Officer against all the accused by itself could not be treated to be evidence in the disciplinary proceeding. No witness was examined to prove the said documents. The management witnesses merely tendered the documents and did not prove the contents thereof. Reliance, inter alia, was placed by the Enquiry Officer on the FIR which could not have been treated as evidence.” 10. This judgment has no application to the facts of the present case. In this case, according to the employer, the petitioner did not supply the copy of the school leaving certificate and the copy which was unauthenticated copy supplied later was a copy of the certificate issued by M.M. High School, Dhariwal. When the employer got this certificate verified the Principal of the School wrote a letter that this certificate has not been issued by him. It is not the case of the petitioner that the letter of the principal is wrong. In fact, now the case set up by the petitioner is that the petitioner had submitted a certificate issued by the Vidya Parkash High School, District Gurdaspur, Punjab. No such certificate has been produced at any stage of the proceedings. It was not necessary to examine the Principal of the School to prove the documents and the documents have been proved in the statement of the witnesses. In fact, Shri J.R. Sharma, the Resident Engineer, who had conducted the interview in the year 1986, stated in the Court that the original certificates were not produced before him and he had only checked the copy which was produced by the petitioner Sanjiv Kumar. It may be true that the Department kept silent for 3 to 4 years but once Sanjiv Kumar was asked to produce his school leaving certificate, I see no reason why he could not have gone to the school from which he had passed out and obtained the another copy of the certificate. It may be true that the Department kept silent for 3 to 4 years but once Sanjiv Kumar was asked to produce his school leaving certificate, I see no reason why he could not have gone to the school from which he had passed out and obtained the another copy of the certificate. The obstinate stand of the petitioner in not producing the certificate clearly indicates that he was trying to hide something. The explanation given by the petitioner is that he had studied in Vidya Parkash High School but could not obtain another copy of the certificate since the school was closed during the year 1976. At this stage, it would be pertinent to mention that when for more than 3 years the petitioner was repeatedly given chances to produce the certificate he had not come up with this explanation. In none of the replies to the earlier letters or even to the show cause notice had he stated that he had studied in Vidya Parkash High School which stood closed. It was only after the disciplinary proceedings started that during the course of the disciplinary proceedings he took up this plea. Had this fact been true then the petitioner would have stated this in the replies which he sent to the Department. No material has been placed on record except the oral statement of the petitioner to support his plea that the school stood closed. His story is obviously a false story because if it had been true he would have stated this fact in the year 1990 when he was first asked to submit the certificate from the School. 11. The third ground is that the order of the disciplinary authority is non-speaking order. In my view, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the order in question, though it may be a short order, gives clear-cut indication that the Officer had considered the report of the Inquiry Officer and the explanation of the petitioner. In any event having examined the explanation of the petitioner, I find that the story put-forth by the petitioner is totally false. 12. As far as the last issue of bias is concerned, though in ground 6(d) allegations of bias were made against respondent No.3 but respondent No.3 was not impleaded as party-respondent in his personal capacity. In any event having examined the explanation of the petitioner, I find that the story put-forth by the petitioner is totally false. 12. As far as the last issue of bias is concerned, though in ground 6(d) allegations of bias were made against respondent No.3 but respondent No.3 was not impleaded as party-respondent in his personal capacity. Whenever allegations of bias are made then the person against whom such allegations are made should be impleaded in his personal capacity. Even otherwise, from the material on record it is apparent that the petitioner had managed to get a job by misrepresentation of facts. The petitioner produced a certificate to the effect that he belongs to a scheduled caste community. However, when the application was being scrutinized and antecedents of the petitioner were verified it was found that the petitioner is a Christian and there is no scheduled caste community amongst Christians. Therefore, his certificate about his being a scheduled caste is also apparently false. When this inquiry was being done it was found that he had never submitted his original school leaving certificate and it was thereafter that he was asked to again submit his school leaving certificate. 13. In view of the above discussion, I find no merit in the petition which is accordingly rejected. No costs.