The case was heard on 12.03.2015 and 26.03.2015 was fixed for delivery of judgment. For unavoidable circumstances, the judgment could not be delivered on that day. Accordingly, judgment is delivered today. 2. By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 09.06.2007, issued by the Commandant, 84 Battalion, removing the petitioner from the service of Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) as well as the order dated 04.05.2009, passed by the appellate authority affirming the order of penalty. Petitioner further seeks a direction to the respondents to reinstate him in service. 3. Case of the petitioner is that he belongs to the Koch-Rajbongshi community in the State of Assam. The Koch-Rajbongshi community is presently enlisted as an Other Backward Class (OBC). However, by the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order Amendment Ordinance, 1996, which was published in the Gazette vide notification dated 14.02.1996, the Koch-Rajbongshi community was accorded the status of Scheduled Tribe. Following the same, Government of Assam in the WPT and BC Department, issued Office Memorandum dated 15.03.1996, authorizing the President/General Secretary of Assam Koch-Rajbongshi Sanmilani as well as the President/General Secretary of the District units to issue caste certificate to a member of the Koch-Rajbongshi community as per the prescribed format. The caste certificate so issued was required to be countersigned by the Deputy Commissioner of the district or by the concerned Sub-Divisional Officer as the case may be. 4. Petitioner was issued a caste certificate by the President, Barpeta District Koch-Rajbongshi Sanmilani, on 20.07.1997, which was countersigned by the Deputy Commissioner, Barpeta, on 20.07.1997. By the said certificate, it was certified that petitioner belonged to Scheduled Tribe (Koch-Rajbongshi) community in the State of Assam. 5. In the year 2002, CRPF had issued an advertisement for filling up 90 (ninety) vacancies in the post of Constable (General Duty) for the State of Assam. Later on, a corrigendum was issued whereby notified vacancies were increased to 1715. 864 vacancies were reserved for general category, 93 for Scheduled Caste (SC), 170 of Scheduled Tribe (ST), 417 for OBC and 171 for ex-servicemen. 6. According to the petitioner, he possessed the minimum physical standard required for general category candidate for the State of Assam. He did not avail relaxation available to a candidate of the Scheduled Tribe (ST) category. Petitioner was finally selected. 6. According to the petitioner, he possessed the minimum physical standard required for general category candidate for the State of Assam. He did not avail relaxation available to a candidate of the Scheduled Tribe (ST) category. Petitioner was finally selected. It is stated that ultimately, he was appointed as Constable (General Duty) in the CRPF and was allotted Force No. 031527768. 7. 4 (four) years after his appointment, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 12.01.2007 by the Commandant, 84 Battalion. It was alleged that petitioner was recruited in the CRPF by producing Scheduled Tribe (ST) certificate. The certificate was verified and as per verification report of the Deputy Commissioner, Barpeta, petitioner belongs to Yogi-Nath community, which belongs to OBC category. Therefore, petitioner committed misconduct by getting appointed in the ST category by producing false ST certificate, which is a misconduct under Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act, 1949. 8. Petitioner submitted his written statement on 20.02.2007, denying the allegations levelled against him. 9. The disciplinary authority, i.e., the Commandant, 84 Battalion decided to hold enquiry. Accordingly, one Assistant Commandant was appointed as the Enquiry Officer. 10. In the meanwhile, office of the Deputy Commissioner, Barpeta, issued a communication to the Additional DIGP, Group Centre, CRPF, Guwahati, on 21.03.2007, submitting the verification report in respect of the caste status of the incumbents mentioned therein. At Serial No. 38, name of the petitioner was mentioned with the remark - OBC (Koch-Rajbongshi). It was mentioned that caste status of the Koch-Rajbongshi community was altered to ST from OBC as per the Government of India notification dated 15.02.1996, but was restored to OBC w.e.f. 03.04.1997 vide Government letter dated 07.04.1998. Secretary of All Assam Koch-Rajbongshi Sanmilani, Barpeta District, also wrote to the Commandant on 02.04.2007 stating that petitioner belongs to ST (Koch-Rajbongshi) community. 11. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report to the disciplinary authority on 27.04.2007. In his report, the Enquiry Officer opined that Koch-Rajbongshi/Yogi-Nath community was placed in OBC category w.e.f. 03.04.1997 vide Government of Assam letter dated 07.04.1998. Therefore, the allegation levelled against the petitioner stood proved. 12. On receipt of the enquiry report, a copy of the same was forwarded to the petitioner on 05.05.2007, to which petitioner submitted his representation on 22.05.2007. 13. Therefore, the allegation levelled against the petitioner stood proved. 12. On receipt of the enquiry report, a copy of the same was forwarded to the petitioner on 05.05.2007, to which petitioner submitted his representation on 22.05.2007. 13. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority came to the conclusion that the petitioner got recruited to the CRPF against Scheduled Tribe quota, but at the time of his recruitment he belonged to the OBC category. Thus, petitioner had committed misconduct which disentitled him to be retained in the force. Accordingly, penalty of removal from service was imposed on the petitioner vide order dated 09.06.2007. 16. Petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority against the order of penalty. The appellate authority, i.e, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, CRPF, Chandigarh, passed order dated 04.05.2009, rejecting the appeal of the petitioner. In its appellate order, the appellate authority stated that he re-verified the community status of the petitioner from the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Barpeta and it was clarified that petitioner belongs to OBC (Yogi-Nath) community. 17. Aggrieved, petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 18. Respondent Nos. 1 and 4 to 6 have filed a common affidavit. Stand taken in the said affidavit is that as per verification report, petitioner belongs to OBC (Koch-Rajbongshi) category, which is not under Scheduled Tribe (ST). Accordingly, departmental enquiry was ordered against the petitioner. In the enquiry, the charges framed against the petitioner stood proved. Consequently, penalty of removal from service was imposed on the petitioner. Appeal filed by the petitioner was rejected. Though petitioner had statutory remedy of filing revision petition, he did not file any revision petition, but instead approached this Court. Petitioner was appointed against an ST vacancy since he had produced Scheduled Tribe (Koch-Rajbongshi) certificate, but later on as per verification report of the Government of Assam, caste status of the petitioner was found to be OBC (Yogi-Nath) community and not (Koch-Rajbongshi) community. 19. Respondent No. 3, i.e. the Sub-Divisional Officer (Sadar), Barpeta, has filed an affidavit. It is stated that as per field verification report of the Circle Officer, Barnagar Revenue Circle, Sorbhog, petitioner belongs to OBC (Yogi-Nath) community. It is stated that because of typographical error in the report of the Deputy Commissioner, Barpeta, the caste status of the petitioner was typed as OBC (Koch-Rajbongshi) community, whereas, it should be OBC (Yogi-Nath) community. 20. It is stated that as per field verification report of the Circle Officer, Barnagar Revenue Circle, Sorbhog, petitioner belongs to OBC (Yogi-Nath) community. It is stated that because of typographical error in the report of the Deputy Commissioner, Barpeta, the caste status of the petitioner was typed as OBC (Koch-Rajbongshi) community, whereas, it should be OBC (Yogi-Nath) community. 20. Heard Mr R Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms B Das, learned Central Government Counsel. Also heard Mr P S Deka, learned Government Advocate, Assam. 21. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner belongs to Koch-Rajbongshi community, which is recognized as OBC in the State of Assam. At the relevant point of time, ordinance was promulgated by the Central Government amending the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, including (Koch-Rajbongshi) in the list of Scheduled Tribe for the State of Assam. In this connection, ST certificate was issued to the petitioner by the competent authority. It was during this period that the petitioner was recruited as Constable in the CRPF. However, he submits that because of his better merit, petitioner was recruited not as an ST candidate but as a general candidate. Subsequently, on the basis of alleged verification report from the office of the Deputy Commissioner, charge was framed against the petitioner that he belongs to the OBC (Yogi-Nath) community and submitted wrong Koch-Rajbongshi community certificate. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the ST certificate issued to the petitioner by the All Assam Koch-Rajbongshi Sanmilani, Barpeta District Committee and countersigned by the Deputy Commissioner, Barpeta (Annexure-C to the writ petition), is a genuine certificate and has not been cancelled till date. Without the cancellation of such a certificate, it is not open to the respondents to contend that petitioner had submitted a false certificate and thereafter to remove him from service. He submits that respondents did not follow the procedure laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil -Vs- Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development, reported in 1994 (6) SCC 241 . Therefore, the impugned penalty cannot be sustained and is accordingly liable to be set aside and quashed. 22. Per contra, Ms Das, learned CGC submits that respondents had acted on the basis of verification report received from the Deputy Commissioner, Barpeta, which showed that petitioner belongs to OBC (Yogi-Nath) community and as such, his recruitment as Scheduled Tribe (Koch-Rajbongshi) cannot be sustained. 22. Per contra, Ms Das, learned CGC submits that respondents had acted on the basis of verification report received from the Deputy Commissioner, Barpeta, which showed that petitioner belongs to OBC (Yogi-Nath) community and as such, his recruitment as Scheduled Tribe (Koch-Rajbongshi) cannot be sustained. Therefore, no ground for interference in the order of penalty is made out. Writ petition should, therefore, be dismissed. 23. Mr P S Deka, learned Government Advocate refers to the affidavit filed by the respondent No. 3 and supports the stand taken therein that the petitioner belongs to OBC (Yogi-Nath) community. 24. Submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties have been considered. 25. At the outset, certain undisputed facts may be noted. 26. Firstly, the Koch-Rajbongshi community in the State of Assam belongs to OBC category. During the relevant period, pursuant to an ordinance promulgated by the Central Government, status of Koch-Rajbongshi community was changed from OBC to ST. Subsequently, pursuant to Government of Assam letter dated 07.04.1998, the status of Koch-Rajbongshi community was reverted back to OBC, w.e.f. 03.04.1997. 27. Secondly, the genuineness of the caste certificate of the petitioner dated 20.07.1997 (Annexure-C to the writ petition), has not been doubted. As per the said caste certificate signed by the President, Barpeta District Koch-Rajbongshi Sanmilani and countersigned by the Deputy Commissioner, Barpeta, petitioner belongs to ST (Koch-Rajbongshi) community. As noticed above, it is not the case of the respondents that this certificate is fake or that it is not genuine. In fact, the organisation which issued the certificate has reiterated the caste status of the petitioner as belonging to ST (Koch-Rajbongshi). In the verification report of the Deputy Commissioner, Barpeta, caste status of the petitioner was described as OBC (Koch-Rajbongshi) community. However, in the affidavit filed by respondent No. 3, a stand is taken that because of typographical error, it was typed as OBC (Koch-Rajbongshi) community, whereas, it should have been OBC (Yogi-Nath) community. 28. Thirdly, Annexure-C, caste certificate has not been cancelled. Disciplinary Authority has taken the view that petitioner had furnished wrong information regarding his caste status on the basis of subsequent verification report from the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Barpeta. 29. Presenting or producing misleading information or documents before the authority is one thing and producing forged or fake caste certificate is altogether another thing. Disciplinary Authority has taken the view that petitioner had furnished wrong information regarding his caste status on the basis of subsequent verification report from the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Barpeta. 29. 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. 30. In the instant case, Annexure-C, caste certificate indicates that petitioner belonged to ST (Koch-Rajbongshi) community, which status was subsequently altered to OBC (Koch-Rajbongshi) community. This status of the petitioner is supported by the authorized caste organization. Moreover, the State has not taken any steps for cancellation of the caste status or caste certificate of the petitioner till date. On the other hand, respondents would like to contend that petitioner belongs to the OBC (Yogi-Nath) community. 31. In the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court had prescribed a detailed procedure to be followed in the case of dispute relating to social status certificate like caste certificate. In Paragraph-12 of the said judgment, the Apex Court held that in case of dispute relating to genuineness of a 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 3 (three) officers, namely, (I) an Additional or Joint Secretary or any officer higher in rank of the Director of the concerned department, (II) Director, Social Welfare/Tribal Welfare/Backward Class Welfare, as the case may be, and (III) in the case of Scheduled Castes (SC) another officer who has intimate knowledge in the verification and issuance of the social status certificates. In the case of Scheduled Tribes (ST), the Research Officer who has intimate knowledge in identifying the tribes, tribal communities, parts of or groups of tribes or tribal communities may be included in the committee. 31.1. The Scrutiny Committee should 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 enquiry and pass appropriate order(s) with brief reasons in support thereof. 31.1. The Scrutiny Committee should 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 enquiry and pass appropriate order(s) 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. 32. Following the above decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court in the case of Sushma Chetri -Vs- State of Tripura, reported in 2001(2)GLT 215, had examined a decision of the Government of Tripura, declaring the petitioner to be a member of the Nepali community and not belonging to the Lepcha community, which is an ST community. Referring to the procedure laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil (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 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Accordingly, the said decision of the Government was set aside. 33. In a recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shalini -Vs- New English High School (Civil Appeal No. 10997 of 2013), decided on 12.12.2013, the Apex Court observed that it requires specialized bodies to decipher which category a relatively backward or ostracized or tribal person falls in. Question put forward by the Hon'ble Supreme Court was as to whether a person, who has honestly in contra-distinction to falsely claimed consanguinity with a certain group, which was later on found not belonging to Scheduled Tribe (ST), but to a backward class be visited with termination of employment. The Apex Court answered it negatively and held that it is not the intent of the law to terminate the employment of such a person. The Apex Court observed that such a person can be debarred from getting further advantage that would ensure to persons belonging to Scheduled Tribe (ST). In that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed reinstatement of the appellant but without any back wages. 34. The Apex Court observed that such a person can be debarred from getting further advantage that would ensure to persons belonging to Scheduled Tribe (ST). In that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed reinstatement of the appellant but without any back wages. 34. Thus, it is evident that the procedure laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) has not been followed in the present case, which has vitiated the decision making process culminating in the decision to remove the petitioner from service. 35. Accordingly and in the light of the discussions made above, the impugned order of penalty dated 09.06.2007 as affirmed by the appellate authority on 04.05.2009, cannot be sustained and are hereby set aside and quashed. Petitioner is directed to be reinstated in service, but without any back wages. 36. Writ petition is accordingly allowed, but without any order as to cost(s).