JUDGMENT : Pramath Patnaik, J. In the accompanied writ application, prayer has been made for quashing the impugned order dated 15.09.2012, passed by the Respondent No. 2 vide Annexure-20 as well as the penalty order dated 30.03.2012, issued by the Respondent No. 2 in the capacity of the Disciplinary Authority vide Annexure-18 pertaining to imposition of major penalty of removal from services. 2. The brief facts, as disclosed in the writ application, is that after due process of selection vide letter dated 23.12.1980, the petitioner was appointed on the post of the Officer by the Ranchi Kshetriya Gramin Bank (now called as Jharkhand Gramin Bank). After joining the said post, the petitioner continued to discharge his duties diligently and sincerely. Thereafter, the petitioner has been promoted to the next higher post. While continuing, as such, in the promotional post, vide letter dated 06.02.1996, on the basis of anonymous complaint, the respondent no. 2 asked the petitioner to produce the original Caste Certificate, issued by the competent authority within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the letter. Accordingly, on 27.02.1996, the petitioner while denying the said complaint, sent the letter enclosing the original caste certificate and the said application was forwarded to the Respondent No. 2. In the year 2000, the petitioner was asked to appear in the Interview scheduled for promotion and the petitioner has been communicated vide letter dated 05.09.2001 by the respondent No. 2 regarding the decision of the competent authority for promotion of the petitioner from Cadre Scale-I to Scale II. Thereafter, no communication was made to the petitioner for more than five years but suddenly vide letter dated 22.09.2007, the respondent no. 3 asked the petitioner to clarify as to why departmental proceeding shall not be initiated against him for submission of a 'Farzi' caste certificate, inter alia, on the ground that information was given by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi vide his letter dated 06.02.2001 that the petitioner belongs to 'Manjhi' community, which does not fall within the category of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe or Backward class, as evident from Annexure-6 to the writ petition. In response to the show cause notice dated 22.09.2007, the petitioner asked for a copy of the letter of the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, dated 06.02.2001 along with the enquiry report and other relevant documents. In response to the show cause notice dated 22.09.2007, the petitioner asked for a copy of the letter of the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, dated 06.02.2001 along with the enquiry report and other relevant documents. Vide letter dated 07.11.2007, the respondent No. 3 provided copy of the caste certificate to the petitioner. Thereafter, on 15.12.2007, the petitioner submitted show cause before the Respondent No. 3, contending, therein, that the caste certificate was issued by the competent authority and the same is a genuine and valid document and the observation of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Khunti with regard to caste 'Manjhi community' is general in nature and not in particular for the petitioner. Further, it was explained that the 'Manjhi' is a title and not a caste. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted representation to the respondent No. 2 to recall the show-cause notice. Thereafter, the petitioner requested respondent No.2 to provide him the copy of the letter of the Deputy Commissioner as well as copy of the enquiry reports as contained therein and in reply thereto, the respondent No. 2 declined to provide copy of such documents with direction to the petitioner to file his explanation within 7 days, as evident from Annexure-12 to the writ petition and also vide letter dated 11.06.2009, the respondent No. 2 asked the petitioner to show cause as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him for submitting a false certificate, as evident from Annexure-13 to the writ petition. The petitioner preferred a writ application for quashing the show cause notice dated 11.06.2009 vide W.P. (S) No. 4618 of 2009 and the said writ petition was disposed of on 06.09.2010 directing the respondents to complete the inquiry within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order in accordance with law, as per Annexure-16 to the writ petition and thereafter, the enquiry officer submitted his report on 25.09.2010, holding, inter alia, therein, that the charge levelled against the petitioner was not proved conclusively as per Annexure-17 to the writ petition. While disagreeing with the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer and in absence of new material either oral material as well as documentary evidence, the respondent No. 2 held the findings of the Enquiry Officer to be incorrect. While disagreeing with the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer and in absence of new material either oral material as well as documentary evidence, the respondent No. 2 held the findings of the Enquiry Officer to be incorrect. Vide letter dated 27.10.2010, the respondent No. 2 communicated his substituted enquiry finding without holding any further inquiry and on 04.11.2010, the petitioner submitted his objection against the said enquiry finding and vide the impugned order dated 30.03.2012, the respondent no. 2 imposed a major penalty of removal from services against the petitioner as evident from Annexure-18 to the writ petition. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order of the major penalty, on 30.04.2012, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Board of Directors of the Respondent No. 1 and the appellate authority has passed the impugned appellate order dated 15.09.2012 vide Annexure-20 to the writ petition confirming the order of the disciplinary authority. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the disciplinary as well as the appellate authority dated 30.03.2012 and 15.09.2012, passed by the Respondent No. 2 vide Annexure-18 and 20 to the writ petition, the petitioner left with no other alternative, has knocked the door of this Court for redressal of his grievances under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders are vitiated on the ground of belated charge sheet, issued after a lapse of 25 years from the date of joining the post of Officer. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the charges levelled against the petitioner about the false certificate is based upon presumption and assumption and in absence of any declaration of caste certificate to be false and forged one by the competent court of law or by the competent authority, the respondents are not justified in presuming the same to be false for the purpose of issuance of chargesheet. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondent no. 2 in the capacity of the disciplinary authority is not empowered to substitute the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer and to issue punishment order without holding any further inquiry in violation of the principles of natural justice. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondent no. 2 in the capacity of the disciplinary authority is not empowered to substitute the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer and to issue punishment order without holding any further inquiry in violation of the principles of natural justice. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the impugned order of penalty suffers from the vices of non-consideration of the material available on record and is against the principles of natural justice and the same are violative of Articles 14 and 311 (2) of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondent No. 2, being the disciplinary authority ought not have passed the appellate order, therefore, the appellate order is vitiated in law. On the maxim, “no man can be judge of his own cause”. 4. During course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the supplementary affidavit dated 05.12.2016, enclosing the copy of the Caste Certificate issued by the District Welfare Officer, Ranchi, the competent authority on 29.05.1974 and the Caste Certificate No. 503/74 dated 29.05.1974, issued by the District Welfare Officer, Ranchi was submitted by the petitioner at the time of his appointment and the aforesaid Caste Certificate has also been produced by the petitioner in the enquiry and the same has been marked as Exhibit-DE-1 as per Annexure-21 to the supplementary affidavit. It has been further submitted that vide letter dated 06.02.1996 (Annexure-2), the Chairman of the Respondent No. 1 directed the petitioner to produce Caste Certificate issued by the competent authority (S.D.O.-cum-Dy. Commissioner) within 15 days. Accordingly, the petitioner produced the Caste Certificate issued vide Memo No. 2667 dated 13.04.1996 by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Ranchi showing him belonging to 'Kisan' Community, which is recognized as Schedule Tribe. In course of enquiry, the petitioner also produced the said Caste Certificate before the Enquiry Officer, which is marked as Exhibit-DE-3, as Annexure-22 to the supplementary affidavit. It has further been submitted in the supplementary affidavit that the Notification dated 06.07.2004 of the Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi, in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and Others constituted a Scrutiny Committee empowering the same to decide the issue relating to Caste as per Annexure-23 to the supplementary affidavit. It has further been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the provisions as contained in Annexure-23, the Deputy Commissioner or the Circle Officer has got no authority to decide the Caste of a particular community or that of the petitioner and thus, the respondents have erroneously relied upon such ex parte report of the Deputy Commissioner based upon the report of the Circle Officer, Tamar. It has further been submitted that the genuineness of the Caste Certificate issued in favour of the petitioner has not been doubted. Admittedly, the Caste Certificate issued to the petitioner by the competent authority, having not been cancelled by the Committee or by any competent authority and those are in existence. 5. Controverting the averments made in the writ application, a supplementary counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. In the counter affidavit, it has been stated that after going through the enquiry findings, the disciplinary authority came to the conclusion that the findings are not based on sound principles and the Inquiring Authority has given his findings on erroneous facts and the enquiry findings hence, was substituted by the disciplinary authority and the Inquiring Authority has submitted its justification in support of conclusive proof of charges in detail in the substituted enquiry findings dated 27.10.2010, the copy of which was made available to the petitioner. In exercise of powers conferred under Regulation No. 39.1 (b) of the Jharkhand Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulation 2010, the Disciplinary Authority awarded penalty of “Removal from services, which shall not be a disqualification for future employment” to the petitioner, which is prescribed with the penalty vide O.M. No. 42011/22/2006-Estt. (Res), Ministry of Personnel, P.G. & Pensions, Department of Personnel & Training, Government of India dated 29.03.2007. The appeal of the petitioner was discussed in the Board meeting, dated 06.08.2012 and the Board observed that the petitioner had secured appointment on the basis of false caste certificate against the vacancies reserved for SC/ST. The Board agreed with the penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority and hence, decided not to change the penalty order of the Disciplinary Authority. The Board authorized the Disciplinary Authority to issue a proper and speaking appellate order to the petitioner conveying the decision of the Board. Accordingly, the appellate order dated 15.09.2012 was issued. The Board agreed with the penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority and hence, decided not to change the penalty order of the Disciplinary Authority. The Board authorized the Disciplinary Authority to issue a proper and speaking appellate order to the petitioner conveying the decision of the Board. Accordingly, the appellate order dated 15.09.2012 was issued. Hence, the penalty order dated 30.03.2012 and the appellate order dated 15.09.2012 are not in violation of Article 14 and 311(2) of the Constitution of India. 6. A supplementary counter affidavit on behalf of the Respondents has been filed on 12.01.2017, wherein, it has been submitted that the petitioner has filed a supplementary affidavit on 05.12.2016, annexing one Caste Certificate issued on 29.05.1974, wherein, the residential address of the petitioner has been shown to be Village-Tamar but in Annexure-22, which is also another Caste Certificate, is said to have been issued on 13.04.1996 by the different authority, wherein, his residential address has been mentioned as Nagra Toli, Lalpur, Ranchi. In both the Caste Certificates, his caste has been shown as 'Kisan Community'. As the case of the Bank is that although the petitioner has submitted Caste Certificate of 'Kisan Community' but he is by Caste 'Manjhi' and his title is also that he is of 'Manjhi' Caste and he does not come in any case of Tribal Community. The present address given by the petitioner before the Bank is “Khunti Toli, Torpa Road, Khunti”. So at different times different address has been given by the petitioner, which itself shows that the petitioner does not want to give his full identity with regard to the Caste or the residential address. It has further been submitted that although right from 1980 when the petitioner was appointed, he was asked to produce his Caste Certificate. On 14.12.1999 itself when some complaint was received by the Bank, the respondents-Bank had written a letter to the District Welfare Officer to inquire into the matter whether the petitioner belongs to 'Kisan' Community or not?, as evident from Annexure-B to the counter affidavit. On 14.12.1999 itself when some complaint was received by the Bank, the respondents-Bank had written a letter to the District Welfare Officer to inquire into the matter whether the petitioner belongs to 'Kisan' Community or not?, as evident from Annexure-B to the counter affidavit. Again an association comprising of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes employees of the Bank had complained on 20.03.2001 itself by raising objection that the petitioner does not belong to the Member of the Scheduled Tribes Community as, he is not of Kisan Community rather, he is of 'Manjhi' Community and by Caste he is 'Manjhi', which is normally called 'Sarawak' and such community is also known from the caste of 'Sarawak'. The complaint also incorporates that while joining the Bank, he had given his address as Lalpur, P.O. and P.S.-Lalpur, District-Ranchi while other place also in the Caste certificate No. 503/74, dated 29.05.1974, the petitioner has written his address at Tamar, District-Ranchi. So, from any point of view, the petitioner is not a member of Scheduled Tribes and the photocopy of the complaint dated 20.03.2001 has been annexed as Annexure-C to the counter affidavit. It has been further submitted that the Jharkhand Gramin Bank had also written a letter to the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi on 23.01.2008 wherein the Bank had requested to enquire into the matter. Further, a similar request letter has been made by the Secretariat of the Chief Minister on 27.03.2001, addressing to the Bank that such allegations should be inquired, whether the petitioner belongs to the Member of Scheduled Tribes or not?, as per Annexure-D to the counter affidavit. Further, it has been submitted that an enquiry has been conducted by the Sub-Divisional Welfare Officer, Khunti about the Caste of the petitioner, wherein, he was found as a member of 'Manjhi' Community and 'Manjhi' Caste. Regarding the said enquiry, the Deputy Commissioner had written a letter to the respondents-Bank on 06.02.2001 that the petitioner belongs to the 'Manjhi' Community is not a Member of Scheduled Tribes. So, when in the year 2008, the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi received a request letter of the Bank, so in reply thereto the Deputy Commissioner wrote a letter to the Circle Officer, Tamar that an enquiry is also conducted by the Sub-Divisional Welfare Officer, Khunti, wherein the petitioner was found to be of 'Manjhi' Caste, so F.I.R. may be lodged against him. The letter incorporates the false Caste Certificate of the petitioner showing him as of 'Kisan' Community. Photo copy of the letter of the Deputy Commissioner written to the Circle Officer, Tamar dated 23.10.2008 with another enclosure dated 06.02.2001 and illegal Caste Certificate of the petitioner issued on 29.12.1980 has been marked as Annexure-E series to the counter affidavit. 7. Caste certificate dated 29.12.1980 vide Annexure-E/2 of the supplementary counter affidavit, which has been issued by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi creates doubts and suspicion regarding the genuineness of the Caste Certificate. 8. After bestowing my anxious consideration to the rivalized submissions and on perusal of the records, the prayer made by the petitioner for quashing the impugned order dated 15.09.2012 (Annexure-20) and the Penalty order dated 30.03.2012, issued by the Respondent No. 2 vide Annexure-18, do not warrant any interference by this Court, in view of the factual and legal position stated hereinbelow:- (i) While continuing on the post of the Officer in Jharkhand Gramin Bank, on the basis of anonymous complaint, the Respondent No. 2 asked the petitioner to produce the original Caste Certificate, issued by the competent authority within 15 days and the petitioner submitted his original Caste Certificate along with letter, explaining his position. Being not satisfied with the explanation, the respondents initiated the departmental proceeding and in the departmental proceeding, the matter was enquired into and the enquiry officer submitted his report holding, therein that the charges levelled against the petitioner was not proved conclusively but the Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and the enquiry report was substituted. The Respondent No. 2 communicated the substituted enquiry to the petitioner and basing on that, major penalty of removal from services has been inflicted upon the petitioner, against which the petitioner has preferred appeal. The appellate authority has confirmed the order, passed by the Disciplinary Authority. From the initiation of proceedings, till its culmination, there appears to have been no procedural irregularity, so as to call for any judicial intervention. (ii) Moreover, at different point of time, the petitioner has produced different Caste Certificates including one caste certificate, issued by the Judicial Magistrate, 1stClass, Ranchi, which has created doubts and suspicions. From the initiation of proceedings, till its culmination, there appears to have been no procedural irregularity, so as to call for any judicial intervention. (ii) Moreover, at different point of time, the petitioner has produced different Caste Certificates including one caste certificate, issued by the Judicial Magistrate, 1stClass, Ranchi, which has created doubts and suspicions. Annexure-E/2 of the supplementary counter affidavit dated 12.01.2017 of the Respondents is the Caste Certificate, dated 29.12.1980 issued by the Judicial Magistrate, 01st Class, Ranchi, is a certificate, which has not been issued by the competent authority. (iii) The law is well-settled that if the certificate on the basis of which the appointment is obtained, is a forged certificate, no detailed enquiry is required. However, in the instant case, the petitioner has been afforded all adequate opportunities to prove his innocence. It would be apt to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of R. Vishwanatha Pillai versus State of Kerala and Others reported in (2004) 2 SCC 105 , para 15 and 19. (iv) So far as the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, with regard to the Notification dated 08.07.2004 of the Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, wherein, after taking into consideration the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil & Another-versus-Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and others in Civil Appeal No. 5854 of 1994, reported in (1994) 6 SCC 241 , it has been resolved that the matter of fake and forged caste certificate has to be placed before the Screening Committee, headed by Commissioner and Secretary, Social Welfare Department or Welfare Department. Of course, the said procedure has not been followed, but, in the case in hand at the time of joining the Bank, the petitioner has given his address at Nagra Toli, Lalpur, Ranchi District-Ranchi and in the caste certificate No. 503/74, dated 29.05.1974, the petitioner has given the address of Tamar, District-Ranchi. Another caste certificate, which has been issued by the Judicial Magistrate, 1stClass, Ranchi, dated 29.12.1980 is a certificate, which has been issued by the incompetent authority. In the said certificate, it is mentioned that the petitioner belongs to 'kisan' community, but on inquiry, it is found that the petitioner is a 'Manjhi' which is a caste of general category and in the inquiry report, it has been shown that he is of 'Manjhi' caste . In the said certificate, it is mentioned that the petitioner belongs to 'kisan' community, but on inquiry, it is found that the petitioner is a 'Manjhi' which is a caste of general category and in the inquiry report, it has been shown that he is of 'Manjhi' caste . In such a situation, the issuance of Caste Certificate on the basis of misrepresentation, is nothing, but a forged and fabricated document and if any certificate, on the basis of which, appointment is obtained, is found to be fake, then there is no need of any enquiry, as one show cause is sufficient to dispense with the services of the delinquent. In the Caste Certificate, issued on 29.05.1974, residential address of the petitioner has been shown to be village Tamar, District-Ranchi. In Annexure-22, which is also another Caste Certificate, is said to have been issued by different authorities, wherein, his address has been shown as Nagra Toli, Lalpur, Ranchi, Ranchi. In Both caste certificates, his caste has been shown as 'kisan' Community but the case of the Bank is that although the petitioner has submitted Caste Certificate of 'Kisan Community', but he is by caste 'Manjhi' and his title is also that of 'Manjhi' caste and he does not come in any of the tribal community and the present address given by the petitioner, before the Bank is “Khunti Toli, Torpa Road, Khunti”. So at different times different address has been given by the petitioner, which itself shows that the petitioner does not want to give his full identity with regard to the Caste or the residential address. (v) The charge levelled against the petitioner is that the petitioner applied for appointment in bank's service as an Officer under quota reserved for SC/ST candidates. He submitted a caste certificate dated 29.12.1980 issued by the First Class, Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, wherein, the petitioner mentioned, as belonging to 'Kisan' community, which was recognized as a ST list (modification order, 1956). Subsequently, the then Ranchi Kshetriya Gramin Bank SC/ST Employees Association, Ranchi complained that the petitioner did not belong to Scheduled Tribeand the certificate submitted by him, was false. After inquiry from the Competent Authority, i.e. the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, it was informed that he belonged to 'Manjhi' kaum, which was not recognized as Scheduled Tribe. Subsequently, the then Ranchi Kshetriya Gramin Bank SC/ST Employees Association, Ranchi complained that the petitioner did not belong to Scheduled Tribeand the certificate submitted by him, was false. After inquiry from the Competent Authority, i.e. the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, it was informed that he belonged to 'Manjhi' kaum, which was not recognized as Scheduled Tribe. The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, vide his letter dated 23.10.2008 has informed in unambiguous terms that the caste certificate submitted by the petitioner at the time of appointment was false and the F.I.R. should be lodged against him. The memorandum calling for explanation was served on him vide reference dated 11.06.2009, enclosing a copy of the letter of the Dy. Commissioner, Ranchi and the petitioner submitted his reply on27.06.2009, which was not found satisfactory and to give one more opportunity to the petitioner, reply was sought for from the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer has opined that if the credibility of a person who has given some information is, in doubt, right to cross-examination must inevitably form part of fair play inaction. The Enquiry Officer has further opined that if the genuineness and authenticity of certain document is doubted by defence as in case of ME – 9 (i) (ii), the documents should be produced through a witness who confirms the signature of the creater of the document. The legal implication is that when a document is disputed, in that case the creater of the document is required to authenticate the document and in this case, even opinion evidence was taken, hence (ME 6, 9 (i) (ii) cannot be admissible as evidence, therefore, basing on the oral and documentary evidence brought on record, the enquiry officer came to the conclusion that the charge levelled against the petitioner in the above-referred case is not proved conclusively. (vi) After going through the enquiry findings the disciplinary authority came to the conclusion that the findings are not based on sound principles and the inquiring authority has given his findings on erroneous facts. (vi) After going through the enquiry findings the disciplinary authority came to the conclusion that the findings are not based on sound principles and the inquiring authority has given his findings on erroneous facts. The disciplinary authority did not agree with the analysis of the inquiring authority and decided to substitute the enquiry findings and found the charges conclusively proved on the basis of analysis of the evidences brought on records by the Presenting Officer, Defence Representative in the departmental enquiry and the findings of the inquiring authority and submitted his justifications in support of conclusive proof of charges in detail in the substituted enquiry findings dated 27.10.2010 which was sent to the petitioner and he was advised to submit his representation on the substituted enquiry findings within 7 days of the receipt thereof and the petitioner submitted his representation on 04.11.2010 and after perusal of the representation, the Disciplinary Authority has passed the impugned order vide letter dated 30.03.2012. (vii) Therefore, it is quite clear from the facts stated in the foregoing paragraphs that the petitioner has obtained a certificate by adopting fraudulent means showing that he belongs to the Scheduled Tribe Community, which has been found to be not genuine in the enquiry. (viii) It was held by Denning, L.J. In Lazarus Estates, Ltd. Vs. Beasley (1956) 1 All E.R. 341, 345 that “No Court will allow a person to keep an advantage which he has obtained by fraud.[....] Fraud unravels everything. The Court is careful not to find fraud unless it is distinctly pleaded and proved; but once it is proved it vitiates judgments, contracts and all transactions-whatsoever”. 9. In view of the reasons stated in the foregoing paragraphs, the impugned order dated 30.03.2012 vide Annexure-18 and the order dated 15.09.2012 vide Annexure-20 do not warrant any interference by this Court. Resultantly the writ petition, sans merit, is dismissed.