JUDGMENT : S.N. Prasad, J. This writ petition has been filed against the order dated 19.10.2005 passed by the Chief Manager & Disciplinary Authority, Bank of India, Bhubaneswar whereby and whereunder the punishment of dismissal from service has been inflicted upon the petitioner and also the appellate order dated 31.1.2006 passed by the Assistant General Manager & Appellate Authority, Bank of India, Bhubaneswar whereby the order of dismissal has been affirmed, are under challenge. 2. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner while serving as Daptari in the Bank of India at its Khetribarpur Branch in the district of Ganjam was served with a Memorandum dated 7.5.1990 alleging therein that being Christian, got the job as Armed Guard in the Bank on the strength of the Scheduled Caste candidate by producing a Scheduled Caste Certificate dated 8.8.1978 obtained from the Tahasildar, G. Udayagiri, produced a false transfer certificate dated 20.7.1996 bearing No.38 wherein his qualification was falsely shown as “Class-X passed” and the age shown by falsely putting date of birth as ‘1.6.1951’ instead of actual date of birth as per school record, i.e., 3.7.1944. On the basis of this allegation, a departmental proceeding has been initiated, since the allegation leveled has been said to be misconduct in terms of Clause-19.5(m) of the bipartite settlement dated 17.9.1984. In the departmental enquiry, out of two charges, second charge regarding the dispute to the date of birth has not been proved while the first charge related to the caste has been found to be proved. The Disciplinary Authority has imposed punishment of dismissal from service vide order dated 30.7.1994 and the appellate order dated 29.5.1995 has affirmed the order of dismissal, against which, the petitioner had preferred a writ petition invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court vide O.J.C. No.3716 of 1996 taking the ground that the punishment based upon the enquiry report, since it is based upon the perverse enquiry report, as because the petitioner has not been provided to cross-examine the Collector, Phulbani; Tahasildar, G. Udayagiri; and Headmaster of the Vijaya High School, Raikia. This Court, after taking into consideration the entire aspect of the matter while allowing the writ petition, has quashed the order of punishment, the appellate order and remitted the matter for de novo enquiry by providing an opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine the Revenue Officers, who have issued the caste certificate. This Court, after taking into consideration the entire aspect of the matter while allowing the writ petition, has quashed the order of punishment, the appellate order and remitted the matter for de novo enquiry by providing an opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine the Revenue Officers, who have issued the caste certificate. After the said order, the de novo enquiry has commenced, the charge no.2 having not been proved while charge no.1 has been found to be proved. The Disciplinary Authority, after following the due procedure of issuance of show cause notice, has inflicted punishment of dismissal from service, which has been affirmed by the Appellate Authority. These orders are under challenge in this writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has not been appointed against the Scheduled Caste category quota and as such, his removal from service on the basis of caste is not sustainable in the eye of law. 4. Learned Senior Counsel representing the opposite party-Bank of India has vehemently opposed the submission as well as contention of the petitioner by submitting that the petitioner while given appointment on 11.8.1978, the offer of appointment contains condition that his services are liable to be terminated with appropriate notice, if it is revealed at any time after his appointment that information given and the particulars furnished by him in the application and its enclosures are materially incorrect or false, or any particulars called by the Bank therein or thereafter are willfully suppressed by him. The petitioner although has been appointed in the year 1978, but on a complaint being received regarding the caste of the petitioner, a due enquiry was directed to be conducted, in which, it was found that the caste certificate which was produced at the time of getting appointment was found to be incorrect, since he does not belong to Scheduled Caste community rather, he is Christian by religion. But in order to get advantage of the Scheduled Caste to get weightage in the appointment, he, by suppressing the material fact from the revenue authorities, has got the Caste Certificate, which has been cancelled by the Revenue Authorities and also attains its finality. But in order to get advantage of the Scheduled Caste to get weightage in the appointment, he, by suppressing the material fact from the revenue authorities, has got the Caste Certificate, which has been cancelled by the Revenue Authorities and also attains its finality. He has further submitted that the Disciplinary Authority, taking into consideration the Clause-viii of offer of appointment dated 11.8.1978, has initiated the regular proceeding by alleging two allegations, one is regarding the commission of fraud by showing himself a member of the Scheduled Caste while he belongs to Christian by religion and another is date of birth. He further submits that in the enquiry, in which, he has been allowed to be participated at the first instance and thereafter the punishment has been passed affirming by the Appellate Authority. But this Court considering the ground that the petitioner has not been allowed to cross-examine the Revenue Authorities to prove the allegation of commission of fraud in obtaining the caste certificate from the Revenue Authorities, has quashed the order of punishment as well as appellate order and also the inquiry report and remitted the matter before the Disciplinary Authority for de novo enquiry. In pursuant to the de novo enquiry report, the Inquiry Officer has found the charge no.2 not proved which relates to the dispute in the date of birth of the petitioner, but however the first charge which relates to the caste, has been found to be proved. He submits that the petitioner has cross-examined the Revenue Authorities, who had issued the caste certificate, who has said before the Inquiry Officer that the petitioner by playing fraud with the authorities, has obtained the caste certificate, which ultimately has been cancelled by providing due opportunity of being heard to him. The Disciplinary Authority, after accepting the enquiry report, has inflicted the punishment of dismissal and also the order has been affirmed by the Appellate Authority. He submits that after the order of punishment having quashed by this Court, the petitioner has been reinstated in service where he continued upto the passing of the order of Disciplinary Authority on 19th October, 2005. He further submits, countering the stand of the petitioner, that he has not taken any advantage of his caste of being a member of Scheduled Caste in getting the appointment and as such, the order of dismissal is not sustainable. He further submits, countering the stand of the petitioner, that he has not taken any advantage of his caste of being a member of Scheduled Caste in getting the appointment and as such, the order of dismissal is not sustainable. He submits in this regard that it is not a question of getting an appointment by showing him as a member of Scheduled Caste, but the question of integrity and honesty in which the petitioner has found to be lacking, which amounts to misconduct and accordingly, on the basis of the offer of appointment containing the condition that if any misrepresentation will come to the notice of the authorities, the services will be dispensed with after issuance of notice. However, the services have been dismissed not on the basis of the notice rather, regular proceeding has been initiated under the regulation governing the Disciplinary Appeal Rule of the Bank. In the light of the submission, it has been stated that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 6. The undisputed fact in this case is that the petitioner has got his appointment as Daptari in the Bank after taking retirement from the service of the Army. It is also not a case that the petitioner has been appointed under the category of Scheduled Caste. The petitioner has been appointed in the year 1978 on provisionary basis subject to regularization on satisfactory service. The offer of appointment contains a condition under Column-viii, which is being reflected herein below:- “His services are liable to be terminated with appropriate notice if it is revealed at any time after his appointment that the information given and the particulars furnished by him in the application and its enclosures are materially incorrect or false, or any particulars called by the Bank therein or thereafter are willfully suppressed by him.” 7. The admitted position is that the petitioner has produced a caste certificate showing himself to be a Scheduled Caste community while he belongs to Christian by religion. It is also admitted position that the petitioner has got caste certificate from the office of Revenue Authority by placing the material on record showing himself to be the member of the Scheduled Caste. It is also admitted position that the petitioner has got caste certificate from the office of Revenue Authority by placing the material on record showing himself to be the member of the Scheduled Caste. It is also not disputed that the petitioner has got some weightage of being a member of the Scheduled Caste community. The petitioner, after rendering about 13 years of service, has been proceeded departmentally on the basis of complaint made against him regarding the identity of his caste as also the dispute in the date of birth. The Inquiry Officer has found the charge no.1 as proved and thereafter the order of punishment has been passed against him on 30.7.1994 which has been affirmed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 25.5.1995. 8. The petitioner, being aggrieved with the order of punishment, has approached this Court vide O.J.C. No.3716 of 1996 on the ground that he has not been allowed adequate and sufficient opportunity to put-forth his defence. He has been deprived from cross-examining the Revenue Authorities, this Court, after taking into consideration the plea of the petitioner, has quashed the order of punishment as also the enquiry report and remitted the matter for de novo enquiry. Accordingly, de novo enquiry has been initiated against him, in which, the petitioner has been allowed to cross-examine the Revenue Authorities wherein it has come out on record that his caste certificate, which was issued in his favour showing him the member of the Scheduled Caste, has been cancelled by the Revenue Authority on the ground that he has obtained it by commission of fraud while actually he belongs to Christian by religion. The enquiry report found the charge no.1 proved which relates to caste of the petitioner while the charge no.2 related to the date of birth has not found to be proved. 9. The Disciplinary Authority, after accepting the enquiry report and taking into consideration the seriousness of the allegation which relates to integrity and honesty, has imposed the punishment of dismissal from service, which has subsequently been approved by the Appellate Authority. The main contention of the petitioner is that he has not obtained service under the Scheduled Caste quota, hence the order of dismissal is illegal. The main contention of the petitioner is that he has not obtained service under the Scheduled Caste quota, hence the order of dismissal is illegal. But, according to the considered view of this Court, it is not the charge to get an appointment by showing himself as a member of the Scheduled Caste rather, the charge is that he although belongs to the Christian, get job of an Armed Guard declaring a member of Scheduled Caste community by producing a caste certificate dated 8.8.1978 issued by the Tahasildar, which was in fact a false one, meaning thereby charge relates to the integrity and conduct of the petitioner. The caste certificate which has been produced by the petitioner issued on 8.8.1978 has been cancelled by the competent Revenue Authority in exercising of the statutory power conferred upon it that has come in enquiry report and the competent issuing authority has stated this aspect before the Inquiry Officer, who was thoroughly been cross-examined by the petitioner. It has come in the enquiry report that the petitioner has produced the fake caste certificate only to get the weightage being a member of the Scheduled Caste. The offer of appointment clearly reflects a condition that if any time it will come to the notice of the authority that any information forwarded by him in application and its enquiries are materially incorrect or false, he will liable to be terminated with an appropriate notice. It is settled that offer of appointment containing terms and conditions is binding upon the parties. It is also settled that the offer of appointment in absence of any statutory rule governs the field. But, if there is statutory rule governing disciplinary appeal with respect to one or the other employees, the decision will be taken by following the provision of the Disciplinary Appeal Rule. Although, in the offer of appointment when it was issued, the appointment was on probationary basis and as such, it was with a condition that in case in suppression of material fact, the services will be liable to be terminated with appropriate notice, but after rendering 13 years of service, since his service has been confirmed and as such, the services cannot be dispensed with only after issuing of notice of a confirmed employee. Hence, the Disciplinary Authority has proceeded departmentally by following provision of Discipline and Appeal governing the field on the basis of the allegation of suppression of material fact. Although, the petitioner has not got appointment under the Scheduled Caste quota, but the fact remains that he has misled the authority by providing a fake certificate which was enclosed along with the application form and has got weightage of being a Scheduled Caste, which according to the considered view of the Court, is a gross misconduct. 10. This Court is exercising its extra ordinary jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but it is settled proposition of law that the power of judicial review conferred to the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is very limited. It can only be exercised in case of the perversity of the findings given by the Inquiry Officer, reference in this regard may be made to the judgment in the case of State of U.P and Others Vrs. Raj Kishore Yadav and Another, reported in (2006) 5 SCC 673 wherein their Lordships have been pleased to hold that (it is settled law that the High Court has limited scope of interference in the administrative action of the State in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, the findings recorded by the enquiry officer and the consequent order of punishment of dismissal from service should not be disturbed.) In another judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State Bank of Hyderabad and Another Vrs. P.Kata Rao, reported in (2008) 15 SCC 657 wherein at paragraph-18 it has been held as follows:- “18. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the jurisdiction of superior courts in interfering with a finding of fact arrived at by the enquiry officer is limited.” In the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India and Others Vrs. P. Gunasekaran, reported in AIR 2015 SC 545 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has been pleased to laid down a guideline in order to make interference with the order of punishment which is being quoted herein below:- “13. Despite the well-settled position, it is painfully disturbing to note that the High Court has acted as an appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings, re-appreciating even the evidence before the enquiry officer. Despite the well-settled position, it is painfully disturbing to note that the High Court has acted as an appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings, re-appreciating even the evidence before the enquiry officer. The finding on Charge No.1 was accepted by the disciplinary authority and was also endorsed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. In disciplinary proceedings, the High Court is not and cannot act as a second court of first appeal. The High Court, in exercise of its powers under Art.226/227 of the Constitution of India, shall not venture into reappreciation of the evidence. The High Court can only see whether: a. the enquiry is held by a competent authority; b. the enquiry is held according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf; c. there is violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting the proceedings; d. the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair conclusion by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case; e. the authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced by irrelevant or extraneous considerations; f. the conclusion, on the very face of it, is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at such conclusion; g. the disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to admit the admissible and material evidence; h. the disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which influenced the finding; i. the finding of fact is based on no evidence. Under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not: (i) re-appreciate the evidence; (ii) interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case the same has been conducted in accordance with law; (iii) go into the adequacy of the evidence; (iv) go into the reliability of the evidence; (v) interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be based. (vi) correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be; (vii) go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience.” 11. This Court, after considering the limited scope of judicial review in case of concurrent finding of the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority as per ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court which has been scrutinized on the basis of facts, refrains itself in interfering with the order of punishment by appreciating the fact finding based upon the cogent evidences. In the result, the writ petition lacks merit, hence dismissed.