JUDGMENT : 1. Challenging charge-memo dated 07.12.2015, the petitioner has approached this Court. 2. Briefly stated, the petitioner, who was appointed on 01.09.1981 as Assistant on probation, was confirmed in service of the respondent-Life Insurance Corporation of India with effect from 01.12.1981. His appointment was under reserved category for which he has submitted caste certificate dated 04.05.1981. He claims that he belongs to Sub-caste “Sunri”. Subsequently, when it was found that the caste certificate produced by the petitioner was not in prescribed format he was asked to submit a fresh caste certificate. The petitioner in purported compliance of the aforesaid direction produced a caste certificate dated 16.12.1983 signed by Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad whereas, the caste certificate should have been signed by the District Magistrate of the concerned district. Subsequently, the matter was reported by the Chief Vigilance Officer of the Corporation to Dy. Secretary, Cabinet (Vigilance) Department, Government of Bihar for conducting an investigation and consequently, G.R. Case No.1343/1986 was initiated in which he was made an accused. Since the prosecution failed to produced any witness, charges framed against the accused persons failed and they were acquitted by judgment and order dated 14.02.2008 in G.R.Case No.1343A/1986. Thereafter, the petitioner was directed to submit a fresh caste certificate, however, in-spite of directions issued vide letters dated 08.11.2011, 20.03.2012 and 13.05.2015 when the petitioner did not submit a fresh caste certificate, charge-memo dated 07.12.2015 was served upon him, to which he submitted his reply on 12.01.2016. Finding no substance in his defence, a departmental enquiry was ordered vide order dated 29.01.2016. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant writ-petition. 3. Referring to the decisions in Kumari Madhuri Patil & Anr. vs Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development & Ors. reported in AIR 1995 SC 94 and Union of India & Ors. vs B.V. Gopinath reported in AIR (2014) SC 88, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Corporation has no jurisdiction to decide the genuineness of the caste certificate produced by the petitioner and the Corporation also cannot determine the caste of an employee. 4. Per contra, Mr. Sachin Kumar, the learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation contends that an employer has an absolute discretion to verify the genuineness of a certificate produced by an employee and no exception can be taken to exercise of such power by the employer. 4. Per contra, Mr. Sachin Kumar, the learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation contends that an employer has an absolute discretion to verify the genuineness of a certificate produced by an employee and no exception can be taken to exercise of such power by the employer. He further contends that reliance on the decisions “Kumari Madhuri Patil” and “B.V. Gopinath” is erroneous and the decisions in these cases, which were rendered in different set of facts, do not assist the case of the petitioner for throwing challenge to charge-memo dated 07.12.2015. 5. At the stage of a charge-memo or the charge sheet, the delinquent/accused has limited right in law. A charge memo/charge sheet can be challenged only on the ground that it has been issued by an authority who has no jurisdiction or it is wholly illegal [refer (2006) 12 SCC 28 , Union of India vs Kunisetty Satyanarayana]. The charge-memo dated 07.12.2015 has been issued by the Zonal Manager. It is not the case pleaded by the petitioner that the Zonal Manager is not competent to issue the charge memo. The plea taken by the petitioner that the Corporation cannot decide genuineness of the caste certificate produced by him would not render the charge-memo dated 07.12.2015 wholly illegal. The charge-memo clearly records that genuineness of the caste certificate could not be confirmed by the authority who purportedly issued the caste certificate nor the petitioner submitted any corroborative evidence. In these facts, the petitioner was issued letters dated 08.11.2011, 20.03.2012, 28.07.2012 and 13.05.2015 for producing a fresh caste certificate. When he failed to produce a fresh caste certificate the charge-memo dated 07.12.2015 has been issued. 6. In the above facts, I find no substance in challenge by the petitioner to the charge-memo dated 07.12.2015. However, I deem it proper to grant liberty to the petitioner to produce a fresh caste certificate as directed by the respondent-Corporation before the enquiry officer/disciplinary authority, effect of which shall be decided by the departmental authority. 7. With the aforesaid liberty, the writ-petition is dismissed.