Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 35 (TRI)

Pabitra Pathak v. Union of India

2020-02-20

ARINDAM LODH

body2020
JUDGMENT Arindam Lodh, J. - Heard Mr. T. K. Chowdhury, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Majumder, learned CGC appearing for the respondents. By way of filing the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order of dismissal from service vide order dated 24.012.2007 issued by the Commandant, 120 BN., CRPF and sought for reinstatement. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under: 2.1 The petitioner, in pursuance of an advertisement, had applied for the post of constable under the respondents. He appeared in the selection process and later on appointed as constable. After such appointment he was dismissed from service on the ground that he produced fake caste status certificate at the time of appointment. In this respect, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated and in that disciplinary proceeding it was held that the petitioner was not belonged to the member of Scheduled Tribe (ST for short) community, rather he belongs to Other Backward Community (OBC for short). 2.2. The case of the petitioner is that he belongs to Koch Raj Bongshi Community and presently, Koch Raj Bongshi Community enlisted as OBC in the State of Assam. However, by the Constitution(ST) Order of Amendment Ordinance, 1996, which was published in the Gazette vide notification dated14.02.1996, wherein, the Koch Raj Bongshi Community was accorded the status of ST. Keeping in mind with the said change in status, Government of Assam in the WPT-DC, Department, issued office memorandum dated 15.03.1996, authorizing the President/General Secretary of Assam, Koch Raj Bongshi Sammiloni as well as the President/General Secretary of the District Units, issued the caste certificate to a member of Koch Raj Bongshi Community as per prescribed format and it is pertinent to mention here that the caste certificate so issued was required to be counter signed by the Deputy Commissioner of the District or by the concerned Sub-Divisional Officer, as the case may be. 3. The petitioner was issued with a caste status certificate showing him as a member of ST (Koch Raj Bongshi) Community by the General Secretary, Borpeta District Unit of the authorized committee namely, All Assam Koch Rajbongshi Sammiloni. The said certificate dated 19.04.1998 was counter signed by the Deputy Commissioner Borpeta on 24.04.1998. 3. The petitioner was issued with a caste status certificate showing him as a member of ST (Koch Raj Bongshi) Community by the General Secretary, Borpeta District Unit of the authorized committee namely, All Assam Koch Rajbongshi Sammiloni. The said certificate dated 19.04.1998 was counter signed by the Deputy Commissioner Borpeta on 24.04.1998. Accordingly, at the time of recruitment process and the subsequent appointments he produced the said certificate dated 19.04.1998 and was appointed as constable under the respondents as ST (Koch Raj Bongshi) Community. 4. After rendering the service for about 5 (five) years, the petitioner was served with a show cause notice to clarify as to why he would not be dismissed from service for production of fake status certificate at the time of his appointment under the respondents and in this respect, an Inquiry Officer was also appointed & detailed inquiry was conducted. During inquiry, the petitioner came to know that by the Presidential Order caste status of a member belonging to Koch Raj Bongshi Community was converted into OBC and for that reason, he admitted his guilt. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that in course of inquiry itself, the members of Koch Raj Bongshi Sammiloni, the authorized persons i.e. the President/General Secretary, had communicated vide letter dated 20.08.2007 that the petitioner belongs to ST (Koch Raj Bongshi) Community in the State of Assam. It is further stated in the letter that the petitioner as "ST according to vide letter No. TAD/ST/98/92/138 dated 28.01.1996 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition). 6. It is the contention of the petitioner that even after the receipt of the said communication dated 20th August, 2007, the petitioner was compelled to plead his guilt that he produced fake certificate to the respondents. Ultimately, the petitioner was dismissed from service, thereafter, statutory appeal was preferred but that too also dismissed. 7. Thereafter, the petitioner had challenged the said order of dismissal by filing a writ petition bearing No. WP(C) No. 99 of 2012. Ultimately, the petitioner was dismissed from service, thereafter, statutory appeal was preferred but that too also dismissed. 7. Thereafter, the petitioner had challenged the said order of dismissal by filing a writ petition bearing No. WP(C) No. 99 of 2012. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties, this Court vide order dated 22.08.2012 directed the petitioner to submit representation to the respondent No.6, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, CRPF, Gorgaon through the respondent No. 7 within a period of 10(ten) days from the date of receipt of the said order and the respondent No. 6 shall also consider and dispose of the matter with further direction that the respondent No. 6 shall do the same within a period of 1(one) month from the date of receipt of the order, taking note of the fact that other similarly situated persons were reinstated in service even after removal from service for submitting false ST certificates though they belong to OBC (Annexure7/A to the writ petition). 8. Accordingly, the petitioner has submitted a representation and the said representation was duly considered by the respondents. Thereafter, vide order dated 13th October, 2012, the petitioner was reinstated in service. The said order is necessary to be reproduced herein below: Office of the Deputy Inspector General of Police, CRPF Range, Guwahati, No. J.II.1/2012-EC-3. Dated 13th October, 2012 To, EX CT/GD Pabitra Pathak, F/No. 025131259, S/O Sri Premchanran Pathak, P.O. + P.S. Karbook, Amarpur, Distt. South Tripura, State-Tripura. Subject: REG RE-INSTATEMENT Refer your representation dated 27.08.2012 vide which you had requested for re-instatement in service. 2. Having considered your representation and all other relevant aspects of the case it has been decided to reinstatement you in service. 3. You are hence directed to report to the Commandant-120BN on or before 31.10.2012 along with a "Non Employment Certificate" for further needful. (A. Srinivas) DIGP,CRPF, Range, Guwahati, Dated, the ....(not legible) October, 2012." 9. After being so reinstated in service, the petitioner was informed about the payment of 50% of back wages in pursuance of office order dated 10.11.2012. In the office order dated 29.07.2013 it is further observed that the service of the petitioner for the period he was absented due to the said dismissal order, would be treated as on duty and the office was directed to pass appropriate order (Annexure-17, page-77). In the office order dated 29.07.2013 it is further observed that the service of the petitioner for the period he was absented due to the said dismissal order, would be treated as on duty and the office was directed to pass appropriate order (Annexure-17, page-77). The payment of 50% back wage in regard to the petitioner, was also taken into account vide notification dated 27th June, 2014 (Annexure-8, P-80 to the writ petition). 10. All on a sudden, the petitioner had received an order dated 22nd July, 2014, wherein, order of punishment of 'dismissal from service' was again awarded w.e.f. the date the said order was handed over to him. While issuing the said order dated 22nd July, 2014, the respondents had relied upon an office memorandum dated 19.05.1993 issued by the Government of India where it was stipulated that "if a Govt. servant had produced a false certificate in order to secure appointment, he should not be retained in service." Moreover, another ground which was assigned by the respondents that the petitioner had pleaded guilty in course of the disciplinary proceeding that, he produced fake ST certificate. 11. On the face of the said order, it is apparent that even the respondents did not think it necessary to issue a show cause notice upon the petitioner. The said action of the respondents is of sheer breach of well-neigh principle of natural justice and according to this Court, the said order of dismissal is liable to be quashed. 12. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed a writ petition before the Division Bench of this Court [Dipak Gupta, CJ (as he then was) & S. Talapatra, J) being numbered WP(C) No. 350 of 2014, wherein the said order of dismissal vide order dated 24.02.2005 was set aside with the following directions: "[6] We therefore, set aside the impugned order dated 22nd July, 2014 without expressing any view on the merits of the case. The appropriate authority of the CRPF is at liberty to issue notice to show cause to the petitioner, who shall reply to the show cause notice within 15(fifteen) days of the receipt thereof and appear before the authority and satisfy the authority whether the certificate issued in his favour was genuine or not. The appropriate authority of the CRPF is at liberty to issue notice to show cause to the petitioner, who shall reply to the show cause notice within 15(fifteen) days of the receipt thereof and appear before the authority and satisfy the authority whether the certificate issued in his favour was genuine or not. [7] It is made clear that though the impugned order has been set aside, the petitioner shall not be entitled to reinstatement or monetary benefits till the decision is taken by the appropriate authority pursuant to this judgment passed by us. Needless to say that if the decision goes in favour of the petitioner, he shall be entitled to 50% back wages till 2014 and thereafter full back wages. However, if the decision goes against him, then he will not be entitled to get any benefits." 13. The respondent has failed to establish before this Court that in pursuance of the said order dated 24.02.2015 passed in connection with the WP(C) No. 350 of 2014 any show cause notice issued upon the petitioner meaning thereby that no show cause notice was issued at all. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner waited for about 6(six) months and under compelling circumstances he filed the present petition. 14. It is clear that the order of this Court dated 24.02.2015 has not been complied with by the respondents and it is an admitted position that no reasonable opportunity was given to the petitioner before issuance of the impugned order of dismissal from service. On the said ground alone, the impugned order of dismissal is liable to be quashed and the petitioner is directed to be reinstated in the service with all service benefits. 15. It is apparent from the communication dated 27.06.2014 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition) that it was the conscious decision of the higher authority of the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in his service as well as to consider the payment of 50% back wages. Subsequent action of the respondents after reinstatement again dismissing the petitioner from service, is unwarranted and arbitrary being violation of principle of natural justice. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 28.11.2015 is liable to be dismissed. 16. Admittedly, the petitioner was issued with the caste status as ST (Koch Raj Bongshi) community in pursuance of the Presidential list, published in the year 1996. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 28.11.2015 is liable to be dismissed. 16. Admittedly, the petitioner was issued with the caste status as ST (Koch Raj Bongshi) community in pursuance of the Presidential list, published in the year 1996. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 28.11.2015 dismissing the petitioner from service is liable to be dismissed and thus, the same is hereby set aside and quashed. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. However, I do not want to conclude the order at this stage because the petitioner was subjected to severe harassment in regard to his caste status certificate. As such, the matter needs to be settled once for all. This Court never directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service but only directed the petitioner to submit representation and the respondents would dispose of the representation keeping in mind the fact of reinstatement of the other similarly situated persons. 17. It is an admitted position that the petitioner was issued with a case status certificate as ST (Koch Raj bongshi) Community in pursuance of the Presidential list published in the year 1996. But the State of Assam published a list of ST community, wherein, Koch Raj Bongshi Community was decided to be treated as OBC. 18. The same nature of dispute came up before the Gauhati High Court and while deciding the said dispute in writ petition being WP(C) No. 451 of 2010, it was observed thus: "25. At the outset, certain undisputed facts may be noted. 26. Firstly, the Koch-Rajbangshi 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 noticedabove, it is not the case of the respondents that this certificate is fgake or that it is not genuine. 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 noticedabove, it is not the case of the respondents that this certificate is fgake or that it is not genuine. In fact, the organization which issued the certificate has reiterated the caste status of the petitioner as belonging to ST (Koch Rajbongshi) community. 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 the 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. 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 Rajbonshi) 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 the caste certificate or ineligibility of the person to hold the caste certificate, enquiry should be conducted by a scrutiny committee. In Paragraph-12 of the said judgment, the Apex Court held that in case of dispute relating to genuineness of the caste certificate or ineligibility of the person to hold the caste certificate, enquiry should be conducted by a scrutiny committee. The Apex Court direct 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, 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. 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, held 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), t his 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 the recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shalini v. 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. 33. In the recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shalini v. 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 was as to whether a person, who has honestly in contradistinction 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." 19. In the case in hand, the petitioner has brought some of the office order relating to the reinstatement of similarly circumstanced person. While reinstating those similarly situated persons, the concerned authority had issued orders after making the following observations: "Office of the Commandant, 06 Battalion, CRPF, Ali Road, Katra (Jammu and Kashmir) No. P-8-11/2007-116-Estt-2 Dated, 13th October, 2011 Subject: regarding RE-INSTATEMENT. Your are hereby informed that vide Letter No. M-5-2/2007-C.P.-6 dated 17.07.2007 issued by the office of the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Group Centre, CRPF, Guwahati, this office received Inquiry report about the correctness of your Caste certificate, along with the letter of Deputy Commissioner, Barpeta, Assam vide bearing No. BAMC-43/2005/PT-1/889-894 dated 21.03.2007. in the letter dated 21.03.2007 the Deputy Commissioner, Barpeta, Assam stated that as per Notification of Department of WPT and BC of Assam Government vide Notification No. TAD/ST/98/92/144 dated 15.02.1996 and No. TAD/ST/98/92/212 dated 07.04.1998 you are belong to "Kutch Raj Bongshhi" and Kutch Raj Bongshi" are included as OBC whereas you were recruited in the CRPF on the basis of the certificate of Schedule Tribe. In this regard this battalion conducted joint departmental proceeding against you and some other incumbents and by the Order No. P-8-11/2007-6 Estt.-2 dated 04.10.2007 (Afternoon) along with others you were also imposed punishment of "REMOVE FROM SERVICE". 2. In this regard this battalion conducted joint departmental proceeding against you and some other incumbents and by the Order No. P-8-11/2007-6 Estt.-2 dated 04.10.2007 (Afternoon) along with others you were also imposed punishment of "REMOVE FROM SERVICE". 2. The Deputy Inspector General (Law) Head Quarter CRPF through W. T. Message vide No. J-2-843/08-L.W.P.-2 dated 05.10.2011 informed about this matter to this office to the effect that vide Letter No. C.R.-102302/J.S(P-2)/2009 dated 29.12.2009 issued by the Home Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India were informed that a meeting was held on 15.09.2011 in the premises of the Head Quarter under the Chairmanship of Director General of Police, (Employment), CRPF in the Headquarter of CRPF, New Delhi and in that meeting your matter was considered perusing connected all information and after meticulous scrutiny it was decided by the committee constituted by the Director General of Police, CRPF, that you shall be re-instated in your service as OBC. 3. Therefore, in this connection you are hereby ordered that you report to Head-Quarter, 06-Battellion, Ali Road, Katra (Jammu & Kashmir) without any delay with NON EMPLOYMENT CERTIFICATE so that this office may able to proceed to reinstate you. Sd/-Illegible, 13/X/11, (Rajiv Sharma) P.M.G. Commandant-06-Battelion, CRPF." 20. In regard to removal from service on the ground of production of ST certificate instead of OBC certificate, the respondent had observed as under: "3. I have carefully gone through the Departmental Enquiry proceeding conducted by the Enquiry Officer Shri S. K. Rana, Asstt. Comdt. Of this Unit and found that the above CT/GD was enlisted in CRPF on 19.02.2003 in the category of S.T. The said certificate was issued to him by the Dy. Commissioner, Dist. Barpeta (Assam) on 20.07.1997. On detailed scrutiny the relevant documents it is revealed that the individual belongs to "Koch Rajbongshi" community which restored as "OBC" from S. T. category w.e.f. 03.04.1997 by Govt. of Assam vide their notification No. TAD/ST/98/92/212 dated 07.04.1998. Now a question has been raised that the above notification has been issued on 07.04.1998 whereas S.T certificate was issued to above CT/GD on 20.07.1997 i.e. prior to restoration of category as "OBC" so such certificate could be treated as fake/fabricated or otherwise. Secondly, the above individual was enlisted by producing actual S.T. Community certificate issued by D.C. Barpeta on the basis of earlier Govt. notification dated 28.01.1996. So, there was no fault of the individual. Secondly, the above individual was enlisted by producing actual S.T. Community certificate issued by D.C. Barpeta on the basis of earlier Govt. notification dated 28.01.1996. So, there was no fault of the individual. So, the case was referred to the DIGP, Khatkhati (Assam) vide letter of even No. dated 20.11.2007 for further clarification. The DIGP, Khatkhati (Assam) vide his letter No. F.II-6/2008-DA.XI dated 23.04.2008 has forwarded a copy of letter of Addl. DIGP (Pers.I) Directorate General, CRPF, letter No. R.II-15/2008-Pers.II dated 22.02.2008 in that:- "The case has been examined at depth in consultation with Legal, Dte. Since no amendment issued by Govt. has been received in this regard, the notification issued by the State Govt. to revert the caste Koch Rajbongshi from Schedule Tribe to OBC w.e.f. 03.04.1997 is not relevant in this case. As per Swamy's Compilation on Reservation and Concessions (incorporated up to Jan. 2005) the caste "KOCH RAJBONGSHI" of Assam State is stillin the list of Schedule Tribes. As such, the appointments of these candidates are correct." 4. On the basis of the above clarifications, I, undersigned pass the following orders: (I) The individual is found to be innocent of charges levelled against his and is ACQUITTED. (II) S.T. certificate produced by No. 035160243 CT/GD Aarup Kumar Barman at the time of his enlistment be treated as VALID' and he is allowed to CONTINUE in service. (Nitu D. Bhattacharya) Commandant-25 Bn. CRPF." 21. Similar and identical situations are found in the present case. Here, there was no criminality in the action of the petitioner while he produced his caste status certificate to the respondent-CRPF. He produced his caste certificate knowing fully well that he belongs to ST community under the recognized presidential order at the relevant point of time which factually and legally was correct. There was no fault on the part of the petitioner. 22. The decision of the Central Government is quite indicative of the genuinity of the petitioner and his caste status. There was no fault on the part of the petitioner. 22. The decision of the Central Government is quite indicative of the genuinity of the petitioner and his caste status. The petitioner had produced his caste certificate as ST in the year 2002 when he was recruited under the respondent-CRPF and Koch Raj Bongshi community was placed in the presidential list as ST community and consequent thereto, the Ministry of Home Affairs held that the notification issued by the State of Assam de-categorizing Koch Raj Bongshi to OBC had no relevance at the time of the appointment of such candidates belonging to Koch Rajbongshi community. 23. Accordingly, necessary directions were issued by the competent authority of the Home Department, Govt. of India that all such certificates were held to be valid and genuine. The respondent-CRPF re-instated the petitioner taking into consideration various decisions of the central government and all other relevant aspects of the case. Even, for argument sake, if considered that the petitioner pleaded guilty in course of inquiry, admission incourse of inquiry would have no consequence as after the final outcome of that enquiry, the petitioner was reinstated in service and with such reinstatement the admission of guilt was condoned which cannot be reopened. 24. More so, it is also to be considered that after such admission of guilt, the respondent-CRPF continued the inquiry and all relevant documents were produced before the inquiry authority. The petitioner was once dismissed, then again after considering all aspects as discussed and analyzed above was reinstated. After such reinstatement in service the respondent-CRPF again dismissed the petitioner from service on the ground that in course of proceeding the petitioner admitted his guilt and that too, without observance of the principle of natural justice. 25. It is seen that the petitioner at the time of accepting the allegation levelled against him, he produced the letter dated 20.08.2007 issued by the All Assam Koch Raj Bongshi Sammiloni wherein, it was specifically stated by the president and the secretary of this recognized association that the petitioner belongs to ST (Koch Raj Bongshi) community. So, manifestly, it appears that the petitioner even being pleaded guilty he tried his best to substantiate that at the relevant point of time he belonged to ST (Koch Raj Bongshi) community. 26. So, manifestly, it appears that the petitioner even being pleaded guilty he tried his best to substantiate that at the relevant point of time he belonged to ST (Koch Raj Bongshi) community. 26. In view of aforesaid background of the case and in the light of discussion outlined hereinabove, this Court holds that at the time of recruitment in the post of constable in the year 2002, the petitioner belonged to ST (Koch Raj Bongshi) community as per the decision of the Minister of Home Affairs, Govt. of India. The petitioner has to be treated as ST during his first dismissal from service vide order dated 24.012.20007. In the case in hand, the caste status certificate as annexed in Annexure-I in the writ petition, clearly reveals that the petitioner belongs to ST (Koch Rajbongshi) community in the State of Assam. This Caste status certificate of the petitioner is supported by the authorized caste organization. There is no documents furnished before this Court that at the relevant point of time, the said caste status certificate was cancelled by the Govt. of Assam. It is now well settled that caste status certificate issued in favour of a person by an authority under law can only be challenged and verified through SLSC following the established procedure for the purpose of holding such enquiry. There is no such evidence that at the time of appointment, the petitioner had produced a false certificate in order to secure appointment. The word false means 'not according with truth or fact, invalid or illegal' [Oxford English Dictionary]. 27. In the instant case, caste certificate issued in favour of the petitioner cannot be said to be false for the reason that it was a true fact that the said certificate was issued by a organization which was authorized and recognized by the Govt. of Assam and also was counter signed by the Deputy Commissioner, Barpeta, the statutory authority to counter sign such documents, hence, the respondents have miserably misconstrued and misinterpreted the memorandum dated 19.05.1993 issued by the Govt. of India as quoted above. 28. It is absurd to treat the proposition of the respondents that he had produced false or fake or forged document. Having held so, the impugned order dated 28.11.2015 dismissing the petitioner from service is hereby set aside and quashed. of India as quoted above. 28. It is absurd to treat the proposition of the respondents that he had produced false or fake or forged document. Having held so, the impugned order dated 28.11.2015 dismissing the petitioner from service is hereby set aside and quashed. In the instant case, I find the respondents have acted most whimsically and arbitrarily against the petitioner, which reinforced me to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in his service with all service benefits including financial benefits along with available back wages in full and all pensionary benefits. It is pertinent to mention herein that this Court does not find any fault with the petitioner to serve the respondent as a sincere constable. 29. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that he is still unemployed. However, I direct the petitioner to produce a non-employment certificate to the respondent-CRPF. The entire process shall be carried out within a period of 30 (thirty) days from the date the petitioner shall furnish the copy of this order to the appointing authority/appropriate authority of the respondents. However, from now the petitioner shall be treated as OBC, if his caste in the meantime is altered legally to OBC. 30. In the result, the present petition stands allowed in the above terms. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.