ORDER : SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, J. Heard finally with the consent of parties. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 3-4-2012 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 229/2010 as well as punishment order dated 24-12-2008 and the order of rejection of appeal and revision dated 9-6-2009 and 6-10-2009. 2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner was appointed as Platform Porter vide order dated 27-1-1986. Since he belong to S.T. community, a caste certificate was issued in his favour by the Additional Collector, Jaipur (Raj.) on 29-6-2001. Petitioner was thereafter promoted to the post of Ticket Collector vide order dated 23-3-2004 since the promotional post of Ticket Collector was reserved for the S.T. Category. However, on 27-2-2007, charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner alleging that the caste certificate produced by him is false and forged. Departmental Enquiry was conducted against the petitioner. Witnesses were examined from both the sides and their statements were duly recorded. Enquiry Officer has submitted report holding the caste certificate to be forged. Petitioner was provided with a copy of the enquiry report and he was asked for submitting representation, photocopies of show cause notices along with reply. Pursuant to the departmental enquiry, respondents have passed an order of punishment dated 24-12-2008 reducing his recruitment grade in Grade D on permanent basis which was challenged by the petitioner in appeal and the said appeal stood dismissed vide order dated 9-6-2009. The order of rejection of appeal was challenged by filing revision petition which was also dismissed. Thereafter, petitioner has challenged all these orders before the CAT by filing O.A. No. 229/2010. Hence this petition has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that CAT has committed error in holding that the petitioner has not made any allegations of procedural irregularities in the departmental enquiry proceedings. However, petitioner has made specific allegations regarding irregularities in the D.E. proceedings. He further submitted that it is settled position of law that no enquiry can be conducted with regard to caste certificate by any authority except by the Caste Scrutiny Committee formed pursuant to the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Ku. Madhuri Patil and another vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development, Thane and others, reported in AIR 1997 SC 2581 . Madhuri Patil and another vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development, Thane and others, reported in AIR 1997 SC 2581 . In any case, if any complaint has been received regarding forged caste certificate, the same ought to have been referred to high power Caste Scrutiny Committee, Jaipur as even the Collector Jaipur has no power to verify the certificate issued by the Additional Collector Jaipur. Learned CAT further failed to consider that during the course of D.E. proceedings, charges levelled against the petitioner have to be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Though no evidence were on record, despite that the Enquiry Officer has illegally found the charges levelled against the petitioner to be proved. Even, during the course of enquiry, original record of the Addnl Collector, Jaipur, ADM or Tehsildar has not been called and summoned and without verifying the original record, such findings with respect to caste certificate has been made. Under such circumstances, the order passed by the CAT in OA No. 229/2010 as well as the punishment order dated 24-12-2008, order of rejection of appeal dated 9-6-2009 and rejection of revision dated 6-10-2009 are liable to be quashed. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that during vigilance check conducted in the service sheet, it was noticed that the caste certificate submitted by the petitioner was forged. During inquiry hearing were conducted on various dates and petitioner was duly afforded opportunity to defend his case and documents relied upon. Moreso, the caste certificate produced by the petitioner was sent to the Additional Collector Jaipur for examining the genuineness and vide letter dated 31-7-2006, it was informed that no such certificate was issued by the office and further that certificate was issued in favour of some other person entered at S. No. 522 in the register. After examining witnesses and material on record, the Enquiry Officer found charges to be proved and submitted report accordingly. Thereafter only, petitioner’s grade was reduced. So far as the contention regarding referring the matter to the High Power Screening Committee is concerned, it is not mandatory to do so. The judgment passed by the Apex Court in the Madhuri Patil’s case(supra) is of no assistance to the petitioner insofar as the same is related as to whether any particular caste comes under the SC/ST category. So far as the contention regarding referring the matter to the High Power Screening Committee is concerned, it is not mandatory to do so. The judgment passed by the Apex Court in the Madhuri Patil’s case(supra) is of no assistance to the petitioner insofar as the same is related as to whether any particular caste comes under the SC/ST category. However in the case in hand, the caste certificate so submitted is false which is a serious misconduct. Hence, petitioner has rightly been imposed with the punishment of reduction in grade and the appeal and revision preferred against the same have rightly been rejected. 5. Heard, learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. On perusal of the order passed by the CAT, there is no iota of doubt that there is no procedural irregularities in conducting the inquiry. Petitioner was afforded sufficient opportunity of hearing and even he was given opportunity to produce the genuine caste certificate as the caste certificate on the basis of which he has obtained promotion was found to be forged. The said fact has been confirmed by the authority i.e. the ADM, Jaipur who has written a letter denying to have issued any certificate in the name of petitioner. The finding recorded by the disciplinary authority is based on enquiry report and evidence produced in that regard. 7. This Court find force in the submission made by learned counsel for the respondent that the Departmental enquiry was conducted to find out the veracity of the caste certificate submitted by the petitioner which was found to be forged, as the authority issuing the same had also denied to issue the same and the case of Madhuri Patil (supra) is of no assistance to the petitioner. As per Madhuri Patil’s case, the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee has to be constituted to ascertain the caste of the petitioner. However, in the present case, the veracity of caste certificate itself is doubtful which on testing on the anvil of genuineness during the departmental inquiry was found to be forged. 8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, on inquiry, the charges were found to be proved on the basis of witnesses and documentary evidence. On the basis of said inquiry report, the disciplinary authority has rightly reduced the grade of the petitioner which on challenge in appeal and revision was also confirmed. 8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, on inquiry, the charges were found to be proved on the basis of witnesses and documentary evidence. On the basis of said inquiry report, the disciplinary authority has rightly reduced the grade of the petitioner which on challenge in appeal and revision was also confirmed. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that CAT has not committed any error while dismissing the O.A. No. 229/2010. 9. Consequently, petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.