JUDGMENT
Vijender Jain, J.
1. Notice be issued to show cause as to why rule nisi be not issued.
2. Mr. Aditya Madan, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the respondent. Heard.
3. This writ petition can be disposed of at this stage itself. In the impugned order the Tribunal recorded that there was a finding of fact that the petitioner removed the photocopy of the cast certificate and did not return the same to the department.
The Tribunal opined that they would not like to interfere with the finding of fact and held that penalty of dismissal from service was disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. The Tribunal remanded the matter to the disciplinary authority to impose any other penalty other than dismissal or removal from service.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to pages 43-44 of the paper book to highlight his plea that the inquiry officer did not hold that the petitioner had removed the photo copy of the caste certificate. The finding at page 44 is that the petitioner through application under proper signature took the photocopy of the caste certificate from Fauzi Missal on 13.2.1998 and the charge was that he never deposited it back despite order to that effect. The report of the inquiry office shows that the original application by which the petitioner took photocopy of his caste certificate from his Fauji Missal against his signature is on record in SIP Branch. But further perusal of the findings of inquiry officer shows that on page 29 of the paper book it is recorded that the petitioner had scratched the caste ”S.C.” and made it ”S.T.” on the employment exchange I-Card and on page 31 it is noted that he had scored cast ”S.C”. and had made it ”S.T.” in the photostate copy and the finding on page 39 of the paper book is that photostate copy of the caste certificate was taken back by moving an application but was not returned with a view to destroy the proof that he was S.C. and not S.T. The inquiry officer held that the removal of caste certificate and its non-return amounted to cheating and misconduct which was unbecoming of a police officer. The delinquent had done this intentionally and deceitfully to destroy incriminating evidence against him.
5. As regards the controversy of being S.C. or S.T. the Tribunal has held that there is confusion in the department itself as to whether Bavaria community is S.C. or S.T. The Tribunal thus, allowed the O.A. partly and simply observed ”we do not intend to interfere in the finding of fact in judicial review”. These observations without referring to incriminating details as reproduced by us above appear to have created some confusion in the respondents, because of which the respondents have not complied with the order passed by the Tribunal and have not awarded any reduced penalty to the petitioner. In these facts and circumstances, we direct the respondents to pass any appropriate order of penalty afresh, other than dismissal or removal. Further, they are directed to calculate and pay the dues, if any, to the petitioner expeditiously.
6. With these directions, the petition is disposed of.