and there is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner was not a part of the said enquiry, said to have been conducted by the Block Development Officer. She has also submitted that if the respondent-Bank intended to place reliance upon the letters of Block Development Officer, Bhojpur, Ara as well as Sub divisional Officer, Bhojpur, Ara they should have been examined as prosecution witnesses before their report on the basis of which the respondent-Bank intended to prove the allegation against the petitioner that the certificates issued in his favour were bogus. She has also drawn my attention to a communication dated 02.11.1991 issued by the District Magistrate, Ara addressed to the Regional Manager, Bank of India, Regional Office, Patna wherein, on the basis of letter dated 10.07.1989 (Annexure-D/7 to the counter affidavit), the District Magistrate has mentioned that caste certificate No.560 dated 18.10.1973 was never issued from his office, therefore, it was clearly a forged document. The District Magistrate, accordingly, refused to cancel the certificate which, according to him, was never issued. She has further contended that if at all any enquiry was done, as regards petitioner’s status with respect to his caste, it was done behind his back and there can be no sanctity of the findings of such enquiry in a departmental proceeding, particularly when the persons who are said to be conducted the enquiry were not examined as witnesses.
