For Petitioner :Mr. Pawan Shrivastava, Advocate
For Respondents/State :Mr. Ajay Kumrani, Panel Lawyer
S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge
CAV Order
1. Facts relevant for disposal of this writ petition are that petitioner was
period of 3 years vide order dated 06.12.2007. He was confirmed on
the post of Shikshakarmi Grade-II. He thereafter continuously worked
as Shikshakarmi Grade-II. His services were terminated vide order
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner after
in service vide order dated 24.08.2011. Petitioner was a permanent
employee. However, order of termination is passed without following
due process of law i.e. initiating departmental enquiry against him by
issuing charge memo framing charges against him. Termination of
service of petitioner in absence of full-fledged departmental enquiry is
termination be quashed. In support of his contention, he places
reliance upon decision in case of Sandeep Kumar Vs. GB Pant
Institute of Engineering and Technology Ghurdauri & Ors. [SLP
this Court in case of Rajesh Kumar Deshmukh Vs. State of
Chhattisgarh & Ors. (WPS No.3003 of 2016, decided on
26.11.2024], Mithai Lal Dhruw Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.
Raisagar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors., (WPS No.6658 of 2021
decided on 04.12.2025), Md. Arshad Khan Vs. State of
Chhattisgarh & Ors. (WPS No.8967 of 2023, decided on
19.09.2025), Smt. Manju Bhagat Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.
(WPS No.1477 of 2025, decided on 27.02.2025), Deepak Dhara Vs.
06.01.2025), Yaad Das Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.
Chandrakar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. (WPS No.4969 of
3. Learned counsel for the respondent-State would vehemently oppose
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 . He submits that
on forged mark-sheet, it was enquired into. Petitioner was given
authority on 20.05.2024 and 24.05.2024. Respondent authority has
also verified the mark-sheet of B.Ed. from Pt. Ravishankar Shukla
University, Raipur, and according to letter written by Dy. Registrar of
University. Based on the said letter of University, petitioner was given
was passed. Therefore there is no violation of principles of natural
justice in the facts of case. He also contended that in the facts of
case, regular departmental enquiry is not required.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused pleadings made
in writ petition as also reply and documents enclosed therein.
5. Perusal of pleadings made in writ petition would show that petitioner
services i.e. mark-sheet submitted by petitioner of B.Ed. is found to
be forged document. In the writ petition, petitioner has only raised a
6. In the order impugned Annexure P-1 it is clearly mentioned that
authority on 27.05.2024. In the impugned order, it is also mentioned
employment based on B.Ed. certificate produced by him at the time
of appointment; he is having no other mark-sheet of B.Ed. From the
proper opportunity of hearing is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
Along with reply, respondents have submitted letter issued by Pt.
available in record (tabulation and chart) of University. It is further
issued by the University. Perusal of letter would show that it is in
reference to mark-sheet of B.Ed. in name of petitioner Seetaram
7. Admittedly, petitioner has not challenged the order of termination on
merits that the mark-sheet submitted by petitioner of B.Ed. stating it
because principle of natural justice is not followed.
8. In case of State of UP Vs. Sudhir Kumar Singh (2021) 19 SCC
42.1 Natural justice is a flexible tool in the hands
of the judiciary to reach out in fit cases to remedy
injustice. The breach of the audi alteram partem
rule cannot by itself, without more, lead to the
conclusion that prejudice is thereby caused.
42.2. Where procedural and/or substantive
provisions of law embody the principles of natural
justice, their infraction per se does not lead to
invalidity of the orders passed. Here again,
prejudice must be caused to the litigant, except in
the case of a mandatory provision of law which is
conceived not only in individual interest, but also in
public interest.
42.3 No prejudice is caused to the person
complaining of the breach of natural justice where
such person does not dispute the case against
him or it. This can happen by reason of estoppel,
acquiescence, waiver and by way of non-
challenge or non-denial or admission of facts, in
cases in which the Court finds on facts that no real
prejudice can therefore be said to have been
caused to the person complaining of the breach of
natural justice.
42.4. In cases where facts can be stated to be
admitted or indisputable, and only one conclusion
is possible, the Court does not pass futile orders of
setting aside or remand when there is, in fact, no
prejudice caused. This conclusion must be drawn
by the Court on an appraisal of the facts of a case,
and not by the authority who denies natural justice
to a person.
42.5 The "prejudice" exception must be more than
a mere apprehension or even a reasonable
suspicion of a litigant. It should exist as a matter of
fact, or be based upon a definite inference of
likelihood of prejudice flowing from the non-
observance of natural justice."
9. In case of Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of
Central Excise, Gauhati and Ors. (2015) 8 SCC 519, Hon'ble
Supreme Court while considering plea of violation of principle of
natural justice, has observed thus:
"20. Natural justice is an expression of English
Common Law. Natural justice is not a single theory - it
is a family of views. In one sense administering justice
itself is treated as natural virtue and, therefore, a part of
natural justice. It is also called 'naturalist' approach to
the phrase 'natural justice' and is related to 'moral
naturalism'. Moral naturalism captures the essence of
commonsense morality - that good and evil, right and
wrong, are the real features of the natural world that
human reason can comprehend. In this sense, it may
comprehend virtue ethics and virtue jurisprudence in
relation to justice as all these are attributes of natural
justice. We are not addressing ourselves with this
connotation of natural justice here.
21. In Common Law, the concept and doctrine of
natural justice, particularly which is made applicable in
the decision making by judicial and quasi- judicial
bodies, has assumed different connotation. It is
developed with this fundamental in mind that those
whose duty is to decide, must act judicially. They must
deal with the question referred both without bias and
they must given to each of the parties to adequately
present the case made. It is perceived that the practice
of aforesaid attributes in mind only would lead to doing
justice. Since these attributes are treated as natural or
fundamental, it is known as 'natural justice'. The
principles of natural justice developed over a period of
time and which is still in vogue and valid even today
were: (i) rule against bias, i.e. nemo iudex in causa
sua; and (ii) opportunity of being heard to the
concerned party, i.e. audi alteram partem. These are
known as principles of natural justice. To these
principles a third principle is added, which is of recent
origin. It is duty to give reasons in support of decision,
namely, passing of a 'reasoned order'.
x x x
38. But that is not the end of the matter. While the law
on the principle of audi alteram partem has progressed
in the manner mentioned above, at the same time, the
Courts have also repeatedly remarked that the
principles of natural justice are very flexible principles.
They cannot be applied in any straight-jacket formula. It
all depends upon the kind of functions performed and
to the extent to which a person is likely to be affected.
For this reason, certain exceptions to the aforesaid
principles have been invoked under certain
circumstances. For example, the Courts have held that
it would be sufficient to allow a person to make a
representation and oral hearing may not be necessary
in all cases, though in some matters, depending upon
the nature of the case, not only full-fledged oral hearing
but even cross-examination of witnesses is treated as
necessary concomitant of the principles of natural
justice. Likewise, in service matters relating to major
punishment by way of disciplinary action, the
requirement is very strict and full-fledged opportunity is
envisaged under the statutory rules as well. On the
other hand, in those cases where there is an admission
of charge, even when no such formal inquiry is held,
the punishment based on such admission is upheld. It
is for this reason, in certain circumstances, even post-
decisional hearing is held to be permissible. Further,
the Courts have held that under certain circumstances
principles of natural justice may even be excluded by
reason of diverse factors like time, place, the
apprehended danger and so on.
x x x
40. In this behalf, we need to notice one other
exception which has been carved out to the aforesaid
principle by the Courts. Even if it is found by the Court
that there is a violation of principles of natural justice,
the Courts have held that it may not be necessary to
strike down the action and refer the matter back to the
authorities to take fresh decision after complying with
the procedural requirement in those cases where non-
grant of hearing has not caused any prejudice to the
person against whom the action is taken. Therefore,
every violation of a facet of natural justice may not lead
to the conclusion that order passed is always null and
void. The validity of the order has to be decided on the
touchstone of 'prejudice'. The ultimate test is always
the same, viz., the test of prejudice or the test of fair
hearing.
x x x
44. At the same time, it cannot be denied that as far as
Courts are concerned, they are empowered to consider
as to whether any purpose would be served in
remanding the case keeping in mind whether any
prejudice is caused to the person against whom the
action is taken. This was so clarified in ECIL [(1993) 4
SCC 727: 1993 SCC (L&S) 1184: (1993) 25 ATC 704]
itself in the following words: (SCC p. 758, para 31):
"31. Hence, in all cases where the enquiry officer's
report is not furnished to the delinquent employee
in the disciplinary proceedings, the Courts and
Tribunals should cause the copy of the report to be
furnished to the aggrieved employee if he has not
already secured it before coming to the Court/
Tribunal and given the employee an opportunity to
show how his or her case was prejudiced because
of the non-supply of the report. If after hearing the
parties, the Court/Tribunal comes to the conclusion
that the non-supply of the report would have made
no difference to the ultimate findings and the
punishment given, the Court/Tribunal should not
interfere with the order of punishment. The Court/
Tribunal should not mechanically set aside the
order of punishment on the ground that the report
was not furnished as it regrettably being done at
present. The courts should avoid resorting to short
cuts. Since it is the Courts/Tribunals which will
apply their judicial mind to the question and give
their reasons for setting aside or not setting aside
the order of punishment, (and not any internal
appellate or revisional authority), there would be
neither a breach of the principles of natural justice
nor a denial of the reasonable opportunity. It is only
if the Court/Tribunal finds that the furnishing of the
report would have made a difference to the result in
the case that it should set aside the order of
punishment."
10. In case of State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. Vs. Dhirjo Kumar Sengar
(2009) 13 SCC 600, Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the
case of fraud to obtain appointment has held as under:
"18. Legality of grant of a valid appointment was
dependent upon the proof that the respondent was
the adopted son of Chittaranjan Singh Sengar. He
not only failed to do so, the materials brought on
record by the parties would clearly suggest
otherwise. His application for grant of appointment
on compassionate ground was rejected by the
Joint Director of Education. He did not question
the legality or validity thereof. He, it can safely be
said, by suppressing the said fact obtained the
offer of appointment from an authority which was
lower in rank than the Joint Director viz. the
Deputy Director. When such a fact was brought to
the notice of the Deputy Director that the offer of
appointment had been obtained as a result of
fraud practised on the Department, he could, in
our opinion, cancel the same.
19. The respondent keeping in view the
constitutional scheme has not only committed a
fraud on the Department but also committed a
fraud on the Constitution. As commission of fraud
by him has categorically been proved, in our
opinion, the principles of natural justice were not
required to be complied with."
11. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Meghmala & Ors. Vs. G.
Narsimha Reddy & Ors (2010) 8 SCC 383, considering
consequence of fraud played by a party, has held thus:
"28. It is settled proposition of law that where an
applicant gets an order/office by making
misrepresentation or playing fraud upon the
competent Authority, such order cannot be
sustained in the eyes of law. "Fraud avoids all
judicial acts ecclesiastical or temporal." (Vide S.P.
Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by L.Rs. Vs.
Jagannath (dead) by L.Rs. & Ors. AIR 1994 SC
853). In Lazarus Estate Ltd. Vs. Besalay 1956 All.
E.R. 349), the Court observed without
equivocation that "no judgment of a Court, no
order of a Minister can be allowed to stand if it has
been obtained by fraud, for fraud unravels
everything."
29 . In Andhra Pradesh State Financial
Corporation Vs. M/s. GAR Re-Rolling Mills & Anr.
AIR 1994 SC 2151; and State of Maharashtra &
Ors. Vs. Prabhu (1994) 2 SCC 481. this Court
observed that a writ Court, while exercising its
equitable jurisdiction, should not act as to prevent
perpetration of a legal fraud as the courts are
obliged to do justice by promotion of good faith.
"Equity is, also, known to prevent the law from the
crafty evasions and sub-letties invented to evade
law."
30. In Smt. Shrisht Dhawan Vs. Shaw Brothers.
AIR 1992 SC 1555, it has been held as under:-
"20. Fraud and collusion vitiate even the most
solemn proceedings in any civilised system of
jurisprudence. It is a concept descriptive of
human conduct."
31. In United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.
Rajendra Singh & Ors. AIR 2000 SC 1165, this
Court observed that "Fraud and justice never dwell
together" (fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant) and it
is a pristine maxim which has never lost its temper
over all these centuries.
32. The ratio laid down by this Court in various
cases is that dishonesty should not be permitted to
bear the fruit and benefit to the persons who
played fraud or made misrepresentation and in
such circumstances the Court should not
perpetuate the fraud. (See District Collector &
Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare
Residential School Society, Vizianagaram & Anr.
Vs. M. Tripura Sundari Devi (1990) 3 SCC 655;
Union of India & Ors. Vs. M. Bhaskaran (1995)
Suppl. 4 SCC 100; Vice Chairman, Kendriya
Vidyalaya Sangathan & Anr. Vs. Girdharilal Yadav
(2004) 6 SCC 325; State of Maharashtra v. Ravi
Prakash Babulalsing Parmar (2007) 1 SCC 80;
Himadri Chemicals Industries Ltd. Vs. Coal Tar
Refining Company AIR 2007 SC 2798; and
Mohammed Ibrahim & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar &
Anr. (2009) 8 SCC 751).
33. Fraud is an intrinsic, collateral act, and fraud of
an egregious nature would vitiate the most solemn
proceedings of courts of justice. Fraud is an act of
deliberate deception with a design to secure
something, which is otherwise not due. The
expression "fraud" involves two elements, deceit
and injury to the person deceived. It is a cheating
intended to get an advantage. (Vide Dr. Vimla Vs.
Delhi Administration AIR 1963 SC 1572; Indian
Bank Vs. Satyam Fibres (India) Pvt. Ltd. (1996) 5
SCC 550; State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. T.
Suryachandra Rao AIR 2005 SC 3110; K.D.
Sharma Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Ors.
(2008) 12 SCC 481; and Regional Manager,
Central Bank of India Vs. Madhulika Guruprasad
Dahir & Ors. (2008) 13 SCC 170)."
12. Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with case of Regional
Manager, Central Bank of India Vs. Madhulika Guruprasad Dahir
& Ors. (2008) 13 SCC 170 while considering the case of a person
who obtained appointment on the basis of false caste certificate
observed that fraud vitiates everything and if a person continued to
work on the post for over 20 years then also he cannot claim any
equity or benefit on that basis. Relevant paragraph of aforementioned
decision is extracted below:
"14. Similarly, the plea regarding rendering of
services for a long period has been considered and
rejected in a series of decisions of this Court and we
deem it unnecessary to launch an exhaustive
dissertation on principles in this context. It would
suffice to state that except in the a few decisions,
where was not cancelled admission/appointment
because of peculiar factual matrix obtaining therein,
the consensus of judicial opinion is that equity,
sympathy or generosity has no place where the
original appointment rests on a false caste certificate.
A person who enters the service by producing a false
caste certificate and obtains appointment to the post
meant for a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe or
OBC, as the case may be, deprives a genuine
candidate falling in either of the said categories, of
appointment to that post, and does not deserve any
sympathy or indulgence of this Court. He who comes
to the Court with a claim based on falsity and
deception cannot plead equity nor the Court would be
justified to exercise equity jurisdiction in his favour.
15. An act of deliberate deception with a design to
secure something, which is otherwise not due,
tantamounts to fraud. Fraud is a conduct either by
letter or words, which induces the other person or
authority to take a definite determinative stand as a
response to the conduct of the former either by words
or letter. (See R. Vishwanatha Pillai v. State of Kerala
((2004) 2 SCC 105 2004 SCC (L&S) 350) Bank of
India ((2005) 7 SCC 690: 2005 SCC (L&S) 1011),
BHEL ((2007) 5 SCC 336: (2007) Derry v. Peek
[(1889) 14 AC 337: (1886-90) (L&S) 1521 All ER Rep
1 (HL)), Ram Preeti Yadav v. U.P. Board of High
School and Intermediate Education [(2003) 8 SCC
311] and Bhaurao Dagdu Paralkar v. State of
Maharashtra [(2005) 7 SCC 605]) .
16. In Ram Chandra Singh v. Savitri Devi [(2003) 8
SCC 319] this Court had observed that fraud is
anathema to all equitable principles and any affair
tainted with fraud cannot be perpetuated or saved by
the application of any equitable doctrine.
17. Recently, in State of Maharashtra v. Ravi Prakash
Babulalsing Parmar [(2007) 1 SCC 80 : (2007) 1 SCC
(L&S) 5] dealing with a similar situation, this Court
has observed thus: (SCC p. 89, para 23)
"23. The makers of the Constitution laid
emphasis on equality amongst citizens. The
Constitution of India provides for protective
discrimination and reservation so as to enable
the disadvantaged group to come on the same
platform as that of the forward community. If and
when a person takes an undue advantage of the
said beneficent provision of the Constitution by
obtaining the benefits of reservation and other
benefits provided under the Presidential Order
although he is not entitled thereto, he not only
plays a fraud on the society but in effect and
substance plays a fraud on the Constitution.
When, therefore, a certificate is granted to a
person who is not otherwise entitled thereto, it is
entirely incorrect to contend that the State shall
be helpless spectator in the matter."
18. Having considered the matter in the light of the
aforestated legal position, in our judgment, the
decision of the High Court is untenable. As noted
supra, the employee having accepted the finding of
the Scrutiny Committee, holding that the caste
certificate furnished by the employee was false, the
very foundation of her appointment vanished and her
appointment was rendered illegal. Her conduct
renders her unfit to be continued in service and must
necessarily entail termination of her service. Under
these circumstances, there is absolutely no
justification for her claim in respect of the post merely
on the ground that she had worked on the post for
over twenty years. The post was meant for a reserved
candidate but she usurped the same by
misrepresentation and deception. In our opinion, the
fact that caste certificate was referred to the Scrutiny
Committee for verification after ten years of her
joining the service and a long time was taken by the
Scrutiny Committee to verify the same is of no
consequence inasmuch as delay on both the counts
does not validate the caste certificate and the
consequent illegal appointment."
13. A person who had obtained job by playing fraud upon employer by
placing on record forged document cannot be held to be a person
holding civil post within the meaning of Article 311 of Constitution of
India and therefore while dismissal of a person appointed by illegal
means like playing fraud, as the case in hand, in such a situation
Article 311 of Constitution will not be attracted. Hon'ble Supreme
Court in case of R.Vishwanatha Pillai Vs. State of Kerala and Ors.
(2004) 2 SCC 105 has observed thus:
"15. This apart, the appellant obtained the appointment
in the service on the basis that he belonged to a
Scheduled Caste community. When it was found by the
Scrutiny Committee that he did not belong to the
Scheduled Caste community, then the very basis of his
appointment was taken away. His appointment was no
appointment in the eyes of law. He cannot claim a right
to the post as he had usurped the post meant for a
reserved candidate by playing a fraud and producing a
false caste certificate. Unless the appellant can lay a
claim to the post on the basis of his appointment he
cannot claim the constitutional guarantee given under
the Article 311 of the Constitution. As he had obtained
the appointment on the basis of a false caste certificate
he cannot be considered to be a person who holds a
post within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution
of India. Finding recorded by the Scrutiny Committee
that the appellant got the appointment on the basis of
false caste certificate has become final. The position,
therefore, is that the appellant has usurped the post
which should have gone to a member of the Scheduled
Caste. In view of the finding recorded by the Scrutiny
Committee and upheld upto this Court he has
disqualified himself to hold the post. Appointment was
void from its inception. It cannot be said that the said
void appointment would enable the appellant to claim
that he was holding a civil post within the meaning of
Article 311 of the Constitution of India. As appellant had
obtained the appointment by playing a fraud he cannot
be allowed to take advantage of his own fraud in
entering the service and claim that he was holder of the
post entitled to be dealt with in terms of Article 311 of
the Constitution of India or the Rules framed thereunder.
Where an appointment in a service has been acquired
by practising fraud or deceit such an appointment is no
appointment in law, in service and in such a situation
Article 311 of the Constitution is not attracted at all."
14. Hon'ble Supreme Court in its recent decision in case of
Commissioner of Police & Ors. Vs. Ex. CT. Vinod Kumar [SLP (C)
No.24705 of 2023, decided on 12th November 2025] was dealing with
the issue of obtaining appointment by respondent therein on the post
of Constable in Delhi Police based on forged and fabricated
degree/certificate, has observed thus:
"8. Having considered the matter, we have no
hesitation in holding that the orders passed by the
CAT as well as by the High Court are unsustainable.
The fact that once on the basis of a forged
degree/certificate, a person gets appointment in the
uniformed service of the country, that being the
police, which is supposed to uphold the rule of law,
the act of the respondent is uncondonable. The
further fact which is admitted is that there is
absolutely, no rebuttal by the respondent that the
certificate/degree presented by him before the
appellants at the time of his appointment and on the
basis of which, he was appointed as a Constable, is
genuine. Having perused the original records and the
letter from the issuing authority which categorically
stating that the degree/certificate in question is
forged and fabricated leaves no doubt that such fact
cannot be controverted. Thus, no holding of a
departmental inquiry in the particular facts and
circumstances of the present case may not be a
factor to vitiate the final order of dismissal from
service passed against the respondent. Thus, on this
short point, the appeal is allowed and the order of
the CAT as affirmed by the High Court stands set
aside. The punishment of dismissal from service
awarded to the respondent by the concerned
appellants stand restored. No order as to cost."
15. Reverting back to facts of case, petitioner who was initially appointed
as Shikshakarmi Grade-II and after his absorption he was working on
the post of Teacher, has been found to have obtained initial
appointment of Shikshakarmi Grade-II by submitting forged mark-
sheet of B.Ed.. Certificate submitted by petitioner was got verified
from the University which is stated to have been issued the said mark
sheet. The University after verification of mark -sheet placed before it
with its own original record have mentioned that particulars of
students mentioned in mark-sheet and available in record of
University is not matching, mark-sheet is not issued by the University.
Thereafter, petitioner was issued notice, given opportunity of
hearing . He appeared in person, submitted his reply and also made
oral submission before the authority stating that he is having no
other mark-sheet. The employment obtained is by playing fraud, and
therefore, in the facts of case it cannot be said that order terminating
his services is passed without giving any opportunity of hearing.
16. The decisions relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner in
cases of Sandeep Kumar (supra), Rajesh Kumar Deshmukh
(supra), Mithai Lal Dhruw (supra), Niranjan Prasad Raisagar
(supra), Md. Arshad Khan (supra), Smt. Manju Bhagat (supra),
Deepak Dhara (supra), Yaad Das Sahu (supra), Digmbar
Chandrakar (supra) are on different facts and not applicable to the
facts of case.
17. In case of Sandeep Kumar (supra), appellant therein was appointed
on the post of Registrar on a probation of two years. His services
were terminated taking note of the fact that some complaints were
pending against the appellant. A Committee was constituted to
scrutinize the complaints and Committee in its report opined that
appellant fulfilled the eligibility criteria for being appointed on the post
of Registrar. In those facts of case, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed
that decision to terminate the services of appellant therein from the
post of Registrar was not preceded by an opportunity to show cause
or any sort of disciplinary proceeding.
18. In case of Rajesh Kumar Deshmukh (supra), facts are that
petitioner therein was appointed on the post of Peon. After his
appointment he moved an application before the concerned authority
seeking grant of earned leave for the period commencing w.e.f.
27.04.2016 to 07.05.2016 as is his marriage was to be solemnized.
His application was filed/closed stating that he was not entitled to get
earned leave. Since the petitioner was absent from his duties for
period of 20 days a show cause notice was issued to him which was
replied stating that he was not aware that he is not entitled to get
earned leave nor was aware about rejection of his application and
tendered his apology. However, his serves were terminated. In the
said facts of case, his writ petition was allowed observing that order
of termination was stigmatic and it has been passed without
subjecting to regular enquiry.
19. Case of Mithai Lal (supra) is also on different facts. In that case, the
pleading of petitioner is that petitioner was not appointed because he
being a member of Scheduled Tribe community and therefore
cancellation of caste certificate issued in his favour itself will not be
sufficient to pass impugned order terminating services of petitioner.
Further ground raised was that respondent No.2 therein had not
issued any show cause notice to petitioner to submit
reply/explanation from the part of petitioner . In the case at hand,
petitioner was issued show cause notice. He submitted reply and has
also accepted that he is not in possession of any other mark-sheet of
B.Ed. and upon verification from Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University,
Raipur, B.Ed. mark-sheet was not found to be issued from the
University and description and details mentioned therein of the
student is also not tallying with the records of University.
20. In case of Niranjan Prasad Raisagar (supra), no show cause notice
was issued to petitioner therein and in case of Md. Arshad Khan
(supra) termination was on the ground of alleged irregularity revealed
in an enquiry.
21. In case of Smt. Manju Bhagat (supra), order of termination is stated
to be stigmatic in which performance of petitioner was stated to be
not worthy and she was removed from service.
22. In case of Deepak Dhara (supra), ground raised by learned counsel
for petitioner therein is that petitioner was terminated on the
complaint of irregular appointment and further irregularities
committed by petitioner therein.
23. In case of Yaad Das Sahu (supra), reasons assigned for terminating
services was that petitioner was reluctant in performing his duties
and has disobeyed the instructions of respondent authority as he
failed to give hundred days' employment to labourers which is
stigmatic in nature.
24. In case of Digmbar Chandrakar (supra) also order of terminating
services was stigmatic. In case at hand, it is not that order of
termination of petitioner was passed making any allegation against
him with regard to discharge of his duties but it is case where
petitioner himself procured employment by placing forged document.
Show cause notice was issued to petitioner specifying that mark-
sheet submitted by him was found to be forged. Upon verification of
the mark-sheet submitted by petitioner from concerned University, it
is reported that mark-sheet which is sent for verification was not
issued by the University and further, particulars as mentioned of the
student is not tallying with the records of University. Petitioner
admitted that he is having no other mark-sheet.
25. In the aforementioned facts of case, decisions relied upon by learned
counsel for the petitioner are not applicable to the present facts of
case.
26. In the facts of case and decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court as
referred to above, I am of the considered view that the order of
termination of service will not be vitiate only because departmental
enquiry was not conducted. It is not the case made out by the
petitioner that non-holding departmental enquiry following rules has
in any manner caused prejudice to him, and hence, I do not find any
error in decision taken by respondent No.2 of terminating services of
petitioner on the ground that petitioner has obtained employment
based on forged document.
27. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu)
Judge
Praveen
