- (1.) THIS petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking following relief : (A) Issue a suitable writ, order or di rection in the nature of certiorari call for the record of the case and quash the impugned order dated 05-1-1994 (annexure-1 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent No. 3, communicat ing the order of the respondent No. 2 a copy was not served on the petitioner. (B) Issue a suitable writ, order or di rection in the nature of mandamus commanding the re spondents to treat and continue to treat the petitioner in continu ous service as a Technical Assist ant as if no impugned order of termination/removal against the petitioner was ever passed. Fur ther the respondents may be re instated to interfere with the serving and working of the peti tioner as a Technical Assistant in any manner whatsoever. (C) Issue any suitable writ, order or direction to which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the writ petition are that in pursuance of the post of Techni cal Assistant advertised by the respond ent No. 3 in 'indian Express' newspaper the petitioner applied for the same and as per requirement filed the documents, such as, registration certificate of the Employment Exchange, experience cer tificate, High School and Intermediate examination passed mark sheets and certificates and the provisional certifi cate showing that he passed final year diploma in Mechanical Engineering three years course from Nainital Polytechnic. Thereafter petitioner received a letter dated 21-02-1989 to appear before the Interview Committee for interview. He appeared before the said committee. Later on, the respondent No. 2 on the recommendation of Selection Commit tee offered appointment to the petitioner as Technical Assistant under Rule 44 (XII) of Rules and Regulations of the re spondent No. 2. Ultimately, appointment letter was issued to the petitioner on 13-03-1989 by respondent No. 3 directing him to report himself on duty latest on or before 20-03-1989. In pursuance of the appointment letter, the petitioner took over charge on the post of the Tech nical Assistant and since then he served and worked with the respondent No. 3 till the date of the impugned order which is under challenge. On 05- 01-1994 the re spondent No. 1 communicated the peti tioner that his services have been termi nated by the Chairman Executive Com mittee, Electronics Services and Train ing Centre Kaniya, Ram Nagar, District-Nainital on the ground that the peti tioner for getting job submitted a forged experience certificate and as such he be not paid any service emoluments from 06-01-1994. He was also required to show cause within 15 days why the serv ice emoluments paid to him be not re alized from him in view of forged expe rience certificate submitted by him. The petitioner submitted his reply on 13-01-1994. The petitioner also alleged that in fact one Sri D. R Shaha/respondent No. 4 throughout harassed him and he always threatened to oust the petitioner from the service. Being aggrieved by the said act of the respondent No. 4 the pe titioner lodged FI. R. against him on 22-10-1993 at Police Station, Ram Nagar. The petitioner also alleged that the re spondent Nos. 2 and 3 passed the im pugned order in colourable exercise of their powers at the instance of the re spondent No. 4 without affording any opportunity of being heard to the peti tioner and on vague grounds as to which of the certificates submitted by him was forged as a number of certificates as aforesaid were submitted by the peti tioner to the respondents. It is also al leged that the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of hearing. The im pugned order cast stigma. It is not an order of termination simpliciter but a punitive order of dismissal of petitioner. The respondents in their counter affidavit stated that the petitioner has obtained appointment on the post of Technical Assistant fraudulently on forged document as he did not fulfil the minimum qualifications of having two years' experience which is essential qualification for the post in question. The experience certificate submitted by the petitioner of the Public Works De partment is a forged document. Perusal of both the experience certificates issued by the Public Works Department and the Kelvinator of India Limited shows that there is over lapping for over 8 months. It is not clear that as to why the peti tioner could have worked in both the organizations at the same time and ob tained experience certificates for the period having over lapping. The respond ent also alleged that the services of the petitioner were terminated by the re spondents when it was revealed to the respondents on verification of anteced ent of the petitioner.
(3.) THE petitioner in his rejoinder af fidavit denied the assertion of the re spondents and stated that he has two years' service in Kelvinator and thereaf ter he accepted service in Public Works Department from January 1982 to April 1982. He alleged that the Annexure No. 5 and Annexure No. 5-A to the coun ter affidavit do not relate to the petitioner and a bare reading of both it can be seen that they relate to some Manmohan Singh son of Narendra Singh. THE peti tioner reiterated that the certificate ob tained by the petitioner is bonafide and not fictitious as alleged by the respondents. Ave heard the learned counsel for the parties. The sole question, which is to be decided in this case, is whether the petitioner's services could hAve been terminated without affording opportunity of hearing and without holding any proper inquiry against him. Perusal of the impugned order shows that it is pu nitive in nature and has been, passed without holding any inquiry. For the sake of convenience, the impugned order dated 05-01-1994, contained as Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition, is re produced as under in English version :- "office Memorandum In compliance of the decision and order of Chairman, Executive Commit tee, E. S. T. C. you are informed that :- (1) You (Sri Manmohan Singh Negi, Technical Assistant) filed a forged experience certificate for getting the service in E. S. T. C. which has been confirmed from the ex employer. Therefore, your (Sri Manmohan Singh Negi, Technical Assistant) services in E. S. T. C. are terminated with im mediate effect. You (Sri Manmohan Singh Negi, Techni cal Assistant) shall not be given any admissible payment with immediate effect (06th January, 1994 ). (2) You (Sri Negi) also submit your explanation as to why the pay ment made to you during the service period which service you got by forged experience certifi cate, shall not be recovered from you. You are given maximum period of 15 days for the said explanation. In case of non-re ceipt of satisfactory reply during the said period, early action will be taken Sd/- D. S. Verma Director (Training) and officiating Principal Director. ";