Mohammad Rafiq, J. - (1.) IN these writ petitions, each of the petitioners were removed on the premise that they by producing forged B.Ed. degrees, secured appointment. The petitioners thereafter challenged the order of their removal before this Court by filing the writ petitions. The writ petitions were dismissed. However, in special appeals filed by them, the division bench of this Court by judgement dated 20.9.1995, set aside the order of terminating their services and left it open to the respondent -authority to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law by observing principles of natural justice and other procedural requirement which may have to be complied with as per the appropriate provisions of law and rules. The petitioners were thus reinstated in service and were also paid consequential benefits as per the judgement of this Court.
(2.) THE respondents subsequently served upon each of the petitioners, notice to show - cause as to why their services be not terminated on the premise that they secured appointment on the strength of forged B.Ed. degrees. Eventually, their services were terminated. Simultaneously, prosecution was also launched against the petitioners. In the criminal trial, they were convicted by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate vide judgement dated 25.9.2001 and sentenced to undergo 2 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 200/ - under Section 420 IPC and 2 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 100/ - for offence under Section 471 IPC. Appeals filed by the petitioners were rejected by the learned Court of Sessions by judgement dated 2.4.2004. It was thereafter that revision petitions were filed, which are pending consideration before this Court being S.B. Criminal Revision Petition Nos. 300/2004 to 305/2004, against the order of conviction. Learned Counsel for the petitioners argued that this Court while setting aside the order of termination granted liberty to the respondents to proceed against them afresh in accordance with law i.e. observing principles of natural justice and the other procedural requirement, which may have to be complied with as per the appropriate provisions of law and rules. It was mandatory for them to have initiated against the petitioners proceedings under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal), Rules, 1958. Learned Counsel submitted that mere service of notice and obtaining reply to notice would not be sufficient compliance of law because the respondents are taking a stand that the degrees produced by the petitioners were forged on the basis of certain letters which they obtained from Lucknow University, whereas the earlier letters received from the Lucknow University confirmed the fact that petitioners' degrees were genuine. Unless the author of the letter was produced in a duly constituted disciplinary proceeding, this fact cannot be taken as proved. The petitioners were deprived of their right to defend themselves as they were able to cross -examine the author of the letter so as to verify contents of this letter as against contents of the earlier letters.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the respondents argued that earlier letter produced by the petitioners are not genuine and Registrar of the University did not send any letter dated 12.8.1992 to Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Tonk. Shri Shyam Lal Nepa, an employee of the Zila Parishad was sent to University of Lucknow and he in his report dated 24.4.1994 though earlier confirmed these degrees, but subsequently submitted an application to Vikas Adhikari, Tonk that the earlier report given by him was not correct and, therefore, some other senior officers should be sent to the University of Lucknow to enquire into the matter. Shri Cheepa Singh, CIO was, therefore, sent to the University of Lucknow on 25.5.1995 to make an enquiry in relation to the genuineness of the B.Ed. degree produced by the petitioners and he got a report dated 30.5.1995 from Shri Jai Prakash Tripathi, Registrar, University of Lucknow by which the degrees of petitioners were stated to be forged. It was thereafter that the order dated 27.6.1995 was passed and services of the petitioners were terminated.;