1. The instructions filed today is taken on record.
2. Heard counsel for the petitioner, Sri Shashank Shekhar Singh, Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondents No. 2 to 6 and perused the record.
3. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 23.3.2021 whereby the services of the petitioner, as a probationer, has been dispensed with taking recourse to Rule 11(2)(ii) of Chapter XL of the Ordinances (Executive) relating to Regulations Governing Terms and Conditions to Service of Non-Teaching Employees.
4. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was granted appointment as a probationer for a period of one year as O.T. Assistant vide order dated 6.11.2017. It is stated that the said order of appointment was passed in pursuance to directions issued by this Court on 2.11.2017 in Writ Petition No. 50162 of 2017. Subsequently, allegations were levelled with respect to appointment of the petitioner with regard to the certificate of passing of Class Xth Examination. The petitioner claims to have passed from the Gurukul Vishwavidyalaya, Vrindawan, Mathura.
5. It was alleged on the basis of information received from the University at Mathura regarding said certificate to the effect that 'No details are available in the University record and certificate found fake'.
6. Counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, claims that a detailed reply was given by the petitioner that an order dated 8.5.2019 has been passed in Writ Petition (A) No. 39496 of 2014 to the effect that certificate issued by the Gurukul Vishwavidyalaya, Vrindawan, Mathura was declared to be fake with effect from 2005/2008, however, as the petitioner has qualified in the year 2002, the Gurukul Vishwavidyalaya, Vrindawan, Mathura has no authority to certify to the effect as done by the said Vishwavidyalaya. He argues that in the said order dated 8.5.2021, following order was passed by the High Court:
"Basic issue involved in this bunch of petition is with regard to the genuineness of certificates issued to all the petitioners by Gurukul Vishwavidyalaya, Mathura, regarding Adhikari Pariksha conducted on different dates prior to the year 2008.
It appears that Gurukul Vishwavidyalaya, Mathura is not in existence since 2013 and all previous records are being maintained by Arya Pratinidhi Sabha. The Arya Pratinidhi Sabha is represented through its Advocate Sri Bheem Singh.
Learned counsel for the Sabha states that in case the petitioners move an appropriate application before the concerned body, by furnishing details of their qualification, the genuineness of the petitioners' qualification would be verified.
In such view of the matter, petitioners are permitted to approach Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, alongwith details of their qualification within a week from today. The records would be got verified and the Sabha shall apprise the Court with regard to the genuineness of petitioners' qualification through its Counsel with ten days, thereafter.
List this case on 29th May, 2019."
7. In terms of the said order, the petitioner claims that he got the certificate verified from the Arya Pratinidhi Sabha and a request was made to the respondents to get the same verified also. A detailed reply is said to have been given by the petitioner in response to the show cause notice issued to the petitioner on 31.12.2019, which is contained in Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition. He argues that even without considering the reply submitted by the petitioner, the impugned order was passed on 23.3.2021 wherein it was recorded that on the basis of some report dated 5.11.2019 issued by Kul Sachiv (Vice Chancellor), Gurukul Vishwavidyalaya, Mathura, it was observed that certificate produced by the petitioner was fake and forged and on the basis of said communication dated 5.11.2019, an order was passed holding that the petitioner had obtained the appointment on basis of forged certificate and thus, the services were dispensed with in terms of the powers conferred under Rule 11 (2)(ii) of Chapter XL of the Ordinances (Executive).
8. The counsel for the petitioner argues that the order dated 23.3.2021 is bad on many counts. He, first, submits that the petitioner was never given copy of the so-called letter dated 5.11.2019 referred to in the order dated 23.3.2021, which was the basis for passing of the said order. Thus, the petitioner never had opportunity to confront the said document. He further argues even otherwise, the petitioner had produced a certificate issued by Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, Lucknow, which had found the High School Certificate as genuine and this fact was stated so in the reply filed by the petitioner to the show cause notice dated 31.12.2019, which has not even been considered.
9. The show cause notice dated 31.12.2019 is on record. I have perused the same. The said show cause notice does not even refer to the letter dated 5.11.2019, which is the basis for passing of the order dated 23.3.2021. The impugned order also does not reflect any compliance of second part of Rule 11 (2) of Chapter XL of the Ordinances (Executive) inasmuch as neither one month salary nor one month notice was given to the petitioner prior to passing of the said order.
10. In sum and substance, the order dated 23.3.2021 is based upon the document, which was never confronted to the petitioner in the show cause notice and the same is also contrary of the Rule 11 (2)(ii) of Chapter XL of the Ordinances (Executive) and as the orders passed is stigmatic, the said order deserves to be set aside. Accordingly, the order dated 23.3.2021 is set aside with liberty to the respondents to initiate and pass fresh orders after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and after providing him all the documents that may be available against the petitioner to discredit his High School Certificate. The respondents shall get the High School Certificate verified from the Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, Lucknow in terms of the directions issued by this Court dated 8.5.2019 in Writ Petition (A) No. 39496 of 2014.
11. The exercise, as directed above, may be carried out against the petitioner with all expedition.
12. As the termination order is set aside, the petitioner shall be allowed to work on the post of O.T. Assistant till fresh orders are passed.
13. The writ petition stands disposed of in terms of the said order.
14. Copy of the order downloaded from the official website of this Court shall be treated as certified copy of the order.
Order Date :- 26.8.2021 vinay