Dismissal without inquiry violates principles of natural justice; a show cause notice cannot replace the need for a proper inquiry.

JUDGMENT :

Nivedita P. Mehta, J.

1.The challenge in this petition is to the order of dismissal dated 10/07/2014 issued by respondent No. 3 i.e. Goa College of Architecture, Government of Goa.

2.The petitioner was appointed as a Model Room Assistant vide order dated 20/07/1988 on probation for a period of two years. The petitioner’s appointment was based on the selection made by a duly constituted selection committee which observed that the petitioner fulfilled all essential qualifications and that the documents produced were duly verified and confirmed, including the birth certificate mentioning the date of birth as 12/04/1958. Accordingly, the date of birth was entered in the service record as 12/04/1958. The petitioner's service was regularised in 1999.

3.One Mr. Nashiket Parab filed a private complaint against the petitioner in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class at Mapusa, alleging that the petitioner had falsely registered his date of birth as 12/04/1958 and that he was actually born on 12/04/1951. As per the Government Rules, a candidate applying for the Government post has to be below the age of 30 years to be eligible for applying for the post. The petitioner, when applied for the post was overage and thus forged the birth certificate.

4.The petitioner was served with a show cause notice on19/06/2014 by respondent No. 3 referring to the complaint made by Mr. Nashiket Parab alleging that the petitioner had secured the Government job by forging the birth certificate and has committed a serious cognizable offence of forgery. It is further stated in the show cause notice that the petitioner had submitted a birth certificate issued on 30/10/1986 by the Registrar of Births and Deaths, Revora, Nadora, indicating his date of birth as 12/04/1958 whereas the birth certificate from the Civil Registrar-cum-Sub Registrar of Bardez, recorded the date of birth of the petitioner -Vilas Kashinath Parab as 12/04/1951. The Petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why action should not be initiated against him to terminate his appointment as per Clause -5 of Memorandum No. Arch/Vacancy/88/5744 dated 31/03/1988. The petitioner submitted his reply to the said show cause notice on 30/06/2014 denying the allegations made against him and contending that the correct date of birth is 12/04/1958 as evidenced by the birth certificate produced by him.

5. Respondent No. 3 vide order dated 10/07/2014 dismissed the petitioner from service contending that the petitioner has not given any satisfactory explanation to the show cause notice except denial of allegations made against him. Hence this petition.

6. Heard Mr. T. Sequeira, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Maria Correia, learned Additional Government Advocate for the Respondents.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of dismissal is illegal and arbitrary and the same has been issued in gross violation of principles of natural justice. The learned counsel further submits that a pretence was made by the Respondent No. 3 of issuing a show cause notice to the petitioner on 19/06/2014 calling upon him to show cause why action should not be initiated against him to terminate his services and it was apparent from the order of dismissal that the Respondent No.3 had already decided to terminate the services of petitioner even before the show cause notice was issued. The learned counsel contended that the order of dismissal does not record any reasons except stating that the petitioner has not satisfactorily refuted the charges levelled against him. Furthermore, the show cause notice did not specify in respect of which findings arrived at by respondent No. 3, the petitioner was required to address and on what grounds he was being asked to show cause regarding the termination of his service. The learned counsel submits that the order of dismissal was stigmatic, accusing the petitioner of forgery and falsification of documents, and the same could not have been issued wi