ORDER :

1. The petitioner has filed present writ petition assailing the order dated 11.03.2020 by which services of the petitioner who is working as Assistant Teacher (LB) has been terminated on the count that the petitioner has secured appointment on the basis of forged marksheet of Higher Secondary School Certificate of the year 2004.

2. The facts projected in the writ petition in brief is as under:

The petitioner was appointed as Siksha Karmi, Grade-III vide order dated 13.06.2006 passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat-Bilaigarh, District-Balodabazar (C.G.) thereafter, he was confirmed vide order dated 14.10.2009 and his services were regularised by the Chief Executive Janpad Panchayat and since then he is continued. The Government of Chhattisgarh has taken a policy decision on 30.06.2018 according to which, the Shiksha Karmi working in various school of the State of Chhattisgarh have been absorbed as Assistant Teacher (LB), Lecturer (LB) etc. Accordingly, the services of the petitioner was absorbed on 18.08.2018 thereafter vide memo dated 06.01.20202, respondent No. 02 issued memo to the petitioner asking him to submit explanation with regard to the complaint received against him that he has secured employment on the basis of forged marksheet of High Secondary School.

3. It is pertinent to mention here that in the said memo, the District Education Officer has mentioned about the information collected by him with regard to obtaining forged marksheet by the petitioner. In pursuance of the memo, the petitioner has submitted reply on 09.01.2020 (Annexure-P6) wherein he has denied the facts and also submitted that all original documents have already been submitted by him which can be verified. Thereafter, respondent No. 2 issued the impugned order dated 11.03.2020 (Annexure-P1) terminating the services of the petitioner.

4. He would submit that the impugned order has been passed in violation of the principle of the natural justice, no procedure prescribed under the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (for short “the Rules 1966”) has been followed as the imposition of penalty of termination of service, is a major penalty which can not be passed without complying the Rule 14 of the Civil Services. As the Rule 14 provides that no order imposing any of the penalty as specified in clause (v) to (ix) of Rule 10 shall be made except after any enquiry held, as far as may be, in the manner provided in this rules and Rule 15 or in the manner provided by the Public Servant (Enquiries) Act, 1850, where such enquiry is held under that act.

5. On the other hand, learned Dy. Advocate General for the State/respondent would submit that the termination order dated 11.03.2020 is legal and justified as the petitioner has secured employment on the basis of forged marksheet, therefore, he can not be allowed to continue in the service and would submit that the termination order passed on 11.03.2020 is legal, justified and does not warrant any interference by this Court. He would further submit that the petitioner has alternate efficacious remedy to prefer an appeal against the termination order which the petitioner has not exhausted, therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable and prayed for dismissing the writ petition. He would further submit that even if no enquiry is conducted then also no prejudice will cause to the petitioner as he has secured employment on the basis of forged marksheet. He would further submit that compliance of natural justice is merely a formality and no prejudice caused to the petitioner in absence of conducting departmental enquiry, therefore, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is incorrect submission and deserve to be rejected.

6. In support of his submission, he has referred the judgments rendered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Mohd. Sartaj and Another vs. State of U.P. 2006 (2) SCC 315 wherein it has been held at paragraphs 20 and 21 as