Point of Law: If at all the petitioner had produced any false certificate or had fabricated the certificate as is now claimed by the State, it was incumbent upon the State to issue a show cause notice, hold an inquiry and then proceeded against petitioner in accordance with law.

ORDER :

ARAVIND KUMAR, J.

1. Draft amendment is allowed. Amendment be carried out forthwith.

2. The order dated 11-7-2019 passed in Special Civil Application No.1438 of 2018 (Annexure-A) is under challenge in this intra-court appeal by the State.

3. The gravamen of the petitioner's case is as under:-

3.1 Petitioner is a specially-abled person and is said to be suffering from Locomotor Disability LL-Left Sequele of Poliomyelitis-40%. The petitioner was appointed as Revenue Talati Class-III under the category of specially-abled on 19.5.2010. At the time of his appointment disability certificate came to be produced by the petitioner which was verified by Gujarat Subordinate Service Selection Board and upon verification, it was found that said certificate was genuine and deserves to be accepted and accordingly, it was accepted. Hence, petitioner was selected and allotted to the office of Collector, Bhavnagar. Even the office of Collector, Bhavnagar, called upon petitioner to produce documents for verification and all the documents including physical disability certificate were produced which was verified, scrutinised and accepted and accordingly, appointment order came to be issued on 19.5.2010 pursuant to which, petitioner joined duties on 21.5.2010. Suddenly, out of blue, after a lapse of 5 years i.e. on 8-5-2015 as well as on 21-8-2015, Mamlatdar, Talaja issued communication to the petitioner calling upon him to produce certificate of disability which was furnished at the time of appointment and also furnish a fresh certificate certifying his disability and particularly specifying that said certificate should be from Superintendent of Sir T Hospital, Bhavnagar. Petitioner was duly notified that failure to produce the said certificate would result in consequential orders being passed. In the meanwhile, petitioner produced a certificate dated 12.9.2015 (found at 47 of the case papers) and disclosed that petitioner had a disability of 40%. However, the doctors who examined the petitioner on 31-3-2016 found disability of the petitioner at 25% which resulted in calling upon the petitioner to be present before Permanent Medical Board of Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad wherein it was found that disability of the petitioner was 25% resulting in issuance of his termination order dated 12-1-2018.

3.2 Hence, petitioner approached the learned Single Judge invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the said order of termination. Learned Single Judge by the impugned order has opined as under:-

"5.1 The respondents have not been able to show any material, or even a circumstance to suggests that the certificate which the petitioner produced at the time of seeking employment in the physically challenged category was bogus or fraudulent. After lapse of long time, the issue was re-opened on the basis of an anonymous complaint. When there is no material to show that the certificate produced by the petitioner was ingenuine and even otherwise, there is no attendant aspects or circumstances to doubt the veracity of certificate, the bare stand on part of the respondents stand meritless and could hardly be accepted.

5.2 The petitioner has filed additional affidavit to point out on record by producing the medical certificate that he took physiotherapy treatment from expert physiotherapist Dr.Mahesh Bhumbhani of one Care Physiotherapy & Fitness Clinic, Bhavnagar. The certificate produced on record mentioned that approximately for 103 days within the last phase of period, treatment of physiotherapy was taken. It was stated by the petitioner that he subjected himself before the Medical Board as well. It could be countenanced that due to physiotherapy treatment uninterruptedly and continuously taken, the variation resulted into extent of physical disability. The case of the petitioner appears to be bona fide, leaving no doubt therein.

5.3 In addition to the above aspects, it would be harsh and inequitable to upset the pet