JUDGMENT AND ORDER :

Nirmaljit Kaur, J.

1. All the above-mentioned writ petitions shall stand decided by this common order as the issued involved is identical. For convenience, the facts are being taken from S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9827/2016.

2. The prayer in the writ petition is to set aside the impugned show cause notice dated 09.06.2016 as well as the termination order dated 10.08.2016 passed by the respondents; with a further prayer that the experience certificate so issued in their favour be declared as valid and genuine.

3. In pursuance to the advertisement dated 21.10.2014, the petitioner applied for the recruitment on the post of Junior Cotton Purchaser. The petitioner was selected in pursuance to the written examination followed by an interview. The petitioner joined on the said post vide appointment letter dated 03.03.2015 on probation for one year from the date of appointment with a further stipulation that same was liable to be extended at the discretion of the appointing authority at any time. Subsequent to the appointment, the petitioner was made to undergo training conducted by the respondent Corporation. The petitioner successfully completed the same and the relevant certificate was also issued by the respondent department to the said effect. Suddenly, a show cause notice was issued on 9.6.2016 mentioning therein that the experience certificate submitted by the petitioner was false and that he had played fraud upon the Corporation and the appointment order is void ab initio. The petitioner submitted his reply to the show cause notice but the respondent department after finding the reply as not satisfactory, terminated the services of the petitioner vide order dated 10.08.2016.

4. While praying for setting aside the impugned order, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the order of termination has been passed without holding any enquiry. The impugned notice and the impugned termination order show that the same is on the basis of specific allegation declaring that the petitioner has committed serious misconduct by indulging in fraudulent means to secure employment in the Corporation. Hence, the same could not have been passed without holding a proper enquiry and was one sided enquiry and therefore, not a proper enquiry under the law. It was contended that no doubt, the probation period of the petitioner had been extended and the order of termination was passed before confirmation, however, still a regular enquiry was necessary as the order, on the face of it, is stigmatic. Reliance is placed on the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. v. Mahaveer C. Singhvi : (2010) 8 SCC 220 to contend that “if finding against probationer is arrived at behind his back on basis of enquiry conducted into allegations made against him/her and if same formed foundation of discharge order, same would be bad and liable to be set aside”.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the enquiry report was submitted on the basis of an enquiry conducted by the Corporation at its own level. The petitioner requested that the enquiry report be supplied to him in order to enable him to file his reply. However, the same was not supplied causing prejudice to the petitioner and therefore, the very enquiry is vitiated. It is further argued that the certificate submitted by the petitioner was verified by the Corporation and scrutinised before he was subjected to interview and that there was no material on record to show that the experience certificate of the petitioner was forged or false. The respondent No.3 who issued the certificate has not denied that the certificate is false or forged. The respondent No.3 - Saraswat Cotton Company did not refuse the issuance of experience certificate as it was related for the period for which the petitioner has worked there and the salary was paid in cash and just because deductions were not made by the company during the tenure, it cannot be s

Click Here to Read the rest of this document