The termination of an employee without notice, enquiry, or opportunity of hearing, in violation of principles of natural justice, is illegal and may entitle the employee to back wages.

JUDGMENT

Sudesh Bansal, J. - Appellants-defendants State of Rajasthan through District Collector Bharatpur (hereinafter referred as "State") has preferred this second appeal under Section 100 CPC, assailing judgment and decree dated 8-5-2018 in appeal No. 66/2010, passed by Additional District Judge, No. 1, Bharatpur allowing appeal and setting aside the judgment and decree dated 5-7-2010 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 3, Bharatpur, in Civil Suit No. 91/2002, the termination order dated 1-12-1992 has been declared null and void and plaintiff has been held entitled for reinstatement in service with a direction to release all consequential benefits after conducting enquiry. Simultaneously, right to initiate fresh enquiry was given to the department.

2. Facts of the case are that respondent-plaintiff (hereinafter 'the plaintiff') having acquired qualification of Graduation in the year 1981 and passing B.Ed. Course from Dayanand Subhash National College, Unnao (UP) in 1986-87 affiliated to Kanpur University, was appointed on the post of Teacher Grade-Ill on 10-4-1990 in Panchayat Samiti Kumer, Zila Parishad Bharatpur, and on 12-10-1992, the petitioner was confirmed on the post. After the appointment and confirmation of plaintiff, appellant State sought verification of respondent-plaintiff's certificates. On verification of certificate of B.Ed. Course from the University, the concerned University vide letter dated 19-11-1992 informed respondents that the plaintiff did not pass B.Ed. Examination. On the basis of letter dated 19-11-1992, appellant State immediately terminated services of plaintiff vide order dated 1-12-1992. Again on approaching the University, vide subsequent letter dated 21-12-1992 it was informed by the University that the letter dated 19-11-1992 was wrongly sent and that the plaintiff had validly passed B.Ed. Course. However, pursuant to previous letter dated 19-11-1992, services of the plaintiff were remained terminated. The termination order dated 1-12-1992 was challenged by the plaintiff by filing writ petition No. 1055/1993, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 5-10-1993 on ground of availing the alternative remedy before civil court. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed civil suit challenging his termination order dated 1-12-1992 that his termination has been made on the basis of wrong information, against the principles of natural justice and he prayed for quashing the same and for reinstatement with all consequential benefits and arrears of salary due. It was stated by the plaintiff that vide order dated 1-12-1992 the plaintiff was informed that his B.Ed. Certificate was alleged to be forged by the University, therefore, his services were terminated with immediate effect and without providing any opportunity of hearing. When plaintiff approached the Kanpur University, the plaintiff was informed vide letter dated 21-12-1992 that letter dated 19-11-1992 was wrongly issued. Simultaneously, for the same dispute, one FIR No. 33/1993 was lodged at Police Station Kumher. On enquiry by the Investigating Officer, Kanpur University informed vide letter dated 25-6-1993 that plaintiff had validly passed B.Ed. Course and the letter 21-12-1992 was correct. It was stated that plaintiff's services were terminated against principles of natural justice. It was also pleaded in plaint that principle of estoppel applied against defendant No. 3 the Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Kumher, since it had enquired about the marksheet and degree of plaintiff for B.Ed, prior to appointment of the plaintiff and later on he had been confirmed also.

3. The appellants defendants filed written statement denying contentions of plaintiff. The trial Court settled issues and recorded evidence of both parties. Plaintiff appeared as witness and produced documents Exhibit-1 to 24. Defendants examined one witness Dw. 1 Brijlal and exhibited documents Ex. A-1 to A-3. Considering evidence of both parties the trial