The judgment established the importance of adhering to natural justice principles, constitutional protections, and statutory provisions in disciplinary proceedings and termination of services.

1. Petitioner seeks quashment of the order bearing No. PDC/CJ/34 of 2010 dated 16.01.2010, in terms whereof, his services have been terminated with immediate effect.

2. The case set up by the petitioner is that the order of termination has been passed de horse the rules, neither enquiry has been conducted nor he has been given a chance to participated in the enquiry and even the disciplinary authority has not afforded him any chance of being heard.

3. Admitted position is that the petitioner was appointed as Works Supervisor vide order dated 08.07.1992 and has served in the department in various capacities at various places. In the year 2005, he claims to have represented for being considered for promotion to the next higher post. When same was not granted, he had filed writ petition (SWP) No. 1352/2006. An interim direction was issued in the said petition on 16.10.2006 that in case respondents therein contemplate to make any promotion, the petitioner in such eventuality shall also be considered along with other eligible persons with further direction that if any representation is already filed, that may be addressed to in accordance with rules. Finally, the said writ petition was disposed of with the consent of counsel for the respondents therein, as a result whereof, respondents therein were directed to consider petitioner’s case for promotion to the cadre of Junior Engineer in accordance with rules in vogue and in the process to take into consideration cases of persons with whom petitioner is at par in all respects.

4. After according consideration, case of the petitioner was rejected by Chief Engineer vide his order No. CE/M&RE/123/2008 dated 22-7-2008. Then the petitioner had launched contempt proceedings.

5. Respondents noticing that the petitioner had produced a fake qualification certificate at the time of appointment, issued charge sheet on 26.10.2009. Petitioner had replied the same but the respondent No. 2 without conducting enquiry and without informing the petitioner to participate in the enquiry process, has issued order dated 16.01.2010 terminating petitioner from the services of the Corporation, which is under challenge.

6. From the perusal of records what emerges is that the disciplinary authority had appointed Shri Atfab Ahmad, Executive Director, JKSPDC as an enquiry officer who vide communication dated 23.12.2009 conveyed to the petitioner the charges and asked him to appear in person, in case failure, exparte proceedings will be conducted and disciplinary action, as warranted under rules, will be recommended. Finally, a detailed enquiry report has been submitted to the Managing Director-respondent No. 2 on 14.12.2009 recommending termination of the petitioner from service. Acting on the said recommendation, order impugned terminating petitioner from service has been issued.

7. The precise charge against the petitioner is that initially his date of birth in the service book was recorded as 12.04.1960 which was mutilated as 12.04.1968 on the basis of secondary school examination certificate but the said certificate would show his date of birth as 12.4.1970. On verification, Board had reported that the certificate is fake and fabricated in respect of date of birth and the material thereof and it has been made clear that the petitioner actually had appeared for examination in the year/Session 1985/November and the date of birth of the petitioner is 12.04.1965, therefore, neither 12.04.1968 nor 12.04.1970 is the date of birth of the petitioner as reflected in the service book.

8. Petitioner seems to have submitted his reply to the enquiry officer. No enquiry seems to have been conducted as is a requirement. Furthermore, the disciplinary authority on receipt of the enquiry report has not issued notice to the petitioner nor copy of the enquiry officer’s report has been supplied to him. Non-furnishing of the enquiry report and then denial of reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to prove his innocence is cl