Hon’ble Shishir Kumar, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.

2. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 22.2.2008 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition), passed by respondent No. 2, by which the services of the petitioner has been terminated on the ground that the certificate of High School submitted by the petitioner at the time of appointment was found forged.

3. The facts arising out of the present writ petition are that on the basis of advertisement made by the respondent in the year 1989 for the purposes of appointment on the post of Constable, as the petitioner was fully eligible to be considered and appointed, he submitted relevant documents and on the basis of aforesaid document, petitioner was considered treating his date of birth as 15th November 1969. The High School certificate issued by the Board of High School and Intermediate of the year 1983 was submitted at that time. Petitioner on the basis of aforesaid appointment was working and the conduct of the petitioner was always appreciated by the relevant authority from time to time. It appears that on the basis of some complaint regarding various persons who have obtained the appointment claiming themselves to be dependent of the employees working in the Department under the Dying in Harness Rules, some investigation was made without any notice to the petitioner and it was found as alleged by the respondent that in the certificate submitted by the petitioner of the High School the date of birth of the petitioner is entered as 15.11.1965. Though in the certificate which has been submitted by the petitioner, the date of birth is recorded as 15.11.1969.

4. The contention of the petitioner to this effect is that in case on the basis of some complaint if the respondent was of the opinion that on the basis of some inquiry made thereunder the certificate submitted by the petitioner was having some discrepancy or wrong date of birth according to respondent is entered, the petitioner was entitled to have a show-cause notice and opportunity. The appointment of the petitioner cannot be cancelled without any notice and opportunity that too after completion of about 17 years of service in the Police Department. In case the petitioner would have been given a liberty he would have submitted a certificate issued by the High School Board which was submitted at the time of entrance in service. Without any notice and opportunity to the petitioner, the order impugned dated 22.2.2008 cannot be passed. The petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment of apex Court in Shrawan Kumar Jha and others v. State of Bihar and others, 1991 Supp. (1) SCC 330. On the strength of the aforesaid decision, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in case on the basis of some inquiry it was found by the respondents that certificate submitted by the petitioner is not correct or they have come to the conclusion that it is a forged certificate, the principle of natural justice has to be observed and no order can be passed without any opportunity to the petitioner. In Pradeep Kumar Singh v. U.P. State Sugar Corporation and another, 2002 (1) UPLBEC 705, the Division Bench of this Court has held that termination without any show-cause notice or opportunity to defend has been held to be violative to the principle of natural justice and has quashed the order of termination. In Dipti Prakash Banerjee v. Satyendra Nath Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences, Calcutta and others, (1999) 3 SCC 60, the apex Court has held that if finding has been arrived at an inquiry as to the misconduct behind the back of the Officer without a regular departmental inquiry, the same is not permissible on the allegation of fraud without any notice and opportunity the order passed by the respondent is in violation of Rules 8 and 14 of the U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Rank (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1991. Rule 14(1) of the Rules provides initiation of pro