The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to provide the petitioner with an opportunity to respond to the allegations of forgery and irregularities in the appointment before a decision is made by the competent authority.

( 1 ) BEING arrived by the order of removal dated 20. 11. 1998 the petitioner has filed this writ petition for direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner.

( 2 ) I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Counsel representing the respondents.

( 3 ) THE relevant facts necessary for adjudication of this writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Seenchpal on a temporary basis in Sinchai Khand, Second Division, deoria. He joined the post on 3. 11. 1987 and thereafter the petitioner was posted at different places including Pump Canal Division (II), Ghazipur from 30. 6. 1994 to 3. 2. 1997, the petitioner remained at Sinchai Nirman Khand, Ghazipur on 4. 2. 1997, thereafter, he was transferred to anusandhan Avam Niyojan, Jal Sansadhan Khand, Varanasi. The petitioners services were made permanent by an order dated 24. 7. 1993, w. e. f, 7. 2. 1991. It appears that the petitioner also appeared in the examination of Seenchpal Parivekshak and he was declared successful on 22. 3. 1994. The President of Seenchpal Sangh, Lucknow made a complaint to the Chief Engineer, varanasi that the appointment of the petitioner was fictitious. On superferous preliminary enquiry made by Executive Engineer on 12. 9. 1994, the petitioner was found to be innocent, however, the salary of the petitioner for the month of November, 1997 and for subsequent period was stopped and he was placed under suspension by an order dated 6. 12. 1997.

( 4 ) THE Writ Petition No. 42374 of 1997, filed by the petitioner was disposed of on 17. 12. 1997 and the suspension order dated 6. 12. 1997 was quashed as no departmental enquiry against the petitioner was pending.

( 5 ) IT appears that prior to passing the above order by High Court there was already a confidential intimation by one Chief Engineer (Karmik) to on another Chief Engineer of Irrigation department of the records that there were complaints which arose suspicion about the credibility of all Seenchpal/seenchpal Parivekshak as many of them have managed such appointments by forging and fabricating documents of initial appointment orders. These records/documents were to be scrutinised thoroughly because by such forgery the State Government has been defrauded affecting State Exchequer and if necessary, the First Information Report (F. I. R.) were to be lodged in such scandal for taking legal action against them. In reference to the records of petitioner another order dated 23. 1. 1998 was passed by the Executive Engineer placing the petitioner under suspension on the following charges : (i) For forging the documents and fraudulently procuring the appointment to post of Seenchpal on 3. 11. 1987 in Sinchai Khand Division-II. (ii) For defrauding the Irrigation Departments by forging documents. (iii) For causing financial loss and damage to the State Government by fabricating the forged appointment.

( 6 ) THE Writ Petition No. 6334 of 1998 challenging the above suspension order was dismissed on 26. 2. 1998 by this Court. Against this order a Special Appeal No. 269 of 1998 had been filed which was pending consideration, in the meanwhile the Executive Engineer served a charge-sheet on 2. 6. 1998 to the petitioner, expected reply of petitioner by 30. 6. 1998. The detail reply was filed by the petitioner in the extended time. It appears after submission of the reply, removal order dated 20. 11. 1998 was passed (Annexure 14 to the writ petition) based on the enquiry Report dated 23. 5. 1998 with indications that the petitioner had prepared forged documents in respect of his initial appointment to the post of Seenchpal and had managed forged signature and seal of officers in his service record to get the posting in the District Deoria and subsequently managed his transfer fraudulently on forged transfer orders dated 12. 8. 1998, as if issued by Chief Engineer.

( 7 ) THE counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents indicating that the peti