By the Court.—This special appeal arises from a judgement of the learned Single Judge dated 24 September 2013.

2. The appellant applied for and was appointed on 4 January 1990 on the post of Health Worker (Female). The appellant claims to have completed the A.N.M. course at the A.N.M. Training Centre, Azamgarh in 1989. According to the appellant, the mark sheets were issued in the year 1989 and a training certificate was issued by the Secretary, U.P. State Medical Health and Family Welfare Faculty on 9 August 1993. A notice to show-cause was issued to the appellant on 29 October 2010 intimating her that the documents which were submitted by the appellant had been examined by the Medical Faculty and were found to be fabricated. The appellant was called upon to submit documentary evidence for verification within a period of three days. The appellant has averred that in pursuance of the notice to show-cause, she appeared before the Chief Medical Officer, Chitrakoot (second respondent) and produced the original certificate/training certificate which were scrutinised by the second respondent. On 30 November 2010, an order of termination was passed by the second respondent. The order of termination was challenged by the appellant in the writ proceedings before the learned Single Judge under Article 226 of the Constitution. The principal ground of challenge was that the order of termination which constituted a major penalty was passed without any inquiry and in breach of the principles of natural justice as no charge-sheet was issued and no reasonable opportunity of defending the charge was furnished to the appellant.

3. The learned Single Judge noted the submission of the appellant that a copy of the report on the basis of which the order of termination was passed was not supplied to the appellant nor was she afforded an opportunity of defence as no departmental inquiry was conducted. The learned Single Judge held that normally a petition on such a submission would succeed but where the Court, after perusing the record, could itself arrive at a particular conclusion that would support the ultimate decision, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution should not be exercised since substantial justice has been done. On this basis, the learned Single Judge examined the records on which reliance was placed by the appellant and having found that there was discrepancy, declined to interfere with the order of termination. The learned Single Judge has also relied upon the judgement of the Supreme Court in R. Vishwanatha Pillai v. State of Kerla, AIR 2004 SC 1469.

4. The principal challenge of the appellant is that since the order of termination was passed without issuing a charge-sheet and without conducting a disciplinary proceeding, the principles of natural justice had been violated. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned Single Judge was not justified in enquiring into the evidence for the first time in exercise of the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Moreover, it was submitted that the judgement of the Supreme Court in R.Vishwanatha Pillai (supra) is squarely not applicable to the situation in the present case where an order of termination has been passed against a permanent employee without even convening a disciplinary inquiry on a substantive charge of misconduct.

5. A counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of the State before the learned Single Judge in which it was stated that a letter dated 26 April 2004 was written by the Special Secretary, Government of U.P., in response to the letter of the Principal Secretary dated 18 March 2004 instructing all the Chief Medical Officers/Superintendents of the Districts through the Director, Medical and Health Services, U.P., Lucknow to conduct a verification of the appointments made and to make available the information within fifteen days of the receipt of the letter. The Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Department had