Hon’ble Suneet Kumar, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Baleshwar Chaturvedi, learned counsel appearing for respondents.

2. The petitioner was initially appointed in 1971 as Kuli on Class-IV post with Dakshinanchal Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Limited, Agra, and thereafter on qualifying examination, the petitioner was promoted on Class-III post as Technical Grade-II (TG-2). The minimum qualification for promotion is that the incumbent apart from qualifying the examination must be a High School. On 6.8.2008, the third respondent, Executive Engineer issued a show-cause notice directing the petitioner to produce his High School certificate accordingly petitioner approached the third respondent alongwith original mark sheet as well as certificates, however, the respondent No. 3 did not examine the original mark sheet and again a notice was issued on 20.10.2008 calling upon the petitioner to submit his mark sheet. Similar notice was issued on 5.9.2009. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner submitted a detailed reply on 3.10.2009 and due to the pendency of the enquiry, the petitioner was not given the benefit of “Sixth Pay Commission” hence the petitioner approached the Court by filing Writ Petition No. 75588 of 2010, inter alia, praying that the pending enquiry be concluded and finalized and the Court by order dated 4.1.2011 dismissed the writ petition making the following observations :

“Heard learned counsel for the parties.

It appears that some enquiry is going on against the petitioner with regard to authenticity of papers submitted by the petitioner and in pursuance thereto the petitioner has been asked to submit certain document vide orders dated 7.4.2010 and 23.9.2010.

It is stated by the petitioner that he has supplied all the documents but no decision is being taken.

If that is the case, the respondents may complete the said enquiry within six weeks from the date of submission of a certified copy of this order, provided the petitioner cooperates.

Subject to the aforesaid, this petition is dismissed. “

3. Thereafter the impugned order dated 14.5.2012 was passed terminating the services of the petitioner on the allegation that the documents submitted by the petitioner, pertaining to high school appears to be forged as the Enquiry Officer enquiring into the matter came to a conclusion that the original certificate does not match with the documents submitted by the petitioner and hence exercising powers under the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999, the petitioner’s services was terminated.

4. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that only a show-cause notice was issued to which the petitioner submitted his reply and on the basis of the reply, the petitioner has been terminated on an enquiry conducted behind the back of the petitioner, thus, the authorities by adopting the procedure for imposition of minor penalty have imposed major penalty, which is not permissible under the 1999 Rules.

5. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following cases; Smt. Parmi Maurya v. State of U.P. and others, 2014(2) ADJ 633 (DB), Smt. Munni Devi v. State of U.P. and others, (2014) 2 UPLBEC 974, Dev Prakash Tewari v. U.P. Cooperative Institutional Service Board, LAWS (SC)-2014-6-2014.

6. Per contra, Sri Chaturvedi admits that no charge-sheet was issued and neither any enquiry report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer, but submits that a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner and on the reply received the Enquiry Officer conducted an enquiry and an the findings of the enquiry the impugned order was passed.

7. Rival submissions fall for consideration.

8. The petitioner has been working since 1971 and had passed his high school exam in 1990, thereafter he appeared for the written examination for promotion to the next higher post (TG-II). On the basis of some complaint that the petitioner’s high school certificates are forged, an enqu