JUDGMENT :

Prakash Padia,J.

Heard Sri Grijesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent no. 1 and Sri Shyam Krishna Gupta, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4.

2. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition challenging the order dated 30.07.2020 passed by the respondent no. 3 namely District Basic Education Officer, Deoria, copy of which is appended as Annexure-6 to the writ petition.

3. By means of the impugned order, the petitioner has not only been dismissed from the service but also recovery has been directed from the petitioner for the salary that has been paid to him since his initial appointment as an Assistant Teacher and to lodge an F.I.R., Following arguments were raised by the counsel for the petitioner namely:

(i) The order has been passed without following the procedure prescribed under U.P. Basic Education Staff Rules, 1973 which provides for application of U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules,1999;

(ii) The major penalty of dismissal from service on the basis of findings of misconduct for fraud or forgery can only be imposed only after a full fledged enquiry is held as contemplated under 1999 Enquiry Rules ;

and

(iii) Once the verification of the documents was done by the respondents at the time of the initial appointment and it is after due verification of these documents, that appointment was offered to the petitioner, the respondents could not have gone into the question of genuineness of the documents at this belated stage i.e. almost after twelve years.

4. Per contra, it has been argued by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 Sri Shyam Krishna Gupta that in case of forgery and fraud, the respondents cannot be faulted with if they terminate the service of the petitioner. However, it has been admitted by the respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 that the decision to dismiss the petitioner from service has been taken and recovery has been ordered on account of the information received from the issuing authority of the certificate in question which was relied upon by the petitioner at the time of seeking initial appointment. It has also been submitted that the petitioner was offered an opportunity to explain the genuineness of the documents in question.

The rival submissions fall for consideration.

5. It is not disputed by either of the parties that the petitioner had been appointed on the basis of the documents that he had submitted in the year 1995 for the purpose of appointment in question. It can also be not doubted that at the time of initial appointment, the verification exercise of the credentials was carried out and that the petitioner had continued in service for a very long time and there has been no complaint of any misconduct or dereliction in duty by the petitioner in discharge of his function as an employee of the respondents. The U.P. Basic Education Staff Rules, 1973 are fully applicable to such employees and the U.P. Basic Education Staff Rules, 1973 provides for application of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1999. The Rules, 1999 duly provides for a detailed procedure of enquiry. It provides for issuance of charge sheet then a show cause notice and after the enquiry is completed if major penalty is sought to be imposed, issuance of show cause notice seeking reply. The petitioner may have been served with a show cause notice in the present case but it is established on record that no full fledged enquiry as contemplated under 1999 Rules, was conducted.

6. No charge sheet was issued and yet the petitioner has been dismissed from service and recovery has been ordered. Such a step becomes bad when no orders are passed dispensing with the regular enquiry citing any special circumstance. Here is such a case where regular enquiry was never dispensed with by passing any order to that effect.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the case of Smt. Parmi Maurya Vs.