The court's jurisdiction is limited to correcting errors of law or procedural errors leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice.

JUDGMENT

Lok Pal Singh, J. - By means of this petition, petitioner has sought following reliefs:

"(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to call for the record and to quash the order dated 07.10.2016 passed by the respondent no.2, whereby, the petitioner was dismissed from service.

(b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to call for the record and to quash the order dated 08.06.2017 passed by the respondent no.3.

(c) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to call for the record and to quash the order dated 28.09.2018 passed by the respondent no.3, whereby the appeal of the petitioner against the order dated 07.10.2016 has been rejected.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Lecturer (Sociology) in Shaheed Mekh Bahadur Girls Inter College, Garhi Cantt., Dehradun vide order dated 20.10.1997. The requisite qualification for appointment on the aforesaid post was post graduate degree in Sociology and candidate must be having B.Ed. Degree. In the year 2001, the degree was given to the petitioner by the said University. Subsequently, a complaint has been made against the petitioner alleging therein that the testimonial of the petitioner, on the basis of which the petitioner has secured the post of Lecturer, are forged and fabricated. Pursuant to the said complaint, the Committee of Management of the School initiated an enquiry against the petitioner. After completion of the enquiry, a charge sheet has been issued against the petitioner. In the said charge sheet, the charge with regard to the forged documents with regard to the qualification of M.A. Sociology has been framed against the petitioner. Thereafter, in the year 2007, an F.I.R./Case Crime No. 106 of 2007, under Sections 420 & 468 of I.P.C. at Police Station-Cantt, Dehradun has been registered against the petitioner by one Shyam Sunder alleging therein that the petitioner has secured the job on the basis of forged documents. In pursuant to the said F.I.R., the investigation was carried out and final report has been submitted by the Investigating Officer. While submitting the final report, the Investigating Officer specifically recorded the findings that the documents pertaining to the educational qualification in the office of the Cantt. Board, Dehradun of the petitioner are found correct. Thereafter, again an and F.I.R. was registered on 25.03.2015 by the C.B.I. at SPE, CBI, Dehradun alleging therein the petitioner secured his job by submitting forged Master Degree. Due the F.I.R. registered against him, the petitioner was suspended from service vide order dated 10.04.2015. Thereafter, on 15.04.2015, a show cause notice calling his original documents and several dates have been fixed for the same by the authority concerned but neither the petitioner appeared before the authority concerned nor he has given any reply to the show cause notice. Thereafter, on 09.02.2016, a communication has been issued by the authority concerned that till 18.02.2016 the educational testimonial be submitted in office but the petitioner did not submit the original documents before the authority concerned. Thereafter, the authority concerned appointed an enquiry officer to conduct the enquiry against the petitioner. The petitioner requested the authority concerned that on the identical issues the C.B.I was also investigating the matter, therefore, the disciplinary proceedings be deferred till the conclusion of the investigation by the C.B.I. but the same has not been considered by the authority concerned. The charges were proved against the petitioner and consequently vide order dated 07.10.2016, petitioner has been dismissed from his service.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the order of dismissal has been passed without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. He would f