IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No. 84 of 2008 Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of Industries, Department Govt. at New Delhi & Others. …….. Appellants Versus Man Mohan Singh Negi S/o Late Mahkhan Singh Negi, Technical Assistant, Mr. B.D. Upadhyay, Advocate for the respondents. Coram: Hon’ble V.K. Gupta, C.J. Hon’ble J.C.S. Rawat, J. V.K. GUPTA, C.J. (Oral) It was in March, 1989 that the respondent was appointed as a Technical Assistant after going through the normal selection process. With a view to obtaining the aforesaid appointment, the respondent had to submit to the appellants, among others, a certificate of experience which he actually submitted. He continued to work on the post to which he was appointed for almost four years. It was on 5th January, 1994 that an order was passed by the appellants wherein it was alleged that for obtaining the aforesaid appointment, the respondent had submitted an experience certificate which the appellants the service of the respondent was terminated with immediate effect vide the aforesaid order dated 5th January 1994. The respondent challenged this termination order by filing WP (SS) No. 345/2002 in this Court. The learned Single Judge vide his judgment dated 3rd April, 2008 while allowing the writ petition quashed and set aside the termination order basically on the ground that the respondent was not afforded any opportunity of hearing nor was any enquiry held in the matter and without holding any enquiry by associating the respondent and without affording any opportunity of hearing and without issuing any show cause to the respondent, straight away the termination order was passed. 2. We have heard Mr. Arvind Vashisth, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. B.D. Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing for the respondent and find that the view taken by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment is wholly unassailable. A bare look at the impugned termination order dated 5th January, 1994 would suggest that apart from being punitive in nature, it cast a stigma upon the respondent. The respondent has been deprived of his service on the allegation that he had obtained the same by using a forged certificate. It was not open to the appellants in view of the allegation leveled against the respondent which is apparent on the face of the impugned termination order, to have done so without holding a proper enquiry in which the respondent ought to have been associated and without issuing any show cause notice and affording him an opportunity of hearing. A very valuable right of the respondent has been taken away in a manner and under a procedure which is unknown to law. The learned Single Judge, therefore, was wholly justified in quashing and setting aside the impugned termination order. 3. The learned Single Judge, however, in the course of the judgment or in the operative part thereof has not reserved any opportunity to the appellants to proceed against the respondent afresh if so advised by following the procedure under law. While upholding the impugned judgment and dismissing the appeal, we on our part do wish to observe that the appellants shall be at liberty to initiate action against the respondent, if so advised but by following procedure prescribed under law as observed herein above. 4. The appeal is dismissed in limine. (J.C.S. Rawat, J.) (V.K. Gupta, C.J.) 10.06.2008 10.06.2008 L.S.R./V.K.