HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARHlBII.ASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITIONfSl N0.7083 OF2008 Ku.Swati Rajput, dayghter ofRaj Kumar Thakur, aged about 20 years, Shiksha Karml Grade-3, Govt. Primary School, Malda^Block Navagarh, District Durg, ChhatUsgarh. Versus 1. State of ChhatBsgarh, through Secretary, Panchayat and Social Welfare, D.K.S. Bhawan, Ralpur (CG). 2. Director, Panchayat and Social Welfare, Raipur (CG). 3. Collector, Durg.District Durg(CG). 4. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Navagarh, DistrictDurg (CG). (Writ petition under Arficle 226/227 ofthe Constitutfon pf India) Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present;- Shri C.J.K. Rao, counsel forthe petitioner. Shri Yashwant Singh Thakur with Ms. Sunita Jain, Panel Lawyer for the Stat®. ORALORDER (Passedonthia12u'(layofFebruary,2009} By Ns petitjon, the petitioner chaltenges ttie legality and validHy of the order dated 3-12-2008 ^nnexure-P/1) passedby the Director (Pancha^t), Chhattisgarh, Raipur, in appeal No.24/B-121/2008-09 (Ku. SwaS Rajput vs. Coltectof. Duig &Ano ie^ whereby the appeat filed bythe petitioner has been dismissed. 2) Learned counsel appearing for ttie petitioner would subigB that the petitioner was appointed on the postof Shiksha Karmi Gradie-lll by order dated 20-7-2007 (Annexure-P^) after following thedue setectionArocess. Thereafter, on tfie basis ofpseudonymouscomplaint, a show cause notice dated 16-2-2008 (Annexure-P/3) was issued to the petitipner by the Collwtor.Durg, on Uie ground that the sports certifteate prodycsd by the petitioner was a forged document and asked her to subm'rt reply within seven days. Leamed counsetwouldfuittiersubmit that incompljance of Uie said notice, thepeWonersubmtttecther replyon 27-2-2008 (AnnewfffrPM) arK^appeared in pereon beforethe Gollector. After receiptoftjeplyfromthei petitioner and Uie report of e District Education OfR<aer l^ epler dated 'Z.' 25-8-2008 (Annexure-P/5) the petitioner has been terminated from ttie service by the Collector. ^ainst the said order. the petiBoner preferred an appeal before the Direetor (Panchayat), who by order dated 3-12-2008 (Annexure-P/1) dismissed the appeal ofthe petitfoner. Learned counsel would next submit that ttie impugned order has been passed without appreciating thefacts and circumstances ofthe case in its true perepective. Before passing the termination order proper ftpportunity of hearing was not afforded to the petitioner and even ttie enquiry has also not been conducted to ascertain the veracity ofthe documents produced by the petifioner at the time of her appoinhnent. 3) Per contra, leamed counsel appearing for Ihe State supports tt>e impugned order passed by the respondentauthoritjes and would submit that before passing the termination order proper opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner and only after considering ttie reply submitted by the petitioner to the said notice andthe report submitted by the Distrid Education Officer, the termination order has been passed. 4) I have heard leamed counsel appearing for the parUes, perused the pleadings and the documente appended thereto. 5) It is a case where the service of <he petifioner was not terminated, but the appointment iteetf was cancelled on the ground that forged document was produced before tfie aythorities to obtain the appointment on the post ofShiteha Karmi Grade-111. Gondition No.10 ofthe appointment order dated 20-7-2007 (Annexure-P/2) clearly provides that ifthe eligibility certificates are found as illegal and forged theselection would be cancelled automatically and a criminal case may be registered against the candidate. This is not a case of termination, butcancellation of the appoinhnent on finding that the petitioner has produced a forged certificate. The opportunity of hearing was given to Uie petitioner only to prove asto whelher th»sports certificate produced by her was genuine or false.-^n enquiry and after having considered the reply submittsd by the petiKoner it vws found that the sporte certificateproduced by the petitioner was (alse; Therefore, the appointment order was cancelled. 6) While passing Bie impugned order the Director (Panchayat) observed that before passing the cancellation of appointmentorder proper procedure has beenfollowed by flieauthorities coneemed by issuir^i n<itice to the petitioner and only after receipt of the reply, the cancellatiori of appointment order has been passed.in accordance with law. I have also 1S tl ^ found that Uii$ is not a case where without affording any opportunity of hearing to Ihe petitioner the cancellation of af^ointment order has been passed by the Coltwtor, Durg. 7) Be that as it may, since flie petitioner has submftted her reply to the nofice dated 16-2-2008, neithershe has righfto chatlenge the procedure of issuance of nottee nor to say that opportunity of heartng has not been granted after the cancellabon of appointment order fe passed. Thus, the impugned order passed by the Director (Panchayat) is unexceptionable, just&properwarrantingno interference. 8) In view of the foregoing, e petition is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. No order asto costs. 9) Consequently, all the pending applications stand disposed of. Gowri Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge B