IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.: 13748 of 2008. Reserved on: 27.07.2010. Decided on: 30.7.2010. __________________________________________________________ Kanta Devi. … Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another. … Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the petitioner. : Dr. Lalit K. Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents. : Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. Rajiv Sharma, J. Petitioner was appointed as Peon in the year 1983 in the respondent-department. She was granted permission to acquire higher qualification of matriculation vide letter dated 8th February, 1996. She appeared in the matriculation examination in the month of May, 1996 conducted by National Open School (Government of India), New Delhi. Her result was declared as per Annexure A-3 dated 7th August, 1996 and she was declared fail in Mathematics, Social Science and Typing English. She was again permitted to appear in the examination in the month of November, 1996. Vide Annexure A-4 the petitioner was declared successful in matriculation examination. The same was reiterated vide 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - letter dated 31.8.2005 (Annexure A-8). The respondent-department convened the Departmental Promotion Committee for filling up the post of Clerk from the feeder category of Class-IV employees. Since the petitioner had already submitted her matriculation certificate, her candidature was also considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee for promotion to the post of Clerk. Consequently, vide office order dated 28.9.2005 she was promoted to the post of Clerk. On the basis of information received vide letter dated 27.1.2006 from the Regional Head, NIOS, Regional Centre, Chandigarh that the petitioner has failed in the matriculation examination, show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 20th April, 2006. The matter was further got verified from the Head Office of NIOS. The NIOS informed the respondent-department on 1.3.2006 that the overall result of the petitioner was that she has failed in matriculation examination. In view of this, she was not found fit/eligible for promotion to the post of Clerk out of Class-IV quota and was directed to explain her position on or before 20.4.2006 why her promotion order should not be withdrawn and disciplinary action for submitting wrong information/documents be not initiated against her. She filed reply on 24th April, 2006. The Director, Health Services on the basis of reply furnished by the petitioner and also on the basis of recommendations made by the Review Departmental Promotion Committee withdrew the promotion order of the petitioner, dated 28.9.2005 vide office order dated 25th April, 2006 (Annexure A-12). 2. Mr. Lalit Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that there is violation of the principles of natural justice by the respondent-department while issuing impugned order Annexure A-12, dated 25th April, 2006. According to him, his client had already - 3 - qualified the matriculation examination as per contents of Annexures A-4 and A-8. Mr. R.P. Singh, learned Assistant Advocate General has vehemently argued that the petitioner has failed in matriculation examination and this information was supplied by the Regional Centre of NIOS, Chandigarh as well as Head Office of NIOS, New Delhi vide letters dated 27.1.2006 and 1.3.2006. He lastly contended that it is a fit case where besides reverting the petitioner, disciplinary action was also warranted against her for furnishing fake documents. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. 4. The petitioner has strongly relied upon Annexures A-4 and A-8. In these two documents, the petitioner has been shown as pass in matriculation examination. She was promoted on the basis of these documents by the Departmental Promotion Committee as Clerk vide letter dated 28.9.2005. She had only given attested copies of the certificates alongwith the application. Information was sought by the Director, Health Services from Regional Centre of NIOS, Chandigarh whether the petitioner has passed the matriculation examination or not. The NIOS has informed the Director, Health Services on 27.1.2006 that the petitioner has failed. The respondents thereafter again got the matter re-verified from NIOS Head Office, who vide letter dated 1.3.2006 stated that the petitioner has failed in matriculation examination. It is in these circumstances that the show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 20th April, 2006. The petitioner has filed reply to the same on 24.4.2006 and has only stated that she had passed matriculation examination from National Open School (Government of India), New Delhi after completing all codal formalities. She has not stated anything about the two letters dated27.2.2006 and - 4 - 1.3.2006 mentioned specifically in the show cause notice dated 20th April, 2006. The respondents after considering the reply furnished by the petitioner had decided to revert her vide office order dated 25th April, 2006. The petitioner has not placed on record the original certificates as per Annexure A-4. It is a Photostat copy. She had been given ample opportunity to explain her position on the basis of show cause notice dated 20th April, 2006. The petitioner has also sought pre-mature retirement as per letter dated 1st May, 2006, but the same was rejected by the Director, Health Services on 31st May, 2006. The fact that the petitioner has sought voluntary retirement shows that the petitioner was guilty of furnishing fake documents while considering her candidature for promotion to the post of Clerk. The respondents were within their right to hold the review Departmental Promotion Committee to review the promotion of the petitioner which was claimed by her on the basis of fake documents. There is neither any illegality nor infirmity in office order dated 25th April, 2006. Same also conforms to the principles of natural justice. 5. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. It shall be open to the respondent-department to take appropriate action against the petitioner for producing fake documents in accordance with law. There will be no order as to costs. (Rajiv Sharma), J. July 30, 2010. (sck).