‘226/227 W ‘HfE‘arFH " X! HC 78 3a 7’ av ... . M‘Ngamwwl mm m‘zoo mm (Wu) WWW WW ' WM%€(W ‘ ; amifwm SB: 24-06-2011 Hon’ble Shri Manindra Mohan Sh 'ivastav:a, J. Shri Rajendra PateL counsel for he petitioner. Shri A. V. Shridhar, Pane! Lawye r for the Statef respondents N0.1 & 2 on advance copy. Heard. Thispet'rtion has been med by :he petitioner aggrieved by order dated 09—02-2011 (Annexure F54), by wwich, appointment of the petitioner on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-l“ has been canoeiied on the allegation of submission of forged certificate. Learned counsei for the petitione submits that eariier a writ petition was filed by the petitioner, which was n ally disposed off vide order dated 11-05-2011 granting liberty to the pet' ioner to file properly constituted petition, whereafter the present petition as filed. The appointment of the petitione was earlier cancelled, which was challenged by the petitioner by filing it petition. The writ petition was allowed vide order dated 12-01-2010 h lding that the appointment could not be cancelled without affording op ortunity of hearing and that no punitive order could be passed withou applying the basic principles of natural justice and fair play in action. arned counsel for the petitioner submits that after the order was pass d by the Court, the respondents now again passed an order on 09-02—2 i‘l without giving any opportunity of hearing. Learned counsel submits t at a letter was submitted by the petitioner on 10-09-2010 (Annexure P ) stating that the petitioner had never submitted any such pertincate, wh ch has been alleged to be forged. He further submits that from the Atte dance Register of Jan Shiksha Kendra, Lapha for the period 16-12-201 to 15-01-2011, it is clear that the r e F1 zoo mm mWéWm Wmm 52/ >awlé¥timfa=rw WWW. WWW mm é §Niwailé¥r iyee and certificate has been issued by Tun-lane petitioner was an untrained empk he Head Master (Annexure P 4) On the the Impugned order dated 09 D2- I uto the‘pe toner on 22 G3 2010 at submit any explanation or docume From the averments made impugned order dated 09-D2-20 impugned notices a‘iieged’to have whether opportunity of hearing we, requires a fact finding enquiry anr recorded by the parties to dec appiication submitted by the pe 10-09—2010 or not, required detaiienquiry. Therefore, i am not incline J reserved to the petitioner vto appeal/revision as is availabie PanchayattAppeat & Revision) R prefer appeatlrevision before the within a period of one month fron‘ decide the matter on its own m timitation. With the aforesaid observa' ion, the petition is tinaliy disposedoff. State coilmset submits that a perusal of other hand tearnec 011 shows that two notices were issued 1d 16-1 2-201 0, but the petitioner did not nt. in the petition and the contents of the 11, dispute has arisen as to whether t i been issued were aotualiy sewed and is afforded to the petitioner. This aspect i oral evidence may also required to be de the issue. Moreover, whether the titioner was received in the omce on ratter of consideration. Aii this matter is also a n i d to entertain the petition, but liberty is chailenge the order by filing an to the petitioner under Chattisgarh ulesj 1995. ln case, the petitioner would competent authority under the Rules i today, the authority shall consider and arits without going into the question of Ti t r