WP(C) 1865/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Heard Mr. A.K. Bora, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. The Board of Secondary Education, Assam (SEBA) is represented by its Standing Counsel Mr. T.C. Chutia. The official respondents 1 to 5 are represented by Mr. U.C. Goswam i, the learned Standing Counsel, Education Department. 2. The petitioner challenges the order dated 19.10.2009 (Annexure-K), where by termination of her service was ordered by the District Elementary Education O fficer, Sivasagar. The impugned action was taken because the petitioner allegedl y furnished a false certificate of passing the HSLC examination. 3.1 Mr. A.K. Bora, the learned Counsel contends that the petitioner was unfa irly victimized through fabricated allegation as she never claimed to have passe d the HSLC examination in the year 1979 as was alleged in the termination order. The petitioner refers to the speaking order of 3.2.2010 recorded by the Registr ar, SEBA (Annexure-P7) to show that the petitioner has passed her HSLC examinati on bearing Roll-Amguri No. 578 in 3rd Division in the year 1970 and accordingly Mr. Bora contends that the petitioner was ousted from service on a baseless alle gation. 3.2 The petitioner further contends that if an opportunity would have been a fforded before the service termination order, the petitioner could have easily d emonstrated that she had never furnished any false HSLC certificate for the year 1979, which was made the basis for the termination, since she had passed the HS LC examination in the year 1970 as is subsequently verified by the SEBA Authorit ies. 4. Mr. U.C. Goswami, the learned Standing Counsel, Education Department agr ees that the impugned penal action should have been preceded by an opportunity t o the affected employee and he submits that only because of the serious charge o f falsification HSLC testimonial the petitioner’s service was terminated. 5. Mr. T.C. Chutia, the learned Standing Counsel, SEBA on the basis of spec ific instruction submits that the HSLC certificate (Annexure-M2) at page 57 of t he writ petition, could not have been furnished by the petitioner as the certifi cate showed interpolation of the short name Ira on a larger space and furtherm ore the document certified the candidate to have passed in 2nd Division, whereas the petitioner had passed her HSLC examination in the 3rd Division. The Counsel points out that upon re-verification of their records, the SEBA has concluded t hat the petitioner Ira Sarma had passed her HSLC examination in 3rd Division in the year 1970 and accordingly he submits that the petitioner cannot be charged w ith furnishing a false HSLC certificate. 6. It is well settled that penal action cannot be ordered without affording an opportunity to the affected employee. However in the present case, the impug ned order of termination was issued in breach of the principle of audi alteram p artem and on that score itself, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. 7. Furthermore, the report given on 3.2.2010 by the Registrar, SEBA clearly shows that the petitioner had passed her HSLC examination bearing Roll-Amguri N o.578 in the 3rd Division in the year 1970 and projection of the petitioner is v indicated by the oral submission of the learned Standing Counsel, SEBA. 8. Considering the above, the termination order dated 19.10.2009 is held to be unsustainable and is accordingly quashed and the petitioner is directed to b e reinstated in service immediately. Bearing in mind that no service was receive d by the employer during the interregnum, the petitioner shall be paid 50% of he r back wages from the date of termination till her reinstatement. For all other purpose, the termination should not be considered as a break in service and the petitioner will be entitled to all service benefits. 9. The case is allowed accordingly with the above order.