e HIGH COURTQF CHHAmSGARH : BILASPUR Writ Petitionjio. 1768 oL2QQ5 Petitioner Ramanand Singh, aged about 65 years, son of Late Dubhar Singh, resident of Budhwari Bazar, Korba, Dist. Korba (C.G.) Versus Respondent The Madhya Pradesh State Electa-icity Board (Now Chhattisgarh State Electa-icity Board), through - its Executive Engineer, Turbine Repairs, Region No.2, Korba (Chhattisgarh) WRJT PETmON UNDERARTICLE_226'&_227 QF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri J.) Shri P. P. Sahu, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondent. Q R D E R (Passed on this 9th Day of April, 2009) The petitioner, by this petition impugns the order dated 20.11.1999 (Annexure P/3), passed by the Industrial Court, Bench at Raipur in Appeal No. 264/MPIR Act/97. Brief facts, in nutshell, as projected by the petitioner, are that the petitioner was appointed on 23.3.1973 on the post of Workshop Attendant (Class-IV cadre). Thereafter, the petitioner was proinoted on the post of Plant Assistant Grade II (Annexure P/l). In the year 1992 a departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner on the allegation that he had submitted false and fabricated educational certificates at the time of appointment. On the outeome of the departmental enquiry, by order dated 26.8.1992 (Annexure P/2) the services of the petitioner was terminated with immediate effect. Being aggrieved the petitioner filed Case No. 95/MPIR/93 before the Labour Court, Bilaspur, which was dismissed by order dated 12.6.1997 (Annexure P/4). Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal before -^ the Industrial Court, Bench at Raipur, being Appeal-No. 264/M.P.I.R.Act/97, which was also dismissed by order dated 20.11.1999 (Annexure P/3). Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the findings arrived at by learned Courts below are based on assumption and presumption. The charges against the petitioner were not proved either by oral or by documentary evidence. The petitioner has put in 19 years of service, thus even if, he is terminated from service, he is entitled to the retiral benefits like G.P.F. gratuity, family pension and insurance etc. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the documents appended thereto. It is apparent that a regular departaiental enquiry was conducted against the petitioner on the allegation that he had produced false and fabricated educational certificates to get appointment. After departifaental enquiry the charges levelled against the petitioner were fbynd proved. Looking to the serious nature of allegation, it was recommended that the services of the petitioner may be terminated. Thus, on 29.5.1992 a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner which was replied by him on 11.6.1992. Having considered the report of the departmental enquiry and the reply to the show cause, filed by the petitioner, the disciplinary authority passed the impugned order dt. 26.8.1992 (Annexure P/2), terminating services of the petitioner with immediate effect. The petitioner had challenged the order of termination dt. 12.6.1997 (Annexure P/4) before the Labour Court, Bilaspur on the ground that the departmental enquiry was initiated after a period of 19 years, the documents, on the basis of which the departmental enquiry was initiated, were not supplied to him, he was not given an opportunity to properly put forward his defence and the persons who had issued the certificates were not examined in the departmental enquiry. Learnd Labour Court, having considered the evidence and material on record, found that the documents produced in the departmental enquiry were exhibited and the same were perused by the petitioner. The petitioner had got his statement recorded in his defence but 'declined to prpduce any evidence in the departmental enquiry. The petitioner was served with the charge sheet along with list of documents, list of witnesses and articles of charges. After inarshalling of the evidence available on record, learned Labour Court dismissed the case filed by the petitioner. The appellate 7. 8. Tbakur @ Court also considered all the aspects of the matter in detail and dismissed the appeal by the impugned order dated 20.1 1.1999. Having regard to the facts situation of the case, I do not find any force in the arguments advanced by learned counsel appearin^ for fhe petitioner. It is a case wherein it is apparent that the petitioner was not at all qualified and eligible for appointa-nent on the post. In order to obtain appointment, he had produced false and fabricated educational certificates and on the basis of those certificates he could remain in job from 23.3.1973 to 26.8.1992. Thus, the petitioner does not deserve any sympathy. The orders passed by the Courts below 'are unexceptionable and warrant no interference. In view of the foregoing, there is no merit in this petition. The petition is dismissed, accordingly. Sd/- ! Satish K. Agnihotri Judge p