IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Defective Special Appeal No. 20 of 2008 Satya Bhan Singh s/o Sri Ganga Singh R/o Village and Post Chhabupur Kurd, Post Office Ughati, District Badaun ….. Appellant Versus 1. The Chief Medical Officer, Almora 2. The Additional Director (Health), Directorate of Medicines Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Lucknow. …… Respondents …….. Mr. B.D. Pande, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rajesh Sharma for the Appellant. Mr. J.P. Joshi, Chief Standing Counsel for respondent no. 1. Mr. S.P.S. Panwar, Addl. Chief Standing (U.P. Govt.) for respondent no. 2. Coram : Hon’ble V.K. Gupta, C.J. Hon’ble J.C.S. Rawat, J. V.K. GUPTA, C.J. (Oral) CLMA No. 1134 of 2008 Heard. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The delay being condoned, the application stands disposed of. 2. Sri B.D. Pande, the learned Senior Advocate, is heard on the question of admission. 3. The learned single Judge vide the impugned judgment dated 12.12.2007 dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant writ petitioner on the ground that since he had obtained his appointment as Lab Assistant (Rural) by the force of a forged and fake appointment order and on that ground alone because his appointment was ab initio illegal, he was not entitled to any opportunity of being heard or being issued a show cause notice. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that since the criminal court in which the appellant was prosecuted has now acquitted the appellant, it be presumed that the aforesaid appointment order was not forged or fake. 5. We have gone through the copy the judgment of the learned criminal Court delivered on 29.01.2008 and find that it has not in clear and categorical terms held or found that the appointment letter dated 27.10.1990, allegedly issued by the Directorate was not fake or forged. The only ground on which the appellant has been acquitted of the criminal charge is that one Dr. O.P.Gupta, Additional Director in the Directorate of Health was not examined as prosecution witness in the trial and because the appointment order in question was issued under his signatures, this by itself entitled the appellant to be acquitted of the criminal charge. 6. Acquitted the appellant on ground of non-examination of Dr. O.P. Gupta as a prosecution witness does not amount to criminal Court finding or holding that the appointment order was not fake or forged. It is a settled law that if the initial appointment was based on an illegality, the termination order is the natural consequence and in such a situation, the person whose service is terminated is not entitled to any opportunity of being heard, nor there is any question of any enquiry being held. 7. We agree with the view and the reasoning of the learned Single Judge and finding no merit in this appeal, dismiss the same in limine. 8. Consequently, CLMA No. 1135 of 2008 also stands disposed of. (J.C.S. Rawat, J.) (V.K. Gupta, C.J.) 12.03.2008 12.03.2008 A