JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner who is an ex-constable of the Rajasthan Armed Constabulary (for short "R.A.C.") and who was dismissed from service following the confirmation of the dismissal by Appellate Authority under Rule 30 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the "C.C.A. Rules"), has filed this writ petition in this court alleging the violation of his fundamental rights under Arts. 14, 21 and 311 of the Constitution of India on the ground that enhanced penalty from removal to dismissal was imposed by the Appellate Authority contrary to Rule 30 of the C.C.A. Rules without providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as contemplated by Art. 311(2) of the Constitution of India. 2. The facts giving rise to the filing of this writ petition briefly stated, arc that the petitioner was recruited as a constable in R.A.C. on 1.10.69. He served as constable No. 689 in `A Company of the 2nd Battalion of R.A.C. Jaipur. On 30.9.1983 respondent No. 5, the Commandant, 2nd Battalion, R.A.C. Jaipur, removed the petitioner from service vide his order No. 1403-11 dated 309.1983 following a departmental inquiry held under Rule 16 of the C.C.A. Rules on the allegation that at the time of recruitment of the petitioner in R.A.C. in the year 1969 the petitioner had submitted a false educational certificate on the basis of which he got entry in the force vide Annexure 1. It has been contended in the writ petition that the original order of respondent No. 5 has already been filed by the petitioner in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1504/89 and a copy of which has been placed on the record of this court vide Annexure 1, as referred to above. Being aggrieved by the impugned order of dismissal from service the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Rajasthan Armed Constabulary, Jaipur (respondent No. 4), Appellate Authority of the petitioner, under Rule 23/27 of the C.C.A. Rules on 2.11.88 vide Annexure 2. It has been further contended by the petitioner that his appeal was not decided by the Appellate Authority for a long time and consequently during the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner had also filed a writ petition vide SBCWP No. 1504/1989 before this court challenging the impugned order of his dismissal from service vide Annexure 1, as referred to above. The said writ petition came up for hearing before this court at admission stage on 15.5.89 when direction was given by this court to respondent No. 4 that, the appeal of the petitioner which was pending before the Appellate Authority should be decided within a period of two months reckoned from 15.5.89. In pursuance of the said direction, respondent No. 4 decided the appeal vide its order, dated 15.7.1989 by which the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed and further the penalty of `removal' was enhanced to that of `Dismissal' from service vide Annexurc 3. It is under these circumstances that the petitioner who felt aggrieved by the impugned orders, dated 30.9.88 and 15.7.1989 vide Annexures 1 and 3 respectively, has preferred this writ petition before this Court challenging the impugned orders inter-alia on the grounds that the impugned orders are contrary to the facts on the record and in violation of law and procedure prescribed in C.C.A. Rules and further are contrary to the evidence on record, against the established legal norms and passed in violation of principles of the natural justice. It has been further contended on behalf of the petitioner in the grounds that the Appellate Authority had not considered the appeal of the petitioner challenging his dismissal from service in accordance with Rule 30 of the C.C.A. Rules which mandatory provides that the Appellate Authority is bound to consider as to whether the procedure prescribed in these Rules has been duly complied with or not and whether non-compliance of the Rules has resulted in violation of any provisions of the Constitution of India or in failure of justice. It has been further contended that no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner in compliance of requirements of sub-rule (2) of Rule 30 of the C.C.A. Rules which stipulates that no order imposing enhanced penalty shall be passed unless appellant is given an opportunity of making any representation which he may wish to make against such enhanced penalty and if the enhanced penalty which the Appellate Authority proposes to impose is one of the penalties specified in clause (iv) to (vii) of Rule 14 of and an inquiry under Rule 16 has not already been held in the case, the Appellate Authority shall, subject to the provisions of Rule 18, itself holds such inquiry or direct that such inquiry be held and thereafter on consideration of the proceedings of such inquiry pass such orders as it may deem fit. 3. It has been further contended on behalf of the petitioner in the grounds in support of the writ petition that as per Rule 16(6)(9) of the C.C.A. Rules the Inquiring Authority was bound to first record evidence on behalf of the prosecution and then the petitioner should have been called upon to submit his list of defence witnesses and such defence should have been examined only after adopting the said procedure. The Inquiring Authority reversed the process as contemplated by this Rule by first examining serve Shri Surajmal Lekhraj and the petitioner on 10.1.1985 and defence witness Shri Bharat Bihari on 10.4.1985. The evidence of the witnesses cited by the prosecution was recorded by the Appellate Authority on different dates in March, 1985 and in May, 1989, the copies of the statements of the said witnesses have been placed on the record of this court vide Annexures 4 to 10 respectively. It has been further contended by the petitioner that under these circumstances since the defence witnesses were examined at the first instance, followed by recording of the prosecution evidence, the Inquiring Authority had violated the provisions of Rule 16(6)(9) of the C.C.A. Rules which has resulted in denial of justice in violation of the procedure contemplated under the Rules. It has been further contended that there is no mention of this fact in the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority and, therefore, the impugned orders Annexures 3 and 4 deserve to be quashed on this ground alone. 4. It has been further contended that there is no mention of this fact in the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority and, therefore, the impugned orders Annexures 3 and 4 deserve to be quashed on this ground alone. 4. Alternatively it has been contended in the grounds that if the petitioner and Bharat Bihari, Head-master of the School who had issued the impugned certificate in question were examined on 27.9.85 as prosecution witnesses, the Inquiring Authority was bound to accept their version. It has been further contended on behalf of the petitioner that on the basis of uncontroverted testimony the two impugned orders, as referred to above, were liable to be quashed by the Appellate Authority. It was next contended that the Appellate Authority has not indicated as to what was expected of the said Authority in terms of Rule 30 of the C.C.A. Rules if the facts on the strength of which the order was passed, have been established and whether the facts established afford sufficient justification for making such an order ? It has been further contended by the petitioner that in any event, the service record of the petitioner was in the custody of the Commandant 2nd Battalion R.A.C. (respondent No. 5) and, therefore, the petitioner cannot be held responsible for disappearance of the certificate from the record. 5. It has been next contended by the petitioner in the grounds that respondent No. 4 had enhanced the penalty of dismissal to that of removal from service without giving any opportunity of making any representation to the petitioner before imposing such enhanced penalty and, therefore, the impugned order of respondent No. 4 deserves to be set aside on this ground alone. It has been further contended by the petitioner that the original certificate was not produced in the departmental inquiry and it was not proved that there was any overwriting and if so in whose handwriting. It is under these circumstances that the petitioner has assailed the impugned orders passed by respondent No. 4 on the ground that the same were passed on the basis of surmises and conjectures in absence of evidence on record and without there being any evidence on the record that the petitioner had made overwriting in the certificate or produced a false certificate. 6. 6. In the reply filed in pursuance of show cause notice issued by this court on 31.8.89, the respondents have expressly denied that the impugned orders Annexures 1 and 3 are either contrary to law or have been passed in violation of the procedure prescribed in the C.C.A Rules. On the contrary it has been specifically averred in the reply that both the impugned orders were passed after strict observance of the procedure contained in the C.C.A. Rules as well as the law and that since the procedure was adopted as per the Rules while conducting the inquiry and before imposing penalty of dismissal which was subsequently converted to that of removal from service in appeal, there has been no violation of the principles of natural justice at the instance of the respondents. It has been further contended that the provisions contained in Rule 30 and 16(6)(9) of the C.C.A. Rules have been followed in their letter and spirit. For the sake of convenience and ready reference, the provisions of Rules 30 and 16(6)(9) of the C.C.A. Rules are reproduced hereunder "Rule 30 Consideration of appeals-(1) In the case of an appeal against an order of suspension, the appellate authority shall consider whether in the light of the provisions of rule 13 and having regard to the circumstances of the case the order of suspension is justified or not and confirm or revoke the order accordingly. (2) In the case of an appeal against an order imposing any of the penalties specified in rule 14, the appellate authority shall consider (a) whether the procedure prescribed in these rules has been complied with and if not, whether such non-compliance has resulted in violation of any provisions of Constitution or in failure of justice; (b) whether the facts on which the order was passed have been established; (c) whether the facts established afford sufficient justification for making an order; and (d) whether the penalty imposed is excessive, adequate or inadequate : (and after giving a personal hearing to Government servant to explain his case, if he desires so) and after consultation with the Commission if such consultation is necessary in the case, pass order (i) setting aside, reducing, confirming or enhancing the penalty; or (ii) remitting the case to authority which imposed the penalty or to any other authority with such direction as it may deem fit in the circumstances of the case; Provided that : (i) the appellate authority shall not impose any enhanced penalty which neither such authority nor the authority which made the order appealed against is competent in the case to impose; (ii) no order imposing an enhanced penalty shall be passed unless the appellant is given an opportunity of making any representation which he may wish to make against such enhanced penalty; and (iii) if the enhanced penalty which the appellate authority proposes to impose is one of the penalties specified in clauses (iv) to (vii) of rule 14 and an inquiry under rule 16 has not already been held in the case, the appellate authority shall, subject to the provisions of rule 18, itself hold such. inquiry or direct that such inquiry be held and thereafter on consideration of the proceedings of such inquiry pass such orders as it may deem fit." Rule 16(6)(a) Where the Government servant has pleaded not guilty to the charges, at the commencement of the inquiry, the Inquiring Authority shall ask the Presenting Officer appearing on behalf of the Disciplinary Authority to submit the list of witnesses and documents within 10 days, who shall also simultaneously send a copy to the Govt. servant. Delinquent officer, within ten days of the receipt of the list of prosecution witnesses and documents, shall submit the list of documents required by him for his defence. servant. Delinquent officer, within ten days of the receipt of the list of prosecution witnesses and documents, shall submit the list of documents required by him for his defence. The Inquiring Authority shall then summon the documents of both sides and ask the parties to admit or deny them. It shall then summon such evidence as is necessary, giving opportunity to the presenting officer for examination-in-chief and also to the Government servant or his assisting officer, whosoever may be present for cross-examination. The Presenting Officer shall be entitled to re-examine the witnesses on any point on which they have been cross-examined but not on any new matter, without the leave of the Inquiring Authority. After the close of the prosecution evidence the Govt. servant shall be called upon to submit the list of the witnesses within 10 days which he would like to produce in his defence. The Inquiring Authority after considering the relevance of the witnesses and the documents shall summon only the relevant witnesses and the documents and record the evidence thereof, while giving opportunity of Examination-in-Chief and cross- examination/re-examination to the parties and then close the evidence. The Inquiring Authority shall consider the relevancy of the witnesses and the documents called for by both the parties and in case of his refusal to summon any witnesses or documents, he shall record the reasons in writing. The Inquiring Authority may also put such questions to the witnesses of the parties, as it thinks fit, in the interest of justice. An opportunity for hearing the arguments shall be given to the parties." Rule 16(9) The Disciplinary Authority shall, if it is not the Inquiring Authority, consider the record of the inquiry and record its findings on each charge. (The Disciplinary Authority may while considering the report of the Enquiring Authority for just and sufficient reasons to he recorded in writing remand the case for further/de-novo enquiry, in case it has reason to believe that the enquiry already conducted has been laconic in some respect or the other)." 7. (The Disciplinary Authority may while considering the report of the Enquiring Authority for just and sufficient reasons to he recorded in writing remand the case for further/de-novo enquiry, in case it has reason to believe that the enquiry already conducted has been laconic in some respect or the other)." 7. The respondents have further contended in their reply that since during the course of recording of evidence by the Inquiring Authority, some additional evidence had come to the notice of the said authority which was necessary to be examined, it has become necessary for the Inquiring Authority to examine some other witnesses as well and who were accordingly examined and their evidence was taken on record. It has further been contended in the reply filed on behalf of the respondents that the provisions contained in Rule 16 of the C.C.A. Rules were followed in letter and spirit. Initially the witnesses of the prosecution were examined and thereafter that of defence and since some more evidence had come to light by the time, it was necessary for the Inquiring Officer to examine other witnesses as well. Rule 16(6)(9) of the C.C.A. Rules does not anywhere debar the Inquiring Officer to examine such witnesses after considering their relevancy who are important for bringing the truth to light. If at all the petitioner had any objection to the examination of such witnesses he ought to have raised the objection before the Inquiring Officer itself. Rules 16(6)(9) of the C.C.A. Rules specifically provides : "The evidence of any person which is of a formal character may be given by affidavit and may, subject to all just exceptions, be accepted in evidence in departmental proceedings. Where the enquiry officer thinks fit that the person should be summoned and examined personally, or if either party, namely the presenting officer or the delinquent officer insists on the personal attendance of the witness arrangements should be made for the personal attendance of such witness." 8. It is thus, clear from the above that it is within the competence of the enquiry officer and within his discretion if he thinks fit, that the person should he summoned and examined personally, he may do so by making arrangement for personal attendance of the witness concerned and for recording the evidence. It is thus, clear from the above that it is within the competence of the enquiry officer and within his discretion if he thinks fit, that the person should he summoned and examined personally, he may do so by making arrangement for personal attendance of the witness concerned and for recording the evidence. It has been further submitted in this context by the respondents in their reply to the writ petition that no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner by examining the said witnesses since the witnesses were examined under the relevant rules and the petitioner was also given sufficient opportunity to cross-examine them, which he availed of without any pro text. Having availed the said opportunity, it is not open to the petitioner now to plead to the contrary before this court to say that either his defence has been prejudiced or he has not been given sufficient opportunity to cross-examine the said witnesses, hence the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner is neither justified nor tenable under law. With regard to the observance of the relevant provisions of Rule 30 of the C.C.A. Rules, it was further contended in the reply that there was strict observance of the Appellate Authority to the compliance of Rule 30 of the C.C.A. Rules which deals with the procedure to be followed by the Appellate Authority in matter of consideration of appeals. It has been contended in the reply that there is ample justification on the record for the Appellate Authority to have rejected the appeal of the petitioner and the order passed by the said Authority is fair and just in accordance with the Rules. It has been further contended that the Appellate Authority has sufficiently communicated the reasons for rejection of the appeal and, therefore, it cannot he said that the order passed by it is non-speaking order. 9. With regard to the petitioner's allegation that the original certificate which contains manipulation and over- writing, it was contended that the original certificate was in custody of Shri Vishnu Datt Sharma U.D.C. who, in connivance of the petitioner, had replaced the said certificate of 3rd standard by a new certificate of 5th standard. The earlier certificate, i.e., the certificate of 3rd standard was examined by the various officers including the Asstt. The earlier certificate, i.e., the certificate of 3rd standard was examined by the various officers including the Asstt. Commandant who had been interested in inquiry by the Commandant (respondent No. 5) with a view to examine the veracity of the said certificate. The matter was fully examined by the Asstt. Commandant acting on behalf of respondent No. 5 and it was discovered that over-writing was made in the certificate from 3rd standard to 5th standard and this fact is fully established from the report of the Commandant (respondent No. 5) wherein it is further mentioned that the explanation of the petitioner was also called for as to whether the certificate produced by him was forged one or not ? but the petitioner had not responded to the same vide Annexures R. I and R. 2 containing the copies of the order of inquiry dated 18.4.83 and later dated 30.5.1983. The respondents have further stated that during the course of inquiry opinion was called from the Head-master of the Govt. Secondary School, Thikaria about the genuineness of the certificate produced by the petitioner and the Head master vide his letter, dated 26.3.83 informed the Asstt. Commandant 2nd Battalion R.A.C. that the petitioner had left the school after completion of 3rd standard vide Annexure R.3 . Respondents have further contended that since the petitioner in connivance with one Bishnu Datt Sharma U.D.C. had replaced the forged certificate of 3rd standard by that of 5th standard, a departmental inquiry has also been initiated against Shri Vishnu Datt which is presently in progress. The respondents have further contended that in view of the above circumstances there is no violation of the principles of natural justice and the order passed by the Appellate Authority (respondent No. 4) enhancing the punishment from dismissal to that of removal from service is perfectly just and in accordance with law and that there has been no violation of principles of natural justice nor it can be said that the order has been passed in capricious and arbitrary manner. It is further denied that the provisions of Arts. 14, 16 and 311 of the Constitution have been violated. 10. In support of his contention advanced at the Bar, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of this court in the matter of Vasudeo K. Hardasani v. The State of Raj. & Anr. It is further denied that the provisions of Arts. 14, 16 and 311 of the Constitution have been violated. 10. In support of his contention advanced at the Bar, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of this court in the matter of Vasudeo K. Hardasani v. The State of Raj. & Anr. (19) RLR 1989(1) 99 wherein the question which had arisen for consideration of this court was as to whether it is incumbent upon the Appellate Authority to comply with the provisions of Rule 30(2) of the C.C.A. Rules before awarding the punishment to the delinquent Govt. servant and whether such non-compliance has resulted in violation of any provision of the Constitution or any failure of justice ? It was held in that case by this court while relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Ram Chander v. Union of India & others : AIR 1986 SC 1173 that the Appellate Authority should pass a reasoned order dealing with the contentions raised before it in appeal and that a mechanical production of the phraseology of the rule will not be sufficient. The Appellate Authority should marshal the evidence on record with a view to decide about the sustainability of the finding recorded by the Disciplinary Authority and the order passed should show that the appellate authority has applied its mind and considered the objections raised in the appeal which becomes all the more important after the 42 Amendment in the Constitution. Applying the ratio of the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court it was held by this court that since the Disciplinary Authority had only considered the report and not the entire record including the defence of the petitioner and had also failed to record finding on each charge, it was held that there was a clear violation of Rule 16(9) of the C.C.A. Rules. 11. 11. Learned counsel for the respondents have vehemently contended that the aforesaid judgment of this court in context of the observations of the Apex Court in the matter of Ram Chander v. U.I.O. (supra) has no application to the facts of the instant case, since from the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority it is explicitly clear that the procedure required under the C.C.A. Rules was strictly followed by the Appellate Authority and the mandate of Rule 39(2) of the C.C.A. Rules was observed and, therefore, the order passed by the Appellate Authority is perfectly sustainable in law. In support of his contentions advanced at the Bar learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance upon a D.B. judgment of this court in the matter of Mahendra Singh and Anr. v. Zila Parishad, Jalore & others : WLR 1995 Raj. 35 wherein this court while dealing with an identical case wherein similar controversy regarding fraudulent practices were involved in the matter of obtaining certificates by the petitioner who had applied for the post of primary school teacher in pursuance of Advertisement by the Panchavat Samiti. This court while confirming the judgment of the learned Single Judge, who had after considering the notification, dated 11.12.74 and the inquiry conducted in pursuance of the direction of this court while confirming the order of dismissal passed by the learned Single Judge, held that principles of natural justice cannot he pressed into service in case where fraudulent practices are involved and no indulgence can be granted by this court under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The Division Bench of this court further held that prima-facie looking to the conduct of the appellant we are of the opinion that the appellant cannot be granted any relict by this court on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice or violation of procedure laid down under the Rules. This court further held that in view of increasing number of such type of cases, the concerned authorities, while making selections should be more cautious and careful and that such situation may not arise and one should not get appointment on the basis of forged documents or on the basis of degrees from unrecognised Universities. 12. This court further held that in view of increasing number of such type of cases, the concerned authorities, while making selections should be more cautious and careful and that such situation may not arise and one should not get appointment on the basis of forged documents or on the basis of degrees from unrecognised Universities. 12. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also examined the relevant documents placed on the record as well as their rival claims and contentions. I have also perused the order passed by respondent No. 5, the Commandant 2nd Battalion R.A.C., Jaipur (Annexure-1), dated 30.9.88 as well as the order passed by the Appellate Authority and the Deputy Inspector General of Police, R.A.C., Rajasthan, Jaipur, dated 15.7.89 enhancing the penalty of dismissal to that of removal of the petitioner from service vide Annex-3. Vide order dated 30.9.88 (Annex. 1) respondent No. 5 has recorded a specific finding against the petitioner that there is clear manipulation and over-writing on the certificate issued by the School Authorities in which over-writing has been made in different ink, than what has been used in the original certificate by making class III to class V. The petitioner was given sufficient opportunity in this regard and he failed to furnish any reply in pursuance of the letter dated 5.5.1983. From this finding it is clear that onus was on the petitioner to prove to the contrary and since the petitioner had failed to discharge that onus, respondent No. 5 was justified in drawing adverse inference against the petitioner and I am further of the opinion that in view of the fraud committed by the petitioner and the forgery over the document in question, criminal prosecution should have been launched by the Department against him and also in view of misconduct committed by the petitioner who is a member of disciplined force, by filing a false certificate which too was subsequently removed from the departmental file at the behest of the petitioner, no case has been made out for interference with the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer as well as Appellate Authority, of the respondents.I am further of the opinion that notwithstanding the directions of this Court dated 25.10.94 and 6.4.1995 whereby the petitioner was specifically directed to produce the original certificate of having passed class V from the School in question, he had failed to produce either the original certificate or its certified copy duly supported by the petitioner's affidavit as so directed by this Court. In view of this fact as well adverse inference should be drawn against the petitioner who had with malafide intention suppressed the best evidence in his possession. I am further of the opinion that the controversy which has arisen in the present case, is squarely covered by the D.B. decision of this Court in the matter of Mahendra Singh v. Zila Parishad (supra) wherein this Court had deprecated the fraudulent practices which are involved in getting appointments on the basis of forged documents or degrees from unrecognised Institutions. I am further of the opinion that keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case and also the conduct of the petitioner who has played fraud upon the concerned Authorities by placing the forged certificate on the record and thus managed to procure appointment as a Constable with 2nd Battalion R.A.C., Jaipur, deserves to be strongly depreciated and the petitioner does not deserve any indulgence from this Court in the matter. Therefore, prima-facie, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner cannot be granted any relief by this Court on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice or violation of the procedure lad down in the C.C.A. Rules.The respondents are directed to complete the inquiry instituted against one Shri Vishnu Datt Sharma, U.D.C. who had in connivance -with the petitioner replaced the certificate of 3rd standard by a new certificate of 5th standard and had also committed forgery by manipulation and over-writing in the original certificate. The said inquiry should be completed within a period of two months from the date of filing a certified copy of this order. Suitable action should be taken against the erring officials after holding necessary inquiry in the matter from an independent investigating agency. A copy of this order be sent to the Director General of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur (respondent No. 3) for information, compliance and necessary action.Accordingly this writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.Writ petition dismissed. *******