S. K. KESHOTE, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner, by this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the order dated 27/8/91 of the respondent No. 2 under which he was discharged from the services. ( 2 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner raised only contention that this order which is penal in nature could have been passed only after giving a notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, which has not been done in this case and on this ground this order may be quashed and set aside. ( 3 ) CARRYING this contention further, Shri D. N. Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from the reply of this Special Civil Application it is clearly a case where services of the petitioner were brought to an end as he has produced before the appointing authority a forged document i. e. School Leaving Certificate. In his submission, the services of the petitioner were brought to an end on the ground that he got his employment on the basis of forged document of his academic qualification. It is a serious misconduct and only after giving the opportunity of hearing his services could have been terminated by way of penalty and not otherwise. Shri Shah contends summing up his arguments, a case where services of the petitioner were dispensed with as his work was unsatisfactory. It is a case in his submission of the termination of the services of the petitioner by way of the penalty. ( 4 ) PERUSED the reply to this Special Civil Application. The respondents have not disputed that before passing of the order impugned in this Special Civil Application any notice or opportunity of hearing has been given to the petitioner. ( 5 ) I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. ( 6 ) THE respondents in the reply though averred that the petitioner was given temporary appointment but it was not a temporary appointment. The appointment of the petitioner was after selection against a permanent post. He was not appointed against temporary post. It was a substantive appointment. As it was a substantive appointment of the petitioner. Whatever may be stated in the appointment order, it was an appointment on probation. The competent authority is competent to discharge the probationer from the service where his/her work is not found satisfactory. He was not appointed against temporary post. It was a substantive appointment. As it was a substantive appointment of the petitioner. Whatever may be stated in the appointment order, it was an appointment on probation. The competent authority is competent to discharge the probationer from the service where his/her work is not found satisfactory. It is true the services of the petitioner were not terminated on the ground of his unsatisfactory performance. From the reading of the order impugned in this Special Civil application, I find that it is an innocuous order casting no stigma. It is a simpliciter discharge of the probationer from the services. It is true order of the termination of the services of the probationer may be simpliciter discharge it may not have casted stigma still it is permissible to this court to lift the veil and find out whether it is a simpliciter discharge of probationer from the services or an order of termination of the services of the probationer by way of penalty. From the reply of the Special Civil Application, I find that the services of the petitioner are terminated on the ground that the school leaving certificate filed by him was on inquiry, conducted by the appointing authority was found to be a forged document. If we go by the broad and technical approach then what the learned counsel for the petitioner contends is correct. It would have been better to follow the principles of natural justice and in the larger interest of the parties to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner but the question which falls for the consideration is whether only on this ground the impugned order has to be quashed and set aside. The reply to this is in nugative. ( 7 ) THE petitioner has not filed any rejoinder to the reply filed by the respondents. Whatever the averments made in the affidavit-in-reply are to be taken to be uncontroverted. The substance of the matter has to be considered and not only on technical approach or the point the matters are to be decided. The principles of natural justice are not followed in this case. But whether any useful purpose will serve by quashing this order on this ground and asking the respondents to undergo this exercise. The substance of the matter has to be considered and not only on technical approach or the point the matters are to be decided. The principles of natural justice are not followed in this case. But whether any useful purpose will serve by quashing this order on this ground and asking the respondents to undergo this exercise. The petitioner to satisfy prima facie as well as to produce material on the record on the basis of the court is satisfied that it is a case where the petitioner may have some case to defend on the alleged complaint against him of filing of forged document. Only for the satisfaction of the litigants, the matters cannot be remanded and the orders cannot be quashed and set aside or matter cannot be sent to the disciplinary authority. Secondly such a course is adopted in each and every case without consideration where is complaint of breach of principles of natural justice whether what the petitioner complaining has some substance or not it will cause a heavy burden on the public exchequer as the quashing of this order may not only results in reinstatement of the petitioner back but also to give him back wages. Repeatedly this court has asked the learned counsel for the petitioner to show any material on the record to dispel the judgment which has been taken by the appointing authority on the basis of the material collected though behind back of the petitioner. Only where the petitioner prima facie makes out a case that the decision taken by the authorities may not be correct only on this abstract doctrine violation of principles of natural justice the petitioner cannot be granted the relief. From the affidavit-in-reply I find that after making the thorough investigation and inquiry the document i. e. the school leaving certificate filed by the petitioner was taken to be forged document. This certificate was issued by Pithadia Yuth School, which is dated 3/6/86 and numbered as 1516. Somebody has filed complaint against the petitioner and on the basis of that complaint rightly the respondent has to make an inquiry on the correctness of the contents of the complaint and that was the reason that this exercise has been undertaken by the respondents. On this complaint, the appointing authority requested the District Superintendent of Police to inquire into the veracity of the certificate produced by the petitioner. On this complaint, the appointing authority requested the District Superintendent of Police to inquire into the veracity of the certificate produced by the petitioner. Then investigation has been made and the statement of Shri Bhavanji Manji, Head Master of the school was recorded on 27/6/91. He had stated in his statement that in the school register at entry No. 1516 the petitioners name did not figure. He has further given out that at this entry in the school register the name of Mansukhlal Mavji is there. Shri Keshavji Odhaji, who has signed this school leaving certificate has also been examined and he has stated that this document does not bear his signature. He has denied that he has issued the certificate in question to the petitioner. Shri Odhavji has also affirmed the statement made by the Head Master that at Sr. No. 1516 of the school register name of Mansukhlal Mavji is there and not of the petitioner. On the basis of this material the service of the petitioner were terminated to which no exception can be taken more so where the petitioner has not produced any material or evidence to controvert the statement of these two persons. Even if on this technical ground the relief is granted to the petitioner then I fail to see how he will be in a position to defend the same. The result would have been the same order. Merely to observe the formalities this court will not grant relief to the petitioner. A person who got the employment more so in police service, on the basis of forged document otherwise is also not a fit person to continue in the service. We are every day hearing many serious things against the police officers and in case in the service a person is allowed to enter on the basis of forged document what he will do in future, is a matter of realization. It was a just and reasonable approach of the appointing authority to terminate the services of the petitioner, a probationer. This order of the termination of the services of the petitioner is no doubt is on the basis of this ground that the document is forged one but in each and every case it cannot be taken to be penalty to the extent to give the benefits to such a person at the cost of the public exchequer. This order of the termination of the services of the petitioner is no doubt is on the basis of this ground that the document is forged one but in each and every case it cannot be taken to be penalty to the extent to give the benefits to such a person at the cost of the public exchequer. TAKING into consideration the totality of the facts of the case, I do not find any merit in this Special Civil Application and the same is dismissed. Rule discharged. As nobody put appearance for respondents, no order as to costs. .