Honble SHETHNA, J.–On the basis of duplicate certificate of Ghanerao School the petitioner was promoted to the post of Teacher Gr. II on 4.8.64. Departmental enquiry was initiated against him for not producing the original certificate of Ghanerao School. Swaroop Raj was examined on behalf of the Department during the enquiry wherein he stated that petitioner Jagdish Singh was promoted only on the basis of Ghanerao School certificate no. 481753. The petitioner was called upon to produce the original certificate of the Ghanerao School by letter dated 3.5.68 within seven days from its receipt. Inspite of two reminders the petitioner failed to produce the original certificate. Petitioner Jagdish Singh has admitted in the enquiry that he has received all the three letters but he was unable to reply because of the special reasons. Specific question was put to petitioner by the Presenting Officer of the department about Ghanerao School certificate which he denied. Instead of producing original certificate of Ghanerao school the petitioner produced the certificate of Sardarpura school and asserted that he had never studied in Ghanerao school nor he had produced the duplicate certificate of Ghan- erao school. His defence was not accepted by the Inquiry Officer and as per the inquiry the charges levelled against him found to be proved. After giving show cause notice to him the petitioner was punished with stoppage of four grade increments with cumulative effect. (2). Learned counsel Shri P.P. Choudhary for the petitioner vehemently sub- mitted that there was no evidence to show that it was the petitioner who produced duplicate certificate in 1964 for getting promotion. He further submitted that the petitioner had never studied in Ghanerao school. Therefore, there is no question of producing such certificate at the time of promotion. He submitted that the petitioner had studied from Sardarpura school and that certificate was produced in 1975. He submitted that there was a delay of nearly seven years in producing the certificate of Sardarpura school but that itself should not go against him. He further submitted that even inquiry officer has said in his report that there is nothing in writing to show that duplicate certificate of Ghanerao school was produced by petitioner himself. (3). He submitted that there was a delay of nearly seven years in producing the certificate of Sardarpura school but that itself should not go against him. He further submitted that even inquiry officer has said in his report that there is nothing in writing to show that duplicate certificate of Ghanerao school was produced by petitioner himself. (3). It is true that the inquiry officer has observed in his report that from the perusal of the record it appears that there is no certificate in writing that it was produced by the petitioner. However, that fact alone would not help the petitioner. (4). The submission of Mr. Choudhary was that the petitioner had already produced the original certificate in 1964 at the time of promotion but the said cer- tificate might have been lost by some clerk, therefore, he must have got the certificate from Ghanerao school to save himself and ultimately the petitioner was made to suffer. This submission of Mr. Choudhary could be accepted for the reason that if the original certificate was missing then straightway concerned clerk would have reported to the authority and in turn the petitioner would have been asked to produce the duplicate certificate. It is difficult to believe that to save his own skin the concerned clerk would go to that extent of obtaining duplicate certificate of Ghanerao School. The very fact that duplicate certificate of Ghanerao School is on the record shows that it must have been produced by the petitioner alone and none else. The fact that in 1968 the petitioner was called upon to produce the original certificate of Ghanerao school which he did not produce for almost seven years shows that duplicate certificate of Ghanerao school was produced by the petitioner himself. If he had produced the original certificate of Sardarpura school at the time of promotion then immediately in 1968 on the first day of receipt of the letter the petitioner would have replied that he had never produced the certificate of Ghane- rao school but he had produced the certificate of Sardarpura school. One more additional circumstance stated at the bar would also go against the petitioner namely that authorities of Ghanerao school stated that no such person studied in their school. One more additional circumstance stated at the bar would also go against the petitioner namely that authorities of Ghanerao school stated that no such person studied in their school. There was no reply from Sardarpura school about the petitioner studied in their school or not if the petitioner had studied in Sardarpura school then in his defence he would have definitely examined any person from Sardarpura school to show that he had studied in Sardarpura school, which he did not. (5). Under the circumstances it cannot be said that the charge was wrongly proved against the petitioner. In fact the authority has taken lenient view of the matter by imposing penalty of only stoppage of four grade increments with cumu- lative effect. In such type of cases when a person gets promotion by producing torged documents then such persons cannot be continued in the service and only order of dismissal from service would have been proper order. However, we will not go into that because the petitioner has already retired from the service. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the order of penalty was also harsh or ex- cessive. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit or substance in this petition. Accordingly, it fails and is dismissed.