A. K. YOG, J. M. K. Choudhary, claims to have been appointed vide letter dated 30th December, 1995 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition) as on temporary basis in M. L. B. Medical College, Jhansi as Lab Technician vide appointment letter issued by the Principal of Medical College. It appears, the authorities required petitioner to submit registration certificate. Petitioner failed to submit registration certificate in spite of several communications. The concerned authorities received information, in course of verification of certificate purported to have been filed by the petitioner, that the mark-sheet of Rani Ahilyabai University, Indore, did not at all exist and that it was forged. An enquiry was conducted and it was found that petitioner submitted fabricated mark-sheet of Rani Ahilyabai University, Indore (a non-existent body ). 2. The petitioner admittedly failed to submit document of registration. Respondent No. 2/principal of the Medical College, Jhansi found that petitioner obtained appointment by producing forged certificate and cancelled his appointment as Lab Technician in the College vide order dated 29th April, 1997 (Annexure No. 3 to the petition ). 3. In the said order two grounds have been taken namely, petitioner had filed forged mark-sheet of Rani Ahilyabai University, Indore and secondly, he had failed to produce registration certificate. 4. There is no ground that petitioner was appointed without following due procedure prescribed for appointment. Petitioner challenged the aforementioned order dated 29th April, 1997 by filing writ petition No. 24634 of 1997. Learned Single Judge (Honble Sudhir Narain, J.) vide judgment and order dated 5-8-1997 disposed of the said petition finally with the observation "it is however open to the petitioner to approach Respondent No. 2. He can submit a representation along with a certificate copy of this order and true copy of this writ petition, on such representation being made, Respondent No. 2 shall dispose of the same after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner by reasoned order, within six weeks from the date of making, of the representation. . . . . " 5. In compliance to the aforesaid order, petitioner submitted representation dated August 14, 1997 (Annexure 8 to the writ petition) and then submitted another letter/reminder dated September 23,1997 addressed to the Principal of the Medical College. . . . . " 5. In compliance to the aforesaid order, petitioner submitted representation dated August 14, 1997 (Annexure 8 to the writ petition) and then submitted another letter/reminder dated September 23,1997 addressed to the Principal of the Medical College. Copy of the aforesaid reminder dated 23-9-1997 is not on record, A photostat copy of the said letter has been produced by the petitioners Counsel for perusal of the Court. It shall be retained on record. 6. In the aforementioned representation dated 14th August, 1997 petitioner pleaded two groundsr (i) Registration certificate as Lab Technician could not be produced by him for the reason it was not issued and refused on the ground that he had passed Lab Technician Course from outside U. P. State hence he could not be registered with the said Medical Faculty and that other persons namely, A. K. Srivastava, D. G. Thomas, Rosy Thomas and Gopal Krishan Pillai were given job and continuing in service even though they were also not registered with the State Medical Faculty, (ii) The alleged mark-sheet of Rani Ahilyabai University, Indore alleged to have been filed by the petitioner for seeking appointment was never submitted by him and that he had passed requisite course from institute of Medical and Technological Research, Calcutta. Lastly, it was contended that his services have been determined without affording opportunity of hearing to defend himself. 7. The Principal of the College/respondent No. 2 passed order dated 6-3-1998 (Annexure No. 9 of the writ petition) in compliance to the aforementioned High Court order dated 5-8-1997. The impugned order refers to the High Court order and letter/reminder dated 23-9-1997 mentioned above. It does not refer to the representation dated 14-8-1997 (Annexure No. 8 to the writ petition ). By means of the said order Respondent No. 2 took note of the submission of the petitioner that disciplinary proceedings/departmental enquiry against Lab Technicians could be held only at the level of Director General Medical Health and Family Welfare, U. P. 8. Respondent No. 2/principal of the Medical College in the impugned order dated 6-3-1998 (Annexure 9 to the writ petition) observed that services of the petitioner were rightly determined vide order dated 29th April, 1997. Respondent No. 2/principal of the Medical College in the impugned order dated 6-3-1998 (Annexure 9 to the writ petition) observed that services of the petitioner were rightly determined vide order dated 29th April, 1997. Respondent No. 2 concluded that appointment of the petitioner was not in accordance with the prescribed procedure of selection and his application was not forwarded by concerned employment exchange;petitioner had not submitted registration certificate at the time of joining on the basis of his appointment letter;the mark-sheet of Rani Ahilyabai University, Indore purported to have been submitted by the. petitioner was found forged and fabricated on verification as affirmed by Superintendent of Police Indore (M. P.) the Enquiry Committee also found that petitioner was eligible and that a First Information Report was lodged against the petitioner. Consequently, Respondent No, 2 rejected the representation of the petitioner dated 23-9-1997 (which not the representation but only a reminder ). 9. The petitioner is aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned order dated 6-3-1998 (Annexure 9 to the writ petition) and seek to challenge the same by filing present writ petition under Article 226, Constitution of India on the ground the petitioner was given no opportunity of hearing and hence the impugned order has been issued in violation of principle of natural justice;there was no allegation in the earlier order dated 29-4-1997 (Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition) regarding his appointment being in violation of prescribed procedure which is a new ground against which he had no opportunity and his case that he never submitted mark-sheet from Rani Ahilyabai University, Indore as he had obtained requisite qualification from a recognised institution institute of Medical and Technological Research, Calcutta and there is finding on the said point, since the concerned authority has completely ignored it. 10. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. 11. The contention of the petitioner is that he was afforded no opportunity before impugned order dated 29-4-1997 (Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition) was passed. It is noted from record, that in the process to verify the correctness of mark-sheet from Rani Ahilyabai University, Indore, in the enquiry held by the authorities in the matter and subsequent proceedings culminating into a Committee report (Annexure 8 to the counter affidavit), petitioner was given no notice nor associated. All was done behind his back. The petitioner was never given charge-sheet. All was done behind his back. The petitioner was never given charge-sheet. The termination order contains serious charges which cast stigma. It is not a case of termination simplicitor. Petitioner submitted representation dated 14-8-1997 (Annexure No. 8 to the writ petition ). The impugned order docs not refer to the said representation and the contents thereof. There is no whisper of the defence taken by the petitioner in the said representation. The impugned order dated 6-3-1998 (Annexure 9 to the writ petition) does not refer to the specific plea raised by the petitioner to the effect that he never submitted certificate from Rani Ahilyabai University, Indore and that he passed relevant course from a recognised Institute at Calcutta. Respondent No. 2 has not dealt with this aspect nor there is any finding on the same. As far as the question of petitioners appointment not having been done in accordance with prescribed procedure/rules, it is clear from record that the petitioner is taken by surprise. Even the plea that disciplinary/departmental proceedings could not be initialed by the Principal and action by Director General Medical Health and Family Welfare, U. P. has not been touched. 12. In view of the above, impugned orders dated 29-4-1997 and 6-3-1998 (Annexures 3 and 9 to the writ petition) cannot be sustained and liable to be set aside. 13. Consequently, the writ petition succeeds and the impugned orders dated 29-4-1997 and 6-3-1998 (Annexures 3 and 9 to the writ petition) passed by Respondent No. 2 are hereby set aside with liberty to Respondent No. 2 to initiate disciplinary enquiry proceedings, if any, and as may be permissible in accordance with law and relevant rules. 14. Writ petition stands allowed. Petition allowed.