JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners Nand Kishore and Ram Lal Nogia against the respondents on 21.11.92 with a prayer that the orders dated. 25.8.92 (Annex. 6 and 7) passed by the respondent No. 1 by which services of the petitioners were terminated may kindly be quashed and set aside and the respondents be directed to take the petitioners in service as 3rd Grade Teacher etc. 2. It arises in the following circumstances : (i) Since the petitioners have similar cause of action, they have filed this writ petition jointly. (ii) That petitioner No. 1 passed his B.Com. in the year 1987 while the petitioner No. 2 passed his B.A. in the year 1983. (iii) Thereafter both the petitioners appeared in B.Ed. degree course which they obtained from Jawahar Lal Nehru Smarak Snatkottar Mahavidhyalaya, Mehraj Ganj, Gorakpur (U.P.). The copies of B.Ed. degrees are marked as Annex. 1 and 2 respectively. (iv) The petitioners thereafter were provided regular appointment on the post of 3rd Grade Teacher in the Government Primary Schools of Panchayat Samiti, Gangrar. Copies of appointment orders dated. 23.9.91 are marked as ANNEX. 3 and 4 respectively. (v) In pursuance of appointment orders dated 23.9.91, the petitioners were directed to join the service till 30.9.91. The further case of the petitioners is that they completed near about one year service as 3rd Grade Teacher with the respondents to the satisfaction of their superiors. Further case of the petitioners is that when they completed one year service, the respondent No. 1 issued orders dated 25.8.92 (Annex. 6 and 7) by which services of the petitioners were terminated on the ground that B.Ed. degree of the petitioners were found forged one. (vi) It may be stated that the basis of terminating the services of the petitioners by the respondents is letter dated 19.8.92 (Annex. R/1) of Gorakpur University by which the University of Gorakpur informed that degrees of B.Ed. of both the petitioners were forged one. (vii) Further case of the petitioners is that to act upon letter dated 19.8.92 (Annex. R/1) by the respondents is palpably wrong one as through another letter dated 10.9.92 (Annex. 8), the office of Gorakpur University clarified that earlier letter dated 19.8.92 (Annex. of both the petitioners were forged one. (vii) Further case of the petitioners is that to act upon letter dated 19.8.92 (Annex. R/1) by the respondents is palpably wrong one as through another letter dated 10.9.92 (Annex. 8), the office of Gorakpur University clarified that earlier letter dated 19.8.92 (Annex. R/1) was sent without tailing the record of the University and further stated that both the petitioners passed the examinations of B.Ed. from Gorakpur University. (viii) Thereafter the . petitioners made representations before the authorities, but they did not pay any heed. Further case of the petitioners is that their service conditions are governed by Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti and Zila Parishad Service (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1961). Under Rule 7 of the Rules of 1961, the procedure for Imposing major penalty has been provided and according to Rule 7, major penalty cannot be imposed without issuing charge-sheet and without making a departmental enquiry under the Rules and regulations and without giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners. Thus, there is breach of Rules of 1961 as well as there is breach of principles of natural justice. Hence, the Impugned orders dated 25.8.92 (Annex. 6 and 7) by which the services of the petitioners were terminated are illegal and without jurisdiction and should be quashed. Hence, this writ petition. 3. The respondents filed reply to the writ petition filed by the petitioners and stated that since the degrees of the petitioner were forged one as confirmed by the University through letter dated 19.8.92 (Annex. R/1), therefore, services were rightly terminated. Apart from this FIR was also lodged against the petitioners for offence under Section 420, 467, 468 and 120B I.P.C. for committing forgery.Note : There is no dispute in this case that on the basis of FIR No. 196 dated 2.9.95 of the Police Station Gangrar, Dist. Chittorgarh, a case was registered against the petitioners and later on challan was also filed against the petitioners for offence under Sections 420 and 120B I.P.C. and same is pending in the competent court of jurisdiction. 4. It is further submitted by the respondents that the appointment was obtained by the petitioners by deceitful means and, therefore, in these circumstances there was no necessity of following the procedure laid down under the rules of 1961. Hence, this present writ petition be dismissed. 5. 4. It is further submitted by the respondents that the appointment was obtained by the petitioners by deceitful means and, therefore, in these circumstances there was no necessity of following the procedure laid down under the rules of 1961. Hence, this present writ petition be dismissed. 5. I have heard both and perused the record. 6. There is no dispute in this case that the petitioners passed examinations of B.Ed, from Gorakpur University and on the basis-V that Degree, they obtained service as Teacher Grade III through orders dated 23.9.91 (Annex. 3 and 4) and they also worked for near about one year on that post and their services were terminated through orders dated 25.8.92 without following any procedure laid down under the Rules of 1961 and without hearing the petitioners. 7. There is also no dispute on the point that the challan has also been filed against the petitioners for committing offence under Sections 420 and 120E I.P.C. in the Court of competent jurisdiction. There is also no dispute on the point that the respondents acted upon letter issued by Gorakpur University dated 19.8.92 (Annex. R/1). There is also no dispute in this case that through another letter dated 10.9.92 (Annex, 8), the University of Gorakpur clarified that earlier the letter dated 19.8.92 (Annex. R/1) was Issued wrongly. 8. The question that arises for consideration in the facts and circumstances just mentioned above is whether orders dated 25.8.92 (Annex. 6 and 7 respectively) by which services of the petitioners were terminated can be sustained or not. 9. The peculiar feature of this case is that the respondents acted upon Annex. All dated 19.8.92 and services, of the petitioners were terminated through order dated 25.8.92 (Annex. 6 and 7 respectively) while letter dated 10.9.92 Annex. 8 negatives the allegations made in letter dated 19.8.92 Annex. All. Therefore at this stage, there are two letters from the University of Gorakpur and both are contradictory to each other. There is also no dispute on the point that criminal case is pending against the petitioners and they have also served near about 1 year in the employment of the respondents. 10. In such facts and circumstances of the present case, I am of the view that the petitioners should have been given an opportunity of hearing before terminating their services. Admittedly, no such opportunity was afforded to them. 10. In such facts and circumstances of the present case, I am of the view that the petitioners should have been given an opportunity of hearing before terminating their services. Admittedly, no such opportunity was afforded to them. It is well settled that no order to the detriment of the petitioners should have been passed without complying with the Principles of Natural Justice and from this point of view, the orders dated 25.8.92 cannot be sustained. Had there been a case of simply getting the appointment and they would not have served for one year, the position would have been different one. In the present case since the petitioners have served the respondents for near about one year and thereafter their services were terminated without giving an opportunity of hearing to them is nothing but violative principles of Natural Justice. Hence the impugned orders dated 25.8.92 (annex. 6 and 7) cannot be sustained. For that law laid down in the case of Shrawan Kumar Jha v. State of Bihar, AIR 1991 SC 309 may be referred to in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under : "Constitution of India, Arts. 226, 311 - Natural Justice-Teachers appointed by District Supdt. of School -Appointments cancelled by Govt. on ground that Dist. Supdt. had no authority-Prior opportunity of hearing should have been given-Direction issued that secretary, Education or his nominee should give opportunity and give finding whether appointments were validly made." 11. This Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Rajasthan State Social Welfare Advisory Board, reported in WLC (Raj.) 1999(2) 193 also set aside the termination order on the principles of natural justice. The facts of the present case are similar to some extent to that case wherein this Court held that appointment was sought on the basis of fake certificate of typing experience, but termination order was set aside as being violative of Article 14 and principles of natural justice as no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner in that case. 12. Rule 7 of the Rules of 1961 further provides that no order imposing on any officer or servant of a Panchayat Samiti or Zila Parishad any of the punishment specified in clause (iv) to (vii) of Rule 6 shall be passed except after an enquiry held as far as may be, in the manner hereinafter provided. 12. Rule 7 of the Rules of 1961 further provides that no order imposing on any officer or servant of a Panchayat Samiti or Zila Parishad any of the punishment specified in clause (iv) to (vii) of Rule 6 shall be passed except after an enquiry held as far as may be, in the manner hereinafter provided. The Rule 7 specifically provides that before imposing penalty of termination, regular enquiry should have been held and in absence of that the termination orders dated 25.8.92 (Annex. 6 and 7) cannot be sustained. 13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of JT 2000(3) SC 1, V.R Ahuja v. State of Punjab has held that order of termination without giving an opportunity of hearing cannot be sustained. The law laid down in the case of VP Ahuja (Supra) further supports the case of the petitioners on the ground that a temporary servant is also entitled to certain protection and his services cannot be terminated arbitrarily nor can those services be terminate in a punitive manner without complying with the principles of natural justice. 14. Similarly in another case reported in WLC (Raj.) 1996(1) 160, Smt. Satnam Taneja v. State , this Court took a view that in case of appointment on the basis of forged degree of B.Ed., the order of termination without enquiry was found bad. This authority also supports the case of the petitioners. 15. For the reasons mentioned above, the termination orders dated 25.8.92 (Annex. 6 and 7) cannot be sustained and are liable to be set aside and this writ petition is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in the following manner : The impugned orders dated 25.8.92 (Annex. 6 and 7) passed by respondent No. 1 whereby services of the petitioners were terminated are quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to hold departmental enquiry as per the procedure laid down under the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishad Service (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1961 against the petitioners and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. The respondents are further directed to complete the enquiry within six months from today and the petitioners are directed to cooperate in the enquiry. The respondents are further directed to complete the enquiry within six months from today and the petitioners are directed to cooperate in the enquiry. Keeping in mind the fact that the petitioners are not in service with effect from 25.8.92, at this stage, this Court is not going to give direction to the respondents to take back the petitioners on duty unless enquiry is concluded. The question of taking back the petitioners in service and the question of back wages etc. will be decided only after the departmental enquiry Is over and on the fate of the enquiry. Cost made easy.Writ Petition Allowed - Authorities directed to hold departmental enquiry and question of renistatement to be decided after result of inquiry. *******