JUDGMENT : Akil Kureshi, J. Rule. Learned AGP Ms. Chandarana waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 & 4 and Mr. Patel waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 & 2. At the joint request of the learned advocates appearing for the parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal today. 2. In the present petition, the petitioner had approached this Court contending that he apprehends termination without following any process of law. During the pendency of the petition, the petitioner was communicated with the order of termination dated 3rd February, 2005. One may notice that the said order dated 3rd February, 2005 also included direction for recovery of the salary already paid to the petitioner. The petitioner has therefore amended the petition and included the challenge to the said order dated 3rd February, 2005. 3. The petitioner who is engaged as a teacher in the respondent No. 1 School was appointed on the said post pursuant to the selection process carried out in the year 1994. It appears that thereafter the Government had made enquiries with the Bundelkhand University from which University the petitioner claims to have obtained the degree in B.Ed. and the Government found that the degree certificates were bogus and that the petitioner had never attended the course as claimed. On account of this revelation, the Government directed the institution to take appropriate steps and terminate the services of the petitioner. Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 therefore passed the impugned order dated 3rd February 2005. 4. From the above discussion, it is apparent that though the petitioner was engaged as Teacher right from 1994, his services came to be terminated by the impugned order dated 3rd February, 2005 without following the principles of natural justice. No show cause notice was issued to the petitioner nor any other form of opportunity given to him to establish that he had actually pursued the course at Bundelkhand University and was given proper certificate of having passed the examination. The petitioner has contended in the petition that the certificate produced by him in this regard is not bogus and that he had actually undertaken the course. 5. In above view of the matter, it was not open for the respondents to terminate the services of the petitioner without following any procedure at all. The petitioner has contended in the petition that the certificate produced by him in this regard is not bogus and that he had actually undertaken the course. 5. In above view of the matter, it was not open for the respondents to terminate the services of the petitioner without following any procedure at all. On this ground alone, the impugned order dated 3rd February 2005 is vulnerable and the same is, therefore, quashed and set aside. This would be, however, without prejudice to the rights of the respondents to pass fresh order in accordance with law after following legal procedure. Pursuant to this order though the petitioner would be entitled to reinstatement in service, there would be no direction for payment of back wages for the intervening period and the entire issue shall be decided upon the ultimate outcome of the fresh exercise that the respondents may undertake. The respondents shall complete such an exercise as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. With the above directions, the petition is disposed of. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs. Petition disposed of.