Judgment Prem Shanker Asopa, J.-By the instant writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the reversion order dated 26.02.2000 from the post of Assistant Engineer to Junior Engineer. 2. Briefly stated the relevant facts of the case are that a charge-sheet was issued on 04.01.1996 leveling the charge of misuse of his office by preparing forged certificates in favour of Shri N.K. Sharma, Shri Jitendra Kumar and Deepak Agarwal. The petitioner submitted reply to the said charges subsequently an Enquiry Officer was appointed who conducted the enquiry. Against the enquiry report opportunity of submitting the objection was given to the petitioner and after considering the said objection the impugned order of revision was passed. The submission of the Counsel for the petitioner is that the said enquiry was a joint enquiry against the petitioner who was working at the relevant time as AEN, Lalsot and meter readers. Against meter readers the allegation was that they secured employment through forged certificates prepared by the petitioner. The said meter readers filed writ petition and in one of the S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1488 of 2000 (Naresh Kumar Sharma vs. Ajmer Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd.) the record of the enquiry was called for and after examining the same the termination order of the meter reader was quashed and set aside by giving the finding that there is no allegation that the attendance register produced during the course of enquiry was forged. The relevant portion of the said Judgment is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:- 3. Subsequently, a charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner alongwith other co-delinquent employees on 22.01.1996 with the allegation that the petitioner and two other persons had never worked under the AEN, Lalsot, as such, the certificate issued by the concerned AEN at the time of recruitment of the petitioner was false and incorrect. It has also been alleged that the petitioner and two other persons who were also selected on the post of Meter Reader-II, obtained the certificate by undue influence over the AEN concerned. Since, the petitioner and other co-employees, who were selected for the post in question, were not having requisite experience as per the circular issued by the Board for the particular requirement and the appointment having obtained under misrepresentation, their services are liable to be terminated. 4. Since, the petitioner and other co-employees, who were selected for the post in question, were not having requisite experience as per the circular issued by the Board for the particular requirement and the appointment having obtained under misrepresentation, their services are liable to be terminated. 4. A joint departmental inquiry was held not only against the three employees so appointed in the particular selection, but also against the AEN concerned as well as for having false certificate without verifying the record. The inquiry officer held that the attendance of the three employees concerned was never marked in the approved muster rolls. The payment was also not made to delinquent employees as per the muster rolls. There was no provision of marking attendance in the separate attendance register as alleged by the concerned employees. However, the inquiry officer held that the charge of undue pressure on the AEN concerned for issuing the certificate of employment is not proved at all. On the basis of the inquiry report, after issuing show cause notice, services of the petitioner were terminated vide order dated 26.02.2000. It may also be pertinent to mention here that as a punishment, the AEN concerned has also been reverted. However, the same order has also been challenged by the concerned AEN by way of filing a writ petition before this Court and the order of reversion has been stayed by the Court. The petitioner has also challenged the order of termination in the present writ petition. 5. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, I carefully gone through the material on record as also the original record of inquiry, as produced by the Counsel for the respondent. 6. The main allegation as it appears against the petitioner has been that without working or being in the employment of the respondent Board, a false certificate was issued by the concerned AEN certifying more than six months employment of the petitioner so as to get appointment on the post of Meter Reader-II. The petitioner before the inquiry officer has alleged that his attendance was marked in a separate register maintained in the Stores of the office of AEN (REC), Lalsot. The LDC who maintained the attendance register has also been produced by the concerned employees as their witness and has proved the attendance register. The petitioner before the inquiry officer has alleged that his attendance was marked in a separate register maintained in the Stores of the office of AEN (REC), Lalsot. The LDC who maintained the attendance register has also been produced by the concerned employees as their witness and has proved the attendance register. He has also stated the circumstances under which separate attendance register was kept for some workers during the relevant period. There is no allegation on behalf of the respondent that the attendance register, so produced, is forged and have been prepared subsequently only to assist the petitioner and other co-workers. 7. A bare perusal of the attendance register as has been brought on record of the inquiry officer would show that the same contains names of number of employees. In some months there were seven employees and in other months they were even 10 or more. It can also not be said that the names of the petitioner and other co-delinquent employees were inserted at the bottom at the later stage. There is also no allegation that the other employees whose names appear in the attendance register were not working at all in the office of the AEN during the relevant period. The LDC concerned in his statement has asserted that because of additional work and muster rolls not been issued for the same, the attendance register was maintained as per instructions of the JEN concerned. There is no denial of the above facts by any of the witnesses of the respondent-Board. The inquiry officer himself has held that the allegation of undue pressure on the AEN who issued the certificate of attendance is not proved. As such, there cannot be any allegation against the petitioner for creating false attendance register and false evidence to get a certificate of employment for recruitment to the post in question. The audit report in regard to non-payment of salary to the petitioner and other co-delinquent employees losses its relevancy in view of evidence referred above, moreso, when unpaid salary can always be claimed by concerned workmen at any stage. Even allegation of father of the petitioner being working in the same office also does not hold good in views of charge of undue pressure on AEN concerned for giving certificate not having being proved as held by Enquiry Officer himself . 8. Even allegation of father of the petitioner being working in the same office also does not hold good in views of charge of undue pressure on AEN concerned for giving certificate not having being proved as held by Enquiry Officer himself . 8. Having considered the entire facts and circumstances, in my opinion, no charge as leveled against the petitioner has been proved at all so far on the basis of material on record. Without going further on other points, as raised in the writ petition in regard to not giving proper opportunity of hearing in the departmental inquiry, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the impugned order of termination cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 9. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that in identical circumstances the writ petition has been accepted and the present writ petition also deserves to be accepted. The Counsel for the respondents has made an attempt to distinguish the case of the petitioner by submitting that the forged certificates were prepared by the petitioner. The submission of the Counsel for the petitioner is that the certificates are based on attendance register which has been produced by the Board and the same has not been held to be forged by the Enquiry Officer. 10. Heard Counsel for the parties, perused the record of the case and considered the rival submission of the parties. 11. I am of the view that the present controversy is covered by the said Judgment in the case of Naresh Kumar (Supra) wherein attendance register has not been found forged, therefore, the certificates based on said register cannot be said to be forged. 12. In view of the above, the reversion order dated 26.02.2000 is quashed and it is ordered that the petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits.