JUDGMENT Hon’ble Shishir Kumar, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. 2. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 22.2.2008 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition), passed by respondent No. 2, by which the services of the petitioner has been terminated on the ground that the certificate of High School submitted by the petitioner at the time of appointment was found forged. 3. The facts arising out of the present writ petition are that on the basis of advertisement made by the respondent in the year 1989 for the purposes of appointment on the post of Constable, as the petitioner was fully eligible to be considered and appointed, he submitted relevant documents and on the basis of aforesaid document, petitioner was considered treating his date of birth as 15th November 1969. The High School certificate issued by the Board of High School and Intermediate of the year 1983 was submitted at that time. Petitioner on the basis of aforesaid appointment was working and the conduct of the petitioner was always appreciated by the relevant authority from time to time. It appears that on the basis of some complaint regarding various persons who have obtained the appointment claiming themselves to be dependent of the employees working in the Department under the Dying in Harness Rules, some investigation was made without any notice to the petitioner and it was found as alleged by the respondent that in the certificate submitted by the petitioner of the High School the date of birth of the petitioner is entered as 15.11.1965. Though in the certificate which has been submitted by the petitioner, the date of birth is recorded as 15.11.1969. 4. The contention of the petitioner to this effect is that in case on the basis of some complaint if the respondent was of the opinion that on the basis of some inquiry made thereunder the certificate submitted by the petitioner was having some discrepancy or wrong date of birth according to respondent is entered, the petitioner was entitled to have a show-cause notice and opportunity. The appointment of the petitioner cannot be cancelled without any notice and opportunity that too after completion of about 17 years of service in the Police Department. The appointment of the petitioner cannot be cancelled without any notice and opportunity that too after completion of about 17 years of service in the Police Department. In case the petitioner would have been given a liberty he would have submitted a certificate issued by the High School Board which was submitted at the time of entrance in service. Without any notice and opportunity to the petitioner, the order impugned dated 22.2.2008 cannot be passed. The petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment of apex Court in Shrawan Kumar Jha and others v. State of Bihar and others, 1991 Supp. (1) SCC 330. On the strength of the aforesaid decision, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in case on the basis of some inquiry it was found by the respondents that certificate submitted by the petitioner is not correct or they have come to the conclusion that it is a forged certificate, the principle of natural justice has to be observed and no order can be passed without any opportunity to the petitioner. In Pradeep Kumar Singh v. U.P. State Sugar Corporation and another, 2002 (1) UPLBEC 705 , the Division Bench of this Court has held that termination without any show-cause notice or opportunity to defend has been held to be violative to the principle of natural justice and has quashed the order of termination. In Dipti Prakash Banerjee v. Satyendra Nath Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences, Calcutta and others, (1999) 3 SCC 60 , the apex Court has held that if finding has been arrived at an inquiry as to the misconduct behind the back of the Officer without a regular departmental inquiry, the same is not permissible on the allegation of fraud without any notice and opportunity the order passed by the respondent is in violation of Rules 8 and 14 of the U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Rank (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1991. Rule 14(1) of the Rules provides initiation of proceeding which has to be adhered to before passing the order of dismissal or cancellation of the appointment of the petitioner. Admittedly, no notice and opportunity was ever given to the petitioner before passing the order impugned. As such, the order impugned is liable to be quashed. 5. Rule 14(1) of the Rules provides initiation of proceeding which has to be adhered to before passing the order of dismissal or cancellation of the appointment of the petitioner. Admittedly, no notice and opportunity was ever given to the petitioner before passing the order impugned. As such, the order impugned is liable to be quashed. 5. On the other hand, the respondent filed a counter-affidavit stating therein that in a writ petition filed by one Awnish Kumar, this Court has directed that the respondent may enquire into the matter regarding the employees who have obtained the appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules on the ground that their father or mother were in service of the respondent and died in harness and on that basis some inquiry was conducted and it was found that the birth certificate submitted by the petitioner appears to be forged. Further allegation has been made that after inquiry it was found that only to get an appointment in the Police Department, the forged certificate of birth has been submitted by the petitioner, therefore, the appointment / selection of the petitioner is hereby cancelled. 6. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and perused the record. From the averments made by the parties in the writ petition as well as in the counter-affidavit, it does not transpire that petitioner was ever given a notice and opportunity before passing the order impugned. Admittedly, the petitioner’s appointment was of 1989. In case some inquiry as submitted by the respondent was made and a conclusion was arrived upon that petitioner only to get an appointment has filed a forged certificate claiming that his date of birth is 15.11.1969. Petitioner’s case is that he has passed the High School in the year 1983 and certificate issued by the Board was submitted mentioning therein that the date of birth of the petitioner is 15th November 1969. The respondents have not disclosed the fact that from where they have enquired into the matter and what are the documents to show thereunder that the certificate submitted by the petitioner was forged. Therefore, in my opinion, it was incumbent on the part of the respondents to have a proceeding against the petitioner as provided under the Rules. The respondents have not disclosed the fact that from where they have enquired into the matter and what are the documents to show thereunder that the certificate submitted by the petitioner was forged. Therefore, in my opinion, it was incumbent on the part of the respondents to have a proceeding against the petitioner as provided under the Rules. The Regulation itself provides that in case of some misconduct or if on the basis of some inquiry it has been found that a person has obtained the appointment by playing fraud in that circumstance unless and until the procedure of inquiry as provided under the Rules is followed, no disciplinary action can be taken against an employee. It is also not the case of the respondent that after verification from the petitioner also it was established that the appointment has been obtained by playing fraud. Therefore, in view of settled principle of law it was not necessary to give a notice and opportunity and to have a disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner as it is settled in law that fraud vitiates everything unless and until it is established the procedure as provided cannot be bye passed. Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India provides for dispensation of inquiry in case a finding is recorded by the disciplinary authority that it is not possible and feasible to have an inquiry in the circumstances of the case. The similar provision is under the Police Regulation which provides dispensation of the inquiry against a person what satisfaction has to be recorded in the impugned order. 7. In Ramveer Singh v. State of U.P. and others, 2008 (7) ADJ 4 , this Court has taken a view in the similar fact and circumstances that in case at the time of appointment a caste certificate has been filed and subsequently it was found that the petitioner does not belong to said caste in that circumstances without holding a full fledged inquiry the appointment / selection of a person cannot be cancelled. In view of the matter the alleged act or conduct of the petitioner was of at the time of his appointment while entering into services, therefore, the same would not constitute misconduct during the service as such order of dismissal for alleged misconduct could not be passed against him. In view of the matter the alleged act or conduct of the petitioner was of at the time of his appointment while entering into services, therefore, the same would not constitute misconduct during the service as such order of dismissal for alleged misconduct could not be passed against him. In my opinion, this submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner have got substance and deserves to be accepted. I am of the considered view that the alleged conduct of the petitioner while entering into service cannot be alleged to be misconduct during service. In service law jurisprudence both the stages are quite distinct and distinguishable, therefore, they should not be intermixed otherwise it will cause serious repercussion in the service law jurisprudence. Further, I have a doubt in the mind that whether such illegal appointment as alleged by the respondent on the basis of alleged forged certificate could be cancelled after long lapse of 15 years from the date of appointment of the petitioner. Further it is admitted case of the parties that the petitioner has not been afforded any opportunity before passing the order impugned dismissing the petitioner from service. 8. In view of aforesaid fact, I am of the view that the order impugned dated 22.2.2008 cannot be sustained and the same is hereby quashed. In the result the writ petition is allowed, and the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner with all the benefits of service with full salary as well as seniority from the date of dismissal till the date of reinstatement. Further, it is provided that the respondents will pay arrears of salary to the petitioner within two months from the date of production of certified copy of the order. No order as to costs. ————