Hon'ble Ran Vijai Singh, J. :- The petitioner through this writ petition, has prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the orders dated 25.05.2006 and 15.03.2007, passed by respondents No. 3 and 2, respectively. Vide order dated 25.05.2006, petitioner has been removed from service while working as a Driver by respondent No. 3, whereas by subsequent order dated 15.03.2007, the petitioner's appeal/representation, filed under Regulation 69 of the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Employees (other than officers) Service Regulations, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations of 1981), has been rejected by respondent No.2. The facts giving rise to this case are that the petitioner was appointed as Driver on 20th October, 2005 on one-year probation. It appears that while appearing in the examination for selection on the post of Driver, the petitioner had furnished a caste certificate, issued by Tehsildar, Etah showing himself to be a backward class candidate (Ahir by caste). Later on, on verification, it transpired that the said caste certificate was not issued by the office of the Tehsildar. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 30th May, 2006 requiring him to file his reply as to why he had furnished the false caste certificate and, in absence of reply, why appropriate order be not passed against him. After receipt of the show cause notice, the petitioner had filed his reply stating therein that for the purposes of obtaining the caste certificate, he had approached the office of Tehsildar, Etah and there, he had paid Rs.300.00 to a Typist and thereafter, the caste certificate was given to him and he had submitted the same before the respondent authorities. It is also stated that when this fact came to the knowledge of the petitioner that the said certificate was forged, then he had again applied for obtaining the caste certificate and that was issued by the Tehsildar, Etah on 09.06.2006. He had also stated that he had not committed any fraud. After considering the petitioner's reply to the show cause notice, the petitioner has been removed from service by the impugned order dated 25.05.2006. Being aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 63260 of 2006, which was dismissed by this Court on the ground of alternative remedy of filing an appeal under Regulation 69 of the Regulations of 1981. Being aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 63260 of 2006, which was dismissed by this Court on the ground of alternative remedy of filing an appeal under Regulation 69 of the Regulations of 1981. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner filed an appeal and, that too, was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner had filed the false caste certificate. The impugned orders have been challenged on the ground that the show cause notice was issued to the petitioner treating his act as misconduct under Regulation 62 (4) of Regulations of 1981, therefore, the procedure for regular enquiry ought to have been adopted as required for imposing a major penalty under Regulation 64 of Regulations of 1981. It has also been contended that the petitioner had not played any fraud upon the respondent authorities nor had concealed any fact. The petitioner belongs to the backward class (Ahir by caste) and it has nowhere been denied. It is also contended that the punishment awarded to the petitioner is disproportionate to the charge levelled against him. Refuting the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Nripendra Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that the petitioner's appointment was made only on probation of one-year and there was a specific stipulation in the appointment letter that in case on verification it is found that the caste certificate is false, then service can be dispensed with without any notice. In the submissions of Shri Misra, the impugned orders do not call for any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their submissions and perused the record. From the perusal of the contents of the show cause notice, it transpires that the notice was issued to the petitioner treating his conduct about the filing of a false caste certificate as misconduct as provided under Regulation 62 (4) of the Regulations of 1981. It is not in dispute that a major penalty of removal from service has been awarded to the petitioner. It is not in dispute that a major penalty of removal from service has been awarded to the petitioner. It is also not in dispute that the procedure as prescribed for imposing major penalty, like issuing of a chargesheet and furnishing details of the materials on which reliance was to be placed etc., has not been followed by the respondent authorities and the petitioner has been removed from service in a summary manner only after issuing a show cause notice. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner does not belong to the backward class (Ahir) but what has been observed by both the authorities (respondents No. 2 and 3) that the caste certificate submitted by the petitioner while seeking the appointment on the post of Driver was not issued by the Tehsildar. Under these circumstances, I am of the view that the purpose of issuing a show cause notice and requiring a person to file his/her reply is to satisfy the principle of natural justice which is based on the principle that no one should be condemned unheard. The issuance of show cause notice is not a ritual and once it is issued, it must confirm the test of reasonableness, meaning thereby, while passing the order, the reply of the person concerned to whom notice has been issued has to be considered in detail. Here, in the present case, the concerned respondent did not consider the petitioner's reply, whereas while recording the finding with regard to the removal of the petitioner from service, the concerned respondent was obliged to deal with these aspects of the matter as to whether the petitioner belongs to Ahir by caste or not and whether the subsequent caste certificate issued by the Tehsildar was genuine, forged/fabricated or a false one after considering the petitioner's reply to the show cause notice (Annexure 3' to the writ petition). Otherwise also, the conduct of the petitioner does not fall in the ambit of 'fraud' in view of the judgment of Apex Court in State of A.P. & Anr. Vs. T. Suryachandra Rao, reported in 2005 (6) SCC 149 , in which the Apex Court has observed as under:- "8. By "fraud" is meant an intention to deceive; whether it is from any expectation of advantage to the party himself or from ill-will towards the other is immaterial. Vs. T. Suryachandra Rao, reported in 2005 (6) SCC 149 , in which the Apex Court has observed as under:- "8. By "fraud" is meant an intention to deceive; whether it is from any expectation of advantage to the party himself or from ill-will towards the other is immaterial. The expression "fraud" involves two elements, deceit and injury to the person deceived. Injury is something other than economic loss, that is, deprivation of property, whether movable or immovable, or of money, and it will include any harm whatever caused to any person in body, mind, reputation or such others. In short, it is a non-economic or non-pecuniary loss. A benefit or advantage to the deceiver, will almost always cause loss or detriment to the deceived. Even in those rare cases where there is a benefit or advantage to the deceiver, but no corresponding loss to the deceived, the second condition is satisfied. (See Vimla (Dr.) Vs. Delhi Admn., AIR 1963 SC 1572 ; and Indian Bank Vs. Satyam Fibres (India) (P) Ltd., (1996) 5 SCC 550 ). 9. A "fraud" is an act of deliberate deception with the design of securing something by taking unfair advantage of another. It is a deception in order to gain by another's loss. It is a cheating intended to get an advantage. (See S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu Vs. Jagannath, (1994) 1 SCC 1 ). 11. ----------------In Webster's Third New International Dictionary "fraud" in equity has been defined as an act or omission to act or concealment by which one person obtains an advantage against conscience over another or which equity or public policy forbids as being prejudicial to another. In Black's Law Dictionary, "fraud" is defined as an intentional perversion of truth for the purpose of inducing another in reliance upon it to part with some valuable thing belonging to him or surrender a legal right. A false representation of a matter of fact, whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of that which should have been disclosed, which deceives and is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his legal injury. In Concise Oxford Dictionary, it has been defined as criminal deception, use of false representation to gain unjust advantage; dishonest artifice or trick. In Concise Oxford Dictionary, it has been defined as criminal deception, use of false representation to gain unjust advantage; dishonest artifice or trick. According to Halsbury's Laws of England, a representation is deemed to have been false, and therefore a misrepresentation, if it was at the material date false in substance and in fact. Section 17 of the Contract Act, 1872 defines "fraud" as an act committed by a party to a contract with the intent to deceive another. From dictionary meaning or even otherwise fraud arises out of a deliberate active role of the representator about a fact, which he knows to be untrue yet he succeeds in misleading the representee by making him believe it to be true. The representation to become fraudulent must be of fact with the knowledge that it was false. In a leading English case i.e. Derry Vs. Peek (1886-90) All ER Rep 1 what constitutes "fraud" was described thus; (All ER p.22 B-C).--------. 15. "Fraud" is a conduct either by letter or words, which induces the other person or authority to take a definite determinative stand as a response to the conduct of the former either by words or letter. Although negligence is not fraud but it can be evidence on fraud; as observed in Ram Preeti Yadav Vs. U.P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education, (2003) 8 SCC 311 ." From the perusal of the Apex Court's judgment, it is clear that the fraud is always intentional and it is played by a person knowing it well that he does not belong to a particular category and files certificate on the basis of falsehood with a view to obtain the benefit of false certificate, whereas in the present case, it is not so, as the petitioner himself has gone before the authorities as well as came before this Court with clean hands in unambiguous words that he had gone to the office of the Tehsildar, Etah and paid Rs.300.00 to the Typist for obtaining the caste certificate and thereafter, the caste certificate was given to him by the Typist. In fact, this is a case where the fraud has been played on the petitioner. The petitioner really belongs to other backward class (Ahir by caste) and has been made victim of circumstances. In fact, this is a case where the fraud has been played on the petitioner. The petitioner really belongs to other backward class (Ahir by caste) and has been made victim of circumstances. In this case even the respondent authorities did not apply their mind to the extent that the subsequent caste certificate, furnished by the petitioner was a genuine one or not. Otherwise also, when the petitioner was served with the show cause notice of misconduct, the respondent authorities were under a legal obligation to follow the procedure, as contained in Regulations of 1981 and before imposing a major penalty of removal from service, all aspects of the matter ought to have been considered by the concerned respondents. The impugned orders are silent on these points. Shri Nripendra Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has not been able to substantiate before this Court that the procedure for imposing the major penalty of dismissal has been followed in this case. It is the common knowledge that each and every person is not aware as to how the caste certificate is issued, what is the procedure for obtaining the caste certificate, who is the competent authority to issue such a certificate and what is the fee prescribed for obtaining caste certificate. Even in the counter affidavit, the provision for obtaining the caste certificate has not been disclosed. Therefore, it was obligatory on the part of the disciplinary authority to visualize this aspect of the matter whether the petitioner has played any fraud/misrepresentation in obtaining the certificate and appointment letter before removing the petitioner from service. I am of the view that for establishing the fraud it has to be pleaded and proved and here, it has not been proved in accordance with law. To get an employment now-a-days is a hard task and when a person is in service, so many things depend on him being in service. Therefore, before imposing a penalty of removal from service, the authorities, empowered for imposing such penalties, must take due care and precaution in imposing major penalty of removal from service. Otherwise also, every action of a public authority is subject to regulatory provisions governing the field. Here in the present case, regulations have been framed governing service conditions of an employee working with the respondents, therefore, authorities were under a legal/statutory obligation to discharge their duties in accordance with law. Otherwise also, every action of a public authority is subject to regulatory provisions governing the field. Here in the present case, regulations have been framed governing service conditions of an employee working with the respondents, therefore, authorities were under a legal/statutory obligation to discharge their duties in accordance with law. In view of the observations made above, I am of the opinion that the impugned orders cannot sustain in the eye of law. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed with all consequential benefits. The impugned orders dated 25.05.2006 and 15.03.2007 are hereby quashed. However, the respondent authorities are at liberty to proceed in accordance with law.