J.P. Singh, J. 1. The appellant-Shams Din was appointed as Teacher in Middle School Mamankote of Tehsil Reasi by the District Inspector of Schools, Udhampur vide Order No. 6227-28 of November 09, 1967. 2. The Drawing and Disbursing Officer, during the course of preparing the Service Book, did not find the appellant's Matriculation Certificate genuine. Placing the appellant under suspension, an enquiry was, accordingly, ordered directing him to produce documentary evidence in support of the genuineness of his Certificate. 3. Considering his Response to the Charge Sheet and the Show Cause Notices issued during the course of the enquiry, the appellant's services were terminated by the Chief Education Officer, Udhampur vide Order dated 29.09.2006. 4. The appellant questioned his termination from service by Writ Petition SWP No. 1854/2006. 5. His learned counsel produced the Original Secondary School Certificate and the Marks Certificate bearing Nos. 4372 and 34610 before a learned Single Judge of this Court urging that though the appellant possessed the genuine Certificate, issued by the Board of School Education, yet the respondents had erroneously treated the Certificate forged directing termination of his service, without providing him opportunity to file Objections to the Report received by the respondents from the Jammu and Kashmir Board of School Education indicating that his Certificate was fake, and that he had been prejudiced by the course followed by the respondents in terminating his service. 6. Taking the submissions made by the appellant's counsel and the fact of appellant's having worked with the respondents for twenty long years, into consideration, the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the appellant must get due opportunity to explain his case before the concerned Authorities. 7. Accordingly, permitting the appellant to submit his detailed Objections and all documents on which he placed reliance, within four weeks, the Director, School Education, Jammu, was directed to look into the matter personally, affording due opportunity of hearing to the appellant. It was further directed that in case no convincing reply was given by the appellant and the Certificate relied upon by him, found forged, he would close the case initiating appropriate action against him and in case his reply and documentary evidence indicated the Certificate genuine, he would modify the Chief Education Officer's Order, impugned in the Writ Petition, according to the findings returned by him. 8. 8. The appellant has questioned the Order dated 29.04.2009 of the learned Single Judge by this Letters Patent Appeal. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the Charge framed against the appellant, by the Head Master, who was not competent, under rules, so to do, was invalid, and no enquiry officer, having been appointed, before the conclusion of the enquiry, the termination of appellant's service, was bad in law and liable to be set aside and quashed. The course adopted by the learned Single Judge in remanding the matter to the Director, School Education, Jammu was thus urged unsustainable, warranting its setting aside. 10. Referring to Additional General Manager, Human Resource, BHEL Ltd. v. Suresh Ramkrishna Burde, reported as AIR 2007 SC, 2048, learned State Counsel submitted that having secured the appointment on a fake Certificate, the appellant's grievance that the Charge was invalid and no enquiry Officer was appointed to conclude the enquiry, which was otherwise a plea not based on facts, as the Charge had been issued by the Head Master, on the directions of the Competent Authority, and the appellant's services were terminated, when despite providing him several opportunities, to rebut the allegations, he had failed to produce any material to demonstrate that he possessed the genuine Certificate, was an argument of despair, which needed no consideration, in the facts and circumstances of the case. 11. Learned counsel further submitted that as the Writ Court had allowed the appellant's prayer affording him opportunity to substantiate his defence that his Matriculation Certificate was genuine, so the order impugned may not warrant interference in Appeal. 12. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their submissions, in the light of the case law cited at the Bar. 13. We do not find merit in the appellant's learned counsel's submission, for the appellant does not appear to have ever raised any grievance that the Charge was framed by an incompetent Officer and no enquiry officer had been appointed by the respondents, during the earlier round of his litigation in this Court by his Writ Petitions SWP Nos. 2216/2000 and 1027/2003 and Letters Patent Appeal(SW) No.366/2002, in terms whereof, all that had been required by the Court was that the official respondents would conclude the enquiry against him within the stipulated time. 14. 2216/2000 and 1027/2003 and Letters Patent Appeal(SW) No.366/2002, in terms whereof, all that had been required by the Court was that the official respondents would conclude the enquiry against him within the stipulated time. 14. It is, thus, too late for the appellant to question the Charge and the enquiry on the grounds raised by his learned counsel, which even otherwise, we do not find sustainable, for the Charge having been framed under the orders of the Competent Authority, by the Headmaster and the appellant having been afforded opportunity to explain his case and the proposed punishment, in response to the two Show Cause Notices issued in this behalf, the course followed by the respondents before issuing the order impugned in the Writ Petition, cannot be faulted, as the rules governing the conduct of enquiry stood substantially complied with by the respondents. 15. That apart, the appellant having himself opted to seek another opportunity to substantiate his defence that his Matriculation Certificate was genuine and his Termination Order unsustainable, is estopped from questioning the impugned judgment, and the course, which the Director, School Education, Jammu has been ordered to follow to consider the appellant's grievance, which course he himself had invited by producing the original Matriculation Certificate and the Mark-sheet before the Writ Court. 16. The order passed by the learned Single Judge providing yet another opportunity to the appellant to substantiate his Claim to restoration of service, on the strength of his original Matriculation Certificate and Marks-sheet, is thus found, not affecting him adversely, in any manner whatsoever, and is rather most equitable, in the circumstances, warranting no interference in Appeal. 17. Accordingly, finding no merit, we dismiss the appellant's Appeal, with no order as to costs.