Hon'ble RAFIQ, J.—This writ petition has been filed by petitioner Om Prakash Sharma assailing order dated 22.03.1995 by which petitioner was removed from service by way of penalty. 2. Factual matrix of case is that petitioner was appointed on post of Teacher Gr.III vide order dated 30.12.1972; he was confirmed in that post by order dated 01.01.1978. While serving respondents, petitioner acquired qualification of BA in 1985 and also B.Ed. in 1990 with prior permission of his employer. According to petitioner, although at the time when petitioner was initially appointed, training was not requisite condition for such appointment and even untrained persons could be appointed. Nevertheless petitioner produced copy of his certificate of BSTC after his appointment. Petitioner was promoted to the post of Teacher Gr.II on 14.12.1993 in view of subsequent acquired eligibility and also passed training of scout master guide captain on 03.11.1977. Various certificates showing appreciation of petitioner's service have been placed on record. It is contended by petitioner that his brother's daughter Mamta was murdered by one Narottam Sharma, resident of his village; a criminal case was registered against him on 09.09.1992 in which petitioner was cited as an eye witness. Narottam Sharma and his family members made false complaint against petitioner that he had secured appointment on the post of Teacher Gr.III by producing forged mark-sheet of BSTC. Respondent No.3 Deputy Director, Education Department, Jaipur Zone, Jaipur directed one Shri Anant Mohan Kasliwal, Principal of Government Senior Secondary School, Bandikui, to hold preliminary enquiry in the matter. Petitioner was then transferred from village Abhaneri to Shyamsinghpura. Petitioner submitted a representation to Registrar, Office of Education Department, Bikaner, on 29.12.1992 requesting therein for providing duplicate copy of mark-sheet of BSTC after depositing prescribed fee for obtaining same. Enquiry officer wrote a letter to petitioner on 27.01.1994 asking to appear before him. Petitioner appeared before enquiry officer on 01.02.1994. He made an application to Deputy Director on 25.02.1994 requesting to give him further time to place duplicate mark-sheet of BSTC. He then made a detailed representation to District Education Officer on 26.09.1994 contending that the enquiry officer Shri Anant Mohan Kasliwal was in collusion with Narottam Sharma, whose uncle Shyam Lal Sharma was Lecturer in same school where Shri Kasliwal was working as Principal. Petitioner appeared before Shri Kasliwal on 15.01.1994 but by the time he reached his office, he had already left the office. Petitioner appeared before Shri Kasliwal on 15.01.1994 but by the time he reached his office, he had already left the office. The enquiry officer gave him written order to appear before him on 23.01.1994. Petitioner appeared in his office and stayed there from 10.00 AM till 5.00 PM but he did not turn up. Petitioner was then placed under suspension by order of District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Dausa, dated 08.07.1994, in exercise of his powers under Section 13 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958. Petitioner submitted representation to the Deputy Director, Jaipur Zone, Jaipur, on 11.11.1994 contending that he had already produced relevant documents before enquiry officer and gave him aforesaid copies on 26.02.1994 and also produced same before the Deputy Director on 19.03.1994. He therefore prayed that matter may be closed. It was in that context that he made a request to the Deputy Director on 08.03.1995 that he may be provided two months time to produce duplicate copy. The Deputy Director by letter dated 13.03.1995 gave notice to petitioner that he was granted last opportunity to produce original mark-sheet and for that purpose he was required to appear before him on 20.03.1995 in the Senior Secondary School, Kothyari, District Sikar, or else matter shall be decided ex-parte against him. 3. It is contended that petitioner on that day fell sick and was not in a position to move. A telegram was sent by him to Deputy Director expressing his inability to appear and requested for fixing any another date. Petitioner produced on record copy of said telegram and copy of medical prescription given by Medical Officer of Sardar Patel Dispensary, Jaipur and sickness certificate also. It is thereafter that Deputy Director passed impugned order dated 22.03.1995 removing petitioner from service. Hence this writ petition. 4. Shri D.P. Sharma, learned counsel for petitioner, argued that no charge-sheet under Rule 16 of CCA Rules was ever served upon petitioner inasmuch as no enquiry report proving the alleged charge was prepared nor any such report was supplied to petitioner because no such report was prepared. Initially Shri Anant Mohan Kasliwal, Principal of Senior Secondary School, Bandikui, was directed to hold preliminary enquiry. Then the Deputy Director, Jaipur Zone, Jaipur, took himself task of making preliminary enquiry. Initially Shri Anant Mohan Kasliwal, Principal of Senior Secondary School, Bandikui, was directed to hold preliminary enquiry. Then the Deputy Director, Jaipur Zone, Jaipur, took himself task of making preliminary enquiry. Petitioner appeared before preliminary enquiry officer on two occasions but the Deputy Director gave only notice to petitioner to appear before him on 20.03.1995 and for health reasons petitioner could not appear before him but then instead of granting another date for appearing before him, Deputy Director straightaway proceeded to remove petitioner from service. It is contended that petitioner rendered his service to respondent department for 23 years and then he also acquired qualification of BA as well as B.Ed. while serving respondents. Even at the time of initial appointment, training qualification was not necessary for appointment on the post of Teacher Gr.III. Learned counsel in this respect drew attention of court towards standing order no.4/73. Documents which respondents have produced before this court were not before enquiry officer nor their copies were provided to the petitioner so as to grant him opportunity of rebuttal. Order passed by the respondent removing petitioner from service is erroneous being arbitrary, capricious and unconstitutional. Principles of natural justice have been given a complete go-bye and action of respondents is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India. Removal order of petitioner's services has been passed in colourable exercise of powers at behest of another employee of department Shyam Lal, who happened to be real uncle of Narottam Sharma, who was an accused in murder case of petitioner's niece Mamta wherein petitioner was cited as an eye witness. It is therefore prayed that impugned order be set aside. Petitioner be held entitled to reinstatement with all consequential benefits till date he attained age of superannuation and thereafter retiral benefits with interest. 5. Per contra, Shri Ganesh Meena, learned Government Counsel appearing on behalf of respondnets, opposed writ petition and submitted that petitioner never submitted copy of mark-sheet showing that he had actually qualified BSTC examination despite several opportunities. It is submitted that he applied for obtaining duplicate mark-sheet with roll number 3625 from Registrar, Departmental Examination Rajasthan, Bikaner, but never produced copy thereof. It is submitted that he applied for obtaining duplicate mark-sheet with roll number 3625 from Registrar, Departmental Examination Rajasthan, Bikaner, but never produced copy thereof. On verification made by respondent, Registrar, by letter dated 09.03.1994 addressed to Principal, Government Senior Secondary School, Bandikui (Dausa), who was holding departmental enquiry, informed that petitioner never appeared in BSTC in 1966 vide roll number 3625 and the department did not allot roll number 3625 to the institution from where petitioner claims to have undergone BSTC training. Learned counsel argued that in view of charge that petitioner procured appointment on strength of forged document, it was not necessary to hold full-fledged enquiry under Rule 16 of CCA Rules and simple notice would suffice. Petitioner was given several opportunities and when he failed to produce original or even duplicate copy of mark-sheet of BSTC examination or otherwise failed to prove that BSTC certificate produced by him was genuine, respondents were legitimately passed order of his removal which does not warrant any interference. 6. I have given my anxious consideration to rival submissions and perused material on record. 7. Although it appears that allegation on which respondents have removed petitioner is quite serious and once in appropriately initiated disciplinary proceedings such a charge was levelled against petitioner, burden of proof also would have been more on petitioner than department to show that BSTC certificate on strength of which petitioner secured appointment was genuine but here in present case I find that no charge-sheet at all was served upon petitioner under Rule 16 of CCA Rules for awarding major penalty of removal, nor even any proper statement of allegation was prepared and no enquiry officer under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules was appointed. Question therefore arises is whether respondents by mere serving notice or by merely adopting or entrusting task of holding enquiry to Principal of Government Senior Secondary School and on strength of report that was prepared by him, put extreme penalty of removal, in my opinion they could not be permitted to impose penalty of removal upon petitioner in a short-circuit or slipshod manner which they have done in present matter. Moreover, even if, preliminary enquiry officer has submitted his report to Deputy Director and Deputy Director called upon petitioenr to appear before him on 20.03.1995, at Government Senior Secondary School, Kothyari, District Sikar, there was no justification for Deputy Director to hurry up the matter by passing removal order on 23rd itself when petitioner in between sent two requests to him by telegram and also produced copy of his medical certificate and sickness certificate to show that he was sick and therefore was unable to appear before him on that date. Even if the fact that disciplinary authority was not inclined to grant adjournment to petitioner or was not convinced with reasons for such adjournment, nevetheless he could not have decided the matter imposing extreme penalty of removal on the basis of mere notice because inability of petitioner to produce original or duplicate mark-sheet of BSTC could not be construed as admission of guilt on his part obviating need of full-fledged enquiry for awarding major penalty as per Rule 16 of CCA Rules. The disciplinary authority was also required to appreciate that petitioner served respondent department for as long as 23 years and also, while serving, acquired higher qualification of BA and B.Ed. and on that basis was promoted to the post of Teacher Gr.II. There is also an argument that even untrained persons could have been appointed as Teacher at relevant point of time in 1972; a reference in this connection is made of standing order no.10/72 dated 10.08.1972 and standing order no.4/73 dated 28.05.1973. All those issues, therefore, could have been appropriately gone into if only an enquiry was held. 8. In result, this writ petition is allowed. Impugned order of penalty is set-aside. Petitioner would be entitled to reinstatement in same status and position in which he was serving respondent department at the time of passing of penalty order of removal dated 22.03.1995. In other words petitioner shall be deemed to have been in continuous service of respondents from the date of passing of penalty order dated 22.03.1995 till date of his superannuation, in suspension and will be entitled to subsistence allowance as revised from time to time. Respondents would be at liberty to serve upon petitioner a regular charge-sheet under Rule 16 of CCA Rules and calling upon him to submit his reply to charge-sheet. Respondents would be at liberty to serve upon petitioner a regular charge-sheet under Rule 16 of CCA Rules and calling upon him to submit his reply to charge-sheet. The said charge-sheet shall be served upon petitioner within a period of two months from date a copy of this order is produced before respondent Disciplinary Authority. Petitioner shall submit his reply to said charge-sheet within a period of one month from date of receipt thereof within a period of two months from date of receipt thereof. Respondent department shall adduce evidence within a period of three months from date of submission of reply by petitioner; further maximum time of three months shall be allowed to petitioner for adducing his evidence. Final order shall therefore be passed within a period of three months. 9. Writ petition is accordingly allowed with aforesaid direction.