Rajes Kumar, J.— Heard Sri Harendra Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri A.K. Singh, learned counsel for the respondents. The petitioners claim to have been appointed as Basic Health Workers in Matra Evam Shishu Kalyan Department, a Department of the State Government. The services of the petitioners appear to be temporary. No appointment letters have been filed along with the writ petition. It appears that the petitioners services have been terminated by the order dated 6.2.1992 under the Uttar Pradesh Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Service) Rules, 1975 on the ground that the petitioners' services are not required. Challenging the said order, the petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 16605 of 1992 which has been dismissed. Against the said order, the petitioners filed Special Appeal, being Special Appeal No. 181 of 1992, which has been allowed by the order dated 12.7.1995. The order of the learned Single Judge and the termination order dated 6.2.1992 have been set aside and the petitioners have been reinstated on their posts without payment of arrears of salary but with continuity of service and other benefits. The Division Bench of this Court has observed that in the bottom of the order, since there is a note that the petitioners have furnished forged training certificates and, therefore, the termination was stigmatic which carries evil consequences against the appellants. It appears that against the order of the Special Appeal, Special Leave Petition filed before the Apex Court has also been dismissed. In pursuance of the order of this Court in the aforesaid Special Appeal, by the order dated 16.12.1995, the petitioners have been reinstated. By the impugned orders, all dated 5.11.1998, the services of the petitioners have been terminated on the ground that in view of the order dated 10.8.1998 of Managing Director National Karyakram Anushravan Evam Mulyankan Pariwar Kalyan, U.P., Lucknow and letter dated 30.6.1998 of Joint Secretary (Chikitsha Anubhag-10) U.P. Government, Lucknow, the documents relating to the appointment of the petitioners were got verified. The documents relating to the training obtained from A.N.M.T.C. were found forged and a letter written by the Joint Director, Madhyamik Shiksha, Lucknow to Chief Medical Officer, Etawah was also found forged. Challenging the termination order, the petitioners filed the present writ petition. The writ petition was entertained and the respondents were directed to file counter affidavit. No interim order has been granted. Challenging the termination order, the petitioners filed the present writ petition. The writ petition was entertained and the respondents were directed to file counter affidavit. No interim order has been granted. One counter affidavit has been filed by respondent no. 2 Dr. Kamal Kumar, Deputy Chief Medical Officer, Etawah dated 25.9.2011 which has been replied by rejoinder affidavit dated 17.10.2011. Further a supplementary counter affidavit has been filed by respondent no. 2 Dr. R.K. Chaurasia, Additional Chief Medical Officer, Etawah which has been replied by supplementary rejoinder affidavit dated 14.12.2012. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned orders have been passed without making any inquiry and without giving any opportunity. No charge sheet has been given and, therefore, the impugned orders are in violation of principle of natural justice. He further submitted that allegation that the appointments were based on forged documents, is wholly unjustified. Learned Standing Counsel submitted that the petitioners' engagement were temporary in Primary Health Centre, Etawah. Their services have never been confirmed at any point of time. He further submitted that it is wrong to say that the impugned orders have been passed without giving any opportunity. In paragraph- 4 of the counter affidavit dated 25.9.2011, it is stated that the petitioners secured employment on the post of Basic Health Workers by submitting false, forged and fabricated certificates of training which is essential for the aforesaid posts. After inquiry, it is proved that they never received any kind of training. They did fraud by providing a forged letter from Joint Director, Maternity and Child Welfare U.P., Lucknow to the Chief Medical Officer, Etawah for giving appointments on the post of Basic Health Workers. The petitioners joined and started working on their place of posting. The Chief Medical Officer referred the forged letter to the Joint Director, M.C.H., U.P., Lucknow for verification. The Joint Director, M.C.H., U.P., Lucknow denied any such letter being issued. The training certificates and medical faculty registration certificates, after verification, were found false, fabricated and forged certificates. The petitioners were given full opportunity to defend their case and prove the authenticity and genuineness of the documents. In the supplementary counter affidavit, the following has been stated : "The contents of paragraph 7 of the writ petition are not admitted as stated, hence denied. The petitioners were given full opportunity to defend their case and prove the authenticity and genuineness of the documents. In the supplementary counter affidavit, the following has been stated : "The contents of paragraph 7 of the writ petition are not admitted as stated, hence denied. It is submitted that in compliance of letter of Maha Nideshak, Rashtriya Karyakram Anusaran Evam Mulyankan Pariwar Kalyan, U.P., Lucknow letter no. Pari Ka. 15/E-1/Ko./134/98/4333 dated 10.8.1998 and letter no. 1684/5-10-98W-23/96 dated 30.6.1998 issued by Under Secretary, Chikitsa Anubhag-10 U.P. Government, Lucknow directed respondent no. 2 i.e. Chief Medical Officer, Etawah to take legal action/proceeding against the petitioners. The Chief Medical Officer, Etawah was entrusted the job of making a detailed inquiry and verification, notice dated 2.9.1998 was issued to the petitioners calling explanation thereto and the same was received by the petitioners concerned. As a result of inquiry, Additional Director, Maternity and Child Welfare, U.P., Lucknow denied that no letters were issued for appointment of the petitioners and as such they did fraud by producing a forged appointment letter from Joint Director, Maternity and Child to the Chief Medical Officer, Etawah for giving appointment on the post of Basic Health Workers. It is further submitted that the Training Certificates and Medical Faculty Registration Certificates after verification were found false, fabricated and forged, the verification regarding training certificates by Tutor In-charge, A.N.M. Prshikshan Kendra, Azamgarh dated 7.1.1992 and regarding Medical Faculty Registration Certificate report dated 28.1.1992 issued by Secretary, U.P. State Medical Faculty, Lucknow to Chief Medical Officer, Etawah. It is further submitted that petitioner no. 1 submitted his explanation dated 15.9.1998 to show cause notice/charge dated 2.9.1998 and other petitioners did not file their explanation to the notice dated 2.9.1998, therefore, the petitioners were given full opportunity of hearing to justify the legality, authenticity, genuineness and validity of certificates but they failed to do so. These certificates were found forged and fabricated, hence their services were terminated by respondent no. 2 on 5.11.1998 of all petitioners by identical termination order mentioning aforesaid ground as reasoned and speaking order and thereafter FIR was lodged by Prabhari Chikitsa Adhkari, Community Health Centre, Vidhuna District Auriya against all the petitioners under Sections 420, 467 and 468 I.P.C. dated 11.1.1991." The aforesaid paragraphs of the supplementary counter affidavit have been replied by the supplementary rejoinder affidavit dated 14.12.2012 as follows: "The contents of paragraph nos. 1 and 2 of the counter affidavit need no reply. In reply to the contents of paragraph no. 3 of the counter affidavit, it is stated by the deponent that the respondent no. 2 has stated about the communications made by the authorities and did not disclose about the service of charge sheet upon the petitioners and about the appointment of inquiry officer and any departmental proceeding and inquiry and the respondent no. 2 did not enclose the same along with the supplementary counter affidavit. The respondent no. 2 only tried to show about the communication of the authority concerned and never disclosed about the service of any charge sheet upon the petitioners. The contents of paragraph-7 of the writ petition are reiterated and reaffirmed. The contents of paragraph nos. 4,5,6,7 and 8 of the counter affidavit are partly matter of records and partly incorrect misconceived as stated hence denied. In reply it is submitted by the deponent that the respondent no. 2 only shown about the communications and did not show the charge sheet which was never served upon the petitioners. In view of the averments stated in paragraph-7 and in other paragraphs of the writ petition, the writ petition is liable to be allowed in the absence of any departmental proceeding and service of any charge sheet in contemplation of the said inquiry. The writ petition has a lot of merits; as such the writ petition of the petitioners is liable to be allowed by this Hon'ble Court." I have considered rival submissions, perused the records, counter and rejoinder affidavits and supplementary counter affidavit and supplementary rejoinder affidavit. It is wrong to say that the petitioners have not been given opportunity of hearing. On a receipt of information from the various Departments, the documents, filed by the petitioners were found forged, the Chief Medical Officer sent notices to the petitioners. The copy of the notices are Annexure-3 to the supplementary counter affidavit. In each notices, there is an endorsement of receipt by the petitioners. It appears that the petitioners have not replied such notices. It is not the case of the petitioners that any reply of such notices have been filed. The copy of the notices are Annexure-3 to the supplementary counter affidavit. In each notices, there is an endorsement of receipt by the petitioners. It appears that the petitioners have not replied such notices. It is not the case of the petitioners that any reply of such notices have been filed. Along with the supplementary counter affidavit, Annexure-4 is a letter written by the Additional Director, Matra Evam Shishu Kalyan, U.P., Lucknow dated 7.3.1996, by which it is informed that the direction relating to the posting of the petitioners are not being verified from their records and the letter number and date of such direction are forged. Two more letters Annexures-3 and 6 of the supplementary counter affidavit, also reveal that the documents filed by the petitioners for their appointments are all forged and non-genuine documents. In the facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioners have not been given opportunity to prove the genuineness of the documents submitted by them for their appointments. The averments made in the supplementary counter affidavit have not been denied or disputed by the petitioners in the supplementary rejoinder affidavit. The petitioners' engagements were on temporary basis. The initial appointment letters have not been enclosed. However, from the initial termination order and other documents on record, it is clear that the appointments of the petitioners were temporary. The services of the petitioners have never been confirmed at any point of time. From the documents, it is apparent that it was proved that the petitioners have got the appointments and posting on the basis of forged documents, which the petitioners could not dispute. No regular inquiry or providing charge sheet, etc. was necessary. On the facts and circumstances, the petitioners have been given fullest opportunity to explain their case and dislodge the allegations made against them about the furnishing of forged documents but the petitioners could not reply/explain the same. It is a settled principle of law that fraud vitiates all the proceedings. In the present case, it is proved beyond doubt that the petitioners have managed their appointments by furnishing forged documents. Such action of the petitioners have to be dealt with strongly under the provisions of law. It is a settled principle of law that fraud vitiates all the proceedings. In the present case, it is proved beyond doubt that the petitioners have managed their appointments by furnishing forged documents. Such action of the petitioners have to be dealt with strongly under the provisions of law. I am fully satisfied that the petitioners have managed their appointments on furnishing of forged documents, I decline to exercise extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and decline to interfere in the matter. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. _____________