JUDGMENT : 1. By preferring this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has, interalia, challenged the impugned order dated 07.03.2011, passed by the District Primary Education Officer, District Mahesana, the third respondent herein, whereby her services have been terminated. She has further prayed for directions to continue her in service with all consequential benefits, as though the impugned order was never passed. 2. A brief narration of the factual background of the petition would be necessary. 2.1 The petitioner suffers from a hearing impairment and belongs to the General category. After passing the Secondary School Certificate (SSC) examination with 77% and the Higher Secondary Certificate (HSC) examination with 71.83%, the petitioner applied for admission to the Primary Teacher Certificate (PTC) Course 2003-04, on the basis of her Disability Certificate dated 11.07.2003, issued by the Civil Surgeon, Sir Pratap General Hospital, Himmatnagar, District Sarbakantha. The original documents of the petitioner were scrutinized and she was found to be eligible for the grant of admission in the PTC Course 2003-04, in the category of “Mukbadhir” (Deaf and Dumb). The petitioner successfully passed the PTC examination in the year 2005 with 78.60% marks. The Director of Primary Education, the second respondent herein, issued an advertisement dated 24.01.2007 for the recruitment of Vidyasahayaks in all districts of the State of Gujarat. On the basis of the same, the third respondent issued another advertisement dated 24.01.2007, for the recruitment of 424 Vidyasahayaks in Mahesana District. Out of the notified vacancies, three percent vacancies were reserved for Physically Handicapped persons. The petitioner applied as a candidate in the Open category and as a Physically Handicapped candidate, on the basis of the Certificate of Disability dated 11.07.2003. The petitioner received an interview call letter dated 21.02.2007, asking her to present herself for the interview on 05.03.2007. On the day of the interview, the respondents verified the original certificates and marksheets of the petitioner and selected her for appointment as a Vidyasahayak. The petitioner was issued a letter dated 05.03.2007 to attend the Camp for the selection of the place of posting, on 08.03.2007. Accordingly, the petitioner remained present at the Camp on the said date and selected Chada Primary School, Taluka Vadnagar, as her place of posting. All other candidates were issued orders of appointment on 08.03.2007, in the Camp itself, but the petitioner received no such order. Accordingly, the petitioner remained present at the Camp on the said date and selected Chada Primary School, Taluka Vadnagar, as her place of posting. All other candidates were issued orders of appointment on 08.03.2007, in the Camp itself, but the petitioner received no such order. She was asked to obtain the countersignature of the Civil Surgeon on her Certificate of Disability. The petitioner, therefore, approached the Civil Surgeon-cum-District Health Officer, Sir Pratap General Hospital, Himmatnagar, with a letter dated 21.03.2007, requesting him to countersign the said Certificate of Disability. The Civil Surgeon examined the petitioner and put his countersignature and stamp on the Certificate of Disability on 21.03.2007. The petitioner then submitted the said Certificate, along with her letter dated 21.03.2007, to the third respondent. Thereafter, the third respondent issued a back dated order of appointment dated 08.03.2007 to the petitioner, on 21.03.2007. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner joined duty on 24.03.2007. Once again, the petitioner was required to submit herself to a medical examination in order to declare her fit for public service. The petitioner submitted herself to the said medical examination and was issued a certificate which annexed at Annexure-D to the petition. Ever since 24.03.2007, her date of joining, the petitioner has been discharging her duties as Vidyasahayak, at Chada Primary School. 2.2 In the meanwhile, the State Government issued instructions to all District Primary Education Officers to have the Certificates of Disability of all Physically Handicapped candidates verified, once again. Accordingly, the Chief District Health Officer-cum-Civil Surgeon, Sir Pratap General Hospital, Himmatnagar, confirmed the genuineness of the petitioner's Certificate of Disability by his letter dated 16.08.2010, addressed to the Taluka Education Inspector, Taluka Panchayat, Kheralu. The petitioner received a Showcause Notice dated 13.10.2010 from the third respondent, calling upon her to remain present before her on 16.10.2010. It is stated in the said Showcause Notice that the petitioner had indicated in the application form filled up by her, that her disability was 40%, whereas, in the Certificate of Disability it is shown to be “less than 40%”. The petitioner, while remaining present on 16.10.2010, explained that she was not conversant with the English language and had passed the SSC and HSC examinations without the subject of English. She, therefore, was unable to read the Certificate of Disability correctly but could only discern the figure 40%. The petitioner, while remaining present on 16.10.2010, explained that she was not conversant with the English language and had passed the SSC and HSC examinations without the subject of English. She, therefore, was unable to read the Certificate of Disability correctly but could only discern the figure 40%. She has therefore stated the disability to be 40%' in the application for the post of Vidyasahayak. The petitioner further stated that during the Camp held on 08.03.2007, she was asked to approach the Civil Surgeon once again and obtain his countersignature and stamp upon the Disability Certificate. The Civil Surgeon examined the petitioner again and put his countersignature and stamp on the Disability Certificate dated 11.07.2003, on 21.03.2007. The petitioner has, thereafter, produced the said certificate before the third respondent who has issued the appointment order dated 08.03.2007 to the petitioner on 21.03.2007. The petitioner also submitted that she was not at fault and any mistake that may have occurred was not intentional or with a dishonest intention. By her letter dated 16.10.2010, the petitioner stated that the certificate is genuine and she has submitted the original Certificate of Physical Disability, which was duly verified by the respondents before issuing the appointment order. She further stated that she was granted admission in the PTC course on the basis of the same Certificate of Physical Disability. The petitioner was orally informed by the third respondent at the time of hearing on 16.10.2010, that as per the instructions of the Director of Primary Education, an order of termination would have to be issued against her. The petitioner, therefore, approached this Court by filing a petition, being Special Civil Application No.14084 of 2010. The said petition was disposed of by an order dated 27.01.2011, passed by this Court, wherein it was specifically directed that the third respondent shall proceed with the inquiry in accordance with law, after granting the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. The petitioner, therefore, approached this Court by filing a petition, being Special Civil Application No.14084 of 2010. The said petition was disposed of by an order dated 27.01.2011, passed by this Court, wherein it was specifically directed that the third respondent shall proceed with the inquiry in accordance with law, after granting the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. It was directed that in case an adverse order is passed against the petitioner, it shall not be implemented for a period of fifteen days from the date of the communication of the order to the petitioner by Registered Post A.D. 2.3 It is the case of the petitioner that thereafter, without following any statutory procedure for holding a Departmental Inquiry as prescribed in the Gujarat Panchayat Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1997 ('the Rules' for short), the third respondent called her for a personal hearing on 28.02.2011 by letter dated 21.02.2011. The petitioner remained present and submitted her explanation. Without taking into consideration the submissions of the petitioner, the third respondent passed the impugned order of termination dated 07.03.2011, which was communicated to her personally on 11.03.2011. Aggrieved by the above order, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present petition. 2.4 Notice was issued in the petition on 16.03.2011 and statusquo, as it existed on that date, was directed to be continued. While issuing Rule on 06.09.2011, this Court confirmed the interim relief already granted, directing that it continue till the final decision of the petition. Under the circumstances, the order of termination has not taken effect till date and the petitioner is still serving as a Vidyasahayak at the same place of posting. 3. In the above factual background, Mr.K.B. Pujara, learned advocate for the petitioner, has made detailed submissions, the gist of which is as below: 3.1 That in the advertisement dated 24.01.2007 for the recruitment of 424 Vidyasahayaks in Mahesana District, issued by the third respondent, there is no indication regarding the percentage of disability that is required in the case of Physically Disabled persons. That the disability for the post of Vidyasahayak is to be considered as 40%, as it was not so advertised. The petitioner has committed no wrong and nor has she acted with a dishonest intention. She has submitted her original certificates, including the Physical Disability Certificate, along with her application. That the disability for the post of Vidyasahayak is to be considered as 40%, as it was not so advertised. The petitioner has committed no wrong and nor has she acted with a dishonest intention. She has submitted her original certificates, including the Physical Disability Certificate, along with her application. Had the petitioner had a dishonest intention, she would not have submitted the original certificate. It was, therefore, incumbent upon the respondents to have properly verified the certificates of the petitioner. If the respondents had thought it fit to reject the candidature of the petitioner on the basis of her disability being less than 40%, the petitioner would have applied under other advertisements in other districts, in the Open category, as she is a meritorious candidate. Instead, after giving her appointment by the order dated 08.03.2007, the third respondent has initiated action for the termination of her services after three and a half years of service. 3.2 It is further submitted that in the Showcause Notice dated 13.10.2010, no dishonest motive or intention has been attributed to the petitioner. However, in the impugned order dated 07.03.2011, the third respondent has imputed a dishonest motive to her by stating that the petitioner has deliberately written 40%' in the application, whereas her disability is “less than 40%”, with the ulterior motive of obtaining employment as a Vidyasahayak. It is submitted that the impugned order is, therefore, beyond the scope of the Showcause Notice. What has not been imputed in the Showcause Notice cannot be concluded by the respondents unilaterally, without granting the petitioner an opportunity to meet the allegation. It is submitted that the allegations against the petitioner have to be levelled in a manner that she is able to meet them. However, in the present case, the Showcause Notice does not contain allegations of dishonest conduct but such allegations and conclusions have surfaced only at the stage of the final order. The impugned order, therefore, deserves to be quashed and set aside on this ground alone. 3.3 It is next submitted that in not granting the petitioner an opportunity of dealing with the imputations levelled against her at the final stage, the principles of natural justice have been violated. Moreover, no fullfledged inquiry has been conducted in her case, which ought to have been done looking to the imputations in the final order, against the petitioner. 3.3 It is next submitted that in not granting the petitioner an opportunity of dealing with the imputations levelled against her at the final stage, the principles of natural justice have been violated. Moreover, no fullfledged inquiry has been conducted in her case, which ought to have been done looking to the imputations in the final order, against the petitioner. 3.4 Learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that in the impugned order reliance has been placed upon the Government Resolution dated 15.02.2001, which has never been supplied to the petitioner. There is no mention of the Government Resolution in the Showcause Notice. As the petitioner is unaware of the contents of the said Government Resolution, the reference of which has come for the first time in the impugned order, the said order is unsustainable in law on this ground as well. 3.5 That the petitioner fulfils all the educational qualifications for the post of Vidyasahayak. In fact, she is a very meritorious candidate and has obtained distinction in the PTC course. The lapse in the verification of the Physical Disability Certificate of the petitioner that has been made by the third respondent cannot be attributed to the petitioner, as the petitioner has been straightforward in submitting all her original certificates. It was up to the respondents to have issued the appointment order after proper verification of the same. 3.6 That there is no question regarding the genuineness of the Certificate of Physical Disability that has been verified twice, thereafter. In any case, the exact percentage of disability faced by the petitioner is not specifically reflected. “Less than 40%” can also be 39.5% and if that be the case, the figure would be rounded off and be read as 40%. 3.7 Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken the Court through the Instruction Booklet for the PTC Course for the year 2009, which is a guiding factor, the contents of which are more or less the same as were prevailing in the year 2003, when the petitioner gained admission to the PTC course. Certain clauses have been pointed out, such as Clauses6, 5.4 and 5.4.1 regarding physical disability. The crux is that the physical disability suffered by the candidate should not be of such a nature that comes in the way of the teaching process. Certain clauses have been pointed out, such as Clauses6, 5.4 and 5.4.1 regarding physical disability. The crux is that the physical disability suffered by the candidate should not be of such a nature that comes in the way of the teaching process. It also speaks of the formation of a committee to ascertain whether the disability faced by the candidate would obstruct the PTC Course or the students when the candidate becomes a regular teacher. It is submitted that on the basis of this Information Booklet, the petitioner was found to be capable of teaching and her disability is not of such a nature that would come in the way of teaching. In the case of deaf and dumb persons, such as the petitioner, Clause5.4.1 indicates that the candidate should be able to speak and hear clearly. That the petitioner has gained admission to the PTC course, meaning thereby, that she fulfils the requirements for candidates of that course. In other words, it is submitted by Mr.K.B. Pujara that there is no impediment, whatsoever, in the performance of her duties by the petitioner. She has now worked for a period of nine and a half years without any complaint, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 4. The petition has been opposed by Mr.M.P. Prajapati, learned advocate for respondent No.3, by submitting that the petitioner was aware of the fact that in order to gain appointment to the post of Vidyasahayak, her physical disability ought to have been between 40% to 50%. This has been mentioned in the PTC Information Booklet of the year 2009, appended by the petitioner. It is submitted that the Physical Disability Certificate submitted by the petitioner clearly states that her disability is “less than 40%”. In spite of the same, the petitioner has written “40%” at Serial No.9 of the application form, in the column asking her to indicate the percentage of disability. It is submitted that only at the time of the verification of the certificate came to notice that the disability of the petitioner is less than 40%. She was issued a Showcause Notice and action was taken against her. It is submitted that only at the time of the verification of the certificate came to notice that the disability of the petitioner is less than 40%. She was issued a Showcause Notice and action was taken against her. 4.1 Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has drawn the attention of the Court to the undertaking given by the petitioner, wherein it is stated that she has submitted her original certificates along with her application form and apart from Mahesana District, she has not applied for appointment as Vidyasahayak in any other district. It is submitted that in the said undertaking, the petitioner has submitted that if the above facts are found to be false, she would be responsible for the same. On the basis of this, it is submitted that in view of the undertaking, the petitioner would be responsible for writing “40%”. In the application form, undertaking that her disability is 40%, whereas it is a fact that it is less than 40%. 4.2 Ms.Snusha Joshi, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondents Nos.1 and 2, has submitted that the State is not a contesting party, therefore, she would adopt the arguments advanced by Mr.M.P. Prajapati, learned advocate for respondent No.2. 5. This Court has heard learned counsel for the respective parties at length, perused the averments made in the petition, the contents of the impugned order and the other documents on record. 6. It is an admitted fact that in the Certificate of Disability dated 11.07.2003, the extent of the disability of the petitioner is stated as “less than 40%”. A copy of the original certificate is annexed as Annexure-D to the petition. The same certificate was got reverified pursuant to the instructions of the third respondent on 21.03.2007. It only after the reverification of the certificate that the appointment order dated 08.03.2007 was issued to the petitioner on 21.03.2007. There is no dispute regarding the fact that in Column No.9 of the application form, wherein information is sought regarding the percentage and type and extent of disability, the petitioner has written “40%” and “Mukbadhir” (Deaf and Dumb). This application form was verified on the basis of the original Disability Certificate submitted by the petitioner on two occasions by the third respondent, before the appointment order was issued to the petitioner. This application form was verified on the basis of the original Disability Certificate submitted by the petitioner on two occasions by the third respondent, before the appointment order was issued to the petitioner. In the advertisement dated 24.01.2007, pursuant to which the petitioner applied for the post of Vidyasahayak, there is no mention, whatsoever, regarding the percentage of disability that is required in the case of a Physically Disabled candidate. The only aspect mentioned in the advertisement is that there will be three percent reservation for Physically Disabled candidates, in accordance with the Government Resolution dated 19.02.2000. When the extent of disability is not mentioned in the advertisement, the respondents cannot attribute any motives to the petitioner for applying for the post under the said advertisement. 7. As per the advertisement, the petitioner was required to submit all original certificates, which she has done. In the absence of any indication in the advertisement regarding the percentage of disability that is required in order to get appointment on the post of Vidyasahayak, it cannot be assumed that the petitioner had prior knowledge that the extent of disability ought to have been 40%. The petitioner submitted her original Disability Certificate to the third respondent, not once, but twice. The petitioner got it reverified on 21.03.2007, as per the instructions of the third respondent. It is only thereafter that the said respondent issued the appointment order to her. It was for the third respondent to have conducted a proper verification and decided whether, or not, the appointment letter ought to be issued to the petitioner on the basis of the Physical Disability Certificate submitted by her. The fact that the disability of the petitioner as per the certificate is shown as “less than 40%” was very well known to the respondents. In spite of that the petitioner was given appointment. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner has concocted a false document in order to wrongfully the appointment. In fact, her original document is there for all to see. In spite of that the petitioner was given appointment. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner has concocted a false document in order to wrongfully the appointment. In fact, her original document is there for all to see. After granting appointment to the petitioner on the basis of the Physical Disability Certificate which was reverified at the instance of the third respondent, it is now not open to the respondents to state that the services of the petitioner ought to be terminated on the ground that she has written “40%” instead of “less than 40%” in her application form. 8. The explanation of the petitioner is that she is not conversant or well versed in the English language. The Certificate of Disability is in English and, according to her, the words “less than” were not noticed by her and she only grasped the figure “40%”, which she wrote in the application form. It is submitted that during the courses of SSC and HSC, the petitioner had not studied the subject of English. From a perusal of the marksheets of the said examinations that are on record, it appears that there was no subject of English in the subjects studied by the petitioner. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the Certificate of Disability states the disability as “less than 40%”. It does not specify how much “less than 40%”. No specific figure is given. “Less than 40%” can also mean 39.50% or 39.98%. On the other hand, it can also be less than 39%. Normally a lesser figure would have been specifically indicated in the Certificate. If it was 39.50% or more, it could have been rounded off and considered as 40%. However, as no specific figure has been given, it has to be taken that the hearing impairment of the petitioner is “less than 40%”. The petitioner has been granted appointment on the basis of the original certificate submitted by her to the respondents, which was checked twice. It was for the respondents to have taken appropriate action, at that stage. They cannot now wake up from their slumber, after the petitioner has put in over three and a half years of service, and terminate her services for their own lapse. 9. In the Showcause Notice dated 13.10.2010, no dishonest motive has been attributed to the petitioner. It was for the respondents to have taken appropriate action, at that stage. They cannot now wake up from their slumber, after the petitioner has put in over three and a half years of service, and terminate her services for their own lapse. 9. In the Showcause Notice dated 13.10.2010, no dishonest motive has been attributed to the petitioner. There is no imputation of deliberate misrepresentation against her, as has been concluded in the impugned order. The final order mentions the Government Resolution dated 15.02.2001, which has not been mentioned in the Showcause Notice or a copy supplied to the petitioner. It is a settled position of law, reiterated by the Supreme Court and this Court in a catena of judgments, that the delinquent is required to be informed, in precise terms, regarding all the allegations against him, or her. The charges levelled against the delinquent have to be clear and specific, so that he, or she, is in a position to meet them and put up a valid and effective defence. In the present case, as there was no imputation of any deliberate misrepresentation or dishonest motive in the Showcause Notice, the petitioner never raised any defence in this regard. Respondent No.2 has arrived at the conclusion in the final order that the petitioner has made a deliberate misrepresentation, with the ulterior motive of gaining appointment, by writing 40%' in the application. This imputation, which has been converted into a conclusion, is beyond the scope of the Showcause Notice. The petitioner never had an opportunity to raise a defence or offer an explanation to refute the imputation of deliberate misrepresentation and dishonest conduct, which amounts to casting a stigma upon her. Further, the petitioner has not been informed about the Government Resolution dated 15.02.2001 in the Showcause Notice and a copy of this Government Resolution has not been given to her. As such, she is not in a position to render any explanation. In this view of the matter, the impugned order being beyond the scope of the Showcause Notice and containing conclusions on the basis of aspects not even mentioned in the Showcause Notice, cannot be permitted to stand. By not granting the petitioner a fair opportunity of meeting the allegations against her, the respondents have acted in violation of the principles of natural justice. 10. By not granting the petitioner a fair opportunity of meeting the allegations against her, the respondents have acted in violation of the principles of natural justice. 10. It is an admitted fact that no proper or fullfledged inquiry has been initiated against the petitioner. It is cursorily mentioned in the impugned order that the Gujarat Panchayat Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules are not applicable to the petitioner as she is a Vidyasahayak. Rule (1)(3) of the Rules provides that, save and except as otherwise provided by or under these Rules, they shall apply to all persons allocated and appointed to the Panchayat service and persons holding posts under a Panchayat. Though the petitioner was originally appointed as a Vidyasahayak, however, pursuant to the Government Resolution dated 11.06.1998, she has been absorbed as a regular teacher after rendering service for a period of five years. Pursuant to an amendment in the Gujarat Primary Education Act, 1947, it has been provided in Section 20(1A), that every District School Board and every authorised municipality and recognized private primary school shall, with the approval of the State Government or an authorised officer, maintain such number of Vidyasahayaks as may, in the opinion of the State Government or the authorised officer be necessary. This means that the cadre of Vidyasahayak is a recognised cadre in the State Government. The aspect that the respondents did not hold a regular inquiry before seeking to terminate the services of the petitioner, therefore, appears to be a glaring mistake on their part. This amendment has come into force by the Gujarat Act 3 of 2003, with retrospective effect from 11.06.1998. The amendment clearly covers the case of the petitioner who was appointed by the order dated 08.03.2007. 11. The fact that no fullfledged departmental inquiry has been conducted against the petitioner and imputations have been levelled and conclusions arrived at against her in the final order, without putting her to notice about them, constitutes a grave miscarriage of justice. It cannot be denied that the petitioner is a meritorious candidate, having secured 77% in the SSC examination, 71.83% in the HSC examination and 78.60% in the PTC examination. In fact, the petitioner has passed the PTC examination with distinction. Had the respondents rejected her candidature at the initial stage, the petitioner would have been in a position to obtain appointment elsewhere, on the basis of her merit alone. In fact, the petitioner has passed the PTC examination with distinction. Had the respondents rejected her candidature at the initial stage, the petitioner would have been in a position to obtain appointment elsewhere, on the basis of her merit alone. Nine and a half years have elapsed since then and the petitioner, who belongs to the open category, would now would not be in a position to gain employment elsewhere. Further, there has never been any complaint with regard to the discharge of her duties by the petitioner. 12. Considering all the above aspects cumulatively and for the reasons stated hereinabove, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside. 13. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 07.03.2011, passed by the third respondent, is hereby quashed and set aside. As a consequence thereof, the petitioner shall continue to serve as though the said order had never been passed. 14. The petition is allowed, in the above terms. Rule is made absolute accordingly. There shall be no orders as to costs.