JUDGMENT : PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J. 1. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition making a following prayer: "(A) By an appropriate writ order of direction, order impugned dated 09.09.2014 (Annex.14) passed by the respondents may kindly be quashed and set aside. (B) By an appropriate writ order or direction, the respondents may be directed to allow the petitioner to continue on the post of driver as if so such order has ever been passed. (C) By an appropriate writ order or direction, the Board of Secondary Education, Ajmer may kindly be directed to update the record and issue a fresh mark sheet to the petitioner showing his name as Kalu Lal Rao. 2. The facts as noticed by this Court are that the petitioner passed the Secondary School Examination from the Board of Ajmer and Senior Secondary School Examination from the same Board. The petitioner's name was Kalu Lal Dholi which he got changed from the Board of Secondary Examination as Kalu Ram Rao. The petitioner applied for the post of Driver with the respondents and being otherwise eligible, he was selected and given appointment vide order dated 30.09.2013 which is Annexure-10 of the writ petition. The respondents gave an opportunity to the petitioner to explain the change of his name in the mark-sheet of the Board. However, since the petitioner could not explain the name in the mark-sheet and the Board denied issuing of any mark-sheet ever on the Kalu ram Rai, therefore, the respondents while applying the Condition No.8 of the Advertisement dated 30.09.2013 (Annexure-10), dismissed the petitioner from service on account of submitting forged documents. The Condition No.8 was that any candidate who has been appointed and furnishes the document which is unlawful shall be attracting cancellation of his appointment. 3. The respondents have filed a detailed reply stating that their action was totally based upon Condition No.8 and once the document was forged as per the record of the Board which is respondent No.5 in this writ petition. The respondents were left no other option. 4. Counsel for the petitioner restricts his arguments to the effect that Condition No.8 only stipulates for cancellation of appointment and not for dismissal from service. Counsel for the petitioner stated that the dismissal is a punishment and awarding any kind of punishment would require rigors of law like proper enquiry and adopting the proper procedure. 5. 4. Counsel for the petitioner restricts his arguments to the effect that Condition No.8 only stipulates for cancellation of appointment and not for dismissal from service. Counsel for the petitioner stated that the dismissal is a punishment and awarding any kind of punishment would require rigors of law like proper enquiry and adopting the proper procedure. 5. Counsel for the respondents, however, state that the petitioner was under probation and they had a right to Act under Section 8 to cancel his appointment. 6. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion this Court of the opinion that once the respondent has come to the conclusion with the help of respondent No.5, the Board of Secondary Education, Ajmer, Rajasthan, that the documents submitted were not issued by the Board then the invocation of Condition No.8 canceling the appointment of petitioner was justified, however, the law prescribes a detailed procedure for imposing the punishment of dismissal from service which has far reaching consequences in future appointment etc. and therefore, cannot be invoked in the present set of circumstances. 7. The writ petition is, accordingly partly allowed and the dismissal from service in order dated 03.09.2014 is substituted with cancellation of appointment in accordance with Condition No.8 of order dated 30.09.2013.