JUDGMENT Dinesh Chandra Yadav is before this Court assailing the validity of the order dated 30.1.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 13725 of 2013 (Dinesh Chandra Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & others) wherein learned Single Judge has refused to quash the order dated 24.1.2013 by which the engagement of petitioner appellant on the post of Gram Rozgar Sewak on contract basis had been cancelled. Petitioner appellant claims that he was engaged as Panchayat Mitra in the year 2008 and as his work and conduct has been satisfactory he was permitted to perform and discharge his duties on the said post. Subsequent to the same, petitioner appellant claims that designation in question has been changed from Panchayat Mitra to Gram Rozgar Sewak and, accordingly, petitioner appellant submits that he continued to function as Gram Rozgar Sewak. Petitioner appellant has proceeded to make a mention that policy decision was taken for continuing such Gram Rozgar Sewak. Petitioner appellant contended that he continued on the aforesaid post till the year 2012, however, the honorarium was not paid to him after 2010, hence, he filed writ petition no. 44001 of 2012 before this Court and this Court on 6.9.2012 asked the District Magistrate to decide the representation of petitioner appellant. Thereafter, petitioner appellant submitted the representation and same has been turned down on 24.1.2013. Petitioner appellant being aggrieved by the rejection of his representation preferred writ petition no. 13725 of 2013 and this Court has proceeded to dismiss the aforementioned writ petition, impelling the petitioner appellant to be once again before this Court in present special appeal. Learned counsel for the petitioner appellant submitted with vehemence that in the present case he had functioned up till the year 2012 and his grievance has been that in spite of his functioning he was not being paid his honorarium and instead of addressing the issue of honorarium, finding has been returned that petitioner appellant stood disengaged based on resolution passed by the Administrative Committee of Gram Panchayat Pipra Parasauni, district Maharajganj followed by ratification of Gram Panchayat Pipra Parasauni, district Maharajganj. It is further being contended that at no point of time any show cause notice has been served upon and entire proceedings was nothing but paper work and the fact of the matter is that there has been no adverse material to disengage his services, as has been sought to be done, whereas in the independent enquiry, so conducted, all the charges have not at all been found to be proved, as such, larger picture ought to have been examined instead of proceeding with the closed mind, in view of this, the order passed by the District Magistrate as well as by the learned Single Judge deserves to be set-aside for revisiting the matter. Learned Standing Counsel as well as Sri T.M. Khan, Advocate, contended that rightful view has been taken in the matter and no interference be made by this Court. After respective arguments have been advanced the factual situation that has been so emerging in the present case is that petitioner appellant has been performing and discharging his duties as Gram Rozgar Sewak and as per the record available conduct of petitioner appellant has been alleged to be unsatisfactory and, accordingly, the Administrative Committee of Gram Panchayat Pipra Parasauni, district Maharajganj, passed a resolution dated 11.11.2010 for disengaging the services of petitioner appellant from the post of Gram Rozgar Sewak. Said action has subsequently been ratified by Gram Panchayat Pipra Parasauni, district Maharajganj. Petitioner appellant, on the other hand, has been contending that he continued to function up till the year 2012 and as his honorarium has not been paid, then he has been before this Court but the issue raised by him has not at all been considered in its correct perspective. In the present case while proceeding to dismiss the writ petition, learned Single Judge has proceeded to make a mention that experience certificate dated 27.7.2012 was a forged document and no work has been taken from the petitioner appellant. Once petitioner appellant has been claiming specifically that he had functioned up till the year 2012 and has been producing documentary evidence then such aspect of the matter was also required to be examined by the District Magistrate as to whether the petitioner appellant has actually functioned or not and as to whether the experience certificate dated 27.7.2012 was a forged document. In case petitioner appellant has not at all functioned and has proceeded to file a forged experience certificate then certainly the petitioner appellant would expose himself for criminal action also, inasmuch as, forging of document is a serious offence but the fact of the matter is that before District Magistrate, at no point of time, any such situation has emerged that experience certificate dated 27.7.2012 filed by the petitioner appellant was a forged document as no finding has been returned on said aspect of the matter. Coupled with this, in the present case, a report was submitted by the Block Development Officer dated 16.11.2012 to make payment of honorarium to the petitioner appellant and the contents of the complaint against him were found to be baseless. Once such were the material, that were available on record, then much more exercise was required to be undertaken keeping in view the version of petitioner appellant also, in view of this, the decision making process adopted by the District Magistrate, Maharajganj is not being approved of by us and as all these aspect of the matter has not been taken note of by the District Magistrate and learned Single Judge has also gone by the observations made by the District Magistrate, the order passed by the District Magistrate, Maharajganj dated 24.1.2013 as well as the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 30.1.2017 are hereby quashed and set-aside. The District Magistrate, Maharajganj is directed to pass fresh order, in accordance with law, preferably within a period of next four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order after getting an enquiry conducted by the District Magistrate, Maharajganj qua the genuinity of experience certificate and, in case, same is found forged, then criminal action be taken as against the petitioner appellant. Special appeal is allowed, accordingly.