Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 462 (GUJ)

Chetanaben C Patel v. State of Gujarat

2018-02-09

A.S.SUPEHIA

body2018
JUDGMENT : 1. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 27.10.2010, wherein and whereby the services of the petitioner were terminated. 2. The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that: 3. The petitioner was appointed as Vidhya sahayak on 02.03.2006. At the time of appointment, the petitioner has submitted the certificate of Sangeet Visharad issued by Shri Akhil Bharat Gandhrav Maha Vidhyala Mandal, Mumbai. 4. Thereafter, upon inquiry through office bearer of respondent no.2 from the Registrar, Akhil Bhartiya Gandharva Mahavidhyalaya, the deponent came to know that the Certificate No. 12285, which has been produced by the petitioner is forged and fake and in this behalf the Registrar of the Mahavidhyalaya has issued a letter dated 10.09.2010 stating that the certificate of Chetnaben – examination Sr. No.16752, April, 1997 of Nadiad Centre of Visharad Puma Gayan Examination and certificate No. 12285 is found forged. 5. Learned advocate, Mr.P.S. Champaneri appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order is being stigmatic is required to be quash and set aside since no opportunity of hearing has been provided to the present petitioner before arriving on the findings recorded in the impugned order. On the sole ground, he seeks prayer directing the respondent to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner by the respondent authority. 6. Learned advocate, Ms. Archita Prajapati for Mr.M.P. Prajapati appearing on behalf of respondent no.2 has submitted that as per the terms and conditions of the appointment order, the petitioner was required to produce all the genuine certificates and in case, it was found that the certificates produced by the candidate are forged; that their service is required to be terminated as mentioned in Annexure-R2. 7. However, she has submitted that the petitioner shall be afford an opportunity of post decisional hearing. 8. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties and perused all the documents produced on record. 9. In view of the submissions made by the learned advocates appearing on respective parties, the impugned order is hereby quashed and set aside. Respondent no.2 shall pass an appropriate order after affording an opportunity of post decisional hearing to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from today and appropriate order shall be passed within a period of two weeks thereafter. 10. This court has not expressed any opinion on the merits. Respondent no.2 shall pass an appropriate order after affording an opportunity of post decisional hearing to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from today and appropriate order shall be passed within a period of two weeks thereafter. 10. This court has not expressed any opinion on the merits. It is clarified that no directions are issued by the court qua consequential benefits. In case it is found the termination is bad in law, necessary consequential benefits shall be granted to the petitioner. 11. With the above directions, the petition is allowed. Rule is made to the aforesaid extent.