ORDER 1. In this third round of litigation, petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by orders Annexures P-1 and P-2 passed by the respondents authorities inflicting a major penalty of removal from service on the husband of the petitioner – Hussain Khan. 2. Brief facts, which are necessary for adjudication of this writ petition, are that petitioner - Hussain Khan was appointed as a Helper in the respondents Electricity Board and had completed about 22 years of service when order of punishment was first inflicted on him in the year 2010. It is petitioner's case that when he was appointed as a Helper, at that point of time, no educational qualification was prescribed for appointment of Helper and only on the basis of experience and efficiencies, a person was given regular appointment on the post of Helper. This fact is varifieable from the communication dated 16.8.2010 part of Annexure P-20 made by the Executive Engineer to the Superintending Engineer, Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Company Limited. It is submitted that due to some enmity with a labour, who had forged a death certificate of the petitioner and had prepared a forged will so to occupy his property, such encroacher had filed a complaint before the authorities that petitioner does not possesses 8th class qualification and the mark-sheet, which has been verified by the authorities in the year 2003 is forged and, therefore, charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner as is contained in Annexure P-9. The charge on the petitioner was as under : ^^;g fd Jh gqlSu [kku iq= Jh Nhrj [kka tks fd ykbu ifjpkjd Js.kh&nks ds in ij dsUnzh; {ks= uxj laHkkx nf{k.k Xokfy;j esa inLFk gSa ds }kjk fnukad 19-6-2003 dks vius inLFkkiuk LFky dsUnzh; {ks= ij iwoZ ek/;fed ijh{kk ls lacaf/kr 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk laca/kh QthZ Áek.khdj.k ÁLrqr dj diViwoZd e.My ds lkFk /kks[kk/kM+h djrs gq, eŒÁŒ flfoy lfoZl d.MDV fu;eksa dk mYya?ku fd;k x;kA^^ 3. A detailed enquiry was conducted and the Enquiry Officer vide his report dated 24.12.2009 found that all the prosecution witnesses in their deposition have though mentioned that they had verified the mark-sheet but who produced such mark-sheet for verification was not known to them. A detailed enquiry was conducted and the Enquiry Officer vide his report dated 24.12.2009 found that all the prosecution witnesses in their deposition have though mentioned that they had verified the mark-sheet but who produced such mark-sheet for verification was not known to them. In this regard, statement of the then Assistant Engineer, Central Zone Shri A.K. Sharma was taken and also that of one Rahul Gupta, who was at the relevant time was posted as Assistant Grade – II, another witness Shri Bhagat Singh, who was posted as Assistant Grade – II and had since retired also deposed that they have no information about the fact that who produced such mark-sheet for verification. 4. In conclusion, the Enquiry Officer has categorically noted that no document is available in records asking the delinquent employee Shri Hussain Khan, Line Helper to produce any marks-heet for verification, which may help in co-relating the fact that such mark-sheet was produced by delinquent Hussain Khan. On the basis of such fact, it has been concluded that since the then Assistant Engineer Shri A.K. Sharma has admitted that though he had verified the certificate but he is not in a position as to who had produced such certificate, therefore, it is not possible to give a finding as to whether such certificate was produced by Shri Hussain Khan or not. However, it was found that the then Clerk Rahul Gupta had marked an inward number on said certificate and on the basis of such inward number, the Enquiry Officer recorded a finding that from the circumstantial evidence, it appears that delinquent Hussain Khan had produced such certificate in the office. 5. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer recorded another finding that the covering letter dated 19.6.2003 is in different handwriting than that was obtained as a sample from the delinquent Shri Hussain Khan at the time of enquiry. 5. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer recorded another finding that the covering letter dated 19.6.2003 is in different handwriting than that was obtained as a sample from the delinquent Shri Hussain Khan at the time of enquiry. On the basis of such difference in the handwriting on the letter, which was produced forwarding the mark-sheet and the signatures as were obtained by the Enquiry Officer during the course of the enquiry noted a fact that since the educational certificate allegedly obtained at the time of first appointment was not within the purview of the enquiry, therefore, enquiry be conducted in this regard, thereafter, a show cause notice was issued vide Annexure P-12 on 4.1.2010 pointing out that the mark-sheet which was produced for class 8th for which examination was conducted in the year 1970 from Gandhi Higher Secondary School, Machchand District Bhind on verification has been declared to be false and fabricated by the District Education Officer, Bhind vide his communication dated 9.12.2009, therefore, why the services of the petitioner be not terminated. Reply be sought within 10 days. 6. Petitioner filed reply and had mentioned that none of the charges were found proved against him and he had never supplied any mark-sheet on 19.6.2003 and, therefore, he prayed for dropping of the charges. Besides this, he had also mentioned that he had never produced any mark-sheet at the time of his first appointment, therefore, he is not in a position to furnish any explanation in this regard. Thereafter, petitioner had filed W.P. No. 348/2010 which was decided vide order dated 21.1.2010. In this writ petition, petitioner had challenged the show cause notice dated 4.1.2010. This writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondent /competent disciplinary authority to take into account of the grounds raised by the petitioner in his reply while passing a speaking order in the matter. Thereafter, a supplementary charge-sheet was issued against the petitioner vide Annexure P-15 on 6.2.2010 in which levying the charge of producing the forged mark-sheet, Enquiry Officer was appointed and by report dated 15.6.2010 Enquiry Officer found the charge of producing a forged mark-sheet to be proved. 7. Thereafter, a supplementary charge-sheet was issued against the petitioner vide Annexure P-15 on 6.2.2010 in which levying the charge of producing the forged mark-sheet, Enquiry Officer was appointed and by report dated 15.6.2010 Enquiry Officer found the charge of producing a forged mark-sheet to be proved. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this second enquiry was fraught with several irregularities, inasmuch as despite the fact that earlier Enquiry Officer Shri Kalra was available but a new Enquiry Officer Shri R.H. Verma was appointed as an Enquiry Officer and Shri Kalra was appointed as a Presenting Officer. It is submitted that this has prejudiced the case of the petitioner, inasmuch as for further enquiry, the same Enquiry Officer should have been continued especially when he was available in service with the respondent and not retired and this change of Enquiry Officer because he had not given favorable report while conducting earlier enquiry, is a major lapse and violation of rule 14 of Madhya Pradesh (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (in short “Rules, 1966”). Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that he had sought information under Right to Information Act and he has been informed vide Annexure P-20 that there was a proposal to inflict penalty of reduction to a lower time scale or a compulsory retirement, instead of dismissal from service but for the reasons best known to the authorities, this proposal was not accepted and no reason has been mentioned for not accepting such proposal of inflicting a lesser penalty on the petitioner's husband. 8. Petitioner had filed a second W.P. No. 145/2011, by which co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 8.5.2017 quashed the order of the Appellate Authority and directed the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal afresh keeping in mind the provisions contained in rule 27(2) of the Rules, 1966, thereafter, impugned order Annexure P-1 has been passed, which has been assailed by the petitioner to be a non-speaking order. 9. Shri Goyal, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that once it has been found proved that petitioner had produced a forged mark-sheet at the time of his initial appointment, he does not require any mercy on consideration of his appeal and appeal has been decided after taking into consideration the provisions contained in rule 27(2) of the Rules, 1966. Shri Goyal has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Vice-Chairman, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and another v. Girdharilal Yadav as reported in (2004) 6 SCC 325, wherein relying on the earlier judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Ram Chandra Singh v. Savitri Devi as, reported in (2003) 8 SCC 319 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that once respondent Girdharilal Yadav had committed a fraud on appellant in matter of appointment of respondent as Principal in appellant's institute by submitting a fraudulent caste certificate, then in such a matter, where after holding enquiries by authorities below and after giving two opportunities of hearing, respondent was found to be guilty of fraud, therefore, no further opportunity of hearing was necessary to be afforded to him and in not affording any further opportunity, there was no violation of principles of natural justice. Similarly, he placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Devendra Kumar v. State of Uttaranchal and others as reported in (2013) 9 SCC 363 , wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court placing reliance on the judgment of Ram Chandra Singh (supra), has held that fraud avoids all judicial acts. Placing reliance on such judgments, he submits that there is no irregularity or illegality in the impugned order calling for any interference. 10. While passing the order dated 8.5.2017, co-ordinate Bench of this Court reproduced provisions of rule 27 of the Rules, 1966, which are again reproduced for the purpose of clarification : "27. Consideration of appeal.- (1) In the case of an appeal against an order of suspension, the appellate authority shall consider whether in the light of the provisions of rule 9 and having regard to the circumstances of the case, the order of suspension is justified or not and confirm or revoke the order accordingly. Consideration of appeal.- (1) In the case of an appeal against an order of suspension, the appellate authority shall consider whether in the light of the provisions of rule 9 and having regard to the circumstances of the case, the order of suspension is justified or not and confirm or revoke the order accordingly. (2) In the case of an appeal against an order imposing any of the penalties specified in rule 10 or enhancing any penalty imposed under the said rule, the appellate authority shall consider.- (a) whether the procedure laid down in these rules has been complied with and if not, whether such non-compliance has resulted in the violation of any provisions of the Constitution of India or in the failure of justice; (b) whether the findings of the disciplinary authority are warranted by the evidence on the records; and (c) whether the penalty or the enhanced penalty imposed is adequate, inadequate or severe, and pass orders- (i) confirming, enhancing, reducing or setting aside the penalty; or (ii) remitting the case to the authority which imposed or enhanced the penalty or to any other authority with such direction as it may deem fit in the circumstances of the case:" 11. Rule 27 of the Rules, 1966 provides that Appellate Authorities are required to see, whether procedure laid down in the Rules has been complied with or not and whether the findings of the disciplinary authorities are warranted by the evidence on records and whether the penalty or the enhanced penalty imposed is adequate or severe. 12. Rule 27 of the Rules, 1966 provides that Appellate Authorities are required to see, whether procedure laid down in the Rules has been complied with or not and whether the findings of the disciplinary authorities are warranted by the evidence on records and whether the penalty or the enhanced penalty imposed is adequate or severe. 12. In the present case, it is apparent from the impugned order that the first ground of challenge by the petitioner is that he had not produced any mark-sheet at the time of his appointment or for verification subsequently has not been considered, none of the prosecution witnesses have said that such mark-sheet was produced by the delinquent employee; similarly, the second ground of the petitioner that the second enquiry was vitiated by change of Enquiry Officer has not been considered by the appellate authority and third ground that petitioner had since never submitted any mark-sheet and in the original charge-sheet there was no charge that petitioner had furnished the forged mark-sheet at the time of entry of service and subsequently, when Enquiry Officer found that there was no evidence lead by the prosecution to prove that the petitioner had used any mark-sheet to seek appointment or subsequently submitted for verification and in fact there was no material on record calling for such mark-sheet for verification then there was no occasion for amending the charge and going behind the original charge that there was a forged mark-sheet available at the time of initial appointment. In fact it is contrary to the case of the prosecution, inasmuch as according to the prosecution case, since petitioner had not produced any mark-sheet at the time of initial appointment, therefore, the mark-sheet was produced in the year 2003 for verification, thus, there was no occasion for them to have got the same mark-sheet verified as was produced in the year 2003 to treat a mark-sheet as if it was produced on initial appointment. 13. It is also submitted that when the punishment proposed was of reduction to a lower time scale or compulsory retirement as the petitioner had already put in 22 years of service on the date of passing the order of penalty, then appellate authority was required to apply its mind that why more severe punishment has been inflicted by the disciplinary authority. All these facts have since not been considered by the appellate authority and as is apparent from the various enquiry reports and the material which was produced by the Enquiry Officer that they could not successfully prove production of any mark-sheet by the petitioner and, therefore, it could not have been said that the petitioner committed any fraud or delinquency by producing a forged mark-sheet to obtain any appointment and when it is mentioned by the Executive Engineer himself that at the relevant point of time, when petitioner was given appointment, no qualification was prescribed for appointment as a labour, this Court is of the opinion that the finding recorded by the disciplinary authority in subsequent enquiry that petitioner had produced a forged mark-sheet was beyond the scope of enquiry because until and unless it was proved that such mark-sheet was produced by the petitioner and petitioner employee had obtained appointment on the basis of such forged mark-sheet, petitioner could not have been declared to be a delinquent in the matter of production of a forged mark-sheet. 14. In view of such facts and also the fact that the appellate authority has failed to consider the various aspects reproduced above as contents of rule 27(2) of the Rules, 1966, it cannot be said that there is actual and complete compliance of provisions contained in rule 27(2) of the Rules 1966, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and is quashed. It is directed that the appellate authority shall apply its mind afresh on the issues raised before this Court and which were available before the appellate authority as have been reproduced above and pass a fresh order within 30 days and shall also take into consideration two facts; first, delinquent employee has passed away and petition has been filed by his widow and second, that punishment, which was proposed in the facts and circumstances, was reduction to a lower time scale or compulsory retirement. These facts may help the appellate authority to arrive on an equitable decision. Let the decision be taken within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the petition stands disposed of.