JUDGMENT : PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J. 1. Petitioner has preferred this writ petition seeking following reliefs:- "(i) quash and set aside the entire enquiry proceedings initiated on the basis of charge sheet dated 22.1.2004 (annexure-1), punishment order dated 28.4.2006 (annexure-21) and the appellate order dated 7.11.2007 (annexure-23) with all consequential benefits to the petitioners; (ii) any other order or direction as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case may also be passed in favour of humble petitioner. (iii) cost of this writ petition may also be awarded in favour of humble petitioner." 2. Brief facts of the case as noticed by this Court are that the petitioner was given appointment as a Guard bearing No. 1920 in Jail Department in the year 1983. He was confirmed in 1991 and was granted selection scale on completion of 9 years of service and has put in more than 24 years of service with the respondent-department. He has unblemished record, the petitioner was charge-sheeted on 22/01/2004 with two allegations to the effect that in the year 1983, he obtained employment as a Guard in Jail Department on the basis of the forged document. It was alleged that alongwith application form, he submitted certain document of his date of birth from Government Primary School, Gadarpura, Dholpur which was transfer certificate wherein the date of birth mentioned was 01/01/1960. The duplicate Transfer Certificate dated 18/10/1995 issued by the Government Higher Secondary School, Sarmathura, Dholpur submitted by the petitioner alongwith application dated 29/09/2000 mentioned his date of birth as 06/06/1955. Second charge against the petitioner was that in the application form for appointment as a Guard, the Transfer Certificate annexed alongwith it in which it was mentioned that he had taken admission at No. 309 on 01/07/1972 and it was shown in the Transfer Certificate issued on 01/07/1978 that he had left the School on 01/05/1975 vide Transfer Certificate No. 49/26 whereas the record of the Government Primary School, Gardarpura, Dholpur shows that admission No. 309 is of one Kushal Singh and Transfer Certificate No. 49/26 issued on 01/10/1981 is of some Munshi Khan son of Iiali Bux. 3. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had unblemished service record of 24 years and has been punished for no good reason as the correct document pertaining to his actual date of birth i.e. 06/06/1955 was furnished by the petitioner himself on 29/09/2000. Learned counsel also submits that the application dated 29/09/2000 was actually on record submitted by the petitioner and the previous record is not in accordance with the record which has been submitted by the petitioner. He further submits that the respondents did not give proper opportunity of hearing and did not adhere to the necessary parameters of principles of natural justice before passing the impugned order which is quite harsh. He also submitted that the first enquiry conducted against the petitioner absolved him of the charge and it was only upon the second enquiry initiated that the petitioner was given the punishment of termination of service. He further submits that no purpose would be served of giving a wrong Transfer Certificate when the petitioner actually had Transfer Certificate showing the date of birth i.e. 06/06/1955 as it would still entitle the petitioner to be eligible to get job of the Guard which he had got. He harped on the issue that reflection of a wrong date of birth i.e. 01/01/1960 would not have precluded the petitioner from participating the selection process and thus, no purpose would have been served for submitting a wrongful document. He has also drawn attention of this Court to the enquiry report in which, as per learned counsel, opportunity of hearing has not been given and even so much so that the documents sought by the petitioner were not given to him as reflected in Annexure-11 as well as enquiry report. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has drawn attention of this Court to Annexure-R/2 which is a report submitted by Principal of the Government Primary School, Gardarpura, Dholpur which clearly stipulates that the TC No. 49/26 was given for leaving the School on 01/05/1975 as per record of the Government Primary School, Gadarpura, Dholpur. He further submitted that Annexure-R/2 also reflects that the admission No. 309 dated 01/07/1972 was not correct. He further submitted that Admission No. 309 is of one Kushal Singh and TC No. 49/26 issued on 01/10/1981 is of some Munshi Khan son of Iiali Bux. He further submitted that Annexure-R/2 also reflects that the admission No. 309 dated 01/07/1972 was not correct. He further submitted that Admission No. 309 is of one Kushal Singh and TC No. 49/26 issued on 01/10/1981 is of some Munshi Khan son of Iiali Bux. Learned Counsel also submits that the complete procedure was adopted, proper enquiry was held and after taking complete evidence on record, the decision was taken. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the material available on record, this Court is of the opinion that though the petitioner shall suffer hardship on account of 24 years unblemished service and this Court may have sympathy for him but it cannot be turned into legal rights, particularly when the petitioner at the threshold of his appointment gave a document which was not only concocted and fraudulent but also carried particulars which did not belong to the present petitioner. ON a bare examination of Annexure-R/2, it can be seen that the TC given by the petitioner at the first instance at the time of his admission was forged as it did not belong to him and belonged to some Munshi Khan son of Iiali Bux. The record of the Government Primary School, Gadarpura, Dholpur and the letter written by the Principal clearly indicate that the petitioner did not enter the Jail Department services as Guard with clean hands. The enquiry report which is annexed alongwith the writ petition is clearly a detailed report with proper consideration of the charges levelled as well as the evidence rendered. The order passed by the disciplinary authority is also in accordance with law. No irregularity has been pointed out which would render the enquiry as bad in eye of law. In the given circumstances, looking to the aforesaid observations, no case for interference in the order impugned is made out. 6. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed as having no merit. All pending applications including stay application also stand dismissed.