JUDGMENT 1. The present writ appeal is arising out of order dated 30.04.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.18168/2017 by which the writ petition preferred by the respondent has been allowed. 2. The facts of the case reveal that an advertisement was published on 21.05.2007 for appointment on the post of Accounts Officer and the respondent was selected on the said post vide order dated 07.03.2008 by virtue of her performance. She was holding the qualification required for the post which includes a PGDCPA certificate. The certificate was issued by All India Society for Electronic and Computer Technology set up under core support from Department of Science and Technology, Government of India. 3. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued to the respondent on 30.03.2016. The respondent did submit a reply to the show cause notice and without taking into account the reply, the service of the respondent were put an end. The respondent thereafter came up before this Court by filing a writ petition which was registered as W.P.No.3127/2016 and this Court vide order dated 02.11.2016 directed the appellate authority to decide the respondent's appeal. 4. The appeal of the respondent was rejected by order 03.10.20017. Thereafter, a second writ petition being W.P.No.18168/2017 was preferred by the respondent before this Court. The learned Single Judge vide order dated 30.04.2019 in paragraphs 4 to 9 has held as under:- '4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the orders impugned is illegal and arbitrary and violative of principle of natural justice. He submits that the orders are stigmatic in nature and, therefore, the same could not have been passed without holding any departmental enquiry. He relies upon the judgments passed by this Court in the case of Rahul Tripathi Vs. Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Mission, reported in 2001 (3) MPHT 397 , Rajendra Tiwari @ Raju Vs. State of M.P. & others reported in 2005 (3) MPHT 69 and Jitendra Vs. State of M.P. & others, reported in 2008(5) MPHT 146 . He submits that the impugned orders be set aside. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents have filed their reply and submits that the petitioner has produced the forged certificate of experience at the time of her appointment, therefore, the impugned orders have rightly been passed by the authorities. 6. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record as well as the orders impugned. 7. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents have filed their reply and submits that the petitioner has produced the forged certificate of experience at the time of her appointment, therefore, the impugned orders have rightly been passed by the authorities. 6. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record as well as the orders impugned. 7. In the present case, the services of the petitioner are terminated alleging certain illegalities in getting the appointment. The impugned termination orders being stigmatic in nature alleging misconduct involving moral turpitude, the same could not have been passed without holding regular enquiry. The impugned termination orders would certainly create hurdle in petitioner's future employment. In the circumstances, before passing such an stigmatic order, regular enquiry ought to have been conducted as observed by this Court in various judgments. 8. As a result, the impugned orders are hereby quashed. The petitioner shall be entitled to reinstate with consequential benefits. However, liberty is granted to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner afresh in accordance with law, if so advised. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated herein above." 5. This Court has carefully gone through the entire record. There is no document filed by the State Government to establish that the certificate submitted by the respondent was a forged certificate. There is no document on record to justify the termination order which is based upon the alleged allegation of submitting a forged certificate. It is true that some enquiry was conducted behind the back of the respondent, but as to how the enquiry has arrived at a conclusion that it is a forged certificate, what material was taken into consideration by the enquiry committee to arrive at a conclusion that it is a forged certificate, does not find place in the order of termination. 6. In the considered opinion of this Court, as the services of the respondent were dispensed with after conducting the enquiry behind her back, the learned Single Judge was justified in allowing the writ petition. 7. This Court does not find any reason to interfere in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 8. The admission is declined. C.C. as per rules.