Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 451 (GAU)

A. Vivana v. State of Nagaland

2021-07-26

S.HUKATO SWU

body2021
JUDGMENT : S. Hukato Swu, J. 1. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuance of writ of mandamus or writ of certiorari for violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part-III of the Constitution of India specially with respect to Article 300A and 311 of the Constitution of India is filed by the four petitioners herein who were appointed at different times by the Principal Director, Health and Family Welfare, Nagaland, Kohima, 2. Heard Mr. Joshua Sheqi assisted by Ms. Mika H Aye learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. V. Zhimomi, learned Government Advocate for the State respondents. 3. The petitioner No. 1 was appointed by an Order dated 23-04-2008 under letter No. DHFW-3/117/CHOW/79-81 as Medical Attendant at Tokiye Sub-Centre in the scale pay of Rs. 2550-55-2660-80-3200/- P.M. plus all other admissible allowances. The petitioner No. 2 was appointed as Medical Attendant at Ghathashi P.H.C. by an Order dated 30-05-2008 in letter No. DHFW-3/117/MA/ZBTO/03-04 (Pt-I) in the scale pay of Rs. 2550-55-2660-3200/- P.M. plus all other admissible allowances. The petitioner No. 3 was appointed by an order dated 14-11-2008 by letter NO. DHFW-3/117/AYAH/ZBTO/VOL-1/79-84 while petitioner No. 4 was appointed by an order dated 23-03-2009 as Mali in C.H.C. Pughoboto by letter NO. DHFW-3/117/Mali/Zbto/Vol-1/79-81. 4. Sometimes in the year 2010, the department of Health and Family Welfare, Nagaland detected suspected appointments of employees under forged signatures against non-existent posts and the matter was investigated by the then Vigilance Commission, Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Police, Nagaland, Kohima. All the petitioners named herein were suspected to be appointed by obtaining forged signatures and they were put under scrutiny. The petitioner No. 1 received pay till June, 2009 while the petitioner No. 2 and 3 received pay till 17-02-2020 and the petitioner No. 4 received pay till April, 2012. It is the case of the petitioners that they were all terminated by a common order dated 17-02-2020. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the termination orders were based on the report of the Vigilance Commission Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Nagaland, Kohima which is dated 04-12-2014. He submits that there is no other document than the present one on the basis of which the petitioners have been terminated. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the termination orders were based on the report of the Vigilance Commission Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Nagaland, Kohima which is dated 04-12-2014. He submits that there is no other document than the present one on the basis of which the petitioners have been terminated. For the sake of understanding, the letter of the Inspector General of Police and Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Police, Nagaland, Kohima is reproduced below:- "VIGILANCE COMMISSION DIRECTORATE OF VIGILANCE & ANTI CORRUPTION POLICE NAGALAND : KOHIMA No. RC-6/2011 Dated Kohima, the 4th Dec' 2014 To, The Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, Health & Family Welfare Deptt. Kohima Sub: Forwarding of Final Report. Sir, In inviting a reference to the subject cited above, I have the honour to forward the Final Report in connection with the investigation made without sanctioned posts and suspected signature of the authority in the Health & Family Welfare Department, Nagaland. This is for favour of your kind and further necessary action please. Kindly acknowledge receipt of the same. Encl: As stated above Yours faithfully, (J.L. YADEN) Inspector General of Police, & Director Vigilance & Anti Corruption Police, Nagaland, Kohima No. RC-6/2011 Dated Kohima, the 04th Dec. 2014 Copy to:- 1. The Principal Director, Health & Family Welfare Nagaland, Kohima. This is with reference to their letter No. DHFW-17/Combined Legal Case/2014/8550-52 dated 27/10/2014 (a copy of the Final Report is enclosed herewith 2. Office copy (J.L. YADEN) Inspector General of Police, & Director Vigilance & Anti Corruption Police, Nagaland, Kohima" 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the list enumerated in the final report, there is no mention of the petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3. Only the name of the petitioner No. 4 appears at Serial No. 7 wherein, it has been reflected that the appointment order of the petitioner No. 4 was obtained by forged signature of the appointing authority. Relying upon the document of the State respondents itself, learned counsel argues that there is absolutely no evidence to show that the petitioners have been appointed by means of forged signature. Placing reliance upon the letter of the Principal Director, Health and Family Welfare, Nagaland, Kohima, he has argued that the action of the State respondents terminating the services of the petitioners were not in conformity with the documents on record. Placing reliance upon the letter of the Principal Director, Health and Family Welfare, Nagaland, Kohima, he has argued that the action of the State respondents terminating the services of the petitioners were not in conformity with the documents on record. He has exhibited the letter issued by the respondent No. 2 which is reproduced below for the sake of understanding the matter :- "GOVERNMENT OF NAGALAND DIRECTORATE OF HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE NAGALAND : KOHIMA NO. DHFW-3/CONFIDENTIAL/2008/65 Dated Kohima, the 28th April, 2010 To, The Chief Medical Officer, Zunheboto : Nagaland Sub:- IN REGARD TO CLARIFICATION OF GENUINE APPOINTMENT WITH EFFECT FROM 2008 TO 2010 Reference your letter No. CMO-1/3/Condfi/2008-09 Sir, The following appointments of Grade-IV staffs under different Medical Units within Zunheboto District. Sl.No Name Designation Place of Posting 1 Smti Visheli Swu M/A Ghathashi S.H.C 2 Smti Govili Sumi Ayah Lazami Sub-Centre 3 Shri Hokuto Sumi Mali Pughoboto CHC The above mentioned Grade-IV staff is genuine and their pay and allowances may prepared w.e.f. 1st May 2010. Yours faithfully, (DR. V. SEKHOSE) PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE NAGALAND : KOHIMA" 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that File NO. DHWF-3/Confidential/2008 mentioned in the letter dated 28-04-2010 exists in the department (Annexure-A to the writ petition). However, there is no record in the concerned file with regard to correspondences made by the then Principal Director concerning the letter in question. Learned counsel submits that the existence of the letter admitting that all the petitioners herein were appointed genuinely is in the custody of the Directorate. Only correspondences files are found to be missing. He has therefore argued that there is no basis of terminating the petitioners on the ground of forgery. 8. It has also been argued that the petitioners were terminated without being given due opportunity to reply to the show cause notices. The petitioner No. 4 received show cause notice along with termination order in the month of February, 2020 while the petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3 received their termination orders in a very short span of time after the receipt of show cause notice. Therefore, while exercising administrative authority, the State respondents have overlooked the principles of administrative law which governs all proceedings in service matters. The maxim audi alteram partem was totally neglected thereby disprivileging the petitioners of a very important right which is a component of principles of natural justice. Therefore, while exercising administrative authority, the State respondents have overlooked the principles of administrative law which governs all proceedings in service matters. The maxim audi alteram partem was totally neglected thereby disprivileging the petitioners of a very important right which is a component of principles of natural justice. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon the case of Mahipal Sing Tomar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, reported in (2013) 16 SCC 771 . The Apex Court has pronounced in the above cited ruling at para 15 that "In administrative law, the "rules of natural justice" have traditionally been regarded as comprising audi alteram partem and nemo judex in sua causa. The first of these rules requires the maker of a decision to give prior notice to the proposed decision to the persons affected by it and an opportunity to them to make representation. The second rule disqualifies a person from judging a case if he has direct pecuniary or proprietary interest or might otherwise be biased. The first principle is of great importance because it embraces the rule of fair procedure or due process. Generally speaking, the notion of a fair hearing extends to the right to have notice of the other side's case, the right to bring evidence and the right to argue. This has been used by the courts for nullifying administrative actions. The premise on which the courts extended their jurisdiction against the administrative action was that the duty to give every victim a fair hearing was a much a principle of good administration as of good legal procedure." Based on the above decision of the Apex Court, the learned counsel argues that the rights of the petitioners have been abridged and it deserves the indulgence of the Court. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners have also relied upon the ruling of the Apex Court in the case of Gopal Reddy vs. State of A.P., reported in (1996) 4 SCC 596 . The Apex Court in the above referred ruling observed at para 28 with respect to reliability of handwriting and opinion rendered by hand writing expert. "28. Thus, the evidence of PW3 is not definite and cannot be said to be of a clinching nature to connect the appellant with the disputed letters. The Apex Court in the above referred ruling observed at para 28 with respect to reliability of handwriting and opinion rendered by hand writing expert. "28. Thus, the evidence of PW3 is not definite and cannot be said to be of a clinching nature to connect the appellant with the disputed letters. The evidence of an expert is a rather weak evidence and the courts do not generally consider it as offering 'conclusive' proof and therefore not safe to rely upon the same without seeking independent and reliable corroboration. In Magan Bihari Lal v. State of Punjab, while dealing with the evidence of a handwriting expert, this Court opined; (SCC pp. 213-14 para 7) "... We think it would be extremely hazardous to condemn the appellant merely on the strength of opinion evidence of a handwriting expert. It is now well settled that expert opinion must always be received with great caution and perhaps none so with more caution than the opinion of a handwriting expert. There is a profusion of precedential authority which holds that it is unsafe to base a conviction solely on expert opinion without substantial corroboration. This rule has been universally acted upon and it has almost become a rule of law." 10. Basing upon the above cited ruling of the Apex Court, learned counsel argues that the expert opinion rendered by the handwriting expert alone without corroboration could not form the basis of any conviction. In our instant case, the facts are more intriguing in the sense that the handwriting of the concerned authority has rather clarified that it is a genuine document thus differing in opinion rendered by an expert. Such facts cannot have any evidentiary value in any trial. When the author of the questioned document has rendered his clarification that it is his signature and the questioned appointment orders were genuine there was no necessity to further investigate into the matter. It would be grave error in judging the petitioners as guilty of forgery. This argument settles the culpability of petitioner No. 4. There is no necessity to prove the innocence of petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3 considering that their names have not even figured in the final report submitted by the Vigilance Commission, Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption Police, Nagaland, Kohima which obviously form the basis of the punishment meted out to the petitioners. 11. There is no necessity to prove the innocence of petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3 considering that their names have not even figured in the final report submitted by the Vigilance Commission, Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption Police, Nagaland, Kohima which obviously form the basis of the punishment meted out to the petitioners. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the case of the petitioners are well covered by the judgment of the coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 13 (K) of 2019 in the case of Shri Lhotovi Swu vs. State of Nagaland and 2 Others which further confirmed the decision of this coordinate Bench in W.P.(C) No. 157 (K) of 2015 wherein it has been observed at para 12 : "This Court has considered the final report submitted by the respondent No. 3 to the respondent No. 1 by forwarding letter dated 04/12/2014. In the final report, the respondent No. 3 has categorized the list of employees into two groups namely, those appointed without sanctioned posts and those whose appointment orders were issued with forged signatures. A thorough scrutiny of the final report dated 4/12/2014 would clearly indicate that none of the names of the petitioners appeared in the list under appointments made without sanctioned posts. The names of the petitioners appeared in the list of those appointees with forged signatures, Further, reading down the final report, it is seen that 15 nos. of original appointment orders were sent to the expert and has been confirmed to be forged signatures. Amongst the confirmed list of forged signatures none of the names of the petitioners appeared therein. Further, the final report indicate that with regard to appointees made under forge signatures, 43 nos. of appointment orders could not be forwarded to the expert as the appointment order are in photo copies only. The petitioners are in this category whose appointment orders could not be sent to the expert to obtain their opinion with regard to the nature of appointment. 14. Coming to the final report dated 4/12/2014, this Court has noticed that the names of the petitioners fall within the category of appointees made under forged signatures. Further, amongst the forged signature appointees, the appointment orders of all the petitioners were never sent to the expert for their opinion. 14. Coming to the final report dated 4/12/2014, this Court has noticed that the names of the petitioners fall within the category of appointees made under forged signatures. Further, amongst the forged signature appointees, the appointment orders of all the petitioners were never sent to the expert for their opinion. It is therefore, not understood why the respondent No. 3 in its investigation has come to the conclusion that the appointment orders of the petitioners appears to be forged. The language would clearly indicate that it was not a conclusive investigation is so far as the appointment of the petitioners are concerned. The investigation being not conclusive, the State respondents therefore, could not have taken a decision to dismiss the service of the petitioners as has been done by the impugned order dated 27/4/2015 which also clearly indicates that the appointment orders are suspected to have been forged signature of the appointing authority. Such a serious decision could not have been taken merely on the ground of suspicion. 15. Further, it is important to note that prior to the submission of the final report by the respondent No. 3 on 4/12/2014, there were already 3 judicial pronouncements on 18/9/2014, 31/10/2014 and 4/11/2014 which clearly directed the respondents not to pass any adverse orders against the petitioners without affording an opportunity of being heard. A reading of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the State respondents would clearly indicate that they had violated the orders passed by this Court. 16. The reliance made by the learned Government Advocate in the case of Manipur and Others vs. Y. Token Singh and Others (supra) has been taken into consideration by this Court. Therein, the ratio laid down in W.P.(C) No. 157 (K)/2015 is that when the facts are admitted, the principles of natural justice were not required to be complied with. In the present case in hand, on consideration of the final report dated 4/12/2014, it is amply clear that none of the appointment orders of the petitioners were sent to the expert for expert opinion with regard to the genuineness of their appointment orders. In the absence of any expert opinion it cannot be held that the facts in the present case are admitted. Therefore, the reliance made by he learned Government Advocate does not help the case of the respondents." 12. For the merit of our case, the appointment orders of petitioner Nos. In the absence of any expert opinion it cannot be held that the facts in the present case are admitted. Therefore, the reliance made by he learned Government Advocate does not help the case of the respondents." 12. For the merit of our case, the appointment orders of petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were never sent for examination by handwriting expert. Therefore, we have no doubt in coming to the conclusion that there was any conclusive evidence that the appointment orders made in respect of petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are forged documents. Even with respect to the case of petitioner No. 4 as is observed by the coordinate Bench, there has been abridgment of principles of natural justice, audi alteram partem. The fact being that the petitioner No. 4 was presented with show cause notice along with termination order at the same time is a clear testimony. He was never given an opportunity to place his case before the authority and was denied of his right to be heard. Therefore, there is absolutely no ground for the order dated 17-02-2020 to stand the test of law. 13. Learned Government Advocate Mr. V. Zhimomi counters that the letter written by the Principal Director of Health and Family Welfare upon which the petitioners have based their substantive argument has not been traced in the department. Therefore, there is no merit in the arguments of the petitioners that the Principal Director has clarified the genuineness of the signature and the appointment orders impugned. The file NO. DHFW-3/Confidential/2008 mentioned in the letter dated 28-04-2010 exists in the department. (Annexure-A to the writ petition). However, there is no record in the concerned file with regard to the correspondences made by the then Principal Director as stated in the alleged letter. 14. The correspondence letter of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Nagaland to the Chief Medical Officer, Zunheboto (Annexure-F to the writ petition) calling upon the petitioners to submit their original appointment orders are self-explanatory. The statements of the writ petitioner Nos. 1 and 4 are apparent that they could not submit their original appointment orders which itself speaks that their appointment order does not exists (Annexure-G, H, I and J to the writ petition). The statements of the writ petitioner Nos. 1 and 4 are apparent that they could not submit their original appointment orders which itself speaks that their appointment order does not exists (Annexure-G, H, I and J to the writ petition). The then Secretary, Shri. T. Limsong, Health and Family Welfare Department vide letter dated 19-02-2010 submitted complaint to the Office of the Directorate of Investigation, Nagaland Lokayukta alleging that 9 (nine) Grade-IV staffs were suspected to be in possession of forged signatures of the then Principal Director and also the Director of DHFW. The present writ petitioners are included in that aforesaid 9 Grade-IV staffs. Accordingly, a criminal case R.C.21/2010 was registered by the Vigilance Commission and investigation was initiated. 15. On investigation of the matter, it was revealed that the writ petitioner No. 4 was in possession of forged appointment order. The Screening Committee held meeting on 17-07-2013 and as recommended by the Screening Committee, the department by order dated 05-05-2014 terminated the service of petitioner No. 4 along with 14 employees with effect from 30-04-2012. The writ petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 submitted their original appointment orders while petitioner Nos. 1 and 4 did not produce their original appointment orders. The Vigilance Commission requested to trace the record of file no. mentioned in the appointment orders of the writ petitioners. However, they could not trace any of the mentioned file in DHFW. The Lokayukta considered the matter and by letter dated 28-10-2019 submitted its recommendation to the Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare recommending to issue show cause notice as to why the termination order should not be issued against the petitioners. Show cause notice was issued on 21-11-2019 which is annexed as Annexure-K to the writ petition, the petitioners were to reply within 1 month as to why their services should not be terminated on the ground that their appointment orders were forged and without sanctioned posts. The said show cause notice was served to the writ petitioners through the CMO Zunheboto. The writ petitioners failed to reply to the said show cause notice within the stipulated time. Thereupon, as recommended by the Lokayukta by an order dated 17-02-2020 (Annexure-L to the writ petition), nullified the appointment of the present writ petitioners with immediate effect. He has therefore contended that the State respondents has taken appropriate legal steps by issuing notice upon the petitioners. Thereupon, as recommended by the Lokayukta by an order dated 17-02-2020 (Annexure-L to the writ petition), nullified the appointment of the present writ petitioners with immediate effect. He has therefore contended that the State respondents has taken appropriate legal steps by issuing notice upon the petitioners. No reply was received to the show cause notice. Their appointment orders which were found to be forged was therefore nullified. 16. Learned Government Advocate also argues that the judgment and order dated 25-10-2017 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) 157 (K) of 2015 (Annexure-O to the writ petition) relied upon by the petitioners is not applicable in the facts and circumstances involved in the present case. The show cause notice issued by the Director of Health and Family Welfare, Nagaland by letter dated 21-11-2019 which is reproduced below is self explanatory:- "GOVERNMENT OF NAGALAND DIRECTORATE OF HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE NAGALAND : KOHIMA NO. DHFW-3/117/Grade-IV/General/2010(Pt-I) Dated Kohima, the 21st Nov. 2019 SHOW CAUSE NOTICE In pursuance of the Government of Nagaland, Department of Health & Family Welfare, Nagaland, Kohima Letter No. HFW (A)-892/2019 Dated Kohima, the 31st Oct 2019 and in compliance to the Recommendation Letter of the Nagaland Lokayukta, Directorate of Investigation, Nagaland, Kohima Letter No. R.C-21 2010/5073 Dated Kohima, the 28th Oct 2019. Based on thorough scrutiny and investigation on Regular Appointment made against the different Health units under the establishment of Chief Medical Officer, Zunheboto, it was observed that Regular appointments were made against Forged Signature of Appointing Authority and without Sanctioned Posts. Therefore, the list of the employees whose names are indicated below are hereby issued 1(one) Month Show Cause Notice as to why their services should not be terminated. Sl. No Name of the incumbent Designation Health Unit Date of Apptt. 1 Smti A. Vivana Ayah Tokiye S/C 23-04-2008 2 Smti Ghovili Sumi Dresser Lazami S/C 14-11-2008 3 Shri Hokiye Zhimo Mali Ghukiye Dispensary 06-02-2009 4 Shri Hokuto Sumi Mali CHC Pughoboto 23-02-2009 5 Smti visheli Swu Medical Attendant PHC Ghathashi 30-05-2008 The concerned CMO is hereby directed to carry out this Show Cause Notice immediately, The effective date of this 1 (one) Month Notice will be counted from the date of issue of this order. No further correspondences will be entertained after the effective date is over and the appointments will be treated as null and void. (DR. No further correspondences will be entertained after the effective date is over and the appointments will be treated as null and void. (DR. VIKEYIE LOSU) Principal Director, Directorate of Health & Family Welfare Nagaland: Kohima" This explains the difference between the two cases. 17. He submits that the show cause notice was issued basing on the recommendation letter of the Lokayukta on 28-10-2019 and therefore, the two cases have no similarity. On failing to reply to the show cause notice, their services were terminated. It is pertinent to mention that the show cause notice issued to the petitioners is contained in Annexure-A of the affidavit-in-opposition which is reproduced herein below:- "VIGILANCE COMMISSION DIRECTORATE OF VIGILANCE & ANTI CORRUPTION POLICE NAGALAND : KOHIMA No. RC-6/2011 Dated Kohima, the 8th July/2013 To, The Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, Health & Family Welfare Deptt. Kohima Sub: SUBMISSION OF PROGRESS REPORT ON FORGED SIGNATURE APPOINTEES : Sir, I have the honour to refer to the above subject and to forward herewith a copy of the Progress Report on the appointment made with forged signature of the appointing authority. It is further stated that on completion of the investigation the same shall be intimated. Encl: As stated above Yours faithfully, (J.L. YADEN) Inspector General of Police, & Director Vigilance & Anti Corruption Police, Nagaland, Kohima" CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER, LONGLENG : Sl. No Name & Designation Appointment order purportedly signed by Reported to Vigilance/Not reported Referred to expert/Not referred Opinion of expert Remarks 38 C. Nongei Phom, Sweeper Dr. V. Sekhose Reported Referred Confirmed 39 T. Longchem Phom, M/A -do- -do- -do- -do- 40 Ashi Phom, Morgue/Attd -do- -do- -do- -do- (4) Chief Medical Officer, Zunheboto Sl. No Name & Designation Appointment order purportedly signed by Reported to Vigilance/Not reported Referred to expert/Not referred Opinion of expert Remarks 41 Hokali Swu, Dhai Dr. V. Sekhose Reported Referred Confirmed 42 Shevili Sumi, M/A -do- -do- -do- -do- 43 Hokato Sumi, Mali -do- -do- -do- -do- 44 Lhotovi Swu, Sweeper -do- Reported Not referred Does not arise 45 P. ghosheli Zhimo, Cook -do- Not reported Not referred -do- 46 Hanatoli, M/A -do- -do- -do- -do- 47 Llika Swu, M/A -do- -do- -do- -do- (5) Chief Medical Officer, Kiphire Sl. No Name & Designation Appointment order purportedly signed by Reported to Vigilance/Not reported Referred to expert/Not referred Opinion of expert Remarks 48 Yangthrila Sangtam, M/A Dr. No Name & Designation Appointment order purportedly signed by Reported to Vigilance/Not reported Referred to expert/Not referred Opinion of expert Remarks 48 Yangthrila Sangtam, M/A Dr. V. Sekhose Reported Referred Confirmed 49 Lily Yimchunger, Mali -do- -do- -do- -do- 50 T. Kiutangshe Tikir, Ayah -do- -do- -do- -do- 51 Anatoli Sangtam, M/A -do- -do- -do- -do- 52 Botovi Chishi, M/A -do- -do- -do- -do- 53 M. Tsulimthong LDA-cum-Computer Operator -do- -do- Not referred Does not arise Wherein, the name of the respondent No. 4 has been reflected in Serial No. 43. 18. The records are clear and the State respondents have made no error in coming to the conclusion that the petitioners were appointed by means of forged signature and therefore they were rightly terminated. 19. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties at length. 20. On examining the records, I have found that the only reliable report on which the termination orders have been issued is the final report dated 04-12-2014 issued by the Vigilance Commission, Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Police, Nagaland, Kohima. The Final Report of the Vigilance Commission culminates in finding of two categories of irregularities, forged appointments and appointments without sanctioned posts. Only the petitioner No. 4 has been reflected at Serial No. 7 of the report which reads:-"that further, the following 15 nos. of original appointment orders were sent to the expert has been confirmed as forged signature which are listed below has been forwarded to the Government." Based upon this report, I am unable to accept the contention of the learned Government Advocate that the petitioner No. 4 did not submit his original document. It is also a conclusive proof that the petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are neither found to be in the category of appointments without sanctioned posts or appointment on forged documents and signatures. 21. The argument that the correspondences with respect to the clarification letter issued by the then Principal Director is not found and hence the letter is not a worthy piece of evidence is not accepted. Who is the Principal Director?. He is the head of the Department of the State respondents. The correspondence files are not within the control of the petitioners. If the argument is to be accepted, all genuine employees would be terminated by taking the same logic which cannot be considered. Who is the Principal Director?. He is the head of the Department of the State respondents. The correspondence files are not within the control of the petitioners. If the argument is to be accepted, all genuine employees would be terminated by taking the same logic which cannot be considered. You cannot blame the petitioners for the loss or irregularities in the files which is under your custody. We have already been notified of the manipulation of the date of termination order. A mere statement that correspondence files are not traceable in the Department cannot abridge the rights of the petitioners. The respondents are solely responsible for the loss of files. If it is the claim of the respondents that the appointment orders were issued without any correspondences, the respondents could have examined the Principal Director and clarified the matter. This was not done, obviously to circumvent the revelation of the truth behind the mystery. The argument therefore is sans logic. Insofar as, petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are concerned. There is no allegation against them and there is no revelations of what irregularity were found in their appointment orders in the solely relied upon report. This Court is unable to come to the conclusion that there are irregularities in the appointment orders of petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3. The only issue left for us is to examine whether in terms of the report of the Vigilance Commission, the State respondents were justified in terminating the service of petitioner No. 4. The argument forwarded by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that although the report of Vigilance Commission has noted that it is a forged document, it cannot be accepted at its face value since the author of the signature has already certified in the written form that it is his signature and also that the appointments are genuine. 22. Furthermore, the affidavit-in-opposition of the State respondents has clarified that there is existence of this letter of clarification written by the then Principal Director in the Directorate although they have testified that there is no correspondences. The legal principle for conviction of an accused on the opinion of handwriting expert is already elaborated in the above referred case. 22. Furthermore, the affidavit-in-opposition of the State respondents has clarified that there is existence of this letter of clarification written by the then Principal Director in the Directorate although they have testified that there is no correspondences. The legal principle for conviction of an accused on the opinion of handwriting expert is already elaborated in the above referred case. Therefore, having considered the facts, I am of the view that action based upon uncorroborated evidence of handwriting expert was not justified when there is clear testimony of the author of the signature that it is a genuine signature. In such a situation, the State respondents/Vigilance Commission could have resorted to examining the author of the signature and come to a conclusive decision thereupon. If the author had given false statement, why was the Principal Director spared from prosecution being the author of all these questioned documents?. However, the record shows that the author of the signature who has otherwise testified in writing that the signature and appointments were genuine was not examined. There is marked difference in opinion of the report of the Vigilance Commission and the author of the signature himself, the opinion of handwriting expert cannot be relied upon and come to the conclusion that the documents are forged. 23. I am also conscious of the fact that petitioner No. 4 was furnished with the show cause notice along with the termination order which is against the principles of natural justice and cannot stand the test of law. There is an effort by the learned Government Advocate that respondent No. 4 was show caused on 21-11-2019 and terminated on 17-02-2020 as the petitioner could not reply the show cause within time as stipulated. However, we are further confronted with another revelation that petitioner No. 4 was terminated from service by an order dated 05-05-2014 with retrospective effect from 30-04-2012. It is a mystery how an employee can be terminated two times; once in 17-02-2010 and also on 05-05-2014. The order dated 05-05-2014 also seeks to terminate the petitioner No. 4 retrospectively. It is abundantly clear that when a person is retrospectively terminated no show cause could be opportuned to him, I am more convinced with the statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners was furnished with show cause notice along with termination order. The order dated 05-05-2014 also seeks to terminate the petitioner No. 4 retrospectively. It is abundantly clear that when a person is retrospectively terminated no show cause could be opportuned to him, I am more convinced with the statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners was furnished with show cause notice along with termination order. The show cause notice clearly stipulates that it should be replied within 30 days effective from the date of issuance of the notice. The notice was also routed through the C.M.O. It is pertinent to mention that there is no acknowledgment of the receipt of the notice by the petitioners showing the specific date of receipt. It could have served as an evidence as to whether the petitioners were served on time to reply to the show cause. In the absence of such pleadings and evidence, the Court is unable to accept the plea of the State respondents that the petitioners were notified giving sufficient time for them to reply. Notices are normally issued to be replied within certain time limit with effect from the date of receipt by the person who is show caused. This is to ascertain that he is given time to reply. However, in the instant case notice was issued through a third person. This demonstrates that the respondents were in a hurry to terminate the petitioners, without availing them opportunity of effective reply to the show cause notice. The principle of audi alteram partem was obviously violated by the State respondents and this Court finds reason for interference. 24. As already observed above and as admitted by the learned Government Advocate that there is no other report save the report of the Vigilance Commission in the order dated 04-12-2014. We are not discussing the issue of petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3 considering no offence have been shown against them in the said report. There is also inconsistency in presentation of the State respondents with their facts. As observed in the affidavit filed by the State respondents, it has been stated that petitioner No. 4 could not furnish his original appointment order. However, the Vigilance report clearly depicts that original appointment order of petitioner No. 4 has been sent for expert opinion and the same has been confirmed as forged signature. As observed in the affidavit filed by the State respondents, it has been stated that petitioner No. 4 could not furnish his original appointment order. However, the Vigilance report clearly depicts that original appointment order of petitioner No. 4 has been sent for expert opinion and the same has been confirmed as forged signature. Either the Vigilance Commission or the State respondents are presenting misleading facts which gives more reason to doubt the veracity of their statements. In the set of facts, we are unable to give a go by to the respondents to terminate the services of the petitioners. 25. Furthermore, the State respondents have issued two termination orders against petitioner No. 4 which is not trustworthy. This certainly is the proof of manipulation of records to disprivilege the petitioner. A practice deserving rejection. Having observed its inconsistency in the facts presented, this Court is unable to rely upon the statement of the State respondents. This Court is of the view that the petitioners are entitled to be considered for reinstatement. This Court is also not oblivious of the fact that the coordinate Bench of this Court has already given relief to similarly situated petitioners in W.P.(C) 157 (K) of 2015 as well as in W.P.(C) 13 (K) of 2019. 26. There is no adverse finding against the appointment of the petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in the Final Report of the Vigilance Commission. This is the sole basis of the termination order. The allegation that the appointment order of the petitioner No. 4 is forged has not been proved, considering that it does not satisfy the test of law. The petitioners are entitled to relief as prayed for. The termination Order dated 17-02-2020 passed by the State respondent No. 2 under letter NO. DHFW-3/117/Grade-IV/General/2010 (Pt-I)/13198-13204 dated Kohima the 17th February, 2020 is hereby quashed and set aside. 27. The State respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are also directed to reinstate the services of the petitioners within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The backwages of the petitioners should be paid for the period they were serving which has been withheld till date of termination i.e. 17-02-2020. With the above directions, the present writ petition is disposed of.