ORDER : ARAVIND KUMAR, J. 1. Draft amendment is allowed. Amendment be carried out forthwith. 2. The order dated 11-7-2019 passed in Special Civil Application No.1438 of 2018 (Annexure-A) is under challenge in this intra-court appeal by the State. 3. The gravamen of the petitioner's case is as under:- 3.1 Petitioner is a specially-abled person and is said to be suffering from Locomotor Disability LL-Left Sequele of Poliomyelitis-40%. The petitioner was appointed as Revenue Talati Class-III under the category of specially-abled on 19.5.2010. At the time of his appointment disability certificate came to be produced by the petitioner which was verified by Gujarat Subordinate Service Selection Board and upon verification, it was found that said certificate was genuine and deserves to be accepted and accordingly, it was accepted. Hence, petitioner was selected and allotted to the office of Collector, Bhavnagar. Even the office of Collector, Bhavnagar, called upon petitioner to produce documents for verification and all the documents including physical disability certificate were produced which was verified, scrutinised and accepted and accordingly, appointment order came to be issued on 19.5.2010 pursuant to which, petitioner joined duties on 21.5.2010. Suddenly, out of blue, after a lapse of 5 years i.e. on 8-5-2015 as well as on 21-8-2015, Mamlatdar, Talaja issued communication to the petitioner calling upon him to produce certificate of disability which was furnished at the time of appointment and also furnish a fresh certificate certifying his disability and particularly specifying that said certificate should be from Superintendent of Sir T Hospital, Bhavnagar. Petitioner was duly notified that failure to produce the said certificate would result in consequential orders being passed. In the meanwhile, petitioner produced a certificate dated 12.9.2015 (found at 47 of the case papers) and disclosed that petitioner had a disability of 40%. However, the doctors who examined the petitioner on 31-3-2016 found disability of the petitioner at 25% which resulted in calling upon the petitioner to be present before Permanent Medical Board of Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad wherein it was found that disability of the petitioner was 25% resulting in issuance of his termination order dated 12-1-2018. 3.2 Hence, petitioner approached the learned Single Judge invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the said order of termination. 3.2 Hence, petitioner approached the learned Single Judge invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the said order of termination. Learned Single Judge by the impugned order has opined as under:- "5.1 The respondents have not been able to show any material, or even a circumstance to suggests that the certificate which the petitioner produced at the time of seeking employment in the physically challenged category was bogus or fraudulent. After lapse of long time, the issue was re-opened on the basis of an anonymous complaint. When there is no material to show that the certificate produced by the petitioner was ingenuine and even otherwise, there is no attendant aspects or circumstances to doubt the veracity of certificate, the bare stand on part of the respondents stand meritless and could hardly be accepted. 5.2 The petitioner has filed additional affidavit to point out on record by producing the medical certificate that he took physiotherapy treatment from expert physiotherapist Dr.Mahesh Bhumbhani of one Care Physiotherapy & Fitness Clinic, Bhavnagar. The certificate produced on record mentioned that approximately for 103 days within the last phase of period, treatment of physiotherapy was taken. It was stated by the petitioner that he subjected himself before the Medical Board as well. It could be countenanced that due to physiotherapy treatment uninterruptedly and continuously taken, the variation resulted into extent of physical disability. The case of the petitioner appears to be bona fide, leaving no doubt therein. 5.3 In addition to the above aspects, it would be harsh and inequitable to upset the petitioner's employment on the so-called ground sought to be upheld by the authorities which led the termination of the petitioner to cause him the long earned employment." Hence, the present appeal. 4. We have heard Mr. Tirthraj Pandya, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the appellant-State and Mr. Gautam M. Joshi, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. 5. It is the contention of learned AGP that petitioner's service was never regularised and on completion of 5 years of his services, Mamlatdar had called upon the petitioner to produce the disability certificate and at that juncture, it was noticed that the disability as claimed by the petitioner was incorrect or in other words, had obtained employment on the basis of furnishing or declaring incorrect disability. As a result of which, a person who was having genuine disability had been deprived of the employment. He would also elaborate his submission by contending that authorities in order to satisfy themselves as to the correct and genuine disability certificate which the petitioner was possessing had got it assessed not only through the Government Hospital, Medical Superintendent but also through the Medical Board which was duly constituted for the said purpose and the consistent opinion of both the authorities has been that the disability of the petitioner was 25% as against 40% claimed by the petitioner and required for being appointed. Hence, he would contend that learned Single Judge committed a serious error in allowing the writ petition on the premise that disability which has been suffered could have got reduced on account of consistent physiotherapy undergone by the petitioner as claimed which is contrary to the medical evidence available on record. Hence, reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum, he seeks for appeal being allowed and writ petition being dismissed and the order of termination being upheld. 6. Per contra, Mr. Gautam Joshi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent would support the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge and would also draw the attention of this Court to the fact that the two disability certificates which were produced by the petitioner namely, at the time of submitting the application for appointment as well as the certificate produced on 12.9.2015 (found at page 47 of the case papers) have not been disputed by the State and, as such, the disability that was found at the time of employment cannot be ignored or in other words, it cannot be now held against the petitioner that there is a reduction in disability and thereby the appointment order which was given to the petitioner way back in the year 2010 cannot be set aside and, as such, learned Single Judge has rightly quashed the termination order dated 12.1.2018 which would not call for interference at the hands of this Court. 7. 7. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties and on perusal of the impugned order as well as the case papers, we are of the considered view that the learned Single Judge after having examined the papers and having considered the rival contentions raised by the learned advocates for the parties has found that contention raised by the State would not merit acceptance. We subscribe to the said view for the following reasons:- 7.1 At the outset, it requires to be noticed that State having accepted the disability certificate of the year 2003 submitted by the petitioner at the time of appointment on 19-5-2010 did not raise its little finger for a period of 5 years disputing the same. In other words, it accepted the contents of disability certificate and only on being satisfied with the contents of the said certificate being genuine had issued the order of appointment to the petitioner. 7.2 It is apt and appropriate to notice at this juncture itself that when the Mamlatdar called upon the petitioner by communications dated 8-5-2015 and 21-8-2015 (found at pages 45 and 47) to produce the certificate showing the disability at 40%, petitioner submitted the certificate of disability dated 12-9-2015 which had been issued by Assistant Professor, Department of Orthopaedics, Sir T. Hospital and Govt. Medical College, Bhavnagar. The contents of these certificates are also not disputed. The proceeding against the petitioner seems to have been initiated based on an anonymous complaint. Even accepting that there is suo moto power for the authorities to inquire into, it could have been by a regular inquiry and on this short ground alone, we would have remitted the matter back to the State for adjudication in accordance with law in the normal circumstances. However, we desist from doing so for the simple reason that at no point of time, the State has disputed the contents of the disability certificate produced by the petitioner at the time of employment and subsequently furnished in the year 2015 i.e. on 12-9-2015. In other words, State has accepted the said certificates. That apart, we notice that at the time of selection of the petitioner, the certificates produced by the petitioner were scrutinised and found to be correct by the Gujarat Subordinate Selection Board. In other words, State has accepted the said certificates. That apart, we notice that at the time of selection of the petitioner, the certificates produced by the petitioner were scrutinised and found to be correct by the Gujarat Subordinate Selection Board. When the petitioner was allotted the office of Collector, Bhavnagar, while reporting at the said office, he produced all the documents including the disability certificate for verification by the Collector. Even at that stage, the exercise of verifying the contents of the disability certificate produced by the petitioner was undertaken and it was found that there was no scope for doubting the contents of the said certificate. As such, the State after a lapse of 5 years could not have initiated the proceedings. In fact, it is to be noticed that there is no proceedings initiated against the petitioner for termination from service on the ground of having furnished false certificate at all. If at all the petitioner had produced any false certificate or had fabricated the certificate as is now claimed by the State, it was incumbent upon the State to issue a show cause notice, hold an inquiry and then proceeded against petitioner in accordance with law. It is also not the case of the State that the termination is discharge simplicitor. The termination order dated 12.1.2018 is with stigma. As such, it cannot be construed as one as discharge simplicitor. On the other hand, if the order of termination is construed as one issued on the basis of holding an inquiry, there is no material placed on record by the State to show that such inquiry was held after issuance of show cause notice to the petitioner by calling him to file reply and Inquiry Officer having been appointed which resulted in imputation of charges being levelled against the petitioner and consequently termination order was issued. None of these ingredients are present or in other words, it is conspicuously inconspicuous. As such, the contention of the State that order of termination is justifiable cannot be accepted. 8. For the myriad reasons aforesaid, we proceed to pass the following ORDER (i) Appeal is dismissed. Order dated 11-7-2019 passed in Special Civil Application No.1438 of 2018 is upheld. (ii) Costs made easy. (iii) In view of the disposal of the main appeal, Civil Application (For Stay) No.1 of 2021 does not survive for consideration.