ORDER : (Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, J.) I.A. No. 5963 of 2021 1. This is an application for condonation of delay of 38 days in preferring the appeal. 2. The impugned judgment was passed on 06.01.2020. 3. Thereafter, the Courts remained closed for some time because of the pandemic of COVID-2019, hence, the application for condonation of delay is allowed and the delay of 38 days in preferring the appeal is condoned. L.P.A. No. 283 of 2021 1. In this intra-court appeal, the appellant-writ petitioner in W.P. (S) No. 6774 of 2017, assails the order dated 06.01.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby his writ petition was dismissed on merit. 2. The facts of the case are that an advertisement was floated for recruitment to the post of Constables in CAPFS/NIA/SSF and Rifleman in Assam Rifles Examination in the year 2015. The writ petitioner applied for the same and appeared in various examinations and got selected. The case of the petitioner is that he also appeared before the Board for Physical Efficiency Test and he qualified in all the tests. The petitioner further pleaded that the Department issued order of appointment vide order dated 20.05.2017. Subsequently, he was posted as a Constable in West Bengal. During the course of his posting, in compliance of the letter of respondent no.5, respondent no. 4 issued the order, which is impugned before the learned Single Judge dated 02.08.2017 and the order of appointment of the petitioner dated 20.05.2017 was withdrawn. The specific case of the petitioner is that without affording any opportunity of hearing, the appointment of the petitioner was withdrawn and even no such copy of complaint was ever served to the petitioner. Aggrieved with the withdrawal of the appointment, the petitioner approached this Court. 3. In course of hearing, it transpired that without initiating any departmental proceeding or even without serving a notice or a copy of the complaint and without affording any opportunity of hearing, the withdrawal of the appointment of the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary and not tenable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel for the appellant would further submit that the impugned order passed is in complete violation of the principles of natural justice and hence, it is a fit case to set aside the order of withdrawal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant would further submit that the impugned order passed is in complete violation of the principles of natural justice and hence, it is a fit case to set aside the order of withdrawal. 4. Learned Additional Solicitor General of India appearing for the Union of India took the stand before the learned Single Judge that there is no illegality in the impugned order because immediately after withdrawing the appointment of the petitioner, who has been declared successful and finally selected for the post of constable as on the allegation of procuring impersonation in the written part of the examination and it was order in investigation. However, during pendency of the writ application before the learned Single Judge, the Central Forensic Science Laboratory reported that the signature appearing in the disputed document i.e. Q2, Q2/1 and Q2/2 are not written by the same person, who has written documents A1, A2 and S2. It further transpires from the record that A/1, A2 and S2 are the specimen writing of the petitioner. Q2, Q2/1 and Q2/2 are questioned documents, which appears in the admission certificate of examination which took place on 04.10.2015. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner has cleared the written examination by securing the presence of another person who wrote the written examination. The fact that the attendance sheet in the examination held on 04th October, 2015 contains signature of a person whose signature does not match with the signature and writing of the petitioner found in the declaration dated 18.05.2016 and specimen given on 25.08.2017. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner would strenuously argued that a proper investigation has not been made and the opinion of the hand writing expert is not conclusive in view of the fact that the admit card, i.e. marked as Q1, Q1/1, Q1/2 and Q1/3 and the Admit Card to the medical examination dated 5/16, i.e. Q3, Q3/1, Q3/2 and Q3/3 are matching with the specimen signature of the petitioner-appellant. She would further very emphatically argued that since the thumb impression of the petitioner is also taken along with his specimen writing and signature and such thumb impression has not been compared, then the report of the forensic examiner should be viewed with suspicion. She would further very emphatically argued that since the thumb impression of the petitioner is also taken along with his specimen writing and signature and such thumb impression has not been compared, then the report of the forensic examiner should be viewed with suspicion. However, it is not the case of the petitioner that at any point of time while making an application for the post of Constable in the BSF or appearing for the PST and PET examination or medical examination or the written examination, the petitioner was asked to affix his thumb impression in any of the document. The question is whether the written examination that was held on 04.10.2015 was written by a person impersonating the petitioner. The question before us is not whether he appeared in the PET or the medical examination. The specific case of the department in this case is that he did not appear himself in the written examination and somebody else sat for him which is clear from the difference in signature found on the admission certificate of examination dated 04.10.2015 and the specimen signature collected in course of the enquiry by respondent no. 5 and also the undisputed signature appearing in the declaration part document, i.e. S/2. 6. We are of the opinion that this question of whether hand writing expert who has arrived at an erroneous or correct conclusion cannot be determined in a writ application. The learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner would submit that the hand writing expert’s opinion is not conclusive. However, we have very carefully examined the reasons of the opinion of the hand writing expert given in paragraph 2 of the opinion and there is nothing on record to show that he has committed any error apparent on the face of the record. He has very categorically found that the person, who wrote the blue enclosed writings and signatures stamped and marked as A1, A2 and S2 did not write red enclosed writings and signatures similarly stamped and remarked as Q2, Q2/1 and Q2/2. 7. In that view of the matter, prima facie, it appears that the petitioner did not write the examination, as his three signatures, appearing in the examinations does not tally with his specimen signature. 8. In view thereof, we find no illegality or irregularity committed by the learned Single Judge in passing the impugned order, requiring our interference. 9. 7. In that view of the matter, prima facie, it appears that the petitioner did not write the examination, as his three signatures, appearing in the examinations does not tally with his specimen signature. 8. In view thereof, we find no illegality or irregularity committed by the learned Single Judge in passing the impugned order, requiring our interference. 9. In the alternative, learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner would further submit that after relying upon the reported judgment rendered in the case of Chandra Prakash Shahi Vs. State of U.P. and others, (2000) 5 SCC 152 , especially para 12 thereof wherein, it is well-settled that a temporary Government servant or probationers are as much entitled to the protection on Article 311(2) of the Constitution as the permanent employees despite of the fact that temporary Government servants have no right to hold the post and their services are liable to be terminated at any time by giving them a month’s notice without assigning any reason either in terms of the contract of service or under the relevant statutory Rules regulating the terms and conditions of such service. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that courts can, therefore, lift to veil of an innocuously-worded order to look into the real face of the order and to find out whether it is an innocent as it worded. It was explained in the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Parshotam Lal Dhingra Vs. Union of India, AIR 1958 SC 36 , AIR 1958 SCR 828 that inefficiency, negligence or misconduct may have been the factors for inducing the Government to terminate the services of a temporary employee under the terms of the contract or under the statutory Service Rules regulating the terms and conditions of service which, to put it differently, may have been the motive for terminating the services but the motives by itself does not make the order punitive unless the order was “founded” on those factors or other disqualifications. The facts of the reported case are different. In the reported case, the petitioner was terminated because of a quarrel between the two constables as a result of which Constable Arun Prakas Tewari used filthy and unparliamentary language against Constable. He also caused injuries to Constable Radhey Shyam Pandey by kicks and fists. He was joined by another Constable Rajesh Kumar Pandey. In the reported case, the petitioner was terminated because of a quarrel between the two constables as a result of which Constable Arun Prakas Tewari used filthy and unparliamentary language against Constable. He also caused injuries to Constable Radhey Shyam Pandey by kicks and fists. He was joined by another Constable Rajesh Kumar Pandey. Thus, the facts of the reported case are that misconduct was perpetuated by the petitioner therein. However, in this case, the very genesis of the appointment of the petitioner is in question. It is not disputed that he has been found by the department to have successfully competed in the examination by securing impersonation of his own self. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner would very emphatically argued that in case also, the principles of natural justice has to be followed strictly and the order passed by the authorities has to be set aside. We are not impressed by this argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that fraud and misrepresentation vitiates all solemn acts as has been held in catena of judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of:-(i) Shrisht Dhavan (Smt.) Vs Shaw Bros., (1992) 1 SCC 534 ; (ii) Ram Chandra Singh Vs Savitri Devi, (2003) 8 SCC 319 ; (iii) Meghmala Vs. G. Narasimha Reddy, (2010) 8 SCC 383 ; (iv) Bhaurao Dagdu Paralkar Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 7 SCC 605 ; (v) Ganpatbhai Mahijibhai Solanki Vs. State of Gujarat, (2008) 12 SCC 353 ; (vi) Venture Global Engg. LLC Vs. Tech Mahindra Ltd., (2018) 1 SCC 656 ; (vii) State of Chhattisgarh Vs. Dhirjo Kumar Sengar, (2009) 13 SCC 600 ; (viii) Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Vs. Raj Kumar Rajinder Singh, (2019) 14 SCC 449 ; (ix) Bank of India Vs. Avinash D. Mandivikar, (2005) 7 SCC 690 ; (x) NOIDA Vs. Ravindra Kumar Singhvi, (2022) 5 SCC 591 . 11. In this case, the petitioner is clearly guilty of abetting impersonation. Hence, there is no merit in this intra-court appeal. Accordingly, the Letters Patent Appeal is, hereby, dismissed. 12. There shall be no order as to costs. 13. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of. 14. Grant urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.