JUDGMENT : RAKESH MOHAN PANDEY, J. 1. In the instant writ appeal, the appellant has challenged the order dated 12.12.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 22 of 2002, whereby the writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging therein legality and validity of the order of his dismissal from service dated 28.12.2001 (Annexure P/10), has been dismissed. 2. The brief facts of the present case are that the appellant was appointed as General Mazdoor/Casual Piece Rated Loader under the respondents on 10.05.1984 and in service records his name was entered as Tula Ram, S/o Dev Sai. He was promoted to the post of Clerk Grade III on 13.09.1985, and thereafter, as Clerk Grade II on 20.02.1987 (Annexure-P/1). On 09.10.1999, a notice was issued to the appellant to produce academic certificates and thereafter, on 13.12.2000, again he was directed to produce matriculation certificate. The appellant informed the management of South Eastern Coalfields Limited (for short, ‘SECL’) on 29.12.2000 that his matriculation certificate has been misplaced, and therefore, he may be allowed some time to obtain duplicate certificate. 3. The management instead of granting time to the appellant, issued article of charges on 09/11.01.2001 stating that on 05.10.1999 and 13.12.2000, the appellant was directed to submit matriculation certificate, but same has not been submitted yet, and therefore, it appears that the appellant has committed forgery and cheating with the management and it amounts to serious misconduct. The charges, according to the standing order, are as under: “26.1 Theft, fraud or dishonesty in connection with the employer’s business or property. 26.9 Giving false information regarding one’s name, age, father’s name, and qualifications in connection with his employment. 26.22 Any willful and deliberate act which is subversive of discipline or which may be detrimental to the interest of the company.” 4. One S.P. Patnaik was appointed as Enquiry Officer. Mr. B.P. Mishra was the Management representative whereas Mr. Manoja Thakur was representative of the appellant. The statement of the appellant was recorded on 24.08.2001, which is evident from Annexure R/1, filed by the respondents, wherein the appellant has stated that he was appointed as General Mazdoor and later on, looking to his academic career, he was promoted to the post of Clerk Grade-III. He has also stated that he was promoted on the basis of his sincerity, honesty and looking to his academic career. He has also stated that he was promoted on the basis of his sincerity, honesty and looking to his academic career. He has further stated that notices were issued to him to submit original certificates of academic qualification and matriculation, but on account of heavy rain, his house got collapsed and all the documents were destroyed. In the cross-examination, he has stated that he tried to obtain xerox copy of the mark-sheet from the Management to move an application before the Board of Secondary Education, Bhopal to get duplicate mark-sheet, but he remained unsuccessful. He has also admitted that it is the employee’s duty to submit the document as and when required. Mr. Ramashankar Jha, Clerk Grade-I, was examined as appellant’s witness, who has stated that after due verification of the documents, he was promoted to the post of Clerk Grade-III. He has also stated that he knows the appellant as both were promoted at the same time. From the disciplinary enquiry records filed by the respondents, it is evident that no witness has been examined from the SECL Management. The Enquiry Officer recorded the finding that the appellant has been afforded sufficient opportunity to produce matriculation certificate but he failed. In the service record, name of father of the appellant is recorded as Dev Sai and mother’s name as Laxmi Bai and his service sheet was placed before the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer held that the appellant could not produce any document regarding qualification and his identity as Tula Ram Son of Dev Sai is required to be verified and this may be a case of impersonation. The Enquiry Officer found all the charges clause Nos. 26.1, 26.9 and 26.22 framed against the appellant proved beyond doubt vide enquiry report dated 12.09.2001. 5. A show cause notice was issued to the appellant on 26.11.2001 based upon enquiry report and the appellant was granted three days’ time to file response to the show cause notice. The Enquiry Officer found all the charges clause Nos. 26.1, 26.9 and 26.22 framed against the appellant proved beyond doubt vide enquiry report dated 12.09.2001. 5. A show cause notice was issued to the appellant on 26.11.2001 based upon enquiry report and the appellant was granted three days’ time to file response to the show cause notice. The appellant filed reply to the show cause notice on 01.12.2001, wherein he has stated that during the course of the enquiry, he could not produce the academic as well as matriculation certificate before the Enquiry Officer, but along with reply, the birth certificate, an affidavit issued by the public notary, certificate issued by the Councillor of the ward have been submitted and he has further stated that in the mark-sheet, his name is mentioned as Khamman Sai but he is also known as Tula Ram. In the birth certificate, his name is mentioned as Tula Ram @ Khamman Sai, Son of Dev Sai. Councillor of ward No. 48 Bankimogra, Municipal Corporation - Korba, has also given a certificate to the effect that the appellant is known by Tula Ram as well as Khamman Sai. The Management of SECL i.e. the disciplinary authority vide order dated 28.12.2001, dismissed the services of the appellant accepting the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer. The appellant preferred writ petition before the High Court, which was registered as Writ Petition No. 22 of 2002. The learned Single Judge, vide order dated 08.01.2002 stayed the effect and operation of order dated 28.12.2001 (Annexure P/10) and the appellant was allowed to resume his duties with immediate effect. 6. The learned Single Judge, vide order dated 12.12.2019 held that the appellant has obtained employment in the name of a person in whose favour there is no certificate of having passed matriculation examination, which is the requisite qualification for appointment as Clerk. Thus, the appellant has committed fraud and misrepresentation with the Management of the SECL. The learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the appellant. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that there was no charge of impersonation against the appellant. The only charge which is evident from the article of charges dated 09/11.01.2001 is that the appellant could not submit the matriculation certificate. She would further submit that the management of SECL has not proved any allegation by adducing the evidence. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that there was no charge of impersonation against the appellant. The only charge which is evident from the article of charges dated 09/11.01.2001 is that the appellant could not submit the matriculation certificate. She would further submit that the management of SECL has not proved any allegation by adducing the evidence. Her next contention is that the appellant had filed reply to the show cause notice on 26.11.2001 wherein and whereby he submitted all the relevant documents including matriculation certificate and thereafter, on 28.12.2001 order of dismissal was passed, but reply filed by the appellant dated 01.12.2001 has not been considered at all. She would further submit that the appellant entered into service on 10.05.1984 and by virtue of interim order, his services were continued till the end of 2019 and the SECL Management has not proved the misconduct against the present appellant, therefore, the order passed by the Management of SECL dated 28.12.2001 (Annexure P/10) and order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 22 of 2002, are liable to be set-aside. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon the following judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Anant R. Kulkarni vs. Y.P. Education Society and Others, (2013) 6 SCC 515 , M.V. Bijlani vs. Union of India, (2006) 5 SCC 88 , Mohd. Yunus Khan vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2010) 10 SCC 539 and Allahabad Bank vs. Krishna Narayan Tewari, (2017) 2 SCC 308 . 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents Mr. Vivek Verma, would submit that proper opportunity was granted to the appellant to submit the academic certificates including matriculation certificate, but he could not produce the same for one or other reasons, therefore, Departmental Enquiry was initiated and after a full-fledged enquiry and after affording sufficient opportunity, order of dismissal has been passed. He would further submit that the appellant has committed fraud and misrepresentation by submitting forged matriculation certificate, which is issued in favour of Khamman S/o Dev Sai and the appellant has not stated anywhere that his name is Khamman Sai or he is also known as Tula Ram. He placed reliance upon Ram Saran vs. IG of Police, CRPF and Others, (2006) 2 SCC 541 and State of Karnataka and Another vs. Umesh, 2022 Live Law (SC) 304. He placed reliance upon Ram Saran vs. IG of Police, CRPF and Others, (2006) 2 SCC 541 and State of Karnataka and Another vs. Umesh, 2022 Live Law (SC) 304. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 10. Now, we will consider the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court cited by the learned counsel for the appellant. 11. Wherever the enquiry is deficient, procedurally or otherwise, the matter can be remanded back to the authority for recording the finding afresh, but where there is long time-lag or it would be unfair, harsh or otherwise unnecessary to direct a fresh enquiry or fresh order by the competent authority, the case can be decided by the High Court. This proposition of law has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Allahabad Bank (supra) in Para 8 which reads thus: “8. There is no quarrel with the proposition that in cases where the High Court finds the enquiry to be deficient, either procedurally or otherwise, the proper course always is to remand the matter back to the authority concerned to redo the same afresh. That course could have been followed even in the present case. The matter could be remanded back to the disciplinary authority or to the enquiry officer for a proper enquiry and a fresh report and other. But that course may not have been the only course open in a given situation. There may be situations where because of a long time-lag or such other supervening circumstances the writ court considers it unfair, harsh or otherwise unnecessary to direct a fresh enquiry or fresh order by the competent authority. That is precisely what the High Court has done in the case at hand.” 12. The enquiry is to be conducted by the employer fairly and reasonably and the enquiry report must contain reasons for reaching the conclusion that the charge framed against the delinquent stood proved against him, same cannot be Ipse dixit of the Enquiry Officer. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the scope of the departmental enquiry and imposition of the punishment, in the matter of Mohd Yunush Khan (supra) in Para 16 held as under: “16. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the scope of the departmental enquiry and imposition of the punishment, in the matter of Mohd Yunush Khan (supra) in Para 16 held as under: “16. We have to proceed keeping in mind the trite law that holding disciplinary proceedings against a government employee and imposing a punishment on his being found guilty of misconduct under the statutory rules is in the nature of quasi-judicial proceedings. Though the technical rules of procedure contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the provisions of the Evidence Act, 1872 do not apply in a domestic enquiry, however, the principles of natural justice require to be observed strictly. Therefore, the enquiry is to be conducted fairly and reasonably and the enquiry report must contain reasons for reaching the conclusion that the charge framed against the delinquent stood proved against him. It cannot be an ipse dixit of the enquiry officer. Punishment for misconduct can be imposed in consonance with the statutory rules and principles of natural justice.” 13. From the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd Yunush Khan (supra), it is apparent that the employer has to prove the charges framed against the delinquent and punishment for the misconduct can be imposed in terms of the statutory rules and principles of natural justice. 14. In the matter of M.V. Bijlani (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the scope of interference of the Court in judicial review in the matter of the disciplinary proceedings is limited but the proceeding being quasi criminal in nature; there should be some evidence to prove the charge. The Enquiry Officer after examining the documents must arrive at a conclusion that there had been a preponderance of probability to prove the charges, on the basis of material available on record and he cannot consider any irrelevant fact. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Para 25 of the judgment has held as under: “25. It is true that the jurisdiction of the court in judicial review is limited. Disciplinary proceedings, however, being quasi-criminal in nature, there should be some evidence to prove the charge. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Para 25 of the judgment has held as under: “25. It is true that the jurisdiction of the court in judicial review is limited. Disciplinary proceedings, however, being quasi-criminal in nature, there should be some evidence to prove the charge. Although the charges in a departmental proceeding are not required to be proved like a criminal trial i.e. beyond all reasonable doubt, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the enquiry officer performs a quasi-judicial function, who upon analyzing the documents must arrive at a conclusion that there had been a preponderance of probability to prove the charges on the basis of materials on record. While doing so, he cannot take into consideration any irrelevant fact. He cannot refuse to consider the relevant facts. He cannot shift the burden of proof. He cannot reject the relevant testimony of the witnesses only on the basis of surmises and conjectures. He cannot enquire into the allegations with which the delinquent officer had not been charged with.” 15. To inflict punishment, there must be specific and precise charges. The vague and unspecific charges are fatal for the management or employer. The charges have to be communicated to the person charged together with the statement of allegations on which the charge is based. If the statement of allegations are not served with the charge-sheet, the enquiry stands vitiated. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Anant R. Kulkarni (supra) has held in paragraphs 16 and 28 as under: “16. Where the charge-sheet is accompanied by the statement of facts and the allegations are not specific in the charge-sheet, but are crystal clear from the statement of facts, in such a situation, as both constitute the same document, it cannot be held that as the charges were not specific, definite and clear, the enquiry stood vitiated. Thus, nowhere should a delinquent be served a charge-sheet, without providing to him, a clear, specific and definite description of the charge against him. When statement of allegations are not served with the charge-sheet, the enquiry stands vitiated, as having been conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice. Thus, nowhere should a delinquent be served a charge-sheet, without providing to him, a clear, specific and definite description of the charge against him. When statement of allegations are not served with the charge-sheet, the enquiry stands vitiated, as having been conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice. The evidence adduced should not be perfunctory; even if the delinquent does not take the defence of, or make a protest that the charges are vague, that does not save the enquiry from being vitiated, for the reason that there must be fair play in action, particularly in respect of an order involving adverse or penal consequences. What is required to be examined is whether the delinquent knew the nature of accusation. The charges should be specific, definite and giving details of the incident which formed the basis of charges and no enquiry can be sustained on vague charges. 28. The Tribunal, as well as the learned Single Judge of the High Court have recorded a categorical finding of fact to the effect that initiation of departmental enquiry against the appellant had been done with mala-fide intention to harass him. The charges were not specific and precise; in fact, they were vague and unspecific. Furthermore, the Management Committee had failed to observe the procedure prescribed in Rules 36 and 37 of the 1981 Rules. The said Rules 36 and 37, prescribe a complete procedure for the purpose of holding an inquiry, wherein it is clearly stated that an inquiry committee should have minimum three members, one representative from the Management Committee, or to be nominated by the employees from amongst themselves and one to be chosen by the Chief Executive Officer, from amongst a panel of teachers who have been awarded national/State awards. In the instant case, there was only a two-member committee. The procedure prescribed under the Rules is based on the principles of natural justice and fair play to ensure that an employee of a private school, may not be condemned unheard. It is pertinent to note that the Management Committee failed to prove even a single charge against the appellant.” 16. Now, we are considering the judgments cited by the respondents. 17. It is pertinent to note that the Management Committee failed to prove even a single charge against the appellant.” 16. Now, we are considering the judgments cited by the respondents. 17. In the case of Ram Saran (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that if the employee has secured appointment by furnishing false certificate, then the Court shall not interfere with the decision of the employer unless it is illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety or is shocking to the conscience of the Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Para 11 has held as under: “11. This is a case which does not deserve any leniency otherwise it would be giving premium to a person who admittedly committed forgery. In the instruction (CO No. 29 of 1993), it has been provided that whenever it is found that a government servant who was not qualified or eligible in terms of the recruitment rules, etc. for initial recruitment in service or had furnished false information or produced a false certificate in order to secure appointment should not be retained in service. After inquiry as provided in Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 it the charges are proved, the government servant should be removed or dismissed from service and under no circumstances any other penalty should be imposed.” 18. In the matter of Umesh (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the purpose of disciplinary proceedings by an employer is to enquire into an allegation of misconduct by an employee, which results in violation of service rules and relationship with the employer. The power of the judicial review in disciplinary proceeding is limited and the Court cannot act as the Appellate Forum. The Court can exercise its powers of review, when the principles of natural justice have not been complied with, when the finding of the misconduct is not based on evidence, the statutory rules have not been followed, when findings of the disciplinary authority suffers from perversity and when punishment is disproportionate looking to the misconduct. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Para 17 has held as under: “17. In the exercise of judicial review, the Court does not act as an appellate forum over the findings of the disciplinary authority. The Court does not re-appreciate the evidence on the basis of which the finding of misconduct has been arrived at in the course of a disciplinary enquiry. In the exercise of judicial review, the Court does not act as an appellate forum over the findings of the disciplinary authority. The Court does not re-appreciate the evidence on the basis of which the finding of misconduct has been arrived at in the course of a disciplinary enquiry. The Court in the exercise of judicial review must restrict its review to disciplinary enquiry. The Court in the exercise of judicial review must restrict its review to determine whether: (i) the rules of natural justice have been complied with; (ii) the finding of misconduct is based on some evidence; (iii) the statutory rules governing the conduct of the disciplinary enquiry have been observed; and (iv) whether the findings of the disciplinary authority suffer from perversity and (vi) the penalty is disproportionate to the proven misconduct. However, none of the above tests for attracting the interference of the High Court were attracted in the present case. The Karnataka Administrative Tribunal having exercised the power of judicial review found no reason to interfere with the award of punishment of compulsory retirement. The division Bench of the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Article 226 and trenched upon a domain which falls within the disciplinary jurisdiction of the employer. The enquiry was conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The findings of the inquiry officer and the disciplinary authority are sustainable with reference to the evidence which was adduced during the enquiry. The acquittal of the respondent in the course of the criminal trial did not impinge upon the authority of the disciplinary authority or the finding of misconduct in the disciplinary proceeding.” 19. The learned counsel for the respondents has further placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ex-Const/DVR Mukesh Kumar Raigar vs. Union of India and Others, Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 10499 of 2022 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court relying upon Avtar Singh vs. Union of India and Others, (2016) 8 SCC 471 in which it is held that deliberate suppression of the facts by an employee would debar him from the appointment. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Para No. 9 has held as under: “9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Para No. 9 has held as under: “9. It is apparent that the background of the case was considered by the employer in Sushil Kumar (1996) 11 SCC 605 and this Court has emphasized in the aforesaid background that the decision of the employer was not unwarranted as the incumbent was rightly not found desirable for appointment to the service. It was not a case of suppression in the verification form. The decision does not deal with the effect of suppression but the case has turned on the background of the facts of the case in which the incumbent was involved as is apparent from the discussion made by this Court in Para 3 quoted above. Thus, it is apparent that the background facts of the case have to be taken into consideration by the employer or court while dealing with such matters.” 20. Now, evaluating the facts in light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it appears that the appellant was appointed as General Majdoor on 10.05.1984, he was promoted to the post of Clerk Grade-III, then Clerk Grade-II by the departmental promotion committee of the Management after due scrutiny of the records. The respondents have nowhere stated that on wrong presumption or due to any mistake the appellant was promoted twice. The appellant was directed to produce the matriculation certificate on 09.10.1999 and 13.12.2000 and when he failed to submit the said certificate, the articles of charges was issued on 09/11.01.2001. In the article of charges, there is no allegation to the effect that the appellant has obtained employment by forged documents or misrepresentation. Even his promotional orders were not doubted. The basis of misconduct was failure of the appellant to submit the mark-sheet of the matriculation. The Management initiated departmental enquiry where, the appellant placed his evidence and defence, but no evidence was adduced by the management and not a single document has been proved by leading evidence. The Enquiry Officer has recorded its finding that the appellant could not produce matriculation certificate, therefore, he has committed fraud and misrepresentation and forgery, etc. and same are in violation of the standing order 22.6, 22.9 and 26.22. The charges which were levelled against the appellant were not precise and the basis of article of charges or statements was not provided to the appellant. and same are in violation of the standing order 22.6, 22.9 and 26.22. The charges which were levelled against the appellant were not precise and the basis of article of charges or statements was not provided to the appellant. The appellant filed reply to the show cause notice, which was issued after submission of the enquiry report and the appellant had replied to show cause notice along with matriculation certificate, birth certificate, certificate issued by the Councillor and notarized affidavit. The appellant had also stated in the reply that his name is Khamman Sai and he is also known as Tula Ram and in all the documents, name of father of the appellant and address are same, but neither his reply nor documents have been considered by the disciplinary authority whereas reply was filed on 01.12.2001 and order of dismissal was passed on 28.12.2001. The appellant entered into employment on 10.05.1984 and after order of dismissal passed by the respondents, interim order was granted by the learned Single Judge and by virtue of said interim order, he remained in service till 2019. 21. According to the respondents, the allegation against the appellant is that he entered into service by showing his name as Tula Ram S/o Dev Sai, whereas in his matriculation certificate his name is mentioned as Khamman Sai S/o Dev Sai. There is no charge with regard to impersonation. There was no deliberate suppression of facts from the appellant. The documents were with the Management and after due scrutiny, the appellant was promoted twice. The documents submitted by the appellant along with reply dated 01.12.2001 have not been considered by the disciplinary authority while passing the order of dismissal on 28.12.2001. Further, the disciplinary authority has passed the dismissal order without assigning any reason while accepting the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer. The respondents failed to prove any of the charges framed against the appellant, therefore, we have no hesitation in setting aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 22 of 2002 on 12.12.2019 and order of dismissal dated 28.12.2001 (Annexure P/10). The corollary of this order would be reinstatement of the appellant in the services with immediate effect. It is made clear that he shall not be entitled for back wages for the period he has not worked, but the said period shall be counted for all other benefits. 22. The corollary of this order would be reinstatement of the appellant in the services with immediate effect. It is made clear that he shall not be entitled for back wages for the period he has not worked, but the said period shall be counted for all other benefits. 22. With this aforesaid observations, this Writ Appeal is allowed.