JUDGMENT : M. K. Thakker, J. 1.Rule, returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr.Mishra waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent-workman. 2.With the consent of the parties, this matter is taken up for final disposal considering the controversy, which is in narrow compass. (1) The question for consideration before this Court is that whether an opportunity to deny the guilt and establish his innocence had been given by framing the definite charges and by disclosing the allegations on which, the charges were based? (2) Whether opportunity to defend himself by cross examining the witnesses produced against him and examined in his presence and to examine himself or any other witnesses in support of his defence was given? (3) Whether any material had been relied on against the delinquent in the inquiry without being given an opportunity to explain the same? (4) Whether opportunity to make his representation as to why the proposed punishment should not be inflicted upon him, had been given? 3.Considering the above issues, the fact of the petition is referred as under: 3.1. This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India through the Municipal Commissioner by the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation against the award dated 02.08.2022 passed by the learned labour Court at Ahmedabad in Reference (T) No.234 of 2016 preferred by the respondent-workman directing the petitioner to reinstate the respondent-workman in service on his original post with 25% back wages and cost of Rs.1000/-. 3.2. The respondent-workman was born on 25.08.1989 holding the education qualification of B.A. as well as Diploma in Health Sanitary Inspector completed from Manav Bharti University, Solan (H.P.). The advertisement was published for recruitment in the cadre and the applications were invited from the eligible candidates and in response to that, respondent-workman submitted his application form along with the documents including the mark-sheet issued by the Manav Bharti University, Solan (H.P.) indicating that he had declared the course of diploma in Sanitary Inspector in the year of 2011. The call letter was issued on 01.05.2012 for verification of the certificate, mark-sheet and other credential and thereafter, the respondent was appointed as a Multipurpose Health Purpose (male) on 11.07.2012 the appointment letter reveals the condition regarding the appointment as a contractual appointment and on the fixed salary of Rs.5,200/- per month and he is liable to be terminated in case of indiscipline or unsatisfactory service. 3.3. 3.3. The appointees were eligible for regular pay scale after satisfactory service of three years and the undertaking was submitted accepting the above terms and conditions of the appointment by the respondent-workman. Thereafter, it came into the knowledge of the petitioner that the respondent-workman as well as other contractual appointees holding the certificate of Manav Bharti University, Solan (H.P.) is not genuine certificate and therefore, for verification of the genuineness of the certificate, it was referred to the Vigilance Department of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation. On receiving the report, the present respondent-workman along with other two co-employees, namely, Himanshubhai Chaudhary and Amiben Patel were relieved by way of termination of their contractual appointment after payment of notice pay on 30.08.2015. That apprehending such action, the respondent-workman and other employees have preferred the petition before this Court being Special Civil Application Nos.231/2013, 16040/2016 and 16041/2013 however, the same were dismissed vide order dated 22.12.2014 after assigning the detailed reasons by this Court. The aforesaid judgment was carried before the Division Bench of this Court and the Division Bench of this Court had rejected the Letters Patent Appeal being No.1002 of 2015 on 29.06.2015. Despite the order passed by this Court in the Letters Patent Appeal, the Reference was preferred by the petitioner being a Reference (T) No.234 of 2016 against the order dated 31.08.2015 disengaging the respondent-workman, who was working on contractual appointment. 3.4. After perusing the written statement and the evidence placed before the learned labour Court, learned labour Court has partly allowed the Reference directing the petitioner to reinstate the respondent-workman with 25% back wages along with the cost of Rs.1000/-, which is subject matter of challenge before this Court. 4.Heard the learned advocate Mr.Munshaw for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr.Mishra for the respondent-workman. 5.Learned advocate Mr.Munshaw submits that the service of the respondent-workman was contractual and on condition that after completion of satisfactory service of three years, he would be placed in regular pay scale. During this period, it came to the light of the petitioner corporation that certificate issued by the Manav Bharti University, Solan (H.P.) was bogus and fabricated and therefore, the inquiry was held and ultimately the service of the respondent-workman was put an end to after making payment of notice pay. During this period, it came to the light of the petitioner corporation that certificate issued by the Manav Bharti University, Solan (H.P.) was bogus and fabricated and therefore, the inquiry was held and ultimately the service of the respondent-workman was put an end to after making payment of notice pay. Learned advocate Mr.Munshaw submits that the Reference Court has allowed the Reference mainly on the ground that no inquiry was held before terminating the service of the respondent-workman. Learned advocate Mr.Munshaw submits that genuineness of the certificates were examined by this Court in the petition filed by other petitioners being Special Civil Application No.231 of 2013 and therefore, no question arises for further inquiry as held by the learned labour Court. 5.1. Learned advocate Mr.Munshaw submits that the respondent was holding bogus certificate and therefore, he is not entitled for any relief as such his reinstatement in public employment would be at the cost of genuine and eligible candidate and it would be also forged with public at large. Learned advocate Mr.Munshaw submits that the respondent-workman being a preparator of fraud cannot seek any indulgence from the Court, that too on the plea that opportunity of hearing has not been granted to him. During the inquiry, it is found that the certificate is forged and fabricated, the purpose of giving an opportunity would an empty formality. Learned advocate Mr.Munshaw submits that learned labour Court has exceeded its jurisdiction of overlooking the judgment of this Court and ordered the reinstatement with 25% back wages and therefore, the same is required to be set aside and it is required to be held that the respondent is not entitled for any relief as prayed before the learned labour Court also. 6.The petition was vehemently opposed by the learned advocate Mr.U.T.Mishra appearing for the respondent. Learned advocate Mr.Mishra submits that the learned labour Court, in terms, has concluded that the termination order is arbitrary, discriminatory and flagrant violation of principle of natural justice. The termination has been affected against the mandatory provisions of Section 25F, Section 25G and Section 25H of the I.D.Act and therefore, terminating the service of the respondent is ab initio void. The termination has been affected on the ground of vigilance report, which suggests that no opportunity was given to the respondent to defend his case and the arbitrary decision was taken to discontinue the service of the respondent-workman. 6.1. The termination has been affected on the ground of vigilance report, which suggests that no opportunity was given to the respondent to defend his case and the arbitrary decision was taken to discontinue the service of the respondent-workman. 6.1. Learned advocate Mr.Mishra submits that reliance, which was placed on the judgment rendered in the Special Civil Application No.231 of 2013 where the entire case was based on forged certificate and duplicate mark-sheet as observed by this Court in the petition as well as in the appeal. Learned advocate Mr.Mishra submits that the for similarly situated persons the petition filed before this Court being Special Civil Application No.1367 of 2012, by corporation who were also holding the certificate of Manav Bharti University, Solan (H.P.) and this Court, after assigning the detailed reasons, has dismissed the petition and concerned workman has been taken into employment and he is working even as on date. 6.2. Learned advocate Mr.Mishra submits that another petition, which is filed before this Court being Special Civil Application No.3505 of 2018 also pertains to the certificate issued by the Manav Bharti University, Solan (H.P.) wherein also, the termination was held illegal and reinstatement was granted. Learned advocate Mr.Mishra submits that there is one more petition filed being Special Civil Application No.9062 of 2014 wherein also, the certificate issued by the Manav Bharti University, Solan (H.P.) with regard to the bogus certificate wherein this Court has held that the termination cannot be sustained as the same is passed in violation of the flagrant breach of principles of natural justice. This order was challenged before the Division Bench of this Court wherein also, the judgment and order of the learned single judge was confirmed with observation that the respective District Panchayat would be at liberty to initiate the fresh proceeding and passing an order after treating the order of termination as the show cause notice is in accordance with law. 6.3. Learned advocate Mr.Mishra submits that in view of the decision of this Court, the petition is devoid of any merits and the same is required to be dismissed. 7.Before considering the case on merits, various litigations, which reached to this Court challenging the genuineness of said certificate is required to be discussed hereinbelow: 7.1. 6.3. Learned advocate Mr.Mishra submits that in view of the decision of this Court, the petition is devoid of any merits and the same is required to be dismissed. 7.Before considering the case on merits, various litigations, which reached to this Court challenging the genuineness of said certificate is required to be discussed hereinbelow: 7.1. Special Civil Application Nos.231, 16040 and 16041 of 2013 were filed before this Court with a prayer to declare and hold that action of the respondent in not allowing the petitioners to resume the duty on the ground that the petitioners have passed Diploma in Sanitary Inspector Court and/or multipurpose health workers from outside of the State of Gujarat as arbitrary and discriminatory and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. During the hearing of the aforesaid petitions, it was brought to the notice of this Court that the appointment which was claimed on the basis of Diploma Certificate obtained by them from Manav Bharti University, Solan (H.P.) is forged and there was number of corrections and interpolation in the mark-sheet. These petitions were at the stage when they were selected, but their basic qualification was doubtful and therefore, they were not appointed. After hearing the parties, on dismissing the petitions, which were carried further before the Division Bench by way of filing the appeal being Letters Patent Appeal No.1002 of 2015, in which, the order passed by the learned single judge was confirmed and held that merely they were selected on the basis of the certificate cannot claim appointment as a matter of right. 7.2. There was another group of petitions being Special Civil Application Nos.13671 of 2012, wherein the prayer was made to issue the appointment orders for the post of multipurpose health worker and to pay the salary from the date when the other selected candidates have been allowed to resume the duties. There also, certificate on which the claim was made for appointment, was issued by the Manav Bharti University, Solan (H.P.), wherein this Court has held that denial to issue appointment order is absolutely unjust, improper and imaginary reasons depriving the petitioners of their right to earn wages from the date when other similarly selectives have been appointed received their wages. There also, certificate on which the claim was made for appointment, was issued by the Manav Bharti University, Solan (H.P.), wherein this Court has held that denial to issue appointment order is absolutely unjust, improper and imaginary reasons depriving the petitioners of their right to earn wages from the date when other similarly selectives have been appointed received their wages. The said petition was allowed and orders were passed that the appointment orders shall be given to the respondent and treating them at par with others and give the wages from the period for which they were kept forcibly out of employment. These petitions were filed by the employees of Sabarkantha District Panchayat. 7.3. Other group of petitions were filed being Special Civil Application No.3505 of 2018 and allied matters praying to declare and hold that the services of the petitioner cannot be terminated without giving reasonable opportunity and without conducting any inquiry and also prayed to set aside the impugned order dated 20.11.2018 and to direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner with full back wages and continuity of service. There also, the issue was with regard to the genuineness of the certificate issued by the Manav Bharti University, Solan (H.P.). Coordinate Bench of this Court has held that termination order cannot be sustained as the same is passed in violation of breach of principles of natural justice and directions were issued to the respondent-authority to reinstate the petitioner with full back wages and continuity of service. It is observed that the respondent-authority has not precluded from conducting any inquiry and passed any order after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in accordance with law. 7.4. The aforesaid order was carried before the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.79 of 2022, wherein the Division Bench has partly allowed the appeal sustaining the termination order dated 20.11.2018 and modifying the order of back wages by directing that the back wages shall be paid from the date of the order of the learned single judge. 7.5. There was another group of petitions being Special Civil Application No.9062 of 2019 wherein, in Special Civil Application No.10670 of 2019, the certificate was issued by the Manav Bharti University, Solan (H.P.) was under consideration and the petitions were filed at the stage of apprehending their termination of services as it was terminated in the similarly situated employees. 7.5. There was another group of petitions being Special Civil Application No.9062 of 2019 wherein, in Special Civil Application No.10670 of 2019, the certificate was issued by the Manav Bharti University, Solan (H.P.) was under consideration and the petitions were filed at the stage of apprehending their termination of services as it was terminated in the similarly situated employees. The same was also allowed by this Court and was confirmed by the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No.1411 of 2018 however, the Division Bench has observed that the notice of termination be treated as a show-cause notice and reply be submitted by the writ applicants and the same be adjudicated by the respective Panchayats in accordance with law. 8. Learned advocate Mr.H.S.Munshaw has submitted that the reasonable opportunity has already been given at the stage of examining the certificate by the vigilance committee therefore, it cannot be said that the termination was ordered in violation of principle of natural justice. If one can peruse the report of the vigilance officer then there is a reference of statement of petitioner recorded by the Assistant Manager, Vigilance (ii) dated 18.03.2013. There is no doubt that there is multiple discrepancies stated in the report with regard to the certificate issued by the Manav Bharti University, Solan (H.P.), however, the same cannot be considered the report which was submitted after offering the reasonable opportunity. 9. What is a reasonable opportunity, has not been defined in the Constitution of India or the General Clauses Act. But the words have acquired a legal meaning and it cannot be left to the vagaries of each individual. The word 'reasonable' must therefore mean according to rules of natural justice which are rules of law. Where orders are to be made against a person it becomes duty of the authority to hear judicially that is to say, in an objective manner, impartially and after giving reasonable opportunity to the person concerned to place his case before it. Passing an order which affects a person, without giving him an opportunity of being heard would be held to be vitiated as being contrary to principles of natural justice. If the safeguards provided by Article 311 of the Constitution are not to be rendered illusory, the words "reasonable opportunity" must be deemed to mean a real and adequate opportunity which is not merely nominal or a sham one. If the safeguards provided by Article 311 of the Constitution are not to be rendered illusory, the words "reasonable opportunity" must be deemed to mean a real and adequate opportunity which is not merely nominal or a sham one. It is well settled principle of law that an order of removal from service which denied the person, a reasonable opportunity of defending himself in disregard of protection afforded by Article 311(2)of the Constitution, is a nullity and non-existent in the eye of law. Conclusions of Enquiry Officer and Disciplinary authority based on statements recorded behind the back of delinquent officer are vitiated on the ground of denial of reasonable opportunity. 10. Careful observation of the impugned order suggests that no charge-sheet nor any notice was served to the petitioner nor documents were supplied to the petitioner to seek his explanation that the certificates furnished by him were fake and fabricated and no opportunity was offered to the petitioner to file his reply to the allegations levelled against him. 11. Background of the case indicates that the petitioner was given an appointment on 11.07.2012 and was dismissed from the service on 31.08.2015 on the ground that the petitioner got appointment on the basis of forged certificate. Admittedly, there was no any complaint lodged against the author or beneficiary of the so called forged certificate, only on the basis of report submitted by the vigilance the order was passed terminating the service of the petitioner. The said vigilance report was with regard to the subject matter of the consideration before this court in Special Civil Application No.231 of 2013 and allied matters wherein, number of interpolation and discrepancies were found in the mark-sheet as well. However, so far as the petitioner is concerned, no explanation was sought by the respondent and no opportunity to rebut the allegation levelled against the petitioner was given. It could be concluded that the order casting stigma was passed without giving the opportunity of hearing to the respondent and without holding the regular departmental inquiry. 12. However, so far as the petitioner is concerned, no explanation was sought by the respondent and no opportunity to rebut the allegation levelled against the petitioner was given. It could be concluded that the order casting stigma was passed without giving the opportunity of hearing to the respondent and without holding the regular departmental inquiry. 12. The effect of removal has been explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Shyam Lal v. State of U.P., reported in AIR 1954 SC 369 wherein it has been held by their Lordships that there can be no doubt that removal generally implies that the officer is regarded as in some manner blameworthy or deficient, that is to say, that he has been guilty of some misconduct or is lacking in ability or capacity or the will to discharge his duties as he should do. The action of removal taken against him in such circumstances is thus founded and justified on some ground personal to the officer. It has further been held that dismissal or removal is a punishment and this is imposed on an officer as a penalty. It involves loss of benefit already earned. 13. At this stage, it would be appropriate to notice the safeguard and protection guaranteed to the Government servant under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India, which provides as under:- “311. It involves loss of benefit already earned. 13. At this stage, it would be appropriate to notice the safeguard and protection guaranteed to the Government servant under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India, which provides as under:- “311. Dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of persons employed in civil capacities under the Union or a State -(1)xxx xxx xxx (2) No such person as aforesaid shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank except after an inquiry in which he has been informed of the charges against him and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges: Provided that where it is proposed after such inquiry, to impose upon him any such penalty, such penalty may be imposed on the basis of the evidence adduced during such inquiry and it shall not be necessary to give such person any opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed : Provided further that this clause shall not apply – (a) where a person is dismissed or removed or reduced in rank on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge; or (b) where the authority empowered to dismiss or remove a person or to reduce him in rank is satisfied that for some reason, to be recorded by that authority in writing, it is not reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry; or (c) where the President or the Governor, as the case may be, is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the State it is not expedient to hold such inquiry." 14. Article 311 basically aims at providing security of tenure to Government servants and guarantees constitutional protection to persons employed in civil capacities under Union and States against arbitrary dismissal, removal and reduction in rank. The protection is two fold -(a) against removal or dismissal by an authority subordinate to that by which employee was appointed, and (b) against dismissal, removal and reduction in rank without giving the employee a reasonable opportunity of being heard in an enquiry without complying with the principles of natural justice. 15. The protection is two fold -(a) against removal or dismissal by an authority subordinate to that by which employee was appointed, and (b) against dismissal, removal and reduction in rank without giving the employee a reasonable opportunity of being heard in an enquiry without complying with the principles of natural justice. 15. The enquiry contemplated by Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India is what is generally known as a departmental enquiry and the constitutional requirement for a proper enquiry within the meaning of Article 311(2) are basically two fold-(i) The civil servant must be informed of the charges against him, and (ii) He must be offered a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges. 16. The scope of the words "dismissed" and "removed" employed under Article 311 of the Constitution of India came up for consideration before the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Moti Ram Dheka v. General Manager, North Easter Frontier Railway, reported in AIR 1964 SC 600 in which it has been held that the effect of dismissal or removal of one from his office is to discharge him from that office i.e. to bring about cessation of service. Thus, the said words comprehend every termination of service of a Government servant. Article 311(2) in an effect therefore lays down that before the services of a Government servant are so terminated, he must be given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against such a termination. Their Lordships further held that there is no decision for placing any limitation on the said expression. The attempt to imply the said limitation is neither warranted by the expressions used in the Article or by the reason given. If such limitations are imported, then it would lead to an extraordinary result that a Government servant, which has been guilty of misconduct would be entitled to a reasonable opportunity, whereas an honest Government servant could be dismissed without any such protection. A Government servant holding a substantive lien to a permanent post cannot be removed from the said post without affording a reasonable opportunity, as is contemplated under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. A Government servant holding a substantive lien to a permanent post cannot be removed from the said post without affording a reasonable opportunity, as is contemplated under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. It is therefore evident that the right held by a Government employee to hold a post cannot be interfered lightly in case any such proceeding is required to be undertaken, necessary care and caution has to be ensured by the Government, which in order to safeguard the interest of a Government employee, as is contemplated under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. It has been observed as under in paragraphs 67 and 68 :- “67. Therefore, whether the natural and dictionary meaning of the words "dismissal" and "removal" were adopted or the limited meanings given to those words by R. 49 were accepted, the result, so far as a permanent employee was concerned would be the same, namely, that in the case of termination of services of a Government servant outside the three categories mentioned in the explanation, it would be dismissal or removal within the meaning of Art.311 of the Constitution with the difference that in the former the dismissed servant would not be disqualified from future employment and in the latter ordinarily he would be disqualified from such employment. 68. If so, it follows that if the services of a permanent servant, which fall outside the three categories mentioned in the explanation, were terminated, he would be entitled to protection under Art.311 (2) of the Constitution." 17. In the matter of Jai Shanker v. State of Rajasthan reported in AIR 1966 SC 492 , the question that fell for consideration before the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court was, whether the provisions contained under the Jodhpur Service Regulations was sufficient to enable the Government to remove a person from service without giving him an opportunity of showing cause against that punishment, if any, and it was answered in negative holding that the regulation involves a punishment for overstaying one's leave and the burden is thrown on the incumbent to secure reinstatement by showing cause and the Government cannot order a person to be discharged from service without at least telling him that they propose to remove him and without giving him an opportunity of showing cause as to why he should not be removed. It has further been observed as under:- "6. ... It has further been observed as under:- "6. ... A removal is removal and if it is punishment for overstaying one's leave an opportunity must be given to the person against whom such an order is proposed, no matter how the regulation describes it. To give no opportunity is to go against Article 311 and this is what has happened here. 7. In our judgment, Jai Shankar was entitled to an opportunity to show cause against the proposed removal from service on his overstaying his leave and as no such opportunity was given to him, his removal from service was illegal. He is entitled to this declaration." 18. Similarly, in the matter of Deokinandan Prasad v. State of Bihar, reported in (1971) 2 SCC 330 , another Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court has held that an order of termination of service passed under Rule 76 of the Bihar Service Code on account of the servant's continuous absence for five years without giving an opportunity to the servant under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India would be invalid. 19. The aforesaid principles of law laid down in Jai Shanker (supra) and Deokinandan Prasad (supra) have been followed with approval by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the matter of State of Assam v. Akshaya Kumar Deb, reported in (1975) 4 SCC 339 wherein the question that required consideration was as under :- "7. The only question that falls for determination is whether the services of the respondent could be terminated under Rule 18 of the Assam Fundamental and Subsidiary Rules, without complying with the procedure prescribed in Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India?” 20. Considering the above decisions, this Court is of the view that the learned labour Court is justified in allowing Reference (T) No.234 of 2016 as the termination order is passed in violation of principle of natural justice. Only on the above ground, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 21. In view of above observations, this petition fails and stands dismissed accordingly. The petitioner is granted liberty to hold fresh inquiry against the respondent in accordance with law. Such inquiry shall be concluded within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 22. Rule is discharged.