NARENDRA KUMAR TRIPATHI Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Arun Kumar, learned counsel who appears for the respondents.

(2.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the orders of 3 July 2020 and 7 October 2020 passed by the respondents. In terms of the first order, it has been found upon due verification that the B.A. marksheet on the basis of which the petitioner obtained employment was forged. Consequent to that order, the services of the petitioner has been brought to an end. By the second order the respondents have also passed directions for recovery of all emoluments which have been paid to the petitioner. It becomes pertinent to note that the finding of the respondents that the petitioner obtained employment on the basis of a forged mark sheet is neither disputed nor challenged by the petitioner before this Court with learned counsel for the petitioner candidly stating that the petitioner had no defense to proffer.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on the decision rendered by a learned Judge in Abhiram Vs. State of U.P. And 3 Others (Writ - A No.8657 of 2020 decided on 02.11.2020) and the judgment of the Division Bench in Smt. Parmi Maurya Vs. State of U.P. And 2 Ors (Special Appeal Defective No.110 of 2014 decided on 31.01.2014) contended that it was incumbent upon the respondents to have conducted a formal disciplinary enquiry before dismissing the petitioner from service and in having failed to do so, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside on that score alone. It was further submitted that the decision to recover all emoluments paid during the period while the petitioner was in service causes grave injustice and hardship.