STATE OF U P Vs. MOHAMMAD AHMAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NONE appears for the respondent. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants Sri H.P. Srivastava. The order under appeal, allows the writ petition preferred by the respondent, challenging the order of termination from service mainly on the ground that the respondent was appointed on 26.8.1981 and the impugned order of termination has been passed almost after a lapse of six years without affording any opportunity, as there was an allegation that the respondent had submitted some forged documents of his educational qualification. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that it was the specific case of the State that there was no order of appointment and it was only on the joining report, the respondent was allowed to continue and, therefore, it was a case where the incumbent continued to work, though at no point of time he was appointed. The plea raised aforesaid cannot be taken to be conclusive nor can be relied upon in the special appeal for the simple reason that the appointment could not have been cancelled without affording any opportunity. We, therefore, do not find any illegality in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. However, it is open to the State, if they so desire, to make appropriate enquiry if they feel satisfied that it is a case of fraud, or otherwise it is a case for enquiry. The special appeal is disposed of.