Termination over an allegedly unauthorised certificate requires a hearing before its validity is determined.

The petitioner was appointed as Signaller Grade II after submitting a telegraphy/signalling certificate issued by a BSNL establishment at Jhansi, following six months’ training and an examination.

The issuing office verified the certificate, and the respondents did not dispute that the petitioner completed the training, took the examination, or received the certificate.

They challenged it on the ground that the officers who permitted the training and issued the certificate lacked authority.

The Engineer-in-Chief declared the certificate invalid, and the petitioner’s services were terminated without prior notice or hearing.

The petitioner had continued in service under an interim order and was later promoted and confirmed.

1. Whether the alleged lack of authority of the BSNL officers who permitted the training and issued the certificate invalidated the petitioner’s qualification and appointment, despite the certificate’s genuineness and the undisputed completion of training and examination.

2. Whether the certificate could be declared invalid and the petitioner’s services terminated without notice or an opportunity to be heard.

Rule 9(2)(i) of the applicable rules and the Government Order dated 25 June 2004 concerned recognition of certain telegraphy certificates issued by Posts and Telegraphs Department/BSNL establishments.

Rule 17 regulated the circumstances in which a telegraphist could impart training, including the requirement for orders of the controlling Divisional Officer.

Condition No. 3 of the appointment order permitted termination if a submitted certificate was found false or invalid, but did not displace the requirement of a fair process before that determination.

The principles of natural justice require that a person facing an adverse administrative decision with civil consequences be informed of the proposed grounds and given a reasonable opportunity to respond; the Court referred to Shrawan Kumar Jha v. State of Bihar, 1991 Supp (1) SCC 330, and Krishna Datt Awasthi v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2025) 7 SCC 545.

The Court distinguished a forged or fabricated certificate from a genuine certificate challenged only because of an alleged administrative defect in the issuing officers’ authority.

The respondents did not dispute the petitioner’s training, examination, or receipt of the certificate, and there was no finding of fraud, misrepresentation, or complicity by him.

Rule 17 and the proceedings against the telegraphist did not, by themselves, establish that the petitioner lacked the substantive qualification or was responsible for the alleged irregularity.

Because the certificate’s validity depended on questions concerning the applicable rules and the authority of the BSNL establishment, the respondents could not presume invalidity and invoke Condition No. 3 without first giving the petitioner an opportunity to address those matters.

It allowed the writ petition and quashed the orders dated 29 June 2005 and 1 October 2005.

The petitioner’s service was to be treated as continuous, with consequential service benefits admissible under the applicable rules, subject to adjustment of benefits already received; there was no order as to costs.