Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8225 of 2004 ====================================================== Yogendra Singh, son of late Ram Nagina Singh, resident of Main Road, West Ashok Nagar, P.S. Kankarbagh, District Patna .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The Bihar School Examination Board, Patna, through its Secretary, Patna. 2. The Chairman, Bihar School Examination Board, Patna, through its Secretary, Patna 3. The Secretary, Bihar School Examination Board, Patna, through its Secretary, Patna .... .... Respondents ====================================================== For the Petitioner : M/s Janardan Prasad Singh and . Ram Kishore Singh, Advocates. For the Respondents : Mr. Girjesh Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== P R E S E N T : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.N. HUSSAIN O R D E R 17 20-09-2012 This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging office order dated 08.05.2004 (Annexure 1) contained in memo no. 419, by which the Secretary, Bihar School Examination Board (respondent no.3) held the petitioner guilty of making interpolation in his date of birth and, accordingly, 25% of pension has been directed to be deducted and an arrear of Rs.3,70,718.00 has been arbitrarily shown against the petitioner. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the order adjusting a sum of Rs.1,17,097.00 out of the aforesaid total arrears from the amount of his gratuity, difference of pension amount etc. and he was also directed to deposit the remaining amount of Rs.2,53,621.00 in Patna High Court CWJC No.8225 of 2004 (17) dt.20-09-2012 2/14 one instalment within 15 days in the Board, failing which, action was directed to be taken against the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant on 23.10.1957 in the Bihar School Examination Board, Patna (hereinafter referred to as `the Board’ for the sake of brevity), whereafter he was posted as Sr. Assistant Grade-II in the year 1960, and in the year 1962 he was granted scale of Sr. Grade-I Assistant and subsequently in the year 1966 he was promoted to the post of Section Officer and a further promotion was granted to the petitioner in the year 1985 to the post of Assistant Budget and Accounts Officer, which was equivalent to the rank of Assistant Secretary, whereafter again he was promoted in the year 1990. He further submits that the petitioner superannuated on 31.05.1994 while he was working on the post of Assistant Secretary in the Board. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that on 28.04.1992 a first information report bearing Kotwali P.S. Case No. 194 of 1992 was lodged at the instance of the then Secretary of the Board against the petitioner for offences punishable under [STATUTE] alleging manipulation in the date of birth recorded in the service book of the petitioner and on its basis a departmental proceeding was Patna High Court CWJC No.8225 of 2004 (17) dt.20-09-2012 3/14 initiated against the petitioner and he was put under suspension vide order dated 29.04.1992 and memo of charges was given to him on 06.05.1992. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner avers that in view of the aforesaid frivolous question raised by the then Secretary of the Board, the petitioner filed Title Suit No. 02 of 1992 before the Munsif, Patna, which was the most appropriate authority to declare the proper date of birth of the petitioner, for declaration that his date of birth was 01.06.1938 against the view of Secretary of the Board that the date of birth of the petitioner was 01.06.1936. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner asserts that due to the aforesaid two cases, namely, criminal case and the title suit, the authorities of the petitioner seriously looked into the matter and an understanding arrived between them that the petitioner would withdraw his title suit and the Board would withdraw the criminal case and accept his date of birth to be 01.06.1936, In this connection, he relies upon the order of the Chairman of the Board dated 04.11.1993 (Annexure 3), his subsequent order dated 16.03.1994 (Annexure 4) as well as the resolution of the Board dated 10.06.1994 (Annexure 5). 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that in Patna High Court CWJC No.8225 of 2004 (17) dt.20-09-2012 4/14 view of the aforesaid understanding the petitioner withdrew Title Suit No. 02 of 1002, which is apparent from the order of the Munsif, Patna dated 04.12.1992 (Annexure 2), whereas, respondent-authorities stopped the departmental proceeding against the petitioner, regarding which the enquiry officer was also informed. However, the criminal case continued although no interest was taken by the prosecution side and finally it was dismissed for non-prosecution on 23.08.2002 (Annexure 8). However, in the meantime the petitioner had superannuated on 31.05.1994 vide office order issued by the Secretary of the Board dated 24.05.1994 (Annexure 6). 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner claims that the petitioner filed C.W.J.C. No. 3476 of 2004 for directing the authorities of the Board to pay to the petitioner all his pensionary benefits and the said writ petition was disposed of along with other cases vide common order dated 22.03.2004 (Annexure 9) with certain directions. He further claims that it was only after the order of this Court passed in the aforesaid writ petition that the Secretary of the Board issued order dated 21.04.2004 (Annexure 10) framing fresh charges against the petitioner, initiating a departmental proceeding and appointing an enquiry officer and memo of charges was issued on 24.04.2004 (Annexure 12), which Patna High Court CWJC No.8225 of 2004 (17) dt.20-09-2012 5/14 was the same earlier memo of charges dated 06.05.1992 inspite of the fact that the matter had already been settled by the Board in the year 1993-94 itself whereafter the petitioner had retired in the year 1994 and no step had been

Applicable IPC Section: 467

Statute Text:
Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code. Forgery of a valuable security, will or authority to make or transfer any valuable security, or to receive any money, etc. Whoever forges a document which purports to be a valuable security or a will, or an authority to adopt a son, or which purports to give authority to any person to make or transfer any valuable security, or to receive the principal, interest or dividends thereon, or to receive or deliver any money, movable property, or valuable security, or any document purporting to be an acquittance or receipt acknowledging the payment of money, or an acquittance or receipt for the delivery of any movable property or valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.