Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9969 of 2012 ====================================================== 1. Mritunjay Kumar Singh S/O Late Radhe Shyam Singh R/O Village + P.O.- Siswa Kala, (Block Siswan), P.S.- M.H. Nagar, District- Siwan 2. Ajay Kumar Gupta S/O Late Jay Prakash Narayan R/O Village + P.O.- Gangpur Siswa, P.S.- Siswan, District- Siwan 3. Arti Kumari D/O Late Radhe Shyam Singh R/O Village + P.O.- Siswa Kala, P.S.- M.H. Nagar, District- Siwan 4. Usha Kumari D/O Sri Balbhadra Nath Singh R/O Village + P.O.- Siswa Kala, P.S.- M.H. Nagar, District- Siwan .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Director, Primary Education, Bihar, Patna 3. District Programme Officer, Establishment Section, Siwan 4. District Education Officer, Siwan 5. District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Siwan 6. Block Education Officer, Siswan, District- Siwan 7. Block Pramukh-Cum-Chairman Block Teachers Selection Unit, Siswan, District- Siwan .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Pandey For the Respondent/s : Mr. P.K. Verma Aag5 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA ORAL ORDER 2 19-06-2012 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the State. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 22.10.2011 which directs institution of a First Information Report against them on a conclusion that the certificates produced by them for appointment as teachers had been found to be fake. Siswan PS Case No. 127 of 2011 has subsequently been instituted against the petitioners under [STATUTE] . Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that they came to be appointed in pursuance of the orders of the District Teachers Appointment Appellate Tribunal, dated 4.5.2011/28.4.2011 in case No. 114 of 2011. Their certificates are not fake and no opportunity to defend has been furnished to them. An unilateral decision has been taken by the Patna High Court CWJC No.9969 of 2012 (2) dt.19-06-2012 2 respondents to the prejudice of the petitioners which is in violation of the principles of natural justice. Reliance is also placed on an order of the Court in CWJC No. 7884 of 2012 directing the Block Education officer to issue individual notice, consider the defence that may be shown and interim protection granted in the meantime. Counsel for the State submits that if the authorities have opined that the certificates as furnished by the petitioners were fake, obviously after a proper enquiry, the Court may not interfere. The Tribunal while granting relief to the petitioners undoubtedly did make an observation for scrutiny of the certificates and if found to be fake their appointments could be terminated. Whether the certificates were fake or genuine is a primarily question of fact. If it is a question of fact there necessarily has to be an enquiry. The petitioners produced certificates contending them to be genuine. The respondents opined that the certificates were not genuine. The opinion cannot be unilateral as it visits the petitioners with adverse consequences. They necessarily have to be granted an opportunity to satisfy the respondents that their certificates were genuine and why the opinion of the respondents was incorrect. The impugned order does not reflect any consideration that any notice had been issued to the petitioners much less the defence considered before the conclusion was arrived at on 22.10.2011 with regard to their certificates. The institution of a First Information Report is a serious matter which has its significance even beyond simple termination of the appointment. The enquiry that may be held by the appointing authority with regard to the genuineness of the certificate cannot be substituted at the very initial stage by opinion of the Investigating Officer. Once the respondents had held enquiry in accordance with law and then instituted an First Information Report matters may have been entirely different. But since Patna High Court CWJC No.9969 of 2012 (2) dt.19-06-2012 3 the First Information Report had been instituted and the petitioners have adequate remedies in-law with regard to the same the Court only considers it proper to observe that in light of the present discussion the respondents will act prudently and reasonably in so far as the First Information Report is concerned and not prejudge issues even before an administrative enquiry is held by them. The writ application is therefore disposed in terms of the directions already given in CWJC No. 7884 of 2012 for the manner in which Block Education officer is now required to proceed. Should the respondents default in proceeding in accordance with the directions of the Court visiting the petitioners with adverse consequences in pursuance of the FIR, serious questions of answerability and accountability for exercise of statutory powers by the respondents shall necessarily arise for consideration. It is the specific case of the petitioners in para 23 that no orders for termination have been issued till date. The writ application is disposed in the aforesaid terms. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 420

Statute Text:
Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Cheating and there by dishonestly inducing delivery of property, or the making, alteration or destruction of a valuable security. Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.