IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.4153 of 2009 Chhavinath Sharma, aged 67 years, son of Late Ram Niut Sharma, resident of village Suhwal, P.S. Suhwal, District Ghajipur (U.P.)………………………………………………….……….Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department, Sinchai Bhawan, Patna. 2. Sri Ajay B. Nayak, name of father not known to the petitioner, the Principal Secretary , Water Resources Department, Bihar, Sinchai Bhawan, Patna 3. Sri Anupam Kumar name of father not known to the petitioner the Director, Provident Fund Directorate, Pant Bhawan, Patna. 4. Md. Jamil, name of father not known to the petitioner, the District Provident Fund Officer, Rohtas, Sasaram 5. Sri K. N. Lal, Chief Engineer, Mechanical, Water Resources Department, Old Secretariate Barrack, Patna 6. Sri Uma Kant Paswan, name of father not known to the petitioner, the Superintending Engineer, Mechanical Circle, Gaya , Camp Dehri (Previously the petitioner was under Mechanical Circle, Mithapur, Patna) 7. Sri Devendra Prasad name of father not known to the petitioner, Executive Engineer, Irrigation Mechanical Division, Dehri, District Rohtas 8. Sri Gautam Guha name of father not known to the petitioner, the Accountant General, Bihar, Birchand Patel Path, Patna…………………………………………….…..Opposite Parties ----------- 4 27.10.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State. Petitioner disputes receipt of payment of provident fund amount to the tune of Rs.1,49,528/-. Learned counsel for the petitioner 2 submits that by putting forged signature of the petitioner on the acquaintance roll, as contained Annexure-8 with the supplementary affidavit filed in the writ application, as appearing on page 8, the said amount has been withdrawn by the Cashier in connivance with the Executive Engineer. He submits that genuine signature of the petitioner is at page 9 of the acquaintance roll, which is different from his signature at page 8. This matter requires an opinion of the handwriting expert. Therefore, this Court is not in a position to decide the matter in a contempt application. Petitioner, therefore, is directed to file a petition before the Director, Provident Fund, Pant Bhawan, Patna for getting an enquiry held in the matter, if necessary, by getting the signature of the petitioner compared by the handwriting expert. If such a petition is filed by the petitioner, Director, Provident Fund Directorate, Pant Bhawan, Patna shall get an enquiry held with regard to genuineness of signature of the petitioner and if he gets the signature compared by the handwriting expert and thereafter shall come to a final conclusion as 3 to whether signature on the acquaintance roll at page 8 against the said amount of Rs.1,49,528/- is of the petitioner or not. If he comes to the conclusion that signature is not of the petitioner, he shall take appropriate action including institution of the case against the person concerned for withdrawing the amount of the provident fund of the petitioner by forging signature on the acquaintance roll. The contempt application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. BT (J. N. Singh, J.)