IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9992 of 2005 Mahendra Verma, son of Shree Viteshwar Verma, resident of village Datiana, P.S. Vikram, District- Patna …………. Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Director, Secondary Education, Bihar, Patna 3. Deputy Director, Secondary Education, Bihar, Patna 4. Regional Deputy Director of Education, Patna Division, Patna 5. District Education Officer, Patna …………. Respondents ----------- 7. 29/10/2009 In view of disputed questions of fact, arising in the case as a result of submissions of learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the matter has to be remitted back to the Director, Secondary Education, to hold thorough enquiry with full opportunity to the petitioner to participate in the same, allowing inspection of records by him along with his representative or counsel, as he may chose, and to come to a conclusion afresh in the matter of taking over of services of the petitioner as teacher pursuant to take over of the school. From the record, it appears that the school was taken over vide Annexure-3 dated 29.6.1983. Thereafter, a communication was made by the District Education Officer for taking - 2 - over of services of the petitioner vide Annexure-4 dated 29.3.1993. Same was considered by the then Director, who passed orders for recognition of services of the petitioner vide Annexure-5 dated 8.8.1994. Petitioner was thereafter adjusted in Parwati High School, Bikram. However, vide order dated 30.1.1995, annexed as Annexure-7, the Director cancelled the approval granted to recognition of services of petitioner. Petitioner then filed representation dated 6.5.1995, as contained in Annexure-8. It is pleaded that enquiry was made and said order (Annexure-7) was recalled by Annexure-9 dated 20.10.1995 by the then Director and the order of recognition of his services by Annexure-5 was approved. Petitioner was subsequently transferred to different schools. Ultimately, by impugned order dated 14.2.2005, as contained in Annexure-11, again recognition of services of the petitioner was rejected by the then Director, Secondary Education. Contention of learned senior counsel for the petitioner is that while rejecting the approval of services of the petitioner by impugned Annexure-11, no show cause notice was - 3 - given to the petitioner and therefore, there has been violation of Principles of Natural Justice in the matter. Learned Government Advocate No.1, in reply, submits that since appointment of the petitioner itself was found forged, no notice was required to be given to him. He also submits that records show that earlier order of the Director recognizing the services of the petitioner, as contained in Annexure-5 dated 8.8.1994, was a forged document. He also submits that in fact appointment letter of petitioner itself was found forged and report of the Special Board which was produced by petitioner and which contained name of the petitioner was also a forged document as the report available in the file of the Department did not contain name of the petitioner. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner, in reply, submits that mere allegation of forgery on subjective satisfaction of any authority of the Department is not enough to deny the claim of petitioner. Relying upon judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Subodh Kumar Prasad Vs. State of Bihar, reported in - 4 - 2001(3) PLJR (SC) 187, he submits that before coming to the conclusion with regard to forgery of a document or with regard to forged signature on a document, an enquiry has to be made and signature has to be verified and compared in a proper manner. He submits that the findings in respect of the same cannot be arrived at merely on ocular observations of any authority of the Department at any subsequent stage. In respect of submissions of learned Government Advocate No.1 that no notice was required to the incumbent in case of forged or fraudulent appointment, he submits that a right has accrued to the petitioner in view of the recommendation of the District Education Officer and recognition of his services by the Director vide Annexure-5. Therefore, in view of the accrued right, before taking any action for canceling the said recognition granted by the predecessor Director, a notice was required to be given to the petitioner, especially when the document itself is being considered as forged and fabricated. This is not disputed that petitioner has not been given any opportunity in the matter. - 5 - Petitioner has produced notings from the file through supplementary affidavit as Annexure-12 to show that entire matter was considered by the authorities and then orders were passed in favour of the petitioner. However, since Government Advocate No.1 has strongly argued against genuineness and authenticity of Annexure-5 and the report of the Special Board produced by the petitioner, this Court is of the view that the matter requires fresh and thorough enquiry at the level of the Director, Secondary Education. Since the matter concerns genuineness and authenticity of the document, petitioner is also entitled to examine the records and satisfy himself with regard to the materials available on record, for and against him. In the circumstances, this writ application is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to appear before the Director, Secondary Education on 12.11.2009 at 10.30 A.M. along with a copy of this order with his counsel, if advised. Thereupon, the Director, Secondary Education shall fix up a firm date and time for inspection of records by petitioner and his counsel, if appearing, and the records, as - 6 - desired by petitioner and his counsel, shall be made available to them for inspection in presence of a responsible staff of the Department. Within one week from the date of such inspection, petitioner shall file a detailed representation to the Director, Secondary Education for reconsideration of his case. On receipt of such representation, the Director, Secondary Education shall fix up a date and time for hearing of the matter. On the date so fixed, he shall hear the matter in reference to the records and documents as may be relied upon by petitioner and his counsel, if appearing, and within ten days of the same, he shall pass final orders in the matter of take over of services of the petitioner from the relevant date. The Director, Secondary Education, while examining the records for their genuineness and authenticity, will also be at liberty to consider and hear petitioner and his counsel in respect of validity of his appointment and his eligibility for take over of his services. All these exercises must be completed by the Director, Secondary Education within two months from today. After passing of - 7 - final orders, the Director, Secondary Education shall also pass consequential orders for payment of salary etc. of the petitioner, if found payable. The impugned order (Annexure-11) shall be treated as kept in abeyance for the purpose and shall not be taken into account for this enquiry. Pradeep/ (J. N. Singh, J.)