IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3730 of 2005 SURENDRA KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 5. 17.07.2008 Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. The contention of the petitioner is that in pursuance of Advertisement no. 1/88 for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher in different discipline including Geography the petitioner also applied. That he was a graduate. He went through a test followed by an interview when a panel of successful candidates was prepared. After verification of his certificates he came to be appointed on 19.10.1993 as Assistant Teacher in the discipline of Geography. Reliance is placed on the order of appointment at Annexure 2 referring to the Advertisement no. 1/88 in which the name of the petitioner figures at serial no. 6. The petitioner continued to discharge his duties when in pursuance of an order dated 12.2.2000 payment of his salary was stopped on the ground that he was not even a Matriculate when his appointment had been made as a Graduate trained person. He came to this Court in CWJC No. 13241 of 2003 for release of salary when in the meantime the impugned order of termination dated 14.5.2004 has been issued. The writ application was therefore disposed with a liberty to the petitioner to challenge his order of termination and make appropriate prayer for arrears of salary in the proposed writ application. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. The counter affidavit does not deny the factum of Advertisement no. 1/88. It likewise does not deny the genuineness of Annexure 2 issued by 2 the respondents themselves with reference to the aforesaid appointment containing list of selected candidates in which the petitioner figures at serial no. 6. The impugned order contrary to the earlier letter dated 12.2.2000 of the respondents themselves now states that the appointment letter of the petitioner was forged as distinct from the grounds urged earlier of his not being a Matriculate qualified when he had represented himself as Graduate trained qualification. It has been specifically pleaded in Para 25 that before issuance of the impugned order dated 14.5.2004 no opportunity to show cause or the grounds on which the letter of appointment was suspected to be fake or forged was given to the petitioner with the opportunity to meet the allegation. This has not been denied in the counter affidavit. A First Information Report is stated to have been lodged against the petitioner as far back as 18.10.2002. The counter affidavit is completely silent with regard to the fate of the First Information Report. Moreover the First Information Report, at Annexure 5, does not even state what the nature of the forgery is. This Court clarifies that the observations with regard to the First Information Report is confined for the purpose of consideration of the relief in the present writ application only. Learned Counsels for the petitioner and the State are both unable to inform what ultimately may have happened to the First Information Report. The Court is not inclined to adjourn the matter for the purpose. In the result, the impugned order of termination is held to be bad in the light of the discussions as noticed above, additionally for reasons of violation of the principles of natural justice. The order dated 3 14.5.2004 is therefore set aside. The petitioner is reinstated and shall be entitled to entire arrears of salary for the period that he has wrongly been kept out of work as well as the current salary in terms of the observations made in CWJC No. 13241 of 2003. This shall however not prejudice the respondents from proceeding afresh against the petitioner on the issue of his appointment in accordance with law. Any observations made herein shall not have any bearing on the First information Report lodged which shall proceed in accordance with law. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)