IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12165 of 2003 MD.NEJAMUDDIN, SON OF MD. SAIGAD HUSAIN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-CHAIBIGHA, P.O. –RAJOI, P.S-AURANGABAD (M) DISTRICT- AURANGABAD . ..…..Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DIRECTOR SECONDARY EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, MAGADH DIVISION, GAYA 4. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, AURANGABAG 5. MADRASA RASIDIA, KOATH THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, DISTRICT-ROHTAS (BIHAR) ……….Respondents ----------- 3. 27.09.2010 Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State as with regard to the following relief;. “ That this is an application for issuance of appropriate writ(s)/direction(s) for quashing memo no. 1827 dated 19.9.2003 issued by the District Superintendent of Education, Aurangabad, by which petitioner has been removed from service. Further the respondents be directed to reinstate the petitioner with all service benefits including back salary. And/or for any other appropriate reliefs for which the petitioner deem, fit and proper.” and in absence of counter affidavit, this Court would find that the impugned order dated 19.9.2003 was passed by the District Superintendent of Education, 2 Aurangabad in terms of some enquiry entrusted to him by the Director, Primary Education in his letter No. 1241 dated 3.9.2003. Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner therefore is correct at least to the extent that when the appointment of the petitioner was made way back in the year 1968 by the office of District Superintendent of Education, Gaya as an Assistant Teacher in Sankar Middle School, Kapasya and subsequently his appointment was confirmed w.e.f. 1.3.1968, he ought not to have been shown the door almost at the fag end of his service, just a year earlier to his date of superannuation i.e. 30th November 2004. He has also submitted that the petitioner was given no opportunity of hearing as with regard to the materials which was referred to and relied by the District Superintendent of Education and in this context he has drawn attention of this Court that neither the report of Assistant Secretary of Bihar Rajaya Madarsa Shiksha Board dated 21.6.2002 nor the letter of Collector, Aurangabad dated 22.5.2003 nor even the letter of Director, Primary Education dated 3.9.2003 were made available to the petitioner and a finding was 3 recorded behind his back that his appointment made in the year 1968 was based on a forged Maulvi certificate. Normally, this Court could have gone into this aspect had the respondents filed their counter affidavit, bringing at least the materials referred to in the impugned order on record but since no counter affidavit has been filed in this case in last seven years and the petitioner also is no longer entitled for his reinstatement in service as he has already exceeded the age of 60 years during the pendency of this writ application and only issue that now remains to be resolved as to whether the impugned order terminating his service and eventually taking away the benefit of continuation of service from 1968 to 2003 was based on correct appreciation of fact and law as with regard to some alleged forgery in Maulavi certificate on the basis of which the appointment of the petitioner made way back in the year 1968, this Court would find it expedient in the ends of justice to remit the matter to the Director, Primary Education who having collected all the informations and records from the office of District Superintendent of Education, Aurangabad as also after looking into the documents which may be produced by the 4 petitioner, would take his independent decision as with regard to validity of the appointment of the petitioner and justification of terminating his service at the fag end. It is however made clear that unless the Director Primary Education would record a finding of the petitioner’s appointment being based on fraud/forgery including that of in his Maulvi Certificate, he would not deprive the petitioner at least from getting the retirement benefit as the petitioner had admittedly worked for the period 1968 to 2003. In order to expedite the matter this court would give liberty to the petitioner to file a self-contained representation enclosing all his documents and the decision by the Director, Primary Education would be taken thereafter within a period of six months from the date of filing of such representation of the petitioner, accompanied with this order. With the aforementioned observations and directions, this writ application is disposed of. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)