WA 553/2005 BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE B.SUDERSHAN REDDY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P.KATAKEY REDDY, CJ: The cause in this writ appeal, in our considered view, does not really survive requiring any further adjudication. The appellant herein mainly challenged the order dated 15.03.200 5 issued by the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Schools, Cachar District Circle, Silc har, which reads as under:- Shri Namar Ali Laskar, Secretary of the Managing Committee of Y.S.Memorial Hig h School, P.O.Khelma is hereby exempted from the Secretaryship of the School wit h immediate effect till the investigation of the allied mater of school is final ized by the authority and as complaint lodged by the public and as well as teach ing staff of the school and also Managing Committee members of the school. The Headmistress of the school is requested to look after the day-to-day works of the school. The necessary drawal of bill/bills etc. will be drawn by t his office until further instruction from this end. This acting arrangement is m ade purely on temporary basis and until further order from this end. Sd/- P.Kalita Asstt. Inspector of Schools, CDC, Silchar. It is brought to our notice by the learned counsel for the appel lant that the appellant herein was appointed as Secretary only for a period of 3 (three) years with effect from 13.08.2003. Obviously, by afflux of time, the pe riod itself has come to an end. During the course of hearing of the writ petition, the learned S ingle Judge having upheld the impugned order, however, arrived at a tentative co nclusion that the appellant indulged in forgery, fabrication in certain vital po rtions of the proceeding notes Annexure-2A & 2B of the writ petition. In such vi ew of the matter, the learned Single Judge directed the Assistant Inspector of S chools, CDC, Silchar to lodge a F.I.R. before the Silchar Police Station mention ing the forgery/ fabrication of Annexure-2A and 2B of the writ petition and the police authorities were directed to investigate the case. It is contended that the learned Judge ought not to have recorde d any finding regarding forgery or fabrication in Annexure-2A and 2B, the procee ding notes. The contention is that nothing further remains as such for investiga tion in view of findings of this Court. This Court vide order dated 07.10.2005 while vacating the interim order dated 23.09.2005 observed that the above finding shall be considered as a tentat ive view and the investigating agency shall not be influenced by it in any manne r. Nothing is placed before this Court as regards result of the investig ation. Interest of the appellant is well protected by the interim order passed b y this Court on 07.10.2005. The investigating agency obviously cannot be influen ced by the tentative observations made in the impugned judgment passed by the le arned Single Judge. It cannot be taken as a finding recorded by the learned Sing le Judge and more particularly when the learned Single Judge directed the author ities to conduct the investigation pursuant to the F.I.R. that was directed to b e lodged by the authority concerned. In such view of the matter, we hold that no further case survives requir ing any further adjudication as such in this appeal. The only direction that can be issued at this stage is to direct the investigating agency to complete the i nvestigation, if it is not completed, within a period of 2(two) months and file a proper report before the Court of competent criminal jurisdiction. We make it clear that this Court has not recorded any finding wh atsoever against the appellant as regards forgery/ fabrication of Annexure-2A an d 2B of writ petition.