IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2066 of 1995 Surendra Mahto, Son of Sri Ram Sagar Mahto, Resident of Village & P.O. sanjat, P.S. bhagwanpur, District Begusarai. ---------- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The District Superintendent of Education, Begusarai. 3. Block Education Extension Officer, Balia, District Begusarai. ------ Respondents ----------- 5 11.8.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. The prayer in this writ application is for quashing an order dated 24.2.1995 by which the services of the petitioner had been terminated on the ground that he had produced a forged certificate of Teachers Training. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that a regular departmental proceeding was not conducted and the impugned order was given retrospective effect, inasmuch as, the order was passed on 24.2.1995 but the order of dismissal was given effect with effect from 4.11.1994. Counsel for State on the other hand would submit that the petitioner had obtained his initial appointment by producing a forged training certificate and this fact having been brought to the notice of the Department, the 2 petitioner was given an opportunity of show cause and the petitioner had filed his show- cause reply to such notice, whereafter, the authorities had taken a decision on the basis of a clear report of that very institution from which the petitioner had claimed to have undergone teachers training. Counsel for the State in this context had referred to Annexure-B to the counter affidavit which shows that the petitioner had never undergone teachers training course in the year 1980-82 and his name was not included in the cross- list of the students of that batch. Since the case of the petitioner was that he had been a student of Primary Teachers Training College, Sekhpura, Munger and had allegedly undergone training course in the year 1980-82, there would be hardly any scope for further enquiry if the petitioner’s trace of being a student of that batch in that college was not available. Obviously, the only conclusion, therefore, would be that the petitioner had produced a forged certificate. There is, however, one flaw in the impugned order, inasmuch as, the order of 3 termination could not have been given retrospective effect. It is well settled that any order of termination can only be made operative from a prospective date and therefore, that part of the impugned order by which the petitioner’s services were sought to be terminated with effect from 4.11.1994 is hereby modified and the petitioner will be deemed to have been terminated only with effect from the date of the impugned order i.e. 24.2.1995. With the aforementioned observations and modification in the impugned order, this application is disposed of. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)