IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3994 of 2001 MD. NOORUL HODA Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS For the petitioner : Mr. Raj Nandan Pd. Singh. For the State : Mr. Udai Shankar Singh,A.C. to G.A. 3 ----------- 6. 29.04.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. It is stated that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 8.4.1980 and posted at Primary School, Uda Kusheshwar Asthan, District-Darbhanga. He received his salary till 1983. When payment of salary was stopped, he came to this Court in a writ application, which was disposed with certain observations. An F.I.R. was lodged against the petitioner doubting the veracity of his qualification and certificates. The petitioner moved an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the prosecution, which came to be allowed on 6.11.1996 in Cr. Misc. No. 1590 of 1991. Consequently, on 9.10.1998 in CWJC No. 7117 of 1997 noticing the order under Section 482 Cr.P.C. application, this Court directed that the petitioner must be allowed to work and be paid salary. Liberty was, however, given to the authority to hold further enquiry, if so advised. The authority held fresh enquiry in which the petitioner has duly participated. The petitioner in his show cause has stated that he submitted his original certificate before the authority and it was never returned to him. The submission, therefore, is that there is no justification 2 now belatedly to terminate the appointment of the petitioner on that ground. Reliance is placed to the Government instruction dated 2.7.1980 that after 16 years of an appointment no enquiry shall be held into the qualification and certificate of any teacher. Reliance is further placed on an order dated 21.8.1995 in CWJC No. 819 of 1995 interfering with an enquiry held contrary to the Government instruction dated 2.7.1980. Learned counsel for the State points out that the present is not a matter where an enquiry is sought to be opened after 16 years. In fact, as far back as in 1983, when his salary was stopped, the petitioner was asked to submit his papers relating to his appointment. F.I.R. was lodged in 1985. In CWJC No. 7117 of 1997 liberty was granted to hold further enquiry. In the entire writ petition and the documents annexed to the same, no submission has been made by the petitioner of the institution from which he acquired his training qualification, when he completed the course, when he passed the necessary examination and acquired the necessary qualification. Assuming that he had done so and submitted the papers to the authority, surely the petitioner must have retained the photostat copy of the certificates and other papers. This Court finds that in the F.I.R. lodged with regard to the alleged fraudulent nature of his certificates cognizance was taken, it was then challenged that there is no material in the case diary for taking cognizance, the prosecution was quashed under 3 Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is, therefore, apparent that the petitioner got away without facing the trial. No conclusive finding was arrived at with regard to the nature of the certificate. Had it been a case of acquittal after trial, after finding the genuineness of the certificates, the matter would have been entirely different. This was the reason that notwithstanding the order dated 6.11.1986 in Cr. Misc. No. 1590 of 1991, this Court on 9.10.1988 in CWJC No. 7117 of 1997 granted fresh liberty to the Respondents to hold an enquiry. From the impugned order dated 10.1.2001 at Annexure-6, it is apparent that the petitioner was given adequate opportunity, but he failed to produce his original documents and certificates of training. From the reply filed by him before the authority appended at Annexure-4 & 5, this Court finds substance in the submission on behalf of the State, quite apart from the issue of complete absence of any pleadings with regard to the institution from which the petitioner acquired the qualification and the date of completing the training. The petitioner in his reply also made no such pleadings. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is satisfied that notwithstanding the order in Section 482 Cr.P.C. matter, the Respondents were not precluded from holding fresh enquiry. On the facts of the case, the bar of 16 years on the face of it does not apply since the issue against the petitioner originated in 1983 itself. The Respondents have been more than fair to the 4 petitioner when during the enquiry they gave him due opportunity. He failed to produce his certificates during enquiry. There are no pleadings in the writ application with regard to the certificates as discussed above or in the cause shown when the Respondents issued him notice. This Court is primarily concerned with the decision making process by the Respondents and not with the decision itself. On the facts, this Court does not find any infirmity in its decision making process. The decision not being perverse is outside the purview of the writ jurisdiction. This writ application is dismissed. AKS/ (Navin Sinha, J.)