IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13541 of 2008 Dukhi Gaira, Son of Late Ram Kishun Gaira, resident of village-Maharajganj, P.S.-Madhubani Town, District-Madhubani. -Petitioner. VERSUS 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Chief Malariya Officer, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Civil surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Madhubani. 4. The District Malariya Officer, Madhubani. -Respondents. ----------- 06 23.07.2010 It is pointed out that order dated 21.06.2010 passed in this case has been wrongly typed as order no.2, it should be read as order no.4. Let it be so read. The petitioner was initially recruited vide Memo No.338 dated 26.02.1982 of the District Malariya Officer, Madhubani to the post of seasonal worker on daily wages for ante Kalazar spray. Petitioner’s employment continued. Ultimately, pursuant to policy of the Government, the petitioner having worked for almost 10 years pursuant to correspondences including that from the office of the Chief Malariya Officer by Memo No.8 dated 23.02.1991, petitioner was absorbed in permanent Government service. This appointment letter was held to be based on forged letter and thus cancelled. At the same time criminal prosecution was launched against the petitioner for using forged letter to seek employment in which it was alleged that both these letters were forged. There was full-fledged trial and the Trial Court acquitted the petitioner holding that the prosecution had failed to prove the charge beyond doubt. It may be relevant to - 2 - mention here that while doing so the Trial Court gave a finding that inspite of allegation of the letter being forged no evidence was brought on record to show that they were, in fact, forged rather the informant accepted the signature of the officer concerned on the letter of absorption. Thus, with a finding that there was no forgery committed by the petitioner, petitioner was acquitted. The issue was thus settled. Petitioner’s pay was stopped. He challenged this before this Court. Large numbers of writ applications were filed before this Court where similarly health worker were terminated in the Health Department. All the writ applications were disposed of by setting aside termination order and directing the matter to be enquired by a committee. Notwithstanding the judgment of the Criminal Court, the Committee found once again that the petitioner was employed and absorbed on forged letters and, accordingly, in the year 2004/2005 petitioner was terminated. This is the order that petitioner now challenges. The issue raised by the petitioner is not only that the petitioner was acquitted on the charge having obtained employment by forged letters, there being a clear cut finding by a Court of competent jurisdiction that forgery could not be proved or established by the State at all against the petitioner. That finding cannot be overlooked or upset by any authority and the finding having not being upset would bind all other authority including a quasi judicial authority based on principles of issue estoppel. Having considered the matter, in my view, the writ petition must succeed. A court of competent jurisdiction in full- - 3 - fledged trial came to a positive finding that forgery could not be established. It was not a summary proceeding. It was a regular Court proceeding. This finding must now bind all persons including the State who was the prosecutor himself. It is not open to the State to ignore this finding of a competent Court and still hold that the appointment was based on forged letter. This is the principle of issue estoppel where a Court of competent jurisdiction as between the parties have decided an issue then so long as the that decision continues to operate and is not varied or set aside by Court of competent jurisdiction no party can resile from the said position. It is not a case where petitioner was given benefit of decision in the criminal trial. The acquittal was on basis of positive finding as against the State and in favour of the petitioner that forgery was not established. That being so, the order of termination had an issue contrary to what was recorded by the Court cannot be sustained. The result is the writ petition is allowed. The order of termination is set aside. Upon petitioner establishing before the authority that he had worked a while the matter was being deliberated upon, he would be entitled to his back wages. It is now hoped that the petitioner would permitted to rejoin his duties positively. Trivedi (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)