IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.648 of 1998 1. Rajesh Kumar Jha, son of Gajadhar Jha, resident of village Jabdol, P.S. Chanpatia, District West Champaran 2. Sheela Kumari, wife of Shri Awadhesh Rai, resident of village Rarhiya, P.S. Gobindganj, District East Champaran 3. Tribhuwan Singh, son of Baliram Singh, resident of village English, P.S. Paharpur, District East Champaran 4. Neeta Sinha, D/o Shri Bhagwan Prasad, resident of Mohalla Thana Chowk, Muzaffarpur, District Muzaffarpur 5. Mamta Kumari, D/o Pandey Narmadeshwar Narayan, resident of village Ramdaspur, P.S. Gorol, District Vaishali 6. Ashok Kumar Singh, son of late Surya Singh, resident of village Mahachchi, P.S. Majhoulia, District West Champaran 7. Abhay Kumar Pandey, sonof Sri Bijendra Kumar Pandey, resident of village Saraiya Khas, P.S. Gobindganj, District East Champaran 8. Madhav Rai Sharma, son of late Jagannath Rai, resident of village Jabdol, P.S. Chanpatia, District West Champaran 9. Nagendra Rai, son of Sri Dhenukha Rai, resident of village Jabdol, P.S. Chanpatia, District West Champaran … Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur … Respondents ---------------------------------- 7. 5.8.2011 Heard Mr. Chitaranjan Sinha, learned Senior counsel for the petitioners. The issue relating to termination of service of the petitioners would dependent squarely on the authenticity of signature of the appointing authority, namely, Mr. Diwakar Pathak on their appointment letter. Mr. Sinha was of the view that since Mr. Diwakar Pathak had stated before the enquiry officer, behind the back of the petitioners that his signature on the alleged appointment letters of the petitioners were forged, the petitioners would be entitled for a further opportunity of hearing, wherein they could also cross-examine Mr. Diwakar Pathak. Learned counsel for the State, however, has 2 produced the relevant records from which it appears that the petitioners and others during the pendency of this writ application had taken shelter of Bihar Legislative Assembly and its Petitions Committee (Yachika Samiti) wherein they had produced their original appointment letter with a claim that if the same was examined by the handwriting expert with the admitted signature of Mr. Diwakar Pathak, it would be proved that his such signature on the appointment letters of the petitioners were genuine. Learned counsel for the State in this regard has also produced the report of the handwriting expert according to which it could not be held that the signatures of Mr. Diwakar Pathak on such appointment letters produced by the petitioners were genuine and/or executed by Mr. Diwakar Pathak. The handwriting expert in fact had found marked distinction and dissimilarity though he could not come to a final positive opinion due to limited space and nature of such signatures. It thus becomes clear that the petitioners have raised complicated disputed question of fact relating to the alleged forgery in signature of the appointing authority, namely, Mr. Diwakar Pathak. Such dispute however cannot be gone into much less adjudicated within the limited parameters of a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Realizing this difficulty learned counsel for the petitioners has sought permission to withdraw this application in order to enable the petitioners to file a civil suit before the appropriate court of competent jurisdiction for seeking a 3 declaration that the appointment letters of the petitioners were genuine, valid and operative in law and thus, the termination order based on the ground of its being forged and some other ground as well was void and inoperative. In such a situation, this Court would give liberty to the petitioners to withdraw this application in order to avail the alternative remedy of getting the matter adjudicated by the Civil Court. Let it be made clear that nothing said in this order will prejudice either side if such a suit is filed by the petitioners before the Civil court of competent jurisdiction. With the aforementioned observations, this application is permitted to be withdrawn. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/