IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17071 of 2010 1. DHIRAJ KANT, SON OF SRI DIP NARAYAN PRASAD, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KUKRA, POLICE STATION BUNIYADGANJ, DISTRICT GAYA. 2. SHIV DHARI PRASAD SON OF LATE GANPAT MAHTO, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE PATER, POLICE STATION WAJIRGANJ, GAYA. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, GAYA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, GAYA. 4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, GAYA. With CWJC No.17167 of 2010 1. PAWAN KUMAR, SON OF SHRI GOPAL SHARAN, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA KOIRI BARI, POLICE STATION CIVIL LINES, DISTRICT GAYA. 2. MANORANJAN PRASAD SINHA, SON OF LATE CHANDRIKA PRASAD, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MARANPUR, POST OFFICE CHAND CHAURA, POLICE STATION CIVIL LINES, DISTRICT GAYA. 3. SATYENDRA NARAYAN SINHA, SON OF SHRI JAMUNA SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE GOH, DISTRICT AURANGABAD. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER, GAYA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, GAYA. 4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, GAYA. ----------- 02. 08.10.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, the State and the counsel for the Gaya Municipal Corporation(hereinafter referred to as the Corporation). 2. Petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 7.8.2010 passed by the Municipal Commissioner of the Corporation contained in Annexures- 14/15 series in the two writ applications, whereunder services of the petitioners have been terminated holding their - 2 - appointment letter dated 29.10.1996 to be forged and fabricated, such finding has been recorded on the basis of the enquiry report dated 16.4.2010, Annexures-12/13 in the two writ application. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the impugned termination order 7.8.2010 as also the enquiry report dated 16.4.2010 is an error of record and such fact would be evident from the earlier enquiry report dated 8.12.1998, Annexure- 15/16 in the two writ applications. It is further submitted with reference to the earlier enquiry report dated 8.12.1998 that the illegalities found in the appointment of the petitioners is wholly nonest and in appreciation of such fact this court should interfere in the matter and should set aside the impugned termination orders. 4. Having heard counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the relief prayed for in the two writ petitions is dependent on the question of fact about the genuineness of the appointment letter of the petitioners dated 29.10.1996 which has been found to be forged and fabricated in the present enquiry conducted by the Additional Municipal Commissioner but to be genuine in the earlier enquiry conducted by the three men committee headed by the Deputy Administrator. In such circumstances, it is deemed appropriate to direct the Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department to consider the correctness or otherwise of the two reports i.e. the present enquiry report and the earlier report dated 8.12.1998 and to ascertain the correct position as early as possible, in any case within three months of the date of receipt of this order by passing a speaking order. - 3 - If the Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department is of the opinion that the earlier enquiry report reflects the correct position, he shall pass appropriate order setting aside the termination order dated 7.8.2010 passed in the case of the petitioners. It goes without saying that it shall be open to the Principal Secretary of the Department to issue notice to the parties before recording his finding about the correctness of the two reports. 5. With the observation and direction aforesaid the two writ application(s) are disposed of. Rajesh/ (V.N. Sinha, J.)