IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15176 of 2005 SHANKAR DAYAL ROY, SON OF SRI KISHUN ROY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE TAWAKALI, P.O. DAYALPUR, DISTRICT SARAN. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE DIRECTOR, SECONDARY EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, SARAN AT CHHAPRA. 4. THE HEADMASTER, HIGH SCHOOL INTER COLEGE, PARSAGARH, P.O. PARSAGARH, SARAN. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ RESPONDENTS ********** 5 25.2.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing on behalf of the State. The petitioner is challenging the order contained in Annexure-6 which is an enquiry conducted in pursuance of the order of this Court, in which the authorities have found that letter no. 1701, dated 7.10.1994 purportedly appointing the petitioner is a forged letter. The facts of the case are that the petitioner claims that he was appointed as a Clerk in High School, Parsagarh in the year 1994. It was discovered that the appointment letter was forged and as such a criminal case was registered against the petitioner which is Ekma P.S. Case No. 95 of 1994 under Sections 419, 420, 467 and 468 of 2 the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the trial the petitioner has been acquitted from the charges. At this stage, it is too late to comment on the judgment delivered on 30th of May, 1998. However, after the acquittal, the petitioner is said to have joined the school in question. The joining of the petitioner was not accepted and, therefore, he came to this Court and filed CWJC No. 11494 of 2003, disposed of on 23.4.2004. This Court while disposing of the writ application held that the authorities in question should make an enquiry with respect to the forged document. It was also directed that the petitioner should be allowed to join with a copy of the order of the Court. Counsel for the petitioner submits that he made an attempt to join in the school but his joining was not accepted. At paragraph 10, it has been stated on behalf of the petitioner that “he has filed the representation before the Director, Secondary Education, Patna for directing the authority to accept his joining and allowing him to perform the 3 duties attached to the post but however, the authority concerns has acted in the arbitrary manner and left the claim of the petitioner decided whether reasonable and valid grounds.” It is the contention of the petitioner that no charge sheet was submitted to him nor was given an opportunity of being heard. It is further submitted that the petitioner should have been allowed to join on the said post and a proper departmental enquiry should have been held against him. On perusal of the averments made in the writ application, it is apparent that although there is a statement that he filed representation for being permitted to join on the post, no such representation has been annexed with the writ application to substantiate this fact. From Annexure-4, it would clear that the petitioner was given notice to appear during the enquiry but he did not do so. On perusal of Annexure-6, this Court finds that there was a proper enquiry conducted by the authorities concerned, the petitioner apparently had not submitted his 4 joining which would be apparent from the fact that the enquiry officer called for a report from the concerned Headmaster of High School, Parsagarh during the enquiry. The Headmaster also said that there is no document or file in the school to substantiate the fact that that the petitioner was duly appointed or that he had given an application that he should be permitted to join after the judgment of this Court. The enquiry report indicates that there is no letter issued for appointment of the petitioner and that letter no. 1701, dated 7.10.1994 was not issued by any authority, which would substantiate the fact that the appointment letter of the petitioner was forged. The alleged letter by which the petitioner was asked to join has also been found to be false, fabricated and forged in view of the fact that no such order was passed by the concerned authorities asking the petitioner to join in the school where he claims that he was appointed as a Clerk. Once the enquiry officer has come to a finding of fact regarding the appointment letter, this Court 5 does not see any reason to interfere with such a finding. This Court also comes to the conclusion that in fact the petitioner has not been able to substantiate that he had ever tried to join after the order was passed by the writ court asking him to join along with a copy of the order. In view of the aforesaid findings, this writ application is dismissed. Sanjay ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)