IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6334 of 2006 AJAY KUMAR Versus THE G.M.(PERSONNEL),P.N.B.& ORS ----------- 3 08.08.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Petitioner wants a direction upon the respondents Punjab National Bank for taking him back in service because he has been illegally ousted, if not removed by the Bank. Petitioner’s contention in the writ application is that he was employed on daily wages in the Bank since 12.9.1996 and he has worked in that capacity till February 2006. Thereafter, he claims that he has been removed from service orally without any communication or order in this regard. In support of his claim, petitioner has annexed two documents which are Annexure 1 & 2 to the writ application. That have purportedly been issued by the Branch Manager of Rafiganj Branch of Aurangabad. A counter affidavit has been filed by the Bank, wherein they have vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner. They have asserted that it is a mischievous writ application filed on forged and fabricated documents, part of which can be established from perusal of Annexure – 1 2 itself. Categorical assertion of the petitioner in the writ application is that he was engaged on daily wages on 12.9.1996, but the certificate contained in Annexure – 1 dated 12.9.2006 states that he is being working on daily wages for the last four years. If the engagement of the petitioner according to his affidavit was from 12.9.1996, then how come a certificate certifying his engagement for four years prior to the same has been issued. With regard to the second certificate contained in Annexure – 2 the respondent asserted that the Branch Manager has categorically stated that there was no occasion for him to issue the said certificate at any point of time. It is a forged and fabricated certificate which has been furnished by the petitioner. Besides above two submissions and assertions the respondents have also stated that there is absolutely no record to show that the petitioner had been engaged by the Branch in question at any point of time. There is neither proof of appointment nor there is any attendance register to show the presence of the petitioner in the Bank or any other documents to support his claim of engagement or payment. The writ application has not been filed with a 3 clean hand by the petitioner. Even otherwise, the said parameters which is for regularization can be taken up on evidence of an employee having worked as such with the Bank. In the present case with such sketchy material, whose authenticity is seriously questioned and doubted, there may not be any occasion to pass any order in favour of the petitioner. The Court seems to be in agreement with the stand taken by the respondents, because except in Annexure – 1 & 2 there is no other material on record, which can lend credence to claim of the petitioner. If the petitioner had been working as a daily wager, there would have been some additional material or evidence which can lend authenticity to his claim. The Court has noticed that there is something a miss on the face of Annexure – 1. So far as Annexure – 1 is concerned, with this kind of doubtful evidence, it cannot be treated as an open and shut case and the same cannot be enough to get relief to the petitioner from this Court. The writ application seems to be misplaced and the same is dismissed. Rajeev/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)