(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned order passed by the District Teachers Employment Appellate Tribunal, Bhojpur hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal at Arrah dated 11.4.2012 in Appeal No. 69 of 2012 (Bilkis Anisa v. Panchayat Sachiv, Kakila Panchayat, Prakhand Jagdishpur, District Bhojpur) has submitted that the said order is bad only because the petitioner was never given notice and/or opportunity of hearing by the Tribunal and yet it is her appointment which has been cancelled by the tribunal by directing the authorities to appoint respondent No. 9 (Bilkis Anisa).
(2.) Counsel for the respondents are not in a position to controvert this aspect that the petitioner was neither given notice and/or afforded opportunity of hearing by the tribunal.
(3.) Normally, in such a situation the impugned order had to be. quashed while remitting the matter back to the tribunal but there is something startling in this case which would refrain this Court to exercise its discretionary power in favour of a person against whom there is serious allegation of committing forgery in league with Panchayat Secretary. Whatever documents has been brought on record by respondent No. 9 in the counter affidavit, would not only support the findings recorded by the Tribunal, which while setting aside the appointment of the petitioner and directing appointment of Respondent No. 9 in her place had also issued consequential direction to the District Education Officer, Bhojpur at Arrah to lodge an F.I.R. against the Panchayat Secretary for doing bungling and forging the records for favouring the appointment of the petitioner because it had found the entire records of selection to be vitiated on account of tampering and interpolation on a massive scale. The Tribunal in this regard in the impugned order has recorded its findings in the following terms:--