PRADIP KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Hari Shankar Rai for the petitioner, and Mr. Shankar Kumar, learned Junior counsel to Additional Advocate General No. V. This writ petition is directed against the order bearing Memo No. 3124/Samastipur, dated 31.10.2002 (Annexure -4), passed by respondent no. 4 (The Civil Surgeon -cum -Chief Medical Officer, Samastipur), where by he has dispensed with the service of the petitioner as a Clerk on the ground that he has till then functioned on the strength of a letter of appointment forged and fabricated by him. The learned Government Counsel has supported the impugned action.

(2.) I have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. On the strength of appointment letter bearing Memo No. 169/ Confidential, Madhubani, dated 21.7.1995 (Annexure -1), purported to have been issued by respondent no. 5 (The Civil Surgeon -cum -Chief Medical Officer, Madhubani), the petitioner functioned as a Clerk in his office. Thereafter suspicion grew about the genuineness of the appointment letter. He was issued show -cause notice, vide letter no. 816, dated 18.3.2002. The petitioner submitted his show - cause but was found to be unsatisfactory. He was issued another show -cause, vide letter No. 2677 dated 10.9.2002. The petitioner did not submit reply to the same. It has been stated in the impugned order that the relevant issue register of the concerned office discloses that only 63 letters have been issued upto 23.12.1995. The said letter of appointment is numbered 169. Obviously, therefore, the appointment letter is forged and fabricated. The impugned order cannot, therefore, be faulted.

(3.) THERE is no knowing whether or not the respondent authorities have lodged First Information Report against the petitioner. Respondent No. 4 is hereby directed to lodge a first information report against the petitioner for manufacturing his letter of appointment. He is further directed to take steps for recovery of the salary paid to him on the basis of the forged letter of appointment. Law is well settled that no person can retain the benefit obtained by fraud, misrepresentation or the like. The following portion of the judgment in Lazarus Estates Ltd. vs. Beasley [(1956)1 All England Law Report 341], is set out ereinbelow for the facility of quick reference: