The main legal point established in the judgment is that an appointment based on a forged/fake appointment letter does not entitle the individual to continue in service.

Mihir Kumar Jha, J

1. No one appears for the petitioner.

2. Counsel for the State is present.

3. This writ application assailing the order of termination of service of the petitioner dated 20.06.2003, issued by the Civil Assistant Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Sitamarhi, reading as follows:-

<span class="Hfont">

^^dk;kZy; vlSfud 'kY; fpfdRld≶ eq[; fpfdRlk inkf/kdkjh] lhrke<+h Kki la[;k 2388 lhrke<+h] fnukad 20-6-03

izsf"kr]

Jh foUnk Bkdqj

iq0 d0 lsod] izk0 Lok0 dsUnz] jhxkA

fo"k;& QthZ :i ls fu;qfDr dh lekfIr ds laca/k esaA

izlax& bl dk;kZy; ds dkj.k i`PNk 238] fnukad 21-1-2003] 1959 fn0 12-5-2003 ,oa i=kad 2307 fnukad 17-6-2003 A

vkids }kjk izLrqr fu;qfDr i= esa fuEukafdr =qfV;ka ikbZ xbZ&

1- vkius vius dkj.k i`PNk ds mRrj esa fu;qfDr inkf/kdkjh dk uke Mk0 deys'ojh flag ntZ fd;k gS tcfd flfoy ltZu csfr;k vius i=kad 988 fnukad 12-6-2003 ls lwfpr fd, gSa fd vkidh fu;qfDr frfFk dks ogka Mk0 dkes'oj izlkn flag dk;Zjr FksA

2- vkids }kjk izLrqr fu;qfDr i= esa izfrfyfi funs'kd eq[; LokLF; lsok,a dks izsf"kr gSa tcfd funs'kd izeq[k dk in u dHkh l`ftr Fkk vkSj u gSA

3- vkidh fu;qfDr i= fnukad 31-12-80 dks fuxZr gS fu;qfDr i= esa Li"V n'kkZ;k x;k gS fd viuk dk;Z ;ksxnku izHkkjh fpfdRlk ink0 jsQjy vLirky xksukgks ds le{k i= fuxZr dh frfFk ls 10 fnuksa ds vUnj lefiZr djsaxsA tcfd izHkkjh fpfdRlk inkf/kdkjh jsQjy vLirky] xksukgks }kjk lwfpr fd;k x;k gS fd Jh Bkdqj fnukad 1-2-82 dks ;ksxnku fd, gSaA rnuqlkj mDr rFkkdfFkr fu;qfDr ds izfrcaf/kr frfFk 10 fnukasa ds ctk, ,d ekg ckn ;ksxnku fd, gSsA

4- blh lanHkZ esa Jh y{e.k egrks dk Hkh fu;qfDr i= flfoy ltZu csfr;k ls fnukad 30-12-80 dks fuxZr gS ftldk Kkikad 2227 fnukad 30-12-80 vafdr gS tcfd vkidk ,d fnu ckn ;kfu 31-12-80 dks fuxZr gS ftldk Kkikad 2811 fnukad 31-12-80 gSA mDr nksuksa i=ksa dk varjky 584 gS tks dnkfpr ,d fnu esa lEHko ugha gSA

vkils fu;qfDr i= dh ewy izfr dh ekax dh xbZ ftls vkids }kjk izLrqr ugha fd;k x;kA vkius izkIr dkj.k i`PNk dk mRrj larks"k tud ugha gksus ds lkFk vkids n~okjk viuh fu;qfDr dh oS/k;rk ds laca/k esa dksbZ Bksl izek.kd Hkh izLrqr ugha fd;k x;kA

vkids fu;qfDr esa ljdkj }kjk fu/kkZfjr fdlh izfdz;k dk ikyu ugha fd;k x;k gSA bl izdkj of.kZr fcUnqvksa ls Li"V gS fd vkidh fu;qfDr QthZ ,oa tkyh gSA

vra,o ,slh ifjfLFkfr esa fuxZr dh frfFk ls vkidh lsok lekIr dh tkrh gSA

g0@& vLi"V

vlSfud 'kY; fpfdRld lg eq[;

fpfdRlk inkf/kdkjh] lhrke<+ha**

has been filed almost after a gap of five and a half years on 22.01.2009, and is clearly hit by the principles of delay and laches specially when there is no explanation whatsoever for the aforesaid delay.

4. The prayer for quashing the investigation report dated 04.08.2008 is also wholly uncalled for, inasmuch as, such a report by itself does not amount to a final order.

5. The respondents by filing the counter affidavit have explained that in terms of the direction given in judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Bihar Vs. Purendra Sulan Kit reported in 2006(3)PLJR 386, a Five-Man-Committee has examined the individual cases of all the persons including that of the petitioner and in his case, the Committee had come to a finding that since his appointment was forged, he could not be regularized in service in view of the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi & Ors. reported in 2006(4)SCC 1. In this context, learned counsel for the State has pointed out to the remarks given in serial no. 137 of Annexure-B containing the gist of the findings recorded by the Inquiry Committee.

6. Considering this aspect that there is a specific finding of the appointment of the petitioner being forged, this Court would find it difficult to now look into any other aspect in a writ petition, inasmuch as, such finding is only capable of being gone into in a properly constituted Civil Suit where the allegation of forgery can be examined. In thi