The central legal point established in the judgment is that the conclusion of a forged appointment based on alleged entries in the Issue Register without any inquiry into the veracity of the appointment letter itself was unsustainable.

NAVIN SINHA, J.

We have heard counsel for the Appellant and the State.

2. The present Appeal arises from order dated 18.2.2013 dismissing C.W.J.C. No. 14861 of 2009. The learned Single Judge upheld the conclusion of the Five Member Committee that the appointment letter of the petitioner was forged on basis of alleged interpolation in the Issue-Register in between Issue Nos. 1579 and 1522 including difference of handwriting.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the issue for his appointment being forged had to be determined from the appointment letter itself and not from the Issue Register. He relies on 2001(3) PLJR (SC) 187 (Subodh Kumar Prasad Vs. State of Bihar).

4. Counsel for the State submits that the appointment of the appellant has been scrutinized by Five Member Committee pursuant to the directions of the Court.

5. We find from the records that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 24.2.2003 that his appointment was illegal/forged. Three months later on 26.7.2003, another show cause notice was issued that procedures for appointment had not been followed. It did not include the issue for any forged appointment. The appellant replied to the same. The final order of termination dated 6.9.2003 did not opine that his appointment was forged but that procedures had not been adequately followed while making appointments. It apparently leads to the conclusion that after enquiry and after considering the cause shown, the respondents were satisfied that it was not a case of forged appointment.

6. In the case of Subodh Kumar Prasad (relied upon by the appellant) a similar issue arose for consideration. Disapproving of the conclusion for a forged appointment on basis of entry in the Issue Register, it was held at Paragraph-6 as follows:-

“6. What should have been really examined in the case is the letter of appointment itself and not the mere registers which indicate despatch of letters. If the letter of appointment issued to the appellant was a fake one there was certainly a cause for disciplinary action, but not by merely looking to the register such conclusion could be inferred for numbers noted therein may have been as a result of mistake. Therefore, the inquiry should have been as to the actual nature of the order or the letter of appointment issued to the appellant. That inquiry was not done by the learned Single Judge.”

7. In view of the aforesaid, the conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge for a forged appointment of the appellant on basis of alleged entries in the Issue Register without any enquiry into the veracity of the letter of appointment itself, the order of termination/the Five Man Committee Report automatically becomes unsustainable.

8. The order for termination of the appellant/the order of the Five Man Committee and the order dated 18.2.2013 in C.W.J.C. No. 14861 of 2009 are set aside.

9. Counsel for the appellant next prays for back wages. In view of the changed judicial trend in such matters, the status of the appellant in the interregnum becomes important as he cannot have a double bonanza. We therefore grant him liberty to represent before the respondents for grant of back wages and consider appropriately after an enquiry and final orders passed, preferably within a maximum period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

10. The application is allowed.