JUDGMENT :

SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.

1. In the present case, there are allegations against petitioner (Ghanshyam Verma) that on his place his cousin Roop Narayan Verma has joined at concerned school on post of Assistant Teacher pasting his photo though educational documents were of petitioner. He was appointed in 1999 and got salary up to June 2002.

2. During inquiry, it was held that it was a forged appointment and by impugned order, appointment of petitioner was declared void-ab-initio.

3. During inquiry, it was further found that Roop Narayan Verma has opened a bank account in name of petitioner, by posting his photograph on application form, service book and bank opening form though all documents were in name of petitioner i.e. Ghanshyam Verma. It was also found that petitioner (Ghanshyam Verma) was working in Bharatpur (Rajasthan). Relevant documents were found missing. Relevant part of impugned order (passed in pursuance of order dated 12.09.2012 by this Court in Writ Petition filed by petitioner being No. 62613/2007) is quoted below:

4. Sri B.S. Pandey, learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that:

(a) F.I.R. was lodged against petitioner on above allegations but after investigation, final report was submitted which was accepted by trial Court. Therefore, allegations levelled against the petitioner were found false.

(b) Inquiry was initiated at the behest of letter of local M.L.A. with malafide intention.

(c) Petitioner’s stand was heard by then Basic Education Officer, however, order was passed by new incumbent in haste as there was contempt proceeding initiated by the petitioner.

5. Per contra, Sri Awadhesh Kumar, learned counsel for respondent-3 has submitted that this Court has passed following order on 05.02.2020 which is as follows:

“Pursuant to the order dated 29.01.2020 Sri Awadhesh Kumar, learned counsel for respondent no. 3, has produced the original record.

From perusal of the same, it appears that the photograph annexed on the application form is different from the photograph found during the verification done by Block Development Officer on 13.02.2002.

Further, the photograph scanned on the records of Punjab National Bank is of the same person, which is there on the application form.

Sri B.S. Pandey, learned counsel for petitioner, submits that no such application was moved by the petitioner as there was no requirement for applying and the photographs alleged to be of Roop Narayan Verma is in fact the photograph of Ghanshyam Verma.

Sri Awadhesh Kumar, learned counsel for respondent no. 3, is directed to bring on record three documents, which he has relied on, through an affidavit alongwith service book of petitioner within a week.

Put up this case in additional cause list on 13.02.2020.

Original records are returned back to learned counsel for respondent no. 3.”

6. Learned counsel has further referred a supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of respondent-3 and has placed reliance on following paragraphs thereof:

“6. That during verification/enquiry Block Development Officer, Block Harraiya, District Basti attested the photograph of the real Ghanshyam Verma and this photograph has also verified by the Village Development Officer, Jagdishpur, A.D.O. Block Harraiya and Village Pradhan of Village Jagdishpur.

The photograph of the real Ghanshyam Verma is entirely different to the photographs which have been pasted on the application for the appointment of Assistant Teacher, Service-Book and the Bank Account. The true photo copy of the attested photo