Patna High Court
Bhola Prasad KeshariversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- ANSHUMAN
Holding
The writ petition is disposed of, with the petitioner directed to approach a competent civil court to determine the authenticity of the experience certificate and a stay on any recovery pending the outcome of that suit.
Summary
The petitioner, a former government employee, challenged multiple orders that dismissed him, cancelled his absorption to a Class‑IV post, and directed recovery of salary, alleging violation of natural justice and that the dismissal was illegal. He also contested the authenticity of an experience certificate (Letter No.535 dated 09‑08‑2006) which the State alleged was forged. The State argued that the orders were lawful and that the certificate was indeed fabricated. The Court observed that the key dispute over the genuineness of the certificate could not be resolved on the writ petition and must be determined by a competent civil court with proper evidence. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of, granting the petitioner liberty to challenge the certificate’s authenticity in civil court and staying any recovery or certificate case until the civil suit is decided.
Issues considered
- Whether the dismissal and recovery orders issued against the petitioner violate principles of natural justice and constitutional provisions.
- Whether the experience certificate (Letter No.535 dated 09‑08‑2006) is genuine or forged.
- Whether the writ court has jurisdiction to decide the dispute or it should be referred to a civil court for evidentiary determination.
- Whether the service appeal dismissal by the appellate authority was in accordance with law.
Subjects
- government service law
- natural justice
- forgery
- experience certificate
- writ petition
- civil court jurisdiction
- salary recovery
- RTI
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14990 of 2024
======================================================
Bhola Prasad Keshari Son of Late Dev Narayan Keshari, Resident of Village-
Salpur, P.S. Gauradih, District- Bhagalpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through The Addl. Chief Secretary, Education
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Director Mass Education Cum Special Secretary, Education
Department, Bihar, Patna.
3. The Chief Engineer (South)-cum-Appellate Authority, Building
Construction Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
4. The District Magistrate, Bhagalpur.
5. The District Education Officer, Bhagalpur.
6. The District Programme Officer, (Literacy), Bhagalpur.
7. The Superintending Engineer, Building Circle, Building Construction
Department, Bhagalpur.
8. The Executive Engineer, Building Construction Department, Building
Division, Bhagalpur.
9. The District Public Education Officer, Bhagalpur.
10. The Project Officer, Non Formal Education, Sabour, Bhagalpur.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Rajendra Kumar Jain, Adv.
Mr.Ajay Kr. Jain, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Venkatesh Kr. AC to GA2
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL ORDER
3 10-02-2026 Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner and
Learned Counsel for the State.
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the
present writ petition has been filed with the following reliefs:-
(i) For quashing the office order No. 36 dated
30.6.2021 issued under the signature of the Superintending
Engineer, Building circle, Building Construction
Patna High Court CWJC No.14990 of 2024(3) dt.10-02-2026
2/6
Department, Bhagalpur vide Memo No. 567 by which order,
the petitioner has been dismissed from the Government
service as well as direction was given by the said Authority
for recovery of the paid amounts from the employee and the
aforesaid order has been passed by this respondent in
pursuance to the order issued by the director Incharge
Mass Education cum Special Secretary, Education
Department, Bihar, Patna vide Memo No. 698 dated
28.6.21.
(ii) For quashing the order dated 28.6.21
passed by the Director Incharge, Mass Education cum
Special Secretary, Education Department, Bihar Patna
contained in Memo No. 698 by which the said Authority has
cancelled the earlier recommendation of
absorption/appointment of the petitioner against class-IV
sanctioned and vacant post issued by him through Memo
No. 2914 dated 4.12.2019 to the Superintending Engineer,
Building Construction Department, Building Circle,
Bhagalpur.
iii) For quashing the office order dated
13.7.2021 contained in letter No. 2139 issued under the
signature of the Executive Engineer, Building Division,
Building Construction Department, Bhagalpur by which the
petitioner has been relieved from his government work and
also directed to submit reply as to why not legal action be
taken against the petitioner.
(iv) For quashing the Memo No. 1006 (s) dated
27.05.2024 issued by the Chief Engineer (South), Building
construction Department, Bihar, Patna whereby the service
appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by the said
appellate authority in a mechanical manner without
hearing the petitioner.
(v) For quashing of the Letter No.
2055/Bhagalpur dated 08.07.2024 issued by the Executive
Engineer, Building Division, Bhagalpur whereby the said
Patna High Court CWJC No.14990 of 2024(3) dt.10-02-2026
3/6
authority has directed the petitioner to deposited the
amount of Rs. 24202/- paid as salary to the petitioner
during his service period which is illegal and arbitrary.
(vi) For reinstatement of the petitioner on his
post with all the consequential benefits as the petitioner has
been dismissed from the service on an illegal consideration
from the permanent sanctioned post without asking any
show-cause notice and not giving any opportunity to him to
defend his case which is the violation of natural justice and
the provisions of the constitution of India.
3. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the
absorption of the petitioner has been made in the light of
sanctioned vacant post by the order passed in S.L.P. No.32079
of 2015 dated 26.02.2016 on the basis of two conditions that the
instructor (vuqns”kd) ought to file writ petition prior to 26.02.2016
before this Hon’ble Court and second that he has experience of
three years working as Instructor. He further submits that the
petitioner has fulfilled conditions, it is due to this reason, his
absorption has been made, but subsequently vide order dated
28.06.2021 contained in Memo No.698 and another letter has
been issued vide office order dated 30.06.2021 contained in
Memo No.567 by which his absorption has been terminated and
directed for recovery of the payment made to him, has been
made, then he moved before this Hon’ble Court in C.W.J.C.
No.16630 of 2021 in which vide order dated 07.02.2024, he was
directed to move before the Appellate Authority.
Patna High Court CWJC No.14990 of 2024(3) dt.10-02-2026
4/6
4. Counsel further submits that the Appellate
Authority had passed a reasoned order dated 27.05.2024
contained in Memo No.1006, which is the order impugned here
as well as following the said order, another letter dated
08.07.2024 contained vide letter No.2055 has also been filed,
which is Annexure-P/12 by which direction for payment of
Rs.24,202/- has been made otherwise a certificate case has to be
filed. He further submits that a certificate of working three years
has been issued by virtue of Memo No.535 dated 09.08.2006,
but in this regard, the respondent department is saying that the
said Memo has been issued to one another person namely,
Vidhya Bharti. Therefore, it is the contention of the State that
the said Memo No.535 dated 09.08.2006, which has been issued
in favour of the petitioner, is forge and fabricated.
5. Counsel further submits that the petitioner has
demanded an RTI and information has been received that the
said letter No.535 dated 09.08.2006 has not been issued in the
name of Vidhya Bharti (Annexure-P/9). It is due to this reason,
the finding of Executive Engineer (respondent No.8) and the
Chief Engineer (respondent No.3) are bad therefore, those
findings should not be taken into consideration and it may be
quashed.
Patna High Court CWJC No.14990 of 2024(3) dt.10-02-2026
5/6
6. Counsel for the State, on the other hand, submits
that it is the second round of litigation. In the first round, the
Executive Engineer had passed the order and found that the
Letter No.535 dated 09.08.2006 has been prepared by
committing forgery, therefore the case of the petitioner upon
consideration by Respondent No.8 and Respondent No.3, found
not correct, and therefore, according to him, those letters and
subsequent followed up letters, which are impugned here, are
absolutely in accordance with law and no need of any
interference.
7. In the light of the submissions made, this Court is
of the firm view that the letter/certificate contained vide Letter
No.535 dated 09.08.2006, is a subject to consideration. The
petitioner is saying that this letter is absolutely correct and no
forgery has been made, whereas respondent are saying that this
letter has been prepared by committing forgery. Under RTI, this
response has come that the said letter has not been issued in the
name of said Vidhya Bharti.
8. Even after production of the pleadings and the
documents of the RTI, the actual question of issue could not be
resolved that whether the said Letter No.535 dated 09.08.2006,
which is said to be an experience certificate of the petitioner is
Patna High Court CWJC No.14990 of 2024(3) dt.10-02-2026
6/6
genuine or forge.
9. It is the Writ Court and the fact from both the sides
are in complete contradiction, which can be settled only by
competent Civil Court by virtue of adducing evidences and call
for those records and its proper inquiry/ investigation with the
relevant Registers, and therefore, this writ petition is hereby
disposed of, granting liberty to the petitioner to challenge his
letters to be genuine before the competent Civil Court.
10. This Court hereby directs that till disposal of the
said suit, no recovery or filing of certificate case shall be made
and if filed then, any steps for recovery shall only be subject to
the result of the Title Suit.
11. With the aforesaid directions and observations, the
present writ application stands disposed of.
(Dr. Anshuman, J)
Prakashmani/-
U
Checking your session…