CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS 180 of 2017 on 15 November 1999

ORAL ORDER

28-04-2025

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.

2. This application has been filed for quashing theorder taking cognizance dated 27.03.2018, passed by the Courtof S.D.J.M., Munger in connection with Shangrampur P.S. CaseNo.180 of 2017, whereby and where under cognizance has beentaken for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120Bof the Indian Penal Code.

3. The prosecution story is that pursuant to theorder passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No.15759 of 2014, theeducation qualification and experience certificates of all theteachers who were employed till 2006 were verified. Upon verification, the experience certificate of the petitioner wasfound forged. Accordingly, the F.I.R. was lodged against thepetitioners.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner no.1 was working as a Shiksha Sevi in SpecialEducation, since 15.11.1999 to 31.03.2001 and petitioner no.2was working as a Shiksha Sevi in Special Education, since11.07.1999 to 31.03.2001, and their experience certificates hadbeen issued by the District Jan Shiksha, Munger and they werebeing paid the remuneration by the State Government for theirservices as Shiksha Sevi Thereafter, the petitioners wereappointed as Panchayat Teacher and in the said appointmentthey were given weightage for the services rendered by them asShiksha Sevi and accordingly, the petitioners discharged theirduty to satisfaction of the authority concerned and theircertificates were verified by the authorities concerned and wasfound genuine then only their salaries were issued.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitsthat suddenly an FIR was lodged against the petitioners on thebasis of a report submitted by the District Program Officer,Shakshitra, Munger to the Vigilance Investigation Bureau, inwhich it was mentioned that the certificate issued by the authority on the basis of second issuing register, the recognitionhas been cancelled on 14.10.2014 but the certificate has beenissued to the petitioners in the year 2008 and they wereappointed in the year 2010. The petitioners had been appointedas untrained teacher and additional experience of teaching isgenuine and legal as they have received those certificates afterattending training as part time and special training conducted bythe training school against that they had received salary/remuneration through the Bank.

6. It has been submitted by learned counsel for thepetitioner that the petitioners were employed after following dueprocess of law but without any proper enquiry, the experiencecertificates of the petitioners had been held forged and illegalthough it is apparent from the letter issued by the training schoolthat the petitioners had attended training and received salary/remuneration by the Department concerned. However, withoutgiving any opportunity to the petitioners, the F.I.R. was lodgedand letters were issued to stop the petitioners from dischargingtheir duties which is not sustainable in the eye of law.

7. It has been argued by learned counsel for thepetitioner that on the basis of the report of the District ProgramOfficer, the Vigilance Department lodged this F.I.R. and the Department issued the letter to the petitioner. Against, thetermination order, the petitioner filed Appeal Case No.36 of2018 before the District Appellate Authority. The AppellateAuthority, after hearing the parties and on perusal of the records,came to the conclusion that the experience certificate of thepetitioners is genuine and valid and accordingly, direction wasissued to reinstate the petitioners in service.

8. Learned APP for the State opposed theapplication and submitted that this Court may not interfere at thestage of cognizance as the petitioners may raise all the groundsat the stage of framing of charge.

9. I have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties. The very basis of lodging the F.I.R. is thatthe experience certificate of the petitioners was found to beforged. Subsequently, the District Appellate Authority, Mungerin Appeal Case No.36 of 2018 and other analogous cases hasheld that the experience certificate of the petitioners is genuineand valid. In these circumstances, I am of the view that theprosecution of the petitioner cannot continue once theexperience certificate has been found to be genuine by theAppellate Authority.

10. In view of the aforesaid facts, this application is shikha/- UT

allowed. Accordingly, the F.I.R., vide Shangrampur P.S. CaseNo.180 of 2017 and all consequential proceedings arising out ofthe aforesaid F.I.R. including the order taking cognizance dated27.03.2018, passed by the Magistrate are hereby quashed.

(Sandeep Kumar, J)