# Bhagwan Das Srivastava v. Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh

- **Citation:** (2016) 8 ILRA 380
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2016-08-30
- **Bench:** Aditya Nath Mittal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/bhagwan-das-srivastava-v-sri-rajesh-kumar-singh-44260
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Contempt petition - Disobedience and non compliance - Judgment and order dated 21.01.2010 -
Consequential benefits - Suspension and departmental inquiry quashed - Forged High School mark-sheet -
Fraud - Misrepresentation - Misleading the Court - No willful disobedience - Contempt petition dismissed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that despite of the order dated 21.01.2010 passed by the
writ court, the opposite parties have not paid the consequential benefits to the petitioner, while the order of
suspension and departmental inquiry was quashed by the writ court. It has also been submitted that while
passing the order dated 27.12.2012, which is annexed as Annexure-5 to the short counter affidavit filed on
behalf of opposite party no. 4, no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner, therefore, he was not
aware of that order.(Para 5)

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no. 4, has submitted that not only the marksheet of High School of the petitioner was found to be forged, but the petitioner has obtained the said order
by mentioning the Appeal No. 44430 of 1997 , District Basic Education Officer, Pilibhit Vs. U.P. Public Service
Tribunal in Allahabad High Court, while the actual number of the writ petition was Writ-A No. 44450 of 1997,
Adhyaksh Zila Parishad and another Vs. U.P. State Public Service Tribunal and another, thereby the petitioner
again committed forgery. Therefore, there is no willful disobedience of the order passed by the writ court(Para
6)

Held:(Para:-16-18,21-22)
1.The Principal Secretary, after verification of the facts, came to the conclusion that roll number 73784 of
High School Examination, 1961 was allotted to Km. Kunti daughter of Shri Vishnu Das and the said roll
number was not allotted to the petitioner- Bhagwan Das Srivastava. It also reveals that on the mark-sheet,
the roll number was mentioned as 73847 and a candidate in the name of Bhagawan Das Srivastava son of
Badri Prasad had appeared in the High School Examination,1961 from Shri Ramchandra Municipal
Intermediate College, Bisalpur, Piliphit having date of birth of 02.02.1943 and he was declared fail. Upon this
basis, the petitioner was suspended on 23.09.1970. The inquiry was conducted against the petitioner after
serving the charge-sheet upon him and in that sequence, the petitioner has not submitted any reply to the
charge-sheet, but has submitted his resignation. The Principal Secretary has come to the clear conclusion that
8 All. Bhagwan Das Srivastava Vs Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh
381
the petitioner has obtained the job on the basis of the forged High School mark-sheet/certificate. Therefore,
he is not entitled for any consequential benefits for the suspension period since 23.09.1970 to 31.08.1998.

2.From the aforesaid conduct of the petitioner, it appears that the petitioner adopted forged methods since
very inception of the job. He manipulated the mark-sheet and the certificate of the High School examination
and obtained the job on the forged mark-sheet /certificate of the High School examination. He was under
obligation to have filed the reply to the charge-sheet, but instead of filing the reply to the charge-sheet, he
submitted his resignation, upon which the department passed the order which was challenged before the
Public Services Tribunal. The conduct of forgery did not end there but also continued by filing Writ Petition
No. 222 (S/B) of 2004 upon the wrong facts and mentioning wrong Appeal No. 44430 of 1997. The order
dated 27.12.2012 has been passed in compliance with the order dated 06.07.2012 passed in Writ-A No.
32253 of 2012, Rupesh Gangwar Vs. State of U.P. and others, in which the petitioner was also opposite party
no.5. From the conduct of the petitioner, it appears that he avoided the disciplinary inquiry as well as he
willfully did not appear before the competent authority, who issued written information which was served
personally

## Text

380 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(2016) 8 ILRA 380
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 30.08.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ADITYA NATH MITTAL, J.

Contempt No.- 1055 Of 2010

Bhagwan Das Srivastava ...Applicant
Versus
Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
S.P. Singh, R.P. Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
D R Mishra, Ajay Kumar

Contempt petition - Disobedience and non compliance - Judgment and order dated 21.01.2010 -
Consequential benefits - Suspension and departmental inquiry quashed - Forged High School mark-sheet -
Fraud - Misrepresentation - Misleading the Court - No willful disobedience - Contempt petition dismissed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that despite of the order dated 21.01.2010 passed by the
writ court, the opposite parties have not paid the consequential benefits to the petitioner, while the order of
suspension and departmental inquiry was quashed by the writ court. It has also been submitted that while
passing the order dated 27.12.2012, which is annexed as Annexure-5 to the short counter affidavit filed on
behalf of opposite party no. 4, no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner, therefore, he was not
aware of that order.(Para 5)

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no. 4, has submitted that not only the marksheet of High School of the petitioner was found to be forged, but the petitioner has obtained the said order
by mentioning the Appeal No. 44430 of 1997 , District Basic Education Officer, Pilibhit Vs. U.P. Public Service
Tribunal in Allahabad High Court, while the actual number of the writ petition was Writ-A No. 44450 of 1997,
Adhyaksh Zila Parishad and another Vs. U.P. State Public Service Tribunal and another, thereby the petitioner
again committed forgery. Therefore, there is no willful disobedience of the order passed by the writ court(Para
6)

Held:(Para:-16-18,21-22)
1.The Principal Secretary, after verification of the facts, came to the conclusion that roll number 73784 of
High School Examination, 1961 was allotted to Km. Kunti daughter of Shri Vishnu Das and the said roll
number was not allotted to the petitioner- Bhagwan Das Srivastava. It also reveals that on the mark-sheet,
the roll number was mentioned as 73847 and a candidate in the name of Bhagawan Das Srivastava son of
Badri Prasad had appeared in the High School Examination,1961 from Shri Ramchandra Municipal
Intermediate College, Bisalpur, Piliphit having date of birth of 02.02.1943 and he was declared fail. Upon this
basis, the petitioner was suspended on 23.09.1970. The inquiry was conducted against the petitioner after
serving the charge-sheet upon him and in that sequence, the petitioner has not submitted any reply to the
charge-sheet, but has submitted his resignation. The Principal Secretary has come to the clear conclusion that
8 All. Bhagwan Das Srivastava Vs Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh
381
the petitioner has obtained the job on the basis of the forged High School mark-sheet/certificate. Therefore,
he is not entitled for any consequential benefits for the suspension period since 23.09.1970 to 31.08.1998.

2.From the aforesaid conduct of the petitioner, it appears that the petitioner adopted forged methods since
very inception of the job. He manipulated the mark-sheet and the certificate of the High School examination
and obtained the job on the forged mark-sheet /certificate of the High School examination. He was under
obligation to have filed the reply to the charge-sheet, but instead of filing the reply to the charge-sheet, he
submitted his resignation, upon which the department passed the order which was challenged before the
Public Services Tribunal. The conduct of forgery did not end there but also continued by filing Writ Petition
No. 222 (S/B) of 2004 upon the wrong facts and mentioning wrong Appeal No. 44430 of 1997. The order
dated 27.12.2012 has been passed in compliance with the order dated 06.07.2012 passed in Writ-A No.
32253 of 2012, Rupesh Gangwar Vs. State of U.P. and others, in which the petitioner was also opposite party
no.5. From the conduct of the petitioner, it appears that he avoided the disciplinary inquiry as well as he
willfully did not appear before the competent authority, who issued written information which was served
personally upon the petitioner regarding compliance of the order dated 06.07.2012 passed in WritA No.
32253 of 2012, Rupesh Gangwar Vs. State of U.P. and others .

3.In the aforesaid circumstances, I am of the opinion that no contempt is made out against the opposite party
and have no hesitation to say that the opposite party should have lodged the First Information Report against
the petitioner for submitting a false and fabricated High School mark-sheet and certificate and no leniency
should have been shown for such a fraudulent person, who has wasted the precious time of the Court as well
as of the Pubic Services Tribunal. Further the opposite party may recover all the payments made to the
petitioner consequent to his appointment, as arrears
of land revenue.

4.Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that this contempt petition is
liable to be dismissed.

5.This contempt petition is accordingly dismissed.

Case Law discussed:

(Delivered by Hon'ble Aditya Nath Mittal, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel and perused the
record.

2. This contempt petition has been filed with the prayer for disobedience and non
compliance of judgment and order dated 21.01.2010 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 222
(S/B) of 2004.

3. The operative portion of the judgment and order dated 21.01.2010 passed by the writ
court is reproduced here below:-

"Though we find that the contempt petition was barred by the limitation, the
respondents appears to have refuse to implement the order and to give all consequential benefits
382 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

including pay allowances and seniority to the petitioner on the ground that the Basic Shiksha
Adhikari has filed an appeal against petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel has not able to provide
any positive information in this regard. No appeal is maintainable against the judgment of the U.P.
Public Service Tribunal. A writ petition is maintainable, but that the District Basic Education
Officer appears to have either wrongly mentioned the number of the writ petition, or is under some
wrong impression. It is admitted that the order of the tribunal dated 30.5.1997 was not stayed and
thus the petitioner is entitled to all consequential benefits, of the order by which the suspension and
departmental inquiry was quashed. The writ petition is consequentially allowed to the extent that
the petitioner will be allowed all the consequential benefits, which has been deprived to him so far,
subject to the result of any writ petition filed against the judgment. The order shall be complied
within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before
the respondent."

4. Short counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of opposite party no. 4.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that despite of the order dated
21.01.2010 passed by the writ court, the opposite parties have not paid the consequential benefits to
the petitioner, while the order of suspension and departmental inquiry was quashed by the writ
court. It has also been submitted that while passing the order dated 27.12.2012, which is annexed as
Annexure-5 to the short counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party no. 4, no opportunity of
hearing was afforded to the petitioner, therefore, he was not aware of that order.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no. 4, has submitted that
not only the mark-sheet of High School of the petitioner was found to be forged, but the petitioner
has obtained the said order by mentioning the Appeal No. 44430 of 1997 , District Basic Education
Officer, Pilibhit Vs. U.P. Public Service Tribunal in Allahabad High Court, while the actual
number of the writ petition was Writ-A No. 44450 of 1997, Adhyaksh Zila Parishad and another
Vs. U.P. State Public Service Tribunal and another, thereby the petitioner again committed forgery.
Therefore, there is no willful disobedience of the order passed by the writ court.

7. From the perusal of the order dated 21.01.2010 passed in Writ Petition No. 222 (S/B) of
2004, it appears that the petitioner has mentioned that the District Basic Education Officer has
reinstated the petitioner on 31.08.1998 and preferred an Appeal No. 44430 of 1997, District Basic
Education Officer, Pilibhit, Vs. U.P. State Public Service Tribunal in Allahabad High Court. In the
order dated 21.01.2010, it has also come that the petitioner was required to find out the status of the
appeal and as per the inquiry report, Writ Petition No. 44430 of 1997, Km. Mamta Tiwari Vs. State
of U.P. and others was still pending.

8. In paras 11 and 12 of the short counter affidavit filed by opposite party no 4, the
following averments have been made specifically:-

"11. That it is submitted that the petitioner Bhagwan Das Srivastava has not come
with clean hands before this Hon'ble Court, as he had forged his High School Mark-sheet and
8 All. Bhagwan Das Srivastava Vs Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh
383
obtained the order of reinstatement dated 31.8.1998 by mentioning Appeal No. 44430 of 1997
(Annexure No.3 to the contempt petition) instead of Writ A No. 44450 of 1997 (Adhyaksh Zila
Parishad and another Vs. U.P. State Public Service Tribunal and another) which is a forged
document.

12. That from the aforesaid submission the High Court found that the petitioner
Bhagwan Das Srivastava, has obtained the judgment and order dated 21.01.2010 by playing fraud,
misrepresentation and misleading this Hon'ble High Court."

9. In reply to the aforesaid averments, the petitioner has simply denied the facts and has not
specifically controverted the fact that the petitioner has obtained the judgment and order dated
21.01.2010 by playing fraud, misrepresentation and misleading the Court.

10. In the short counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party no. 4, it has also been
mentioned that the petitioner has not come with clean hands as he has obtained the job on forged
High School mark-sheet and further obtained the order of the reinstatement dated 31.08.1998 by
mentioning the wrong appeal number.

11. In view of the specific allegations, no specific reply to the paras 11 and 12 of the short
counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party no. 4 has been given, which goes to show the
high handedness of the petitioner. Further Annexure R.A.1 has been filed regarding Writ-A No.
44450 of 1997, Adhyaksh Zila Parishad and another Vs. U.P. State Public Service Tribunal and
another, which has been dismissed for non prosecution vide order dated 02.02.2010. It also appears
that Appeal No. 44430 of 1997 absolutely does not belong to the petitioner and he has concealed
the fact regarding the dismissal of Writ-A No. 44450 of 1997 from the Court.

12. Alongwith the short counter affidavit, a copy of the order dated 06.07.2012 passed in
Writ- A No. 32253 of 2012, Rupesh Gangwar Vs. State of U.P. and others has been filed as
Annexure No. 4. This Court vide order dated dated 6.7.2012 disposed of the said writ petition with
the following observations:-

"In view of specific allegation that respondent no. 5 was failed in the High School
examination and the mark sheet filed by him for the purpose of appointment in the institution is
forged, it is desirable to provide that respondent no. 1 shall himself summon the original records
pertaining to appointment of respondent no. 5 and shall get his High School mark sheet verified
from the Board of High School & Intermediate, U.P. at Allahabad. If after verification it is found
that respondent no. 5 in fact has failed in the High School examination and the mark sheet filed by
his for the purpose of appointment is a forged document, he shall issue necessary orders for
recall/review application being filed before the Public Services Tribunal brining to its knowledge
the fact that a person who has failed in the High School examination can never be appointed in an
aided and recognized institution nor there can be an order for payment of salary from the state
exchequer.
384 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

Let the aforesaid exercise be completed within four weeks from the date a certified
copy of this order is filed before the respondent no.1. The respondent no. 1 shall pass a reasoned
speaking order after affording opportunity of hearing to respondent no. 5."

13. Opposite party no. 4 has passed a detailed speaking and reasoned order on 27.12.2012
in compliance with the order dated 06.07.2012 passed by this Court at Allahabad in Writ- A No.
32253 of 2012, Rupesh Gangwar Vs. State of U.P. and others, in which the present petitioner was
also opposite party no.5.

14. The perusal of the said order dated 27.12.2012 reveals that the present petitioner was
required to submit his original document regarding High School mark-sheet/certificate for
compliance of the order dated 6.7.2012 passed in Writ-A No. 32253 of 2012, Rupesh Gangwar Vs.
State of U.P. and others. The petitioner was informed by letter nos. 3179/79-5-12 dated 7.11.2012
and 3297/79-5-12 dated 26.11.2012 through District Basic Education Officer, Pilibhit, which were
personally served upon the petitioner on 27.11.2012, but in view of that notice, the petitioner had
neither appeared before the competent authority nor prayed for any adjournment.

15. Again another opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner by letter dated
07.12.2012, which was personally served upon the petitioner on 10.10.2012 (It appears to be a
typographical mistake and appears to be 10.12.2012), but even then despite of personal service, the
petitioner has not appeared before the competent authority. In this regard, the submission of learned
counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had no information, has no substance because in the
order dated 27.12.2012, the specific letter numbers as well as dates have been mentioned by the
Principal Secretary, as such, there is no reason to disbelieve that.

16. The Principal Secretary, after verification of the facts, came to the conclusion that roll
number 73784 of High School Examination, 1961 was allotted to Km. Kunti daughter of Shri
Vishnu Das and the said roll number was not allotted to the petitioner- Bhagwan Das Srivastava. It
also reveals that on the mark-sheet, the roll number was mentioned as 73847 and a candidate in the
name of Bhagawan Das Srivastava son of Badri Prasad had appeared in the High School
Examination,1961 from Shri Ramchandra Municipal Intermediate College, Bisalpur, Piliphit
having date of birth of 02.02.1943 and he was declared fail. Upon this basis, the petitioner was
suspended on 23.09.1970. The inquiry was conducted against the petitioner after serving the
charge-sheet upon him and in that sequence, the petitioner has not submitted any reply to the
charge-sheet, but has submitted his resignation. The Principal Secretary has come to the clear
conclusion that the petitioner has obtained the job on the basis of the forged High School marksheet/certificate. Therefore, he is not entitled for any consequential benefits for the suspension
period since 23.09.1970 to 31.08.1998.

17. From the aforesaid conduct of the petitioner, it appears that the petitioner adopted
forged methods since very inception of the job. He manipulated the mark-sheet and the certificate
of the High School examination and obtained the job on the forged mark-sheet /certificate of the
High School examination. He was under obligation to have filed the reply to the charge-sheet, but
8 All. Bhagwan Das Srivastava Vs Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh
385
instead of filing the reply to the charge-sheet, he submitted his resignation, upon which the
department passed the order which was challenged before the Public Services Tribunal. The
conduct of forgery did not end there but also continued by filing Writ Petition No. 222 (S/B) of
2004 upon the wrong facts and mentioning wrong Appeal No. 44430 of 1997. The order dated
27.12.2012 has been passed in compliance with the order dated 06.07.2012 passed in Writ-A No.
32253 of 2012, Rupesh Gangwar Vs. State of U.P. and others, in which the petitioner was also
opposite party no.5. From the conduct of the petitioner, it appears that he avoided the disciplinary
inquiry as well as he willfully did not appear before the competent authority, who issued written
information which was served personally upon the petitioner regarding compliance of the order
dated 06.07.2012 passed in Writ-A No. 32253 of 2012, Rupesh Gangwar Vs. State of U.P. and
others .

18. In the aforesaid circumstances, I am of the opinion that no contempt is made out
against the opposite party and have no hesitation to say that the opposite party should have lodged
the First Information Report against the petitioner for submitting a false and fabricated High School
mark-sheet and certificate and no leniency should have been shown for such a fraudulent person,
who has wasted the precious time of the Court as well as of the Pubic Services Tribunal. Further
the opposite party may recover all the payments made to the petitioner consequent to his
appointment, as arrears of land revenue.

19. Teaching is a very pious and noble profession and the disciples learn from their "Guru"
the lessons of book as well as lessons of life, but when the "Guru" himself is a corrupt person, he
destroys the whole of the society and such corrupt teachers also damage the high standards of
morality and ethics.

20. When the petitioner was himself was a High School failed candidate and indulged in
obtaining the job of teacher by playing fraud, then it can very well be imagined, that what good
lessons he could have taught to his students. Certainly, he could have spoiled the career of
thousands of students during his job of teacher after reinstatement since 1998 to the date of his
retirement in the year 2009. This damage to the society cannot be compensated in terms of money.
At the same time demanding consequential benefits of his so called service, goes to show that he
has no shame for his misdeeds.

21. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that this
contempt petition is liable to be dismissed.

22. This contempt petition is accordingly dismissed.
-----------
386 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(2016) 8 ILRA 386
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 31.08.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KARUNA NAND BAJPAYEE, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.- 1332 Of 2015

Sunil Kumar @ Jyoti ...Applicant
Versus
State Of U.P ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Prabhakar Dwivedi, Smt. Vidya Yadav

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
Govt. Advocate

Criminal Law - Bail application - Case Crime No.167 of 2013 - Sections 498-A, 304-B, 302 I.P.C. and 3⁄4
D.P. Act - Husband of the deceased - Burn injuries - Delay in lodging the F.I.R. - Medical treatment -
Inquest proceedings - Period of detention - Unlikelihood of early conclusion of trial - Bail granted

This bail application has been moved seeking the release of applicant on bail in connection with Case Crime
No.167 of 2013, u/s 498-A, 304-B, 302 I.P.C. and 3⁄4 D.P. Act, P.S.-Raipurwa, DistrictKanpur Nagar. (Para 1)

Submission of counsel for the applicant is that applicant is the husband of the deceased and the incident is
said to have taken place on 16.9.2013 in which the deceased received burn injuries and subsequently died on
23.9.2013 as a result thereof. Further submission is that the allegations of demanding the dowry and
illtreating the wife are all false and concocted. It has been further submitted that actually the deceased
accidentally got burnt and was thereafter immediately rushed to the hospital for providing medical succour to
her. Even at the time of incident, the applicant tried to save her and in that process he himself received some
burn injuries. Counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to Annexure No.4 which is the paper issued by
Regency Hospital, Kanpur after the death in which it has been clearly mentioned that the deceased was
brought to the hospital by her husband Sunil Kumar, the applicant. Several papers regarding medical
treatment of the deceased have also been annexed as Annexure No.2 starting from Page-22 up till 52 of this
application. The attention has also been drawn to Annexure No.3 which contains the medical papers with
regard to treatment of applicant himself. It has been further pointed out that the inquest proceedings of the
deceased took place on the date of the death i.e. 23.9.2013 itself and amongst the witnesses of inquest
proceedings not only the brother of the applicant namely Prakash was one of the witnesses, the first
informant, who is mother of the deceased, was also one of the witnesses in the inquest proceedings.
Submission is that after the incident, the information about the same was immediately given to the parental
side who had soon thereafter arrived and were all the time visiting the hospital. Counsel has also drawn the
attention of the Court to Annexure No.7 which contains the photographs of cremation of the deceased in
which also it has been pointed out that the husband is very much present. The contention is that after the
deceased succumbed to her injuries the dead-body was handed over to the applicant who himself managed
the cremation of the deceased and performed her last rites. Argument raised is that it is so significant to note
that the F.I.R. of the case was lodged on 28.9.2013. Submission is that had there been any truth in the