Rajan Roy, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) These proceedings for review of the judgment dated 29.10.2013 have been registered as a suo motu action in pursuance to an order of this Court dated 03.03.2017 passed in another similar Writ Petition bearing 268(S/S) of 1992 where the judgment passed in this writ petition was being relied. The aforesaid order dated 03.03.2017 reads as under:- "This court had passed the following order on 27.2.2017 : "On 24.01.2017 this Court had passed the following order:- "On 06.01.2017 the following order was passed:- "After arguing the matter at some length, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this matter be listed in the next week, as she is not ready today. List on 13.1.2017 amongst first five cases. Matter shall not be adjourned on that date on any pretext." The matter was taken up on 19.01.2017 when the following order was passed:- "(C.M.A. No.6400 of 2014: Application for recall of order dated 2.5.2011.) On 13.1.2017 the following order was passed: "On the last date i.e. 6.1.2017 the following order was passed: "After arguing the matter at some length, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this matter be listed in the next week, as she is not ready today. List on 13.1.2017 amongst first five cases. Matter shall not be adjourned on that date on any pretext." Names of at least eight counsels are printed in the cause-list as appearing for the petitioner, one of them Ms. Nalini Jain, Advocate has sent illness slip. None of the other counsels is present. As the counsel is said to be ill, the matter is adjourned for the last time and is posted for 19.1.2017 peremptorily. No adjournment-slips for whatever reason shall be entertained on the next date. List this case on 19.1.2017 peremptorily." Inspite of the aforesaid order, today again illness slip has been sent by the learned counsel for the petitioner. As there are as many as eight counsel who had filed their vakalatnama for the petitioner, a fact which was noted in the earlier order, but the illness slip has been sent only by Smt. Nalini Jain, Advocate, therefore, there is no reason to adjourn this matter any further, specially as the matter is of 1992. The writ petition is hereby restored, however, considering the averments in the counter affidavit which are unrebutted till date, specially regarding the order of the Board of Revenue dated 29.12.1990 being forged, there is no reason to restore the interim order. It stands vacated. Put up the main case on 24.1.2017 for disposal. The Standing Counsel shall inform all the counsel, whose names figure in the cause list, about this order." Today, instead of Smt. Nalini Jain, Shri P.C. Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner has given an illness slip. Other counsel have conveniently absented themselves and have not given any slip for adjournment. The request for adjournment is rejected. The Court is pained to observe that the petitioners are trying to avoid the proceedings of the Court for whatever reasons. This is not how counsel should conduct themselves. This Court has no other option but to proceed to decide the same. As it is the matter is pending since 1999 and an interim order dated 13.01.1992 is continuing allowing the petitioners to continue in service and be paid salary inspite of termination order dated 31.08.1991. The reliefs prayed for in the writ petition are as under:- "(a) A writ of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to permit the petitioners to continue in service and to pay their salary regularly and not to terminated their services; (b) a writ of certiorari or a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the impugned order dated 31.08.1991 passed by the Commissioner/ Secretary, Board of Revenue, U.P. Lucknow opposite party no.1 contained in Annexure 3 to the writ petition and consequential orders (by summoning their originals terminating the services of the petitioners); and" The petitioners claim to have been selected and appointed as Lekhpal, in pursuance to the order of the Secretary, Board of Revenue, U.P. Lucknow dated 29.12.1990 contained in Annexure No. 1, wherein, they claim that their names figure at Serial Nos. 1, 9, 10, 14 and 15. Thereafter, they claim to have been posted in various Tehsils of District Pratapgarh and accordingly are said to have joined their duties in March, 1991. In paragraph 11 and 12 of the writ petition it is alleged that under some wrong notion an order was passed by the Secretary, Board of Revenue that the letter dated 29.12.1990 was not a genuine letter as such the petitioners and other similarly placed could not have been appointed and their services should be terminated. This letter of the Secretary is dated 31.08.1991 and a copy thereof is contained in Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition. In paragraph 12 of the writ petition it has been stated that in pursuance to the said letter the petitioners are not being allowed to continue. As already stated earlier vide interim order dated 13.01.1992 the petitioners were allowed to continue. It appears that earlier Writ Petition No. 6478(S/S) of 1991 was filed wherein an interim order was passed and based thereon the interim order was passed in this case also. The said writ petition is still pending. The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State, which is dated 31.08.1992 i.e. it was filed after the passing of the interim order, is accompanied by an application for vacation of the interim order but the same could not be heard in the past 25 years and the petitioners appear to have continued in service. The counter affidavit states that the petitioners had obtained joining on the basis of forged orders. Consequently, an F.I.R. was lodged against them in P.S. Kotwali Kunda on 23.09.1991 and 07.10.1991. The documents which are alleged to be forged and fabricated are dated 29.12.1990 contained in Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition and 22.10.1991 contained in Annexure No. 5 to the writ petition. Para 3 of the counter affidavit states that the petitioners had neither been sent on training from District Pratapgarh nor were they selected for the said purpose. The Board of Revenue had not issued the order dated 29.12.1990 (Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition). Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition by which the said fact was brought to the notice of the concerned authority is a genuine document. As the original order dated 19.12.1990 is forged, therefore, the consequential order dated 07.02.1991 is rendered meaningless. Accordingly, on 03.07.1991 direction was issued to the S.D.M. Pratapgarh for terminating the services of the petitioners. In pursuance to which the concerned Pargana Adhikari, Sadar terminated the services of the persons working under his control on 05.07.1991, whereas, the S.D.M. Kunda did so on 10.07.1991. The petitioners did not work thereafter, therefore, they have made a false averment in the writ petition that they had been working since March, 1991. The counter affidavit also states that Writ Petition No. 6478(S/S) of 1991 has also been filed on the basis of forged and fabricated documents. The document annexed therewith as Annexure No. 45 which is dated 22.10.1991 is also forged and fabricated which has not been received at Pratapgarh and appears to have prepared only for filing the writ petition and annexing therewith, so as to mislead the High Court into passing a favourable order. Annexure No. CA-1 to the counter affidavit is a letter issued from the office of the Commissioner and Secretary, Board of Revenue to the District Magistrate, Pratapgarh dated 09.03.1992 stating that the letter dated 22.10.1991 is a fabricated and forged document, asking him to lodge an F.I.R. in this regard. The record reveals that an application for vacation of stay order was filed on 31.01.1993 but even this could not be considered. The State has also filed supplementary counter affidavit dated 15.02.1994 stating that petitioners were able to get entry into the training institution by presenting a fabricated experience certificate. There result was never declared. It refers to some inquiry being conducted by the Commissioner. The petitioners have not filed any rejoinder affidavit and none is on record. On being asked the learned Standing Counsel also informed that he has not received any rejoinder affidavit from the petitioners. It is now understandable as to why the counsel are not appearing in this case and are avoiding the proceedings. This leaves the Court with no option but to summon the petitioners in person for further proceedings, as, considering the allegations of fraud and filing of forged documents in Court it may require proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. and such other proceedings as per law, as the Court deems just and proper. List this case on 27.02.2017. Let notice be issued to all the petitioners through the District Magistrate, Pratapgarh as they are posted under him in the said district, who shall show cause as to why proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. apart from other penal action permissible in law, be not initiated against them. This matter shall be listed along with Writ Petition No. 6478(S/S) of 1991. The concerned officials of the Registry shall ensure that there is no lapse in this regard. This Court has already vacated the interim order on 19.01.2017 while restoring the writ petition, therefore, the petitioners shall no longer be allowed to work. No adjournment slip shall be entertained on the next date. Learned Standing Counsel shall also seek instructions as to the latest information as regards the alleged inquiry which was being conducted by the Commissioner of the Division, as also, the status of the criminal case against the petitioners and others in this regard. A responsible Officer from the District Administration not below the rank of the S.D.M. shall appear in person before the Court on the next date to assist the learned Standing Counsel and the Court." Four of the petitioners, except petitioner No.1 are present in person. The Court put a categorical query to them in Hindi as to the source from where they had obtained Annexure Nos. 1 and 5 to the writ petition, but they were not able to reply to the query of the Court. Sri S.K. Kalia, learned Senior Counsel appearing for them alongwith Smt. Nalini Jain, Advocate and other counsel sought time to file reply. Inspite of the order of this court dated 24.01.2017 the petitioner no.1 is not present. He is said to have retired. This apart, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, who was summoned, is also not present nor is there any application for exemption. Learned Standing Counsel is not aware as to why he has not appeared. He has no instructions as regards the enquiry which was being conducted by the Commissioner nor regarding the status of the criminal case. Furthermore, the record of the connected writ petition No. 6478(S/S) of 1991 reveals that it has already been decided on 29.10.2013 in the following terms: "Smt. Nalini Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that originally, the petitioners were selected by duly selected committee on the posts of Lekhpal. They were appointed and were continue on the job for some time. Later, their services were terminated by the impugned order Annexure No. 40 (Page-55). Being aggrieved, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition. Learned counsel states that on 04.12.1991, this Hon'ble Court has passed an interim order by observing that :- "... it is directed that the petitioners shall be allowed to continue in service and will be paid salaries every month as and when the salaries become due." Learned counsel submits that at the strength of interim order, the petitioners are continuing in the job and they are drawing the regular salary and their work is also satisfactory. On the other hand, Sri Sanjai Sarin, learned standing counsel submits that for the selection of the petitioners, wrong list was published. They are not entitled for the appointment. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the record, it appears that the petitioners are working since 1990-91 on the posts and shortly, they are likely to attain the age of superannuation. When it is so, then without entering into the merits of the case; and on the basis of the doctrine of equity, justice and good conscious, the writ petition is disposed of in terms of interim order dated 04.12.1991, passed by this Hon'ble Court. In view of above, the writ petition is disposed of in terms of interim order dated 04.12.1991 ." Counter affidavit filed in the writ petition No.6478 (SS) of 1991 by Sri Rajendra Prasad Shukla, the then Deputy Collector Sultanpur on behalf of opposite party nos.1 and 2 and 5 to 9 categorically asserts that the alleged documents filed by the petitioners sending the petitioners on training/declaring their result, are forged. It says the Board of Revenue is the final authority to certify whether the person has completed course of training in the training school, therefore, it is the Board which was the competent authority to inform that the incumbents mentioned in para 3 of the said counter affidavit were actually not the trained Lekhpal and the alleged communication showing them trained was a forged communication of the Board of Revenue. In paragraph 4 of the said counter affidavit it had been categorically asserted that the petitioners whose names are detailed in the preceding para (para 3) managed to obtain appointment on probation in the District on the basis of a Farzi Parishad Aadesh i.e. forged Board's letter, enclosed alongwith the order of the Commissioner, Faizabad Division. In para 6 of the counter affidavit it had been averred that the alleged admission-cards, photocopies of which have been annexed as Annexures 1 to 10 have been signed by some person on behalf of the Collector with whose signatures the answering opposite parties are not familiar and acquainted, therefore, the petitioners be put to strict proof of the averments made in the para under reply i.e. paragraph 4 of the writ petition. In para 15 it has been stated by the Board of Revenue, as Sanchalak of the Lekhpal Training School, has come to the conclusion after thoroughly investigating the matter and there was no need to have given the petitioners any opportunity. In paragraph 7 it has been said that the examination is conducted under the control of the Chairman of the Board of Revenue. The Principal of the Lekhpal Training School is not authorized to issue 'passed certificate', as the result is declared by the Board of Revenue. Annexures 11 to 22 do not even appear to have been signed by the Principal of the Lekhpal Training School. One Ra.La. Mishra appears to have signed it on behalf of the Principal without giving his designation. On the very face of it the said certificates are all farzi documents not having been issued by any competent authority. It has been averred likewise in respect of the identity-cards annexed as Annexure Nos.23 to 28 in para 8 the said counter affidavit. Para 9 of the counter affidavit states that the communication dated 29.11.1990 appears to have been issued under the signatures of Sri J.C. Johari which, on enquiry, had been found to be Farzi and fictitious documents by the Board of Revenue and consequently it issued a letter on 31.8.1991 bringing the said facts to the knowledge of the Collector, Sultanpur. In para 10 it has been categorically averred that the petitioners of the above writ petition were able to get appointment on probation in District Sultanpur on the basis of the aforesaid fictitious, forged communication annexed as Annexure-29 to the writ petition. Para 19 says that prior to 4.12.1991 the petitioners of the above writ petition were not working, however, when the interim order was passed by this court, they were attached to the office of the concerned Registrar Kanoongo in District Sultanpur. In spite of the aforesaid averments in the counter affidavit and without there being adjudication by this court on merits of the issues involved in the light of the said averments in rebuttal of the averments made in the writ petition, the aforesaid writ petition No.6478 (SS) of 1991 came to be disposed of in terms of the interim order dated 4.12.1991. Now the petitioners of this writ petition i.e. writ petition No. 268 (SS) of 1992 obviously want similar treatment by this Bench. At this stage, Sri S.K. Kalia, learned Senior Counsel submitted that it appears that writ petition No.6478 (SS) of 1991 having been filed earlier the petitioners of the subsequent writ petition bearing writ petition No.268(SS) of 1992 got the orders from the records of the earlier writ petition that is why Sri Mishra at one point stated that they had got it from the Court itself, but was not able to elaborate. Be that as it may, faced with the factual scenario and the averments made in the counter affidavit, as already noticed by this Bench in its earlier order as also in this order, this court finds it very difficult to convince itself to dispose of the matter in the same terms in which the earlier writ petition was disposed of. In fact, certain important questions arise which have to be considered, including suo motu review of the judgment dated 29.10.2013 in Writ Petition NO. 6478(S/S) of 1991 and the action referred in the earlier order on the next date. During the course of hearing of the matter this Bench was informed that the petitioners of the earlier writ petition No.6478 (SS) of 1991 are still in service. Shri S. K. Kalia, learned Senior Counsel requests for some more time to show cause in terms of the order of this Court dated 24.01.2017. As the earlier order was passed on 24.1.2017, therefore, the petitioners had ample time to show cause, nevertheless, in the interest of justice they are granted time till 2nd of March 2017 to file their response in terms of the earlier orders. The officials who were summoned and are not present before the court today, shall appear on the next date. They shall also show cause as to why they have not appeared before this court today. At this stage Sri S.K. Kalia, learned Senior Counsel again requests for some further time for filing reply. Considering the fact that ample time has already been granted, and specially the opinion expressed in the earlier order, this court is not inclined to accede to the request of the learned Senior Counsel. It is, therefore, rejected, subject to the time granted herein above. The Standing Counsel shall also seek instructions in the light of the earlier order dated 24.1.2017 positively. He shall also inform the Court as to when was the order dated 29.10.2013 passed in writ petition No.6478 (SS) of 1991, brought to the notice of the authorities and whether any appeal was filed against the said judgment. He shall personally seek instructions from the Principal Secretary (Revenue) in this regard as to whether the Government was informed about the said order and what action was taken in this regard. List on 3.3.2017 immediately after fresh cases. On that date no adjournment shall be granted on any pretext. If the officials who were summoned do not appear on the next date, then the Principal Secretary (Revenue) shall himself appear and assist the Court."
(3.) Officers namely Sri Pankaj Verma, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kunda and Sri Somdutt Maurya, Additional District Magistrate (F. & R.) Pratapgarh are present and have been heard.;