Judgment 1. The present letters patent appeal is being filed against the order dated 4th August, 2000 in C.W.J.C.No. 7089 of 2000; Devendra Kumar Sinha V/s. The State of Bihar and others. 2. On the appeal it was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the court be pleased to ignore the aspect that the drafting of the writ petition may have been poor; a comment of the Honble court the judgment of which is impugned. This aspect had subsequently been ignored by the learned Judge also. Accordingly, nothing turns on this aspect. 3. The issue raised in the writ petition was of a departmental action, which may have been taken or could be taken against the appellant, Devendra Kumar Sinha. 4. Having received employment as a Gardener, a class-IV post, subsequently, the appellant was appointed to the next higher grade, i.e., class III. post as an Acounts Clerk. The promotion of the petitioner was made on his possessing a qualification, a Matriculate. 5. On the departmental inquiry it was found that the certificate offered by the appellant, on which he claimed a qualification was forged. The promotion, the department claimed, was questionable. 6. In the circumstances a show cause notice was issued to the appellant that he may explain the circumstances of a forged matriculation certificate. 7. The respondents cancelled the order of appointment to the higher post on the ground that the forged matriculation certificate was not a qualification. The petitioner was also placed under suspension and a departmental proceeding was initiated for having produced a forged certificate. 8. The issue remains at present whether the certificate presented by the petitioner-appellant is forged and on this the petitioner-appellant has received a show cause notice to this extent. There is no issue on facts and an inquiry is pending. On the inquiry, the learned Judge ordered that it may be completed preferably within a year. 9. The argument addressed before the court is, to the effect, that the appellant ought to have been offered an opportunity as the notice which the petitioner-appellant received was at best upon the allegation that he may have presented a forged show cause notice (siccertificate ?). Thus, it is submitted that before the promotion was cancelled he should have received a show cause notice on this also. 10. Thus, it is submitted that before the promotion was cancelled he should have received a show cause notice on this also. 10. The basic principle in the present case is whether the certificate which was presented by the petitioner-appellant to claim a promotion was forged? If the enquiry results in a situation that the said certificate indeed is forged, then what to say of the promotion, the petitioner-appellant should also be denied an employment which he had received because equity would be against him. It was contended that the senior officials have rendered notings on the record which are not against the petitioner-appellant. This aspect is the subject matter of an enquiry and the court should not be making any comment on the merits. The state of the official record is that there is an enquiry and it has to be concluded. 11. In the circumstances, this court is not inclined to interfere with this letters patent appeal, but the court notices that about a years time has been given to the respondents to complete the departmental enquiry and the department has already had five months time to conclude the enquiry. This court is of the opinion that the enquiry shculd be completed, expeditiously, within a period of two months. 12. This appeal is dismissed.