JUDGMENT M. Katju, J.—This special appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 14.7.2004. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the impugned judgment and found no infirmity in the same. 3. The facts and circumstances have been set out in great detail in the judgment of the learned single Judge and they reveal the alarming situation, which is going on in Uttar Pradesh in the field of education. In fact in case after case that has come up before us, there are allegations that the Principal of the college, who should be an ideal for students, is indulging in embezzlement of school funds, corruption by permitting copying in examinations etc. This is also a case in that category. 4. The learned single Judge has not only perused the evidence on record but he also summoned the original record of the U. P. Board of High School and Intermediate Examination and we appreciate the pains that he has taken in examining the matter. The record shows that in respect to 70 students, who were to undertake the High School Examination forged mark sheets had been filed. The learned single Judge has observed : “Most relevant feature of the aforementioned forged mark sheets is that against one mark sheet fluid ink has been used and over the same name of candidate has been changed whereas rest of things are identical. This is a blatant case of fraud, forgery and manipulation. Each and every form has been transmitted under the signature of Principal. Principal of the institution has accepted this situation that mark sheets submitted were forged mark sheet in the letter dated 8.3.2004 (Annexure-S.A. 4) and he has taken stand in the said letter dated 8.3.2004, that the fraud has been committed by one teacher Rakesh Kumar Tripathi and in fact his services were terminated. This statement is clearly an eyewash and a defence set up by the Principal of the institution. Each and every form along with mark sheet has been transmitted with the signature of the Principal of the institution and thus, defence which has been sought to be set up is unbelievable that he had no knowledge and notice that forged mark sheets are being appended along with aforementioned examination form. Each and every form along with mark sheet has been transmitted with the signature of the Principal of the institution and thus, defence which has been sought to be set up is unbelievable that he had no knowledge and notice that forged mark sheets are being appended along with aforementioned examination form. Fraud is writ apparent in the present case as each and every mark sheet submitted along with 70 forms were forged and fabricated. Thus, rightly no credibility has been attached to the same. Under the relevant regulation, it is duty of the Principal of the institution to forward all these forms and thus, this defence that fraud and forgery was committed by one Rakesh Kumar Tripathi is unbelievable on the face of it and Principal of the institution being the competent authority forwarded all these forms with forged mark sheet appended with the same. Apart from this at the point of time when arguments, were being advanced, learned standing counsel pointed out that in various registration forms, which have been filed as Annexure-S.A. 1 to the supplementary-affidavit, date of birth mentioned therein is different qua date of birth mentioned in the examination forms. In this reference form of Chhaviram, Dharmendra, Harishanker Bajpai, Jay Karan, Mukesh Kushwaha, Ram Kishore Prajapati, Sudhir Kumar Dwivedi, Uma Kant Singh, Anjoo Devi, Deepika, Indrakshi Devi, Kinshu Singh and Sonee Bagam have been referred to. In the registration certificate in respect to persons named above and which has been filed as Annexure-S.A. 1 and issued by Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, U.P. at Allahabad, date of birth mentioned is different than the date mentioned in the examination forms. This Court has also verified all these facts and factual position has been found that date of birth of all these candidates referred to as mentioned in the registration certificate and as mentioned in the examination forms are altogether different.” 5. Thus, a perusal of the above facts noted by the learned single Judge shows that a large scale manipulation was done apparently by the Principal of the institution who has tried to shift the blame for this on one Rakesh Kumar Tripathi, a teacher in the institution. The learned single Judge has noted that every form along with the mark sheet was submitted with the signature of the Principal of the institution and hence the defence of the Principal is prima facie unbelievable. The learned single Judge has noted that every form along with the mark sheet was submitted with the signature of the Principal of the institution and hence the defence of the Principal is prima facie unbelievable. Moreover it is surprising that the same mark sheet (with only the names and roll number of the candidates being different) was annexed to these 70 forms. We share the opinion of the learned single Judge but we are of the opinion that his observations should be treated as a prima facie opinion, since the guilt or otherwise of the Principal has yet to be investigated and established in an enquiry. However, we direct that the Principal of the institution shall be suspended forthwith, charge-sheeted and disciplinary proceedings initiated against him immediately. An F.I.R. must also be filed against him, as already directed by the learned single Judge. However, since the guilt or otherwise of the Principal has yet to be established, we are deleting the direction to pay exemplary cost imposed by the learned single Judge 6. With the above observations, this appeal stands dismissed. 7. Learned standing counsel and the Registry of this Court are directed to communicate copy of this judgment to the authorities concerned particularly, the Secretary and Director, Secondary Education, U.P., Lucknow. Copy of the order also be communicated to the respondent No. 1 forthwith.