JUDGMENT M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. This application has been filed at the instance of M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., wherein prayer has been made for modification of order dated 17.5.2005 passed in WPS No. 2645 of 2005 on the ground that on the basis of forged and fabricated document, the writ petitioner obtained the aforesaid order. 2. The writ petitioner namely, Krishnapada Kumbhkar filed WPS No. 2645/2005 for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the show cause notice dated 16.3.2005/1.4.2005 and also for declaration that the respondents have no authority or jurisdiction to withdraw the employment of the petitioner. A true copy of the said notice was annexed as Annexure-7 to the writ application. The said notice was alleged to have been addressed to the petitioner wherein it was stated that the petitioner got employment on the ground that his land was acquired but subsequently it was found that such contention was erroneous and the petitioner got employment by fraudulent means. 3. This Court after hearing counsel for the petitioner disposed of the writ application on 17.5.2005 by passing the following order : The petitioner is challenging the notice dated 16.3.2005/1.4.2005 whereby he has been called for to file explanation/ show-cause as to why employment provided by the respondents-Company in the year 1981 should not be withdrawn. At this stage, I am not inclined to interfere with the said notice. The petitioner is allowed to file explanation/ show cause within three weeks from today. On receipt of such explanation/show-cause, the concerned authority of the respondents shall consider the show-cause and after giving full opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, take a decision in accordance with law. With the aforesaid directions, this writ petition stands disposed of. 4. After the aforesaid order was passed, respondent-Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. appeared and filed the aforesaid C.M.P.No. 287/2005 stating inter alia that such show cause notice dated 16.3.2005/1.4.2005(Annexure-7) was never issued to the petitioner and the said notice is a forged and fabricated document. 5. On 3.4.2006 when the matter was taken up, Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner was directed to produce original copy of the said notice (Annexure-7) on the basis of which order was obtained from this Court. Pursuant to the aforesaid order Mr. 5. On 3.4.2006 when the matter was taken up, Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner was directed to produce original copy of the said notice (Annexure-7) on the basis of which order was obtained from this Court. Pursuant to the aforesaid order Mr. Sahani appeared on 18.4.2006 and submitted that no such show-cause notice was, in fact, issued and he is extremely sorry for his conduct. This Court therefore by order dated 18.4.2006 issued bailable warrant of arrest against the writ petitioner, namely, Krishnapada Kumbhkar for his appearance in this Court today i.e. 26.4.2006 and also for filing show cause as to why he should not be punished for the forgery admittedly committed by him. The conducting lawyer who annexed the forged show cause notice without verifying the original was also directed to file show cause as to why appropriate order be not passed against him also. 6. In compliance of the aforesaid order, show cause has been filed both by the writ petitioner and the conducting lawyer. 7. In the show cause filed by the writ petitioner, it is stated that altogether 13 persons got employment in one area but the writ petitioner was transferred to another place where he came to know that General Manager, Area-V at Sijua has in fact not issued any show cause in the name of the petitioner. It is stated by the petitioner that in a good faith he filed the writ petition. 8. It has been categorically stated by the writ petitioner in the writ petition that the notice (Annexure-7) was issued calling upon him to show cause on the allegation that he secured employment fraudulently and a true copy of the notice was annexed as Annexure-7 to the writ application. Therefore, admittedly, according to the petitioner himself, no such show cause notice was issued to him and the true copy of the show cause notice(Annexure-7) is a forged and fabricated document produced by him for the purpose of filing the writ petition. It is, therefore, clear that forgery has been committed with the Court for which the petitioner is liable to be punished. Punishment must be deterrent in nature so that in future no such person could dare to annex forged and fabricated document and file writ petition. 9. It is, therefore, clear that forgery has been committed with the Court for which the petitioner is liable to be punished. Punishment must be deterrent in nature so that in future no such person could dare to annex forged and fabricated document and file writ petition. 9. I, therefore, direct the Registrar General of this Court to lodge an F.I.R. against the writ petitioner, namely, Krishnapada Kumbhkar under the provisions of Indian Penal Code. On lodging of F.I.R. the petitioner shall be prosecuted accordingly. 10. I have perused the show cause filed by Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned advocate who admittedly without verifying the document, put the Court in motion and obtained the order-dated 17.5.2005. Although Mr. Sahani humbly offers his unqualified apology for any commission or omission on his part which according to him was neither deliberate nor intentional and he acted bona fide on the instructions of the petitioner. But I must observe that as a lawyer, it was his duty to verify the genuineness of the document before annexing it with the writ petition and challenging the same. In the writ petition, it is stated that Annexure-7 is a true copy of the original notice but, in fact, there is no original notice. Therefore, the conducting lawyer admittedly did not see the original notice and annexed the photocopy of the notice saying that it is a true copy of its original. Such conduct of the lawyer cannot be appreciated by the Court. However, since he has offered his unqualified apology, I do not want to pass any harsh order against him, but he is warned to be very careful in future, so that the same thing may not be repeated again. 11. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the instant application stands disposed of.