ORDER Heard Mr. Hari Shankar Rai, for the petitioner, and Mr. Shankar Kumar, learned Junior counsel to Additional Advocate General No. V. This writ petition is directed against the order bearing Memo No. 3124/Samastipur, dated 31.10.2002 (Annexure-4), passed by respondent no. 4 (The Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Samastipur), whereby he has dispensed with the service of the petitioner as a Clerk on the ground that he has till then functioned on the strength of a letter of appointment forged and fabricated by him. The learned Government Counsel has supported the impugned action. 2. I have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. On the strength of appointment letter bearing Memo No. 169/Confidential, Madhubani, dated 21.7.1995 (Annexure-1), purported to have been issued by respondent no. 5 (The Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Madhubani) the petitioner functioned as a Clerk in his office. Thereafter suspicion grew about the genuineness of the appointment letter. He was issued show-cause notice, vide letter no. 816, dated 18.3.2002. The petitioner submitted his show-cause but was found to be unsatisfactory. He was issued another show-cause, vide letter No.2677 dated 10.9.2002. The petitioner did not submit reply to the same. It has been stated in the impugned order that the relevant issue register of the concerned office discloses that only 63 letters have been issued upto 23.12.1995. The said letter 0f appointment is numbered 169. Obviously, therefore, the appointment letter is forged and fabricated. The impugned order cannot, therefore, be faulted. 3. The learned Government Counsel is right in his submission that the impugned order is dated 31.10.2002, whereas the present writ petition was lodged in this Court on 20.4.2006. It suffers from unexplained delay, laches negligence and acquiescence. 4. There is no knowing whether or not the respondent authorities have lodged First Information Report against the petitioner. Respondent No. 4 is hereby directed to lodge a first information report against the petitioner for manufacturing his letter of appointment. He is further directed to take steps for recovery of the salary paid to him on the basis of the forged letter of appointment. Law is well settled that no person can retain the benefit obtained by fraud, misrepresentation or the like. The following portion of the judgment in Lazarus Estates Ltd. Vs. He is further directed to take steps for recovery of the salary paid to him on the basis of the forged letter of appointment. Law is well settled that no person can retain the benefit obtained by fraud, misrepresentation or the like. The following portion of the judgment in Lazarus Estates Ltd. Vs. Beasley [(1956)1 All England Law Report 341], is setout hereinbelow for the facility of quick reference: “.....If this argument is correct, the landlords would profit greatly from their fraud. The increase in rent would pay the fine many times over. I cannot accede to this argument for a moment. No court in this land will allow a person to keep an advantage which he has obtained by fraud. No judgment of a court, no order of a Minister, can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud. Fraud unravels everything. The court is careful not to find fraud unless it is distinctly pleaded and proved; but once it is proved it vitiates judgments, contracts and all transactions whatsoever.” This judgment was quoted with approval by the Supreme Court in the cases of Ram Preeti Yadav Vs. U.P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education and Others, reported in (2003)8 S.C.C. 311 , as well as A.V. Papayya Sastry & Others Vs. Government of A.P., reported in 2007(2) P.L.J.R. 201 (S.C.). 5. Law is equally well settled that no person can retain the salary obtained on the basis of a forged letter of appointment. Reference may be made to the judgment of this Court reported in 2002(3) P.L.J.R. 794 (Radha Kumari Vs. State of Bihar). 6. A number of similar cases of forged letters of appointment are coming up before this court and in none of the cases order for first information report and recovery of salary has been passed by the appropriate authority, perhaps to avoid the required work Involved in it. It virtually amounts to abdication of essential duties and functions. 7. The writ petition is dismissed. 8. Let a copy of this order be handed over to Mr. Yogendra Prasad Sinha, learned Additional Advocate General No. V to be forwarded to the Chief Secretary for appropriate action and remedial measures.