JUDGMENT Indira Banerjee 1. THE issues in the two writ applications being similar, the same are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. 2. IN challenge in the writ petitions are orders of discharge issued way back in the year 1978 whereby the respective writ petitioners were discharged from service as Assistant Primary School Teachers on the alleged ground of having submitted fake certificates of the Bihar Vidyalaya Pariksha Samity. The writ petitioner in W.P. No. 14692 (W) of 1998 was appointed Assistant Teacher of Berokandul Primary School in District Malda on or about 11th April, 1973. The service of the petitioner was confirmed with effect from 2nd January, 1975. 3. ON or about 1st June, 1974 a criminal case being G.R. Case No. 962 (31) of 1974 was started against the petitioner in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Malda on the basis of a written complaint of the then District Inspector of Schools (Primary Education], Malda alleging that the petitioner had obtained employment by producing a fake Secondary Certificate of Bihar Vidyalaya Pariksha Samity. 4. UPON completion of preliminary investigation, a chargesheet as framed. The criminal case continued for years. On or about 12th October, 1978, the petitioner was discharged from service on the ground of having produced a fake educational certificate. There were similar allegations against numerous primary school teachers of the district. The writ petitioner in W.P. 14691 (W) of 1998 was appointed as Assistant; Teacher of Ramchandrapur Primary School in District Malda vide Memo No.580/6 dated 11th April, 1973. By Memo No.2672/4 dated 21st March, 1977, the then District Inspector of Schools (Primary education), Malda placed the petitioner under suspension with effect from 29th November, 1976 on the allegation that the petitioner had produced a fake certificate of the Bihar Vidyalaya Pariksha Samity. 5. ON 1st June, 1974 a criminal case being G.R. Case No.982 (45)/74 was started against the petitioner in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Malda. ON conclusion of investigation, a chargesheet was filed. The proceedings remained pending for years. 6. IT is not necessary to advert to the various developments in the Court of the judicial Magistrate in relation to the criminal case started against the writ petitioners or to the related proceedings. ON conclusion of investigation, a chargesheet was filed. The proceedings remained pending for years. 6. IT is not necessary to advert to the various developments in the Court of the judicial Magistrate in relation to the criminal case started against the writ petitioners or to the related proceedings. Suffice it to mention that by an order dated 18th May, 1998, the criminal cases against the petitioners were dropped since the prosecution had failed to establish its case despite opportunity. It is only thereafter that the writ petitioners initiated writ proceedings in this Court challenging their discharge and claiming reinstatement in view of their acquittal in the criminal cases. 7. CRIMINAL proceedings are distinct proceedings, which are not necessarily interlinked with disciplinary proceedings or with discharge simpliciter. Similar writ applications were filed by numerous teachers similarly circumstanced as the petitioners, who had been discharged. In some cases, the discharge orders were without any show-cause notice. In other cases, the discharge orders were passed after giving the concerned teachers opportunity of hearing. 8. THE Courts have taken divergent views on the writ applications filed by the respective teachers. A writ petition being W.P. No. 13985 (W) of 1998 was dismissed on the ground of delay. On the other hand, W.P. No. 8134 (W) of 1898 was disposed of by Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J. by directing that the writ petitioners must get back is employment with all back wages. While His Lordship held that it was true that criminal proceedings had been discharged on the ground of non-production of witnesses and there was no acquittal on merit. His Lordship was of the view that the petitioner was not responsible for the non-production of witnesses. 9. CRIMINAL proceedings are distinct from disciplinary proceedings. Acquittal from criminal proceedings whether acquittal be an honourable acquittal or an acquittal for technical reasons' is not in itself ground for interference with disciplinary action or a discharge simpliciter. 10. IT is true that if disciplinary proceedings and criminal proceedings are initiated on identical charges and an employee is honourably acquitted of all charges on merits, it would only be fair to drop the disciplinary proceedings. That is however, not the case here. The criminal proceedings ended only by reason of non-production of witnesses. There is also substance in Mr. IT is true that if disciplinary proceedings and criminal proceedings are initiated on identical charges and an employee is honourably acquitted of all charges on merits, it would only be fair to drop the disciplinary proceedings. That is however, not the case here. The criminal proceedings ended only by reason of non-production of witnesses. There is also substance in Mr. Chatterjee's argument that the petitioners have not produced any materials to show that the certificate in question was a valid certificate. 11. MR. Dhole appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners cited the following judgments: 1. Paras Nath vs. Mohani Dasi, reported in AIR 1959 SC 1204 . 2. R. S. Deodhar vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in AIR 1974 SC 259 . 3. Deputy Commissioner of Police, Special Branch and Ors. vs. iBhupcsh Chandra Karanjai and Anr., reported in 1993(2) CLJ 74 . 4. Director General of Police and Ors. vs. MRitunjoy Sarkar and Ors., reported in AIR 1997 SC 249 . Capt. M. Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and Anr., reported in AIR 1999 SC 1416 . Sanjay Kumar Singh vs. Union of India and Ors., reported in 2002 (1) CLJ 203. Rafikul Islam vs. Union of India and Ors., reported in 2002 .(i)'GLJ 541, and The unreported judgment dated 7th June, 2005 of AshWlandr. Banerjee, J. in W.P. 8134 (W) of 1998 (.Shyamapada Mondal vs. State of West Bengal and Ors.) 12. IN R.S. Deodhar vs. State of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court held that the principle on which the Court proceeded in refusing relief in the petitioner on the ground of laches or delay was, that the rights which had accrued to others by reason of the delay in filing the petition should not be- allowed to be disturbed unless there was reasonable explanation for the delay. The Supreme Court further held that it might be noticed that the claim for enforcement of a fundamental right to equal opportunity under Article 16 was in itself a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 32 for which the Supreme Court had been assigned the role of a sentinel and it should not be persuaded to refuse relief solely on the ground of laches, delay or the like. 13. IN this case, delay has given rise to creation of third party rights. The poets held by the petitioners had been filled up. 13. IN this case, delay has given rise to creation of third party rights. The poets held by the petitioners had been filled up. This is not a case of denial of opportunity. The petitioners have apparently not been able to show that the petitioners had the requisite qualification for appointment to the posts and that the certificates relied upon were genuine. 14. IN Deputy Commissioner of Police, Special Branch and Ors. vs. Bhupesh Chandra Karanjai a Division Bench held, that the appointment of a candidate who was below age could be regularized. The judgment has no application in the facts of this case. In Director General of Police and Ors. vs. Mritunjoy Sarkar the Supreme Court set aside an order of discharge on the ground of production of a fake list without opportunity of representation to the petitioner. In this case, there has been delay of over twenty years in challenging the order of discharge and/or termination. In twenty four year, the petitioners could not get the Bihar Vidyalaya Pariksha Samity to certify that they had cleared the examination and had been issued genuine certificates. 15. IN M. Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. the Supreme Court held that where the appellant had been acquitted by the Criminal Court, fresh disciplinary enquiry could not be directed to be instituted on the same set of facts. 16. SIGNIFICANTLY, in the aforesaid case, the Supreme Court held that if the criminal case does not proceed or its disposal is unduly delayed, the departmental proceedings, even if there was stay on account of pendency of the criminal case can be resumed and proceeded with so as to conclude the disciplinary proceedings at an early date. In Sanjay Kumar Singh vs. Union ol India, a Single Bench of this court held that in case of acquittaT in criminal proceedings on the same facts, dismissal order was liable to be set aside. The acquittal in the aforesaid case was, however, on merits and not for technical reasons as in this case. 17. IN this case, admittedly, these writ petitions had been initiated after 22 years. There was no attempt to establish the genuineness of the certificate on the basis of which employment had been obtained. 18. THE interference of this Court after delay of 22 years is not warranted. 17. IN this case, admittedly, these writ petitions had been initiated after 22 years. There was no attempt to establish the genuineness of the certificate on the basis of which employment had been obtained. 18. THE interference of this Court after delay of 22 years is not warranted. It is now well-settled that even in a case of wrongful termination, reinstatement is not automatic and in any case, not with full back wages. THE writ applications are thus dismissed.