Judgment (Mr. Justice Vikash Jain) The appellant has come up in appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge passed in C.W.J.C. No. 7155/2005 dated 3.7.2007, dismissing the writ petition. 2. The appellant is aggrieved by his dismissal from service by memo no. 1443/ Saharsa dated 30.3.2003. It appears that the appellant had joined service in 1984 and had functioned as basic health worker for several years before being served with the show cause notice in the year 2000 for dismissal on the ground of having impersonated another person of the same name. Learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition on the ground that no person can retain the benefit obtained through fraud or misrepresentation. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant states and submits that as a matter of fact, no fraud or misrepresentation has been committed nor anyone impersonated in order to obtain the benefit of appointment in service. Learned counsel for the appellant states and submits that he has been a resident of Manihar at Braham Asthan, District-Nalanda at the house of his maternal uncle, whereas the address mentioned in his service book is shown as At P.O.-Ekardh, P.S.-Nauhatta, District-Saharsa to which place he shifted at the relevant time when he joined the service. It is further submitted that pursuant to the instructions of the concerned authority, enquiry was also conducted for investigating the genuineness of the residential certificates, which were ultimately endorsed as genuine in terms of the enquiry reports as contained in Annexures-5 & 6 to the writ petition. The further contention of the appellant is that while passing the order of dismissal the respondents have also lost sight of the fact that' no other claimant in his place has come forward. 4. It is his claim that the two residential certificates merely show different addresses of the same person and he was rightly appointed and joined the service. 5. Learned counsel for the State has objected primarily to the fact that despite show cause, the appellant did not appear to clarify the position and remained absent from his post which clearly discloses an element of guilt leading to the inference of impersonation and fraud. 6. 5. Learned counsel for the State has objected primarily to the fact that despite show cause, the appellant did not appear to clarify the position and remained absent from his post which clearly discloses an element of guilt leading to the inference of impersonation and fraud. 6. Having heard the parties and upon going through the materials on record, this court is of the view that the inference of impersonation cannot be sustained merely on the ground that two separate addresses appear on the two residential certificates one in respect of the earlier residence where the appellant had been residing temporarily, and another at Saharsa, where he shifted to upon his appointment. The learned Single Judge has proceeded on a presumed premise that the appellant had joined the service having impersonated another person, which however, does not appear to be based on any material to justify such conclusion, particularly in the face of the enquiry reports at Annexures-5 and 6 to the writ petition. 7. In the above circumstances, the order of the learned Single Judge is set aside and the L.P.A. stands allowed. 8. The order of dismissal as contained in Annexure-9 to the writ petition is quashed with a direction to the respondent to accept the joining of the appellant who will also be entitled to arrears and all consequential benefits with effect from the date of the order of the learned Single Judge.