JUDGMENT SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J. 1. Petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 21.10.2005 passed by Disciplinary Authority and the order dated 20.12.2006 passed by the Appellate Authority, has approached this Court by which the petitioner has been dismissed from service. 2. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed in the District Police and was deputed on 31.03.1978 in patrolling duty on railway station but after seeing the naxalite all the police party including the petitioner had fled away. On these grounds a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and on the basis of the show cause notice when the reply of petitioner was not found satisfactory, the petitioner was dismissed from service on 20th September, 1979. Against the order of dismissal dated 20th September, 1979 appeal was preferred which was rejected. The order of dismissal was challenged by the petitioner before Hon'ble Patna High Court and Hon’ble Supreme Court which was also dismissed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that thereafter, in reference to the letter no. 2580 dated 22.10.1992 petitioner was reinstated in service vide letter no. 10018 dated 29.12.1993. In pursuance to the same the petitioner was posted in B.M.P.3 Govindpur, Dhanbad. One Sri Rajendra Bind had preferred writ petition before Hon’ble Patna High Court being C.W.J.C. No. 7544 of 1999 raising point that for the same charge, when the petitioner was dismissed but subsequently he has been reinstated in service, similar relief may also be granted to Sri Rajendra Bind. In terms of the said writ petition it was informed by the headquarter of Bihar Patna vide letter dated 18.02.2005 for review of the decision taken with respect to the petitioner for reinstatement. In course of enquiry it was found that the order of reinstatement issued with respect to the petitioner vide letter no. 10018 dated 29.12.1993 which was referred in the letter no. 2580 dated 22.10.1992 was prima facie found to be forged. After coming to this conclusion a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner vide letter no. 3839 dated 27.04.2005 for dismissing the service of the petitioner. Thereafter, impugned order has been passed. 4. 10018 dated 29.12.1993 which was referred in the letter no. 2580 dated 22.10.1992 was prima facie found to be forged. After coming to this conclusion a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner vide letter no. 3839 dated 27.04.2005 for dismissing the service of the petitioner. Thereafter, impugned order has been passed. 4. It has been argued on behalf of learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was reinstated in service by the valid order passed by the competent authority but before recalling the same a regular departmental proceeding was needs to be initiated. The petitioner has been dismissed from service without providing any adequate and sufficient opportunity of being heard. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-State submitted that the petitioner was reinstated in service by commission of forgery. The petitioner was earlier dismissed from service on 20th September 1979 against which the petitioner and others filed a writ petitions before Hon’ble High Court at Patna being C.W.J.C. No. 2993/80, 2294/80 and 2996/80 which was rejected. Subsequently special leave petition was filed before Hon’ble Supreme Court which was also dismissed on 24.04.1981. The petitioner thereafter, was reinstated in service in response to letter no.2580 dated 22.10.1992 and accordingly letter no.10018 dated 29.12.93 was issued directing for reinstatement of the petitioner in service. Accordingly the petitioner joined at Govindpur in the district of Dhanbad under Bihar Armed Police 3 on 09.03.1994. 6. When the petitioner was reinstated in service one Sri Rajendra Bind has filed a writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 7544 of 1999 claiming his reinstatement particularly on the ground of reinstatement of the present petitioner. 7. Thereafter, the enquiry was conducted and it was found that the petitioner was reinstated in service, on the basis of forged letter i.e. letter no. 2580 dated 22.10.1992 and accordingly direction was issued to take appropriate decision in this regard. The petitioner thereafter, was issued a show cause notice and accordingly, he was dismissed from service. 8. It has further been submitted on behalf of learned counsel for the State that since the petitioner was reinstated in service, on the basis of forged document, hence the show cause notice was issued, the petitioner has not justified himself by replying the show cause notice about the forgery that was committed by him. 8. It has further been submitted on behalf of learned counsel for the State that since the petitioner was reinstated in service, on the basis of forged document, hence the show cause notice was issued, the petitioner has not justified himself by replying the show cause notice about the forgery that was committed by him. Since the appointment has been obtained by way of forgery, hence there is no need to initiate a regular departmental proceeding on the ground that forgery negates everything. 9. Heard the parties. 10. Admittedly, the petitioner was dismissed on service on 20.09.1979. While he was deputed in a railway station at (Ara) he fled away instead of counter attacking the nexalite and accordingly, the petitioner was dismissed from service. The dismissal order was assailed by the petitioner along with others before the Patna High Court which was dismissed on 09.12.1980. The special leave petition preferred by the petitioner before Hon’ble Supreme Court which was also dismissed on 24.04.1981. 11. Thus, the petitioner after exhausting the departmental remedy has also contested up to Hon'ble Patna High Court and before the Hon’ble Supreme Court but, the petitioner, has been reinstated in service vide letter no.10018 dated 29.12.1993. This letter was issued in response to letter no. 2580 dated 22.10.1992 which has been referred in the letter dated 29th December, 1993 (Annexure-B) to the counter affidavit. 12. The other constable who were also deputed along with petitioner at that time of deputation at railway station at Ara, who had also been dismissed from service along with the petitioner, had approached to the Hon’ble Patna High Court along with the petitioner by way of preferring separate writ petition. These writ petition were dismissed along with the writ petition of the petitioner. The order passed by the Hon’ble Patna High Court was affirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court. 13. The other constables after coming to know about the reinstatement of the petitioner had preferred a writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 7544 of 1999 claiming his reinstatement on the ground of reinstatement of the petitioner. The competent authority had conducted the enquiry and searched about the basis of which the petitioner was reinstated in service. It was found that the letter no. The competent authority had conducted the enquiry and searched about the basis of which the petitioner was reinstated in service. It was found that the letter no. 2580 dated 22.10.1992, on the basis of which petitioner was reinstated in service by the order passed in this regard by the Home Department, Bihar Patna was found to be forged. This is evident from the detailed enquiry report dated 29.04.2005 as contained at Annexure-C to the counter affidavit. 14. The petitioner thereafter, was issued a show cause notice in terms of letter dated 16.06.2005 (Annexure-E). The petitioner replied, but the authorities came to the conclusions that the letter no. 2580 dated 22.10.92 was forged and since the order of dismissal passed against the petitioner has attained its finality by Hon’ble Supreme Court, hence there is no justification of reinstatement of petitioner in his service. 15. Thus, the petitioner who was admittedly been dismissed from service, his dismissal order attained its finality by Hon’ble Supreme Court but even thereafter, he was reinstated in service. In course of enquiry it was found that on the basis of forged letter petitioner was reinstated in service. Hence, the authorities have rightly come to the conclusions that the petitioner has got no right to remain in service since the appointment has been obtained by way of forgery. 16. So far as the contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that a regular departmental proceeding ought to have been initiated before cancelling the order of reinstatement of the petitioner, I find there is no force in the same due to reason that the petitioner admittedly was dismissed from service and his dismissal has attained its finality up to the level of Hon’ble Supreme Court, and the departmental remedy has also been exhausted. The order of reinstatement has been passed which is contrary to the earlier order of dismissal that to when the decision of the authorities dismissing the petitioner has attained its finality. The authorities have also came to the conclusions in the light of the facts stated in the preceding paragraph that the reinstatement order has been passed on the basis of a forged letter as such the decision has been taken to cancel the order of reinstatement in order to rectify the mistake committed by the Home Department while issuing the order of reinstatement in favour of the petitioner. 17. 17. That since reinstatement order has been obtained on the basis of commission of forgery, it is settled that forgery vitiated everything. If any appointment has been obtained on the ground of forgery there is no requirement to initiate a regular proceeding. 18. It is settled proposition of law where an applicant gets appointed by misrepresenting the facts or by playing forgery upon the competent authority, such an order cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Forgery avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal. It is worth to see the judgment rendered in the case of Devendra Kumar vs. State of Uttaranchal and Others, (2013) 9 SCC 363 wherein at paras 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as follows: 13. It is a settled proposition of law that where an applicant gets an office by misrepresenting the facts or by playing fraud upon the competent authority, such an order cannot be sustained in the eye of law, Fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal. (Vide S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu vs. Jagannath.) In Lazarus Estates Ltd. vs. Beasley the Court observed without equivocation that: (QB p. 712) “No judgment of a court, no order of a Minister can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud, for fraud unravels everything.” 14. In A.P. State Financial Corporation vs. GAR Re-Rolling Mills and State of Maharashtra vs. Prabhu this Court has observed that a writ court, while exercising its equitable jurisdiction, should not act to prevent perpetration of a legal fraud as courts are obliged to do justice by promotion of good faith. Equity is, also, known to prevent the law from the crafty evasions and subtleties invented to evade law. 15. In Shrisht Dhawan vs. Sahw Bros., it has been held as under: (SCC p. 553, para 20) “20. Fraud and collusion vitiate even the most solemn proceedings in any civilized system of jurisprudence. It is a concept descriptive of human conduct.” 16. In United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Rajendra Singh this Court observed that “fraud and justice never dwell together” (fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant) and it is a pristine maxim which has not lost temper over all these centuries. A similar view has been reiterated by this Court in M.P. Mittal vs. State of Haryana. 17. In United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Rajendra Singh this Court observed that “fraud and justice never dwell together” (fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant) and it is a pristine maxim which has not lost temper over all these centuries. A similar view has been reiterated by this Court in M.P. Mittal vs. State of Haryana. 17. In Ram Chandra Singh vs. Savitri Devi this Court held that “misrepresentation itself amounts to fraud” and further held: (SCC p. 327, para 18) “18. A fraudulent misrepresentation is called deceit and consists in leading a man into damage by willfully or recklessly causing him to believe and act on falsehood. It is a fraud in law if a party makes representations which he knows to be false, and injury ensues therefrom although the motive from which the representations proceeded may not have been bad.” The said judgment was reconsidered and approved by the Court in Kendriya Vidyalaye Sangathan vs. Girdharilal Yadav. 18. The ratio laid down by this Court in various cases is that dishonesty should not be permitted to bear the fruit and benefit those persons who have frauded or misrepresented themselves. In such circumstances the court should not perpetuate the fraud by entertaining petitions on their behalf. In Union of India vs. M. Bhaskaran this Court, after placing reliance upon and approving its earlier judgment in Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society vs. M. Tripura Sundari Devi, observed as under: (M. Bhaskaran case, SCC p. 104, para 6) If by committing fraud any employment is obtained, the same cannot be permitted to be countenanced by a court of law as the employment secured by fraud renders it voidable at the option of the employer.” 19. Thus, the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in various cases as indicated hereinabove where dishonesty should not be permitted to bear the fruit and benefit those persons who have frauded or misrepresented themselves. In such circumstances the court should not perpetuate the fraud by entertaining petitions on their behalf. 20. Here, in the instant case it is not the first order of dismissal under challenge rather the order of removal (second) from service is under challenge. 21. In such circumstances the court should not perpetuate the fraud by entertaining petitions on their behalf. 20. Here, in the instant case it is not the first order of dismissal under challenge rather the order of removal (second) from service is under challenge. 21. Hence, in my view there is no requirement to conduct a regular challenge rather the order of removal (second) from service is under challenge departmental proceeding when the matter regarding the dismissal of the petitioner has attained its finality and since the authorities have came to conclusion that the petitioner has come again in service by committing fraud. 22. Hence applying the principles laid down by Hon'ble Court in the case referred herein above the impugned order does not warrant any interference. 23. Hence, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. 24. The writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merit.