Order : The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order dated 31.03.2010 and 02.10.2010 passed by the disciplinary authority as well as by the appellate authority, respectively by which the petitioner was dismissed from service. 2. Heard the parties and perused the document on record. 3. The facts which has been argued on behalf of petitioner is that the petitioner being a member of Home Guard Vahini at Munger in terms of advertisement no. 01/1998 had made an application for being considered to be appointed as Constable, the petitioner was directed to appear vide letter of notice in this regard on 21.12.1999, and accordingly after being declared successful he was appointed as Constable on 01.03.2000, thereafter, he started discharging his duty. Later, on the basis of one anonymous complaint regarding commission of forgery committed by the petitioner, a regular departmental proceeding was initiated by serving memorandum of charge upon the petitioner. 4. Petitioner accordingly had given due reply by putting his appearance before the Enquiry Officer by denying the entire allegation but the Enquiry Officer found the charge proved against him. But initially neither the Enquiry Officer nor the disciplinary authority has considered the entire aspect of the matter and reached to the conclusion that the forgery has been committed by the petitioner and accordingly, disciplinary authority dismissed the petitioner from service. 5. The contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner is that the Enquiry Officer has not given any concrete finding regarding conclusive proof of the charge but the disciplinary authority has accepted the same and passed the major punishment of dismissal from service without any fraud on the part of the petitioner. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents-State has submitted that the petitioner has been provided an opportunity of being heard. The Enquiry Officer on the basis of material on record supported by the oral statement of the witnesses as also the original application form containing the signature of petitioner both given before the Home Guard and in District Police has reached to right conclusion proving the charge against him. Since, the petitioner has committed forgery for the purpose of getting appointment hence it is immaterial regarding the length of service since the appointment has been obtained by way of forgery. 7. Since, the petitioner has committed forgery for the purpose of getting appointment hence it is immaterial regarding the length of service since the appointment has been obtained by way of forgery. 7. After hearing the rival submissions of the parties and perusal of record, it is evident that before appointment as Constable, petitioner was member of Home Guard. Petitioner made application on the basis of certificate of Home Guard. After appointment, when the educational qualification of petitioner was inquired into, it was found that the petitioner has obtained appointment by making forgery, provided his educational qualification of his brother for getting appointment which is forgery and mischief. 8. Petitioner has been provided full opportunity to prevent himself and thereafter, the Conducting Officer has reached to a conclusion of commission of forgery having been proved the charge against him. 9. The disciplinary authority after accepting the enquiry report has passed the order of dismissal from service on the basis of the statements given by the witnesses namely, Sri Sailendra Prasad Burnwal, Shri Rajendra Kumar Chaudhery and Shri Nirmal Kumar Jha, who have confirmed the charge leveled against the petitioner. 10. The petitioner had also been given opportunity to give reply to second show cause notice but no such reply had been submitted by him for which it is apparent that petitioner had nothing to say in defence before the disciplinary authority. Considering the nature of allegation and also the concurrent findings of the authorities of the Department, I find no reason to interfere with the findings given by the authorities sitting under Article 226 of Constitution of India by reappraising the evidence. 11. It is settled principle of law that in the matter of departmental proceeding, the scope of judicial review is very limited. 12. 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 reported in (2013) 9 SCC 363 wherein at paras 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as follows: 13. 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 reported in (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 v. Jagannath.) In Lazarus Estates Ltd. v. 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 Corpn. Vs GAR Re-Rolling Mills and State of Maharashtra v. 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 v. 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. v. 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 v. State of Haryana. 17. In Ram Chandra Singh v. 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.” 18. 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.” 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 v. M. Bhaskaran this Court, after placing reliance upon and approving its earlier judgment in Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society v. 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.” 13. 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. 14. When there is a concurrent findings of the authorities, the reappraisal of the evidence for disturbing the findings would not be proper. In that view of the matter, since the petitioner has committed forgery and mischief, I find no merit in the writ petition. 15. Accordingly, this writ petition is hereby dismissed.