JUDGMENT B. Amit Sthalekar,J. Heard Dr. R.S. Pande, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri I.D. Shukla, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed for a direction to the respondents to allow the petitioner to discharge his duties on the post of Clerk in the School and to pay him salary. 3. A preliminary objection has been raised by Sri I.D. Shukla, learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner has not come with clean hands and there is material concealment of fact, which he has referred to in his counter affidavit. He has referred to Annexure-1 to the counter affidavit, which is the postal envelop containing letter dated 8.4.2010 calling upon the petitioner to submit his explanation within one week regarding his unauthorized absent from duty. This postal envelop shows the postal endorsement of 'lene se inkar' . Annexure-CA-3 is a chargesheet, which was issued to the petitioner, which clearly mentions that the petitioner was in jail and he had manipulated in sending his representation/application from the jail itself. In the entire body of the writ petition the petitioner has nowhere disclosed that he was in jail at any point of time. Even in the rejoinder affidavit the petitioner has not denied the charges in the chargesheet (Annexure-CA-3). The only stand taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is no averment to this effect in the counter affidavit and petitioner did not give any reply merely because there is no direct averment that the petitioner has no obligation to give his specific reply to serious allegation, which is Annexure-CA-6 along with the counter affidavit. Annexure-CA-6 is letter written by one Ram Kripal Singh to the Finance Officer (Basic Education), wherein in para-4 (at page-19 of the counter affidavit) he has stated that the petitioner was in jail and he was also placed under suspension and a reply was sought from him to the show cause notice dated 8.4.2010, which was not submitted by him and thereafter chargesheet was issued to him, which was also refused to be received by him. 4. In para-8 of the rejoinder affidavit all that has been stated is that the Manager Sri Ram Kripal has been removed from the office and this is the Principal, who has filed counter affidavit and he has manufactured all the documents. 4. In para-8 of the rejoinder affidavit all that has been stated is that the Manager Sri Ram Kripal has been removed from the office and this is the Principal, who has filed counter affidavit and he has manufactured all the documents. But there is no reference of CA-6 of the counter affidavit in the rejoinder affidavit. Petitioner has also nowhere denied that he has refused to accept the postal envelop containing the chargesheet. So far as Annexure-CA-1 is concerned, which is the postal receipt, all that has been stated that it is a manufactured document. It is surprising that every document, which is against the petitioner, has been denied stating that it is a manufactured and fraudulent document. Postal receipt (CA-1) containing seal of the postal department, which was sent by registered post, also shows that there is a postal endorsement on which it is stated that the petitioner has refused to accept the same 'lene se inkar'. Thus there would be a presumption of service on the petitioner under Section 27 of the General Causes Act. 5. Therefore, considering the documents on record and pleadings of the parties, it is quite clear that the petitioner has approached this Court by concealing material facts that he was in jail and when a question was put to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to why this fact has not been disclosed in the writ petition at the initial stage, the submission was that there is no documentary evidence to that effect in the counter counter filed by the respondents. This is even more surprising that if the petitioner was in jail, this fact is not known to him (petitioner) but is required to be proved by documentary evidence in the counter affidavit. Thus in the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the confirmed opinion that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands and has rather deliberately concealed material facts from the Court. 6. The writ petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.5000/- which shall be paid by the petitioner in the name of Library Fund of the Oudh Bar Association Lucknow within 15 days from the receipt of certified copy of this order through the Senior Registrar, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow. 7. 6. The writ petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.5000/- which shall be paid by the petitioner in the name of Library Fund of the Oudh Bar Association Lucknow within 15 days from the receipt of certified copy of this order through the Senior Registrar, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents further informs that after chargesheet nothing has been done in the departmental proceeding as the petitioner is not cooperating with the same. Since chargesheet has already been filed along with the counter affidavit and the petitioner is aware of the charges, it is open for him to participate in the enquiry. The respondents shall conclude the departmental enquiry within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of this order is received by him. It is will be open for the respondents to lodge an F.I.R. against the petitioner for manipulation and fabricating false documents.