Order Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, respondent-C.C.L and the private respondent no.3. 2. This Court vide its order dated 23.4.2014 in the present writ application directed the respondent-C.C.L to conduct a proper inquiry in the matter and submit its finding along with its report. The reason for directing so are evident from the said order itself, which is being quoted herein below for better appreciation:- “The instant controversy needs to be inquired at the first instance by the respondent-Employer through its vigilance department. The reason for directing the respondents-CCL to do so is as follows:- In the present writ application, the writ petitioner Vishwanath Nonia claims himself to be the son of the deceased employee Late Nathuni Nonia and has sought for appointment on compassionate ground and also claimed the death cum retirement benefits on the death of said employee on 7.1.2008. He also has stated that the widow of the deceased employee namely Smt. Lachhmania Kamin had died on 23.11.2008 itself. An intervention application being I.A. No. 1832 of 2014 has been preferred by one another lady namely Laxmaniya Kamin claiming herself to be the wife of the deceased employee Late Nathuni Nonia and also claiming the petitioner to be her son. She has stated that the petitioner had in an invidious manner declared that his mother is dead while the intervenor, Laxmaniya Kamin i.e. mother of the present petitioner and wife of the deceased employee is very much alive. It is also stated that the intervenor had filed a writ petition being W.P.S. No. 481 of 2014 for seeking monetary compensation and death cum retirement dues on account of service of her late husband Late Nathuni Nonia, which was disposed of on 17.2.2014. In the said judgment, which is at Annexure-6 to the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner, the said Laxmaniya Kamin had claimed that she was shown as wife in the service book of the deceased employee and had also received gratuity amount. In the said judgment, which is at Annexure-6 to the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner, the said Laxmaniya Kamin had claimed that she was shown as wife in the service book of the deceased employee and had also received gratuity amount. The writ petition was disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh representation with necessary facts and documents before the General Manager, Dhori Area, Bokaro who in turn was directed to consider the same in accordance with law after due verification of the relevant records of the deceased employee and take a decision on the claim of Provident Fund, Pension, Life Cover Scheme and monetary benefits as also any other service dues by passing a reasoned order within a stipulated period. The writ petitioner in response to the intervention application has annexed the death certificate issued by one Dr. Meena Birua on 23.11.2008 as per which Smt. Lachhmania Kamin aged 59 years designation P/R died on 23.11.2008 at 3.55 a.m. On the other hand learned counsel for the intervenor has submitted that the intervenor is the biological mother of the present petitioner and the lady who is said to have died on 23.11.2008 was not the legally married wife of the deceased employee, Late Nathuni Nonia. He also submitted that the death certificate does not disclose the name of the deceased employee as the husband of the deceased lady. The aforesaid state of facts, therefore give reason of grave doubt about the identity of the parties as the rightful claimant for the admissible death cum retirement dues/compassionate appointment etc in lieu of the deceased employee Nathuni Nonia. Therefore, at the first instance, it is proper to direct the respondent-C.C.L to conduct a proper inquiry in the matter and submit the findings and the report before this Court, thereafter within a period of 8 weeks. Both the petitioner and the intervenor are directed to the cooperate in the said inquiry. It is also indicated that during the pendency of the said inquiry, none of the admissible death cum retirement dues of the deceased employee would be disbursed in favour of either of the parties. Let the writ petition appear under the same heading after 8 weeks. Let a copy of this order be handed over the counsel for the respondent-CCL”. 3. Let the writ petition appear under the same heading after 8 weeks. Let a copy of this order be handed over the counsel for the respondent-CCL”. 3. The respondent-C.C.L has submitted its report in a sealed cover which was opened in the Court on 25.6.2014 and on the request of learned counsel for the parties i.e. petitioner, intervenor/newly added respondent no.3 and the respondent-C.C.L. they were allowed to inspect the same, thereafter they were also allowed to obtain the copies of the said report for offering their response in the matter. The petitioner as well as the private respondents, both have filed response by way of supplementary affidavit and rejoinder respectively. Today submissions have been advanced on behalf of the respective parties on the said report. 4. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner by referring to certain paragraphs of the report is that there is no dispute that petitioner is the son of Late Nathuni Nonia and therefore entitled to claim the death cum retiral benefits of the deceased employee as also appointment on compassionate ground by way of this writ petition. Reference has been made to various paragraphs of the report such as 3.2, 3.16, 3.30 etc. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 has also made his submission on the said report. In substance, he has submitted that the respondent no. 3 is the wife of Late Nathuni Nonia, who of course has two names, Durpatia Kamin and Laxmaniya Kamin. She has also stated in her rejoinder that earlier she was an employee under the respondent-management under the name Durpatia Kamin and as she was not keeping good health, therefore her brother was appointed in her place by the management. The gratuity of the deceased employee Nathuni Nonia was also paid to her on 27.8.2008 but an F.I.R was instituted against the Officer, who had disbursed the cheque, though it was not mentioned in the F.I.R that it was issued to the wrong person. This respondent had earlier filed a writ petition being W.P.S No. 481 of 2014 seeking monetary compensation and death cum retirement dues on account of late Nathuni Nonia stating that he was her husband. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent-C.C.L. has by referring to the report and its various paragraphs made categorical submissions that both the petitioner and the private respondent no. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent-C.C.L. has by referring to the report and its various paragraphs made categorical submissions that both the petitioner and the private respondent no. 3 have indulged in impersonation and have misused the forum of this Court for obtaining relief as also committing serious offence such as forgery and cheating. He has also made submission that a criminal case be directed to be instituted against the persons involved apart from the petitioner and the private respondents whose action/omission have been found during the course of the vigilance inquiry. He has also referred to the issuance of various certificates by the authorities like Block Development Officer (B.D.O.), Bermo with contradictory declarations about the death cum membership certificate of the deceased employee Nathuni Nonia. 7. I have heard the parties at some length and also perused the relevant materials on record and more specifically the report submitted by the Vigilance department of the respondent-C.C.L. The report is a detailed one dealing with the following points:- i. The background of the case. ii. The issue raised in the writ petition filed by the present petitioner as also the writ petition being W.P.S. No. 481 of 2014 filed by the private respondents. iii. The relevant facts which have been borne out from the declarations made by late Nathuni Nonia about his family members. iv. The facts relating to Smt. Laxmania Kamin, an employee of Dhori Colliery and her alleged son-nominee Kishun Nonia. v. The facts relating to Ramesh Kumar claiming to be Bishwanath Nonia/Vishwanath Nonia, alleged son of Late Nathuni Nonia. vi. The facts relating to Durpatia Kamin claiming herself to be Laxmania Kamin, alleged wife of late Nathuni Nonia. vii. The facts relating to fraudulent withdrawal of gratuity of Nathuni Nonia. viii. The role of B.D.O, Bermo, Bokaro. 8. Based upon detailed inquiry as aforesaid in the respect of each of the facts, conclusions have been drawn in the said report. The report also annexes the relevant documents and annexures which were considered during the course of the inquiry. 9. The writ petitioner preferred his claim as aforesaid stating both that his father late Nathuni Nonia died on 7.1.2008 leaving behind his son i.e. the present petitioner and his widow Laxmaniya Kamin. The mother of the petitioner died on 23.11.2008. The report also annexes the relevant documents and annexures which were considered during the course of the inquiry. 9. The writ petitioner preferred his claim as aforesaid stating both that his father late Nathuni Nonia died on 7.1.2008 leaving behind his son i.e. the present petitioner and his widow Laxmaniya Kamin. The mother of the petitioner died on 23.11.2008. The findings in the report however shows that in the service excerpts of the said Laxmaniya Kamin, in the list of family members, the name of one Kishun Nonia was there apart from Nathuni Nonia as her husband. The name of the petitioner, Vishwanath Nonia did not appear anywhere in the said service excerpts. It also transpired during the course of inquiry that one Ramesh Kumar has staked his claim of being the same person i.e. Vishwanath Nonia/Bishwanath Nonia, alleged son of Nanthuni Nonia. The said Ramesh Kumar had confessed that he is the son of Smt. Durpatia Kamin. The private respondent in her statement recorded during the course of inquiry on 13.5.2014 also confessed that she is both Laxmaniya Kamin as well as Durpatia Kamin. In fact she was a piece rated employee of Dhori Colliery where she was appointed in 1972 with her husband's name as Radha Singh. Thereafter, she took voluntary retirement from service on 12.3.1979. One Banarasi Singh got employment under SFVRS from Durpatia Kamin, wife of Radha Singh by claiming himself to be son of Durpatia Devi. Durpatia Devi also stated that she did not have any identification paper in the name of Laxmaniya Kamin issued prior to 2008 i.e. prior to death of late Nathuni Nonia. However, after the death of the said employee, bills for payment of gratuity and life cover scheme was initiated on 14.5.2008 in favour of Laxmaniya Kamain, as per the nomination made by the late employee. However, the Finance Manager, Area Accounts Office, Dhori found that there was apparent discrepancy in the name and gender of the person in whose favour the said amount was to be paid in her account bearing no. 4545000100007507 at Punjab National Bank branch at Phusro. The role of the B.D.O, Bermo has also been found to be doubtful as 3 different certificates were issued by the same office regarding death cum membership certificate in the name of Nathuni Nonia, details of which have been given in the report. 4545000100007507 at Punjab National Bank branch at Phusro. The role of the B.D.O, Bermo has also been found to be doubtful as 3 different certificates were issued by the same office regarding death cum membership certificate in the name of Nathuni Nonia, details of which have been given in the report. The Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro has also been informed of the irregularity committed on the issuance of 3 different certificates vide letter dated 21.5.2014. However, it is stated that no reply has been received from the said office, thereafter. Perusal of the instant report, therefore, gives a very grim and sordid picture of dubious claims being raised on the basis of impersonation of one or the other persons, not only the petitioner but also by the private respondent no.3. It also indicates that some employment have also been undertaken on misrepresentation. The aforesaid action/omission of the concerned persons including the petitioner and the private respondent therefore makes out a prima facie case of commission of offence under the Indian Penal Code such as cheating by impersonation, forgery, use of fabricated documents, making of evidence known to be false as also making false statement and declarations in order to obtain relief from this Court. The findings of the vigilance inquiry are also accordingly being quoted herein below:- 4.0 Findings: 4.1 Regarding claims of petitioners/alleged dependents of Late Nathuni Nonia: Writ Petition(S) No. 5549/2013 filed by Shri Vishwanath Nonia on 3.09.2013:- The findings vis-a-vis the argument/claim of the petitioner is as under:- Argument/claim made by petitioner in Writ Petition(S) No. 5549/2013 Findings by CCL Vigilance I. That the petitioner's name is Shri Vishwanath Nonia and he is the only child of Late Nathuni Nonia who died on 7.01.2008. II. That the petitioner's name appears as the sole son in the family details in the service record of Late Nathuni Nonia. III. That the petitioner's father joined the service on 3.10.1972 and in the service record for Gratuity, petitioner's mother was nominated as nominee. IV. That the petitioner's mother who was working as PR in Dhori Colliery also died on 23.11.2008 at CCL Hospital. V. There was none in the family to look after the petitioner. The petitioner had submitted application within 6 months for compassionate employment. IV. That the petitioner's mother who was working as PR in Dhori Colliery also died on 23.11.2008 at CCL Hospital. V. There was none in the family to look after the petitioner. The petitioner had submitted application within 6 months for compassionate employment. I. (a) Contrary to the claim, the petitioner's real name is Sri Ramesh Kumar, as per his own confession and as evident from electoral list (as mentioned in para 3.27 & 3.29). As mentioned in para 3.29, Shri Ramesh Kumar is not having any identification paper in the name of Bishwanath Nonia issued prior to 2008 i.e. prior to the death of Late Nathuni Nonia. Smt. Rina Kumari, D/o Smt. Durpatia Kamin and sister of Ramesh Kumar has also stated that Ramesh Kumar is claiming himself to be Bishwanath Nonia but in fact he is not Bishwanath Nonia (as mentioned in para 3.44). (b) The petitioner's parentage is doubtful, as he has confessed that Durpatia Kamin is his mother. As per the service sheet of Durpatia Kamin, her husband name is Radha Singh whereas as per the electoral list, Nathuni Nonia has been mentioned as husband of Draupadi Devi and father of Ramesh Kumar (as mentioned in 3.38 & 3.27) II. Contrary to the claim, the service records (both pension forms and LLTC declaration) of Late Nathuni Nonia not only contains the name of Vishwanath Nonia but also of Rina Kumari and Shankar Nonia (as mentioned in para 3.5 & 3.8). Discrepancy in age as well as name of family members have been observed in the different declarations made in the service sheet by Late Nathuni Nonia. Even Late Lachhamaniya Kamin , whom the petitioner has claimed to be his mother, had declared not him but one Shri Kishun Nonia as her only child (as mentioned in para 3.12 & 3.16). III. Though Laxmaniya Kamin/Lachhamaniya Kamin had been nominated as nominee by Late Nathuni Nonia but she was not the actual/biological mother of the petitioner, as claimed by him. Even Late Lachhamaniya Kamin, whom the petitioner has claimed to be his mother, had declared not him but one Shri Kishun Nonia as her only child (as mentioned in para 3.12 & 3.16). IV. Though it is true that Lachhamaniya Kamin working in Dhori Colliery died on 23.11.2008 but, as mentioned above, she was not the actual mother of the petitioner. IV. Though it is true that Lachhamaniya Kamin working in Dhori Colliery died on 23.11.2008 but, as mentioned above, she was not the actual mother of the petitioner. V. The petitioner's mother, sister and wife are alive. The petitioner has made first claim on 19.03.12 only for CMPF refund and not for employment as mentioned in para 3.2. Hence, the petitioner's assertion of having applied for employment within six months is not true. Writ Petition(S) No.481/2014 filed by one Laxmaniya Kamin in January 2014:- The findings vis-a-vis the argument/claim of the petitioner is as under: Argument/claim made by petitioner in Writ Petition(S) No.481/2014 Findings by CCL Vigilance I. That the petitioner's name is Smt. Laxmaniya Kamin and she is the wife of Late Nathuni Nonia who died on 7.01.2008. II. That the petitioner's husband joined the service on 3.10.1972. III. That the petitioner's name appears as the wife in the service records of Late Nathuni Nonia. IV. That the petitioner is nominee of Late Nathuni Nonia, as per the service records of Late Nathuni Nonia. V. That the petitioner, being Laxmaniya Kamin, wife & nominee of Late Nathuni Nonia had legally received gratuity of Late Nathuni Nonia. I. (a) Contrary to the claim, the petitioner's real name is Durpatia Kamin, as per her own confession and as evident from electoral list (as mentioned in para 3.40 &3.42). As mentioned in para 3.43, Smt. Durpatia Kamin is not having any identification paper in the name of Laxmaniya Kamin issued prior to 2008 i.e. prior to the death of Late Nathuni Nonia. Her son Shri Ramesh Kumar, her daughter Smt. Rina Kumari and her niece Manmati Kumari have also identified the petitioner as Smt.Durpatia Kamin (as stated in para 3.44, 3.45 & 3.46). (b) The petitioner's status as wife of Late Nathuni Nonia is doubtful because as per her own service sheet, her husband's name is Radha Singh. Although as per the electoral list her husband name is Nathuni Nonia (as mentioned in para 3.38 & 3.40), but the name Durpatia Kamin does not appear anywhere in the Service Sheet of Late Nathuni Nonia. Further, as per her own confession and as per the statement of her daughter, Smt. Rina Kumari, her marriage with Nathuni Nonia was never solemnized (as mentioned in para 3.42 & 3.44). II. Further, as per her own confession and as per the statement of her daughter, Smt. Rina Kumari, her marriage with Nathuni Nonia was never solemnized (as mentioned in para 3.42 & 3.44). II. Though Late Nathuni Nonia joined service on 3.10.1972 but from above it is not certain if he was the legally wedded husband of the petitioner (as also mentioned in para 3.42 & 3.44) III. & IV. As mentioned in para 3.41, the name Durpatia Kamin does not appear anywhere in the Service Sheet of Late Nathuni Nonia. In the service record of Late Nathuni Nonia , the name of Laxmaniya kamin, who worked in Dhori Colliery, appears as his wife as well as nominee (as mentioned from para 3.3 to 3.8). As mentioned in para 3.7, a joint photograph of Late Nathuni Nonia with his wife Late Lachhamaniya Kamin has also been found in his Pension application, submitted few days before his death. The same does not bear any resemblance to the intervener, Smt. Durpatia Kamin claiming to be Laxmaniya Kamin. V. As elaborated from para 3.48 to 3.62, the petitioner has fraudulently withdrawn the gratuity in respect of Late Nathuni Nonia by impersonating as Laxmaniya Kamin, the wife & nominee of Late Nathuni Nonia. Supplementary affidavit to Writ Petition(S) No. 5549 of 2013 by the petitioner Shri Vishwanath Nonia:- The findings vis-a-vis the argument/ claim of the petitioner are as under:- Argument/ claim made by petitioner to Writ Petition(S) No.5549 of 2013 Findings by CCL Vigilance I. That the petitioner in Writ Petition (S) No. 481/2014 has claimed herself to be Laxmaniya Kamin W/o Lt. Nathuni Nonia whereas Laxmaniya Kamin mother of petitioner in Writ Petition(S) No. 5549 of 2013 has already died on 23.11.2008 at Gandhinagar Hospital, Ranchi. A certificate in this regard has already been issued by the Hospital authority. II. That the petitioner in Writ Petition (S) No. 481/2014 is a fraud lady claiming to be Laxmaniya Kamin and trying to grab the legal dues/payment of the petitioner's father. I. Though it is true that petitioner (Smt. Durpatia Kamin) in Writ Petition(s) No. 481/2014 has falsely claimed herself to be but it is Laxmaniya Kamin, the also true that the petitioner (Shri Bishwanath Nonia) in Writ Petition(S) No. 5549 of 2013 has also falsely declared late Lachhamaniya Kamin/Laxmaniya Kamin, who died on 23.11.2008, as his actual mother. I. Though it is true that petitioner (Smt. Durpatia Kamin) in Writ Petition(s) No. 481/2014 has falsely claimed herself to be but it is Laxmaniya Kamin, the also true that the petitioner (Shri Bishwanath Nonia) in Writ Petition(S) No. 5549 of 2013 has also falsely declared late Lachhamaniya Kamin/Laxmaniya Kamin, who died on 23.11.2008, as his actual mother. As mentioned in para 3.16, name of Shri Bishwanath Nonia does not appear anywhere in the service records of Late Lachhamaniya Kamin. Late Lachhamaniya Kamin had declared Shri Kishun Nonia as her son in her Service Sheet. Further, as mentined in para 3.18, Shri Kishun Nonia refused to identify Shri Bishwanath Nonia as his brother. Moreover, Ramesh Kumar (falsely claiming to be Bishwanath Nonia) has confessed in his statement dated 13.5.14 that he is son of Durpatia Kamin. Smt. Rina Kumari, D/o Smt. Durpatia Kamain and sister of Ramesh Kumar has also stated that Ramesh Kumar is the son of Durpatia Kamin, as mentioned in para 3.44. II. Although this assertion of the petitioner (Ramesh Kumar falsely claiming to be Bishwanath Nonia) regarding Laxmaniya Kamin is true, but his claim that Late Nathuni Nonia was his father is also doubtful. Intervention Application No. 1832/2014 by the petitioner of Writ Petition(S) No. 481/2014:- The findings vis-a-vis the argument/claim of the petitioner are as under: Argument/claim made by the petitioner of Writ Petition(S) No.481/2014 and intervener in I.A. No. 1832/2014 Findings by CCL Vigilance I. That the intervener (Durpatia Kamin claiming to be Smt. Laxmaniya Kamin) claims herself to the biological mother of the writ petitioner of W.P. (S) No. 5549/2013. II. That the intervener, (Durpatia Kamin claiming to be Smt. Laxmaniya Kamin) claims herself to be the surviving widow of Late Nathuni Nonia. III. That wife of Late Nathuni Nonia is not dead but and intervener is the said Laxmaniya Kamin, wife of Late Nathuni Nonia. IV. That the lady whom the petitioner of W.P.S. 5549/2013 had declared as wife of Late Nathuni Nonia and who died on 23.11.2008 was not the legally married wife of the deceased employee. V. That the death certificate of the said lady, who died on 23.11.2008 does not bear the name of Late Nathuni Nonia as her husband. IV. That the lady whom the petitioner of W.P.S. 5549/2013 had declared as wife of Late Nathuni Nonia and who died on 23.11.2008 was not the legally married wife of the deceased employee. V. That the death certificate of the said lady, who died on 23.11.2008 does not bear the name of Late Nathuni Nonia as her husband. I. The intervener 's identity as Laxmaniya Kamin is not true but her assertion that she is the biological mother of the petitioner (Ramesh Kumar claiming to be Bishwanath Nonia) of W.P.S No. 5549 of 2013 is true (as evident from facts mentioned from para 3.27 to 3.32 etc.) II. The petitioner's marital status is doubtful because as per her own service sheet, her husband's name is Radha Singh where as as per the alive electoral list her husband name is Nathuni Nonia (as mentioned in 3.38 & 3.40). Moreover, as mentioned in para 3.41, the name Durpatia Kamin does not appear anywhere in the Service Sheet of Late Nathuni Nonia (as mentioned in para 3.3. to 3.9) III. The intervener's assertion is not true because Lachchamaniya Kamin, ex-employee of Dhori Colliery and wife of Late Nathuni Nonia is not alive but dead, as evident from death certificate as well as reply of present B.D.O,, Bermo (as mentioned in para 3.11, 3.17 & 3.63) IV. As per the service record of Late Nathuni Nonia, Smt. Laxmaniya Kamin, Lachchamaniya Kamin was his wife and nominee. Also, as per the service record of Late Lachchamaniya Kamin, Nathuni Nonia was her husband. Moreover, the intervener Smt. Durpatia Kamin claiming to be Smt. Laxmaniya Kamin neither produced any proof of her marriage with Late Nathuni Nonia nor any proof of her identity, issued before 2008, as Laxmaniya Kamin (as mentioned in para 3.42 & 3.43). V. This assertion of the intervener is not true, as death certificate of Late Lachhamaniya Kamin, referred to in para 3.17, bears the name of Nathuni Nonia as her husband. 5.0 Conclusion 5.1 From the service records of Late Nathuni Nonia, service records of Late Lachamaniya Kamin, electoral list and statement of some of the workers, it transpires that late Nathuni Nonia, Ex-Ambulance Khalasi, Central Hospital Dhori was involved with two women namely Late Lachamaniya Kamin/Laxmaniya Kamin, Ex-PR Worker, Dhori Collierey and Smt. Durpatia Kamin claiming to be Laxmaniya Kamin. 5.0 Conclusion 5.1 From the service records of Late Nathuni Nonia, service records of Late Lachamaniya Kamin, electoral list and statement of some of the workers, it transpires that late Nathuni Nonia, Ex-Ambulance Khalasi, Central Hospital Dhori was involved with two women namely Late Lachamaniya Kamin/Laxmaniya Kamin, Ex-PR Worker, Dhori Collierey and Smt. Durpatia Kamin claiming to be Laxmaniya Kamin. Late Nathuni Nonia had himself made different declarations about his family members at different point of time, but in none of the official declarations, he mentioned Durpatia Kamin as his wife. In every declaration, Late Lachamaniya Kamin/Laxmaniya Kamin was indicated as his wife. Names of Draupdi/Durpatia Kamin and Ramesh did not feature in any of the PS forms or any other place. Had they been wife and sons of Late Nathuni Nonia, they would have got their names included in the service sheet/service records of Late Nathuni Nonia. 5.2 While claiming retiral benefits and compassionate employment in respect of Late Nathuni Nonia, the petitioner of WPS 5549/2013, Shri Ramesh Kumar has claimed to be Bishwanath Nonia, declared as son by Late Nathuni Nonia in his service sheet. However as per his own confession, electoral list, statement of his mother Durpatia Kamin (claiming to be Laxmaniya Kamin), statement of his sister Smt. Rina Kumari & other employees, he is Ramesh Kumar rather than Bishwanath Nonia. The petitioner has concealed his true identity and has taken up the name of Bishwanath Nonia. Further, Late Lachamaniaya Kamin who died on 23.11.2008 at Central Hospital, Gandhi Nagar, Ranchi and whom the petitioner has declared his mother was not his actual mother. 5.3 While claiming retiral benefits in respect of Late Nathuni Nonia, the petitioner of WPS 481/2014 and intervener in I.A. No. 1832/2014, Smt. Durpatia Kamin has claimed to be Laxmaniya Kamin, declared as wife and nominee by Late Nathuni Nonia in his service sheet. However, as per her own confession, electoral list, statement of her son Shri Ramesh Kumar (claiming to be Bishwanath Nonia), statement of her daughter Smt. Rina Kumari & other employees, she is Durpatia Kamin. The petitioner has concealed her true identify and has acquired a new persona to withdraw death cum retiral benefit in respect of Late Nathuni Nonia. However, as per her own confession, electoral list, statement of her son Shri Ramesh Kumar (claiming to be Bishwanath Nonia), statement of her daughter Smt. Rina Kumari & other employees, she is Durpatia Kamin. The petitioner has concealed her true identify and has acquired a new persona to withdraw death cum retiral benefit in respect of Late Nathuni Nonia. 5.4 As elaborated from para 3.48 to 3.62, while processing and disbursing the Gratuity and Life Cover Scheme(LCS) in respect of Late Nathuni Nonia, a fake bank account was opened in Punjab National Bank, Phusro for Smt. Durpatia Kamin by impersonating her as Laxmaniya Kamin where as the actual nominee Late Lachamaniya Kamin/Laxmaniya Kamin was alive at that time and had also given an application for correction in the Bank Account number, Shri O.P. Singh, Ex-Upper Division Clerk, Regional Hospital Dhori was instrumental in arranging fraudulent withdrawal of Rs. 2,77,300/-towards Gratuity and LCS of Late Nathuni Nonia and payment to Smt. Durpatia Kamin. Subsequently an F.I.R was lodged against Shri O.P. Singh by the then Dy. Chief Medical Officer, Regional Hospital Dhori on 25.09.2008 and Shri Singh was soon taken into judicial custody by the local police and was in custody up to 20.10.2008. However, the outcome of FIR lodged against Shri O.P. Singh has not yet been communicated to CCL. 5.5 Complicity of CCL officials in the fraudulent withdrawal and payment of Gratuity & Life cover scheme (LCS) of Late Nathuni Nonia and in other related issues have also been observed. All the noted irregularities will be separately investigated for Departmental Action. 5.6 As mentioned in para 3.63 to 3.65, the issue of claim to Death cum Retiral benefit in respect of Late Nathuni Nonia was made complicated by the then Block Development Officer (B.D.O.), Bermo, Bokaro who had issued three different “Death cum Membership Certificates” in respect of Late Nathuni Nonia . The present B.D.O, Bermo, Bokaro has confirmed about the issuance of above three different certificates but has not yet provided the actual details of family members of Late Nathuni Nonia. In this regard, two letters dated 9.05.14 and 19.5.14 were sent to Deputy Commissioner (D.C.) Bokaro. Further vide letter dated 21.05.14 the apparent irregularity in issuance of three different “Death cum Membership Certificates' in respect of Late Nathuni Nonia by the then B.D.O. Bermo, Bokaro has also been communicated to the D.C. Bokaro for appropriate action. In this regard, two letters dated 9.05.14 and 19.5.14 were sent to Deputy Commissioner (D.C.) Bokaro. Further vide letter dated 21.05.14 the apparent irregularity in issuance of three different “Death cum Membership Certificates' in respect of Late Nathuni Nonia by the then B.D.O. Bermo, Bokaro has also been communicated to the D.C. Bokaro for appropriate action. It was requested that present family details of Late Nathuni Nonia may be got verified and a report be sent to CCL Vigilance. However till date no reply has been received from the DC, Bokaro. 5.7 It can be concluded that both the petitioner and the intervener in the instant case have indulged in fraudulent activities. They have even misled the Hon'ble Court by way of concealing their true identities and suppression of the material facts. Keeping in view of the apparent fraudulence in the case, the subject case may be referred to the local police for suitable action”. 10. In these circumstances, this Court considers it proper to direct the respondent-C.C.L. through its Vigilance department to institute F.I.R. before the concerned Police Station where the offences have been committed within a period of 15 days also enclosing the entire copy of the vigilance inquiry report including its annexures and any other relevant documents. The copy of this order be also forwarded to the Superintendent of Police concerned under whose jurisdiction the said F.I.R. is instituted. The investigating agency would proceed with the investigation thereafter and submit their report before the concerned Court in accordance with law. It is however made clear that the observations made herein above are only prima facie in nature and investigating agency would carry its statutory duty in accordance with law based upon the materials obtained during the investigation as also against any other person found involved in the commission of any such offence under the Indian Penal Code or any other Penal laws in respect of the aforesaid actions/ omissions. 11. Since the offences have also been committed in relation to the proceedings before the Court, the writ petition is kept pending. The Superintendent of Police concerned would submit his report before this Court about the progress of investigation after a period of 2 months. The interim order dated 23.4.2014 shall continue till further orders. 12. In that view of the matter, let the case be listed after 2 months on 7.11.2014. The Superintendent of Police concerned would submit his report before this Court about the progress of investigation after a period of 2 months. The interim order dated 23.4.2014 shall continue till further orders. 12. In that view of the matter, let the case be listed after 2 months on 7.11.2014. Let a copy of this order of handed over the counsel for the respondent-C.C.L.