ORDER : In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has, inter-alia, prayed for quashing the order dated 11.12.2009 passed by the Director, Secondary Education, Ranchi pertaining to non acceptance of appointment of the petitioner and for a direction upon the District Education Officer, Giridih for recovery of the amount received by the petitioner from Government funds by instituting case under Public Demand & Recovery Act and for direction commanding upon respondents to allow the allow the petitioner to join on the post of Assistant Teacher and for issuance of appropriate writ/direction commanding upon the respondent 3 to proceed in accordance with observations/directions passed by the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 05.02.2009 in W.P.(S) No. 1933 of 2009. 2. Sans details facts as disclosed in the writ application in the nutshell is that, the petitioner moved before this Court in W.P.(S.) No. 1933 of 2009 praying therein for direction to accept the joining of petitioner and vide order dated 5.9.2009, the said writ petition has been disposed of with a direction to the appointing authority i.e. respondent no. 3, Director, Secondary Education should look into the matter and if he is prima-facie satisfied about the forged nature of the certificates of the petitioner and comes to the prima-facie conclusion that the petitioner has obtained his appointment on the strength of forged certificates he should issue a proper show cause notice to the petitioner setting out the allegations and the materials on which the allegations are being prima-facie accepted. Thereafter, the appointing authority must pass a reasoned order considering the material before it including the petitioner's reply in response to the show-cause notice, recording a finding with reasons as to whether those certificates are forged and whether the appointment has been obtained on the strength of forged certificates. If the findings by the Director on the two issues are against the petitioner. It will be open to the Director to cancel the appointment of the petitioner and in that event any salary paid to the petitioner may also be recovered from the petitioner. The Director will take the decision contemplated above in this order within three months of the date on which a certified copy of this order is present before the Director. 3. The petitioner has been appointed by order issued from office of Director, Bihar Secondary Education, Patna vide memo no. The Director will take the decision contemplated above in this order within three months of the date on which a certified copy of this order is present before the Director. 3. The petitioner has been appointed by order issued from office of Director, Bihar Secondary Education, Patna vide memo no. 3806-4155 dated 31.3.1983 in pursuance to the letter dated 13.4.2010 issued under the provisions of Right to Information Act the Public Information, Bihar Secondary Education Office, Patna has informed and confirmed that the posting of petitioner was made in High School of Basdiha, Aurangabad and that petitioner was adjusted in Smt. Surat Kuwar High School, Balari, Belaganj, Gaya and at the time of his posting petitioner's educational qualification was trained graduate. On the complaint made by some local people against the petitioner and some other teachers that his certificates of qualifications are forged and they have illegally on strength of money, obtained the appointment letter. The petitioner was verbally asked by the then District Education Officer, Giridh to produce his original certificates, in September 2004 and thereafter the petitioner produced and submitted his original education certificates before the District Education Officer, Giridih but the same was not returned to the petitioner. Petitioner's salary was not paid without any information then petitioner moved before this Court in W.P.(S) No. 2407 of 2005 which was disposed of vide order dated 29.11.2006 with liberty to the petitioner to make a representation before the authorities. Despite the representation, since the grievances of the petitioner was not mitigated, the petitioner has filed a contempt petitioner Contempt (Civil) No. 436 of 2007 and during the pendency of the contempt petition, the arrear of salary has been paid to the petitioner. A charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner vide order dated 14.11.2008 and the petitioner has submitted his reply. On the basis of the charge-sheet an inquiry was conducted and the inquiry report has been submitted by the Regional Deputy Director of Education, North Chhotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh on 24.03.2009 and a copy of the said inquiry report was never served upon the petitioner. The charge-sheet has not been proved against the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his reply /charge-sheet before the respondent nos. 2 & 3 on 10.6.2009. The impugned order dated 11.12.2009 has been passed by the Director, Secondary Education in compliance to the order dated 05.09.2009 passed in W.P.(S) No. 1933 of 2009. The charge-sheet has not been proved against the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his reply /charge-sheet before the respondent nos. 2 & 3 on 10.6.2009. The impugned order dated 11.12.2009 has been passed by the Director, Secondary Education in compliance to the order dated 05.09.2009 passed in W.P.(S) No. 1933 of 2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously urged that the impugned order dated 11.12.2009 passed by respondent no. 3 is unfair and the same has not been passed in due compliance to the order dated 5.9.2009 passed in W.P.(S.) No.1933 of 2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in absence of specific findings with reasons as to whether the appointment has been obtained on the strength of forged certificates or not. Due to lack of conclusive findings the appointment of the petitioner ought not to have been cancelled. 4. Per contra a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent no. 3 repelling the contentions made in the writ application. It has been, inter alia, contended in the counter affidavit that the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Hazaribagh was appointed as conducting officer and vide letter dated 14.11.2008 charge-sheet was framed against the petitioner. And the enquiry officer-cum-Regional Deputy Director of Education, North Chhotanagpur Hazaribagh has submitted the inquiry report vide letter dated 24.03.2009 wherein it has been held that charges levelled against the petitioner, that he was working on the basis of forged appointment letter and forged transfer letter, was found true. Copy of the inquiry report has been annexed as Annexure-B to the counter-affidavit. It has further been submitted that second show-cause was issued vide letter dated 09.04.2009. Thereafter notice was issued through the daily news paper “Dainik Jagran” on 05.06.2009 on the basis of that the petitioner has filed his show-cause reply which was found unsatisfactory and bereft of facts. On the basis of inquiry report submitted by the Regional Deputy Director of Education, North Chhotanagpur, Hazaribagh and explanation submitted by the petitioner reasoned order was passed vide letter dated 11.12.2009. It has further been submitted in the counter-affidavit that it is true that petitioner has earlier filed writ petition bearing W.P.(S.) No. 2407 of 2005 for payment of salary. On the basis of inquiry report submitted by the Regional Deputy Director of Education, North Chhotanagpur, Hazaribagh and explanation submitted by the petitioner reasoned order was passed vide letter dated 11.12.2009. It has further been submitted in the counter-affidavit that it is true that petitioner has earlier filed writ petition bearing W.P.(S.) No. 2407 of 2005 for payment of salary. It is also true that a Contempt Case (Civil) No. 436 of 2007 was filed by petitioner and being the responsible officer Director, Secondary Education has complied the order of the Hon'ble High Court. Again the petitioner filed another writ petition bearing W.P.(S) No. 1933 of 2009 which was disposed of by this court vide order dated 05.09.2009. It is submitted that petitioner has attached Annexure-6 of the writ application which is the appointment letter wherein it was shown that he was posted in High School Baliyakila, Aurangabad. Annexure-7 of the writ application shows that the petitioner was appointed in Basdihakala, Aurangabad. All these letters are contradictory to each other and it is also contrary to the facts mentioned in service book of the petitioner which is prepared and submitted by the petitioner, service book of the petitioner is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-E to the counter-affidavit. In the counter-affidavit, it has further been submitted that a LPC issued by Headmaster of High School Tandwa and on that basis petitioner received the salary from High School Tisri. That on enquiry it was found that petitioner has never joined the High School Tandwa and LPC issued is a forged document. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioner was working on the basis of forged appointment letter, forged transfer certificate and LPC which caused loss to the Government Exchequer and the Government fund and the matter was thoroughly enquired and after adopting the procedure of departmental proceeding office order contained in letter dated 11.12.2009 was issued. 5. Heard Mr. D.C. Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Ashish Verma learned J.C. to S.C. appearing on behalf of the respondents. 6. 5. Heard Mr. D.C. Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Ashish Verma learned J.C. to S.C. appearing on behalf of the respondents. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner during course of arguments has referred the rejoinder filed to the counter-affidavit wherein it has been submitted that in pursuance to the order dated 05.09.2009 passed in W.P.(S) No. 1933 of 2009 no such order has been issued by the Director of the Secondary Education about his non-acceptance of the certificate of petitioner. No such proper show-cause notice as directed by order dated 05.09.2009 ever issued to the petitioner setting out the allegations and the materials on which the allegations are being, prima-facie, accepted has been conclusively proved. Learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously urged that the impugned order dated 11.12.2009 though passed by the Director, Secondary Education but the Director, Secondary Education has not recorded any finding nor any finding with reason as to whether those certificates are genuine and whether the appointment has been obtained on the strength of forged certificate. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that there are no specific and definite materials or evidence to substantiate the allegations moreover Annexure-7 to the writ application makes it clear that the appointment letter is genuine. Therefore, the impugned order dated 11.12.2009 appears to have been passed in haste when in the Contempt Case (Civil) No. 436 of 2007 this Hon'ble Court has passed order for personal appearance of the Director, Secondary Education. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has supported the impugned order and has vehemently submitted that since the petitioner was working on the basis of forged appointment letter, forged transfer letter and received salary on the basis of forged LPC causing loss to the Government Exchequer, the matter was thoroughly enquired by the respondents by adopting the proper procedure in the departmental proceeding. Therefore, order dated 11.12.2009 does not call for any interference by this Hon'ble Court. 8. Therefore, order dated 11.12.2009 does not call for any interference by this Hon'ble Court. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the relevant documents, I am of the considered view that the petitioner has not been able to make out the case for interference of this Court due to the following facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements:- (I) That in pursuance to the order dated 05.09.2009 passed in W.P.(S.) No. 1933 of 2009 the impugned order dated 11.12.2009 has been passed by the Director, Secondary Education, it is crystal clear that in pursuance to the allegation of obtaining appointment letter on the strength of forged certificates an inquiry has been conducted and the report of inquiry officer-cum-Regional Deputy Director, certificate served by the petitioner to appointing authority appears to be forged. Accordingly, a show-cause notice has been issued to the petitioner and thereafter impugned order passed. Therefore, no procedural irregularities has been committed by the respondents and the respondents have duly complied with the direction of this Court passed vide order dated 05.09.2009 in W.P.(S) No. 1933 of 2009. Therefore, the impugned order do not warrant any interference by this Court. (II) Moreover, on perusal of the service book it reveals that the petitioner has joined the Rajkiya Ucchh Vidyalaya, Bandhaniyakela. That it has to be stated that the facts submitted by the petitioner is quite contradictory with the fact what is entered in the service book. So far the petitioner received salary on the basis of LPC issued by High School, Tandwa where on verification it was found that petitioner has never worked there and LPC is forged. That it has to be stated that First Information Report was lodged against the petitioner and the criminal case was instituted against the petitioner. Therefore, a criminal case was lodged against the petitioner was instituted against the petitioner for submission of forged appointment letter, forged transfer letter and received salary on the basis of forged LPC causing the loss of Government Exchequer the Government fund. The matter is, therefore, thoroughly enquired to reveal the veracity of allegation and on the basis of fact finding of inquiry order dated 11.12.2009 has been issued. So there is no irregularity or illegality committed by the respondents in issuing the impugned order dated 11.12.2009 vide Annexure-14 to the writ application. The matter is, therefore, thoroughly enquired to reveal the veracity of allegation and on the basis of fact finding of inquiry order dated 11.12.2009 has been issued. So there is no irregularity or illegality committed by the respondents in issuing the impugned order dated 11.12.2009 vide Annexure-14 to the writ application. Counsel for the respondents to buttress his submission has referred to the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in Devendra Kumar Vs. State of Uttaranchal and Others reported in (2013) 9 SCC 363 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has been pleased to opine which is extracted below: 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:- “…...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. v. 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. Shaw Bros., it has been held as under: (SCC p.533, para 20) “20. Fraud and collusion vitiate even the most solemn proceedings in any civilised 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 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 wilfully 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 re-considered and approved by this Court in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Anr. v. 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 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, SCCp. 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. 25. More so, if the initial action is not in consonance with law, the subsequent conduct of a party cannot sanctify the same. Subla Fundamento cadit opus-a foundation being removed, the superstructure falls. A person having done wrong cannot take advantage of his own wrong and plead bar of any law to frustrate the lawful trial by a competent Court. In such a case the legal maxim Nullus Commodum Capere Potest De Injuria Sua Propria applies. The persons violating the law cannot be permitted to urge that their offence cannot be subjected to inquiry, trial or investigation. (Vide: Union of India v. Maj. Gen. Madan Lal Yadav, and Lily Thomas v. Union of India & Ors.). Nor can a person claim any right arising out of his own wrong doing. (jus ex injuria non oritur). 9. The persons violating the law cannot be permitted to urge that their offence cannot be subjected to inquiry, trial or investigation. (Vide: Union of India v. Maj. Gen. Madan Lal Yadav, and Lily Thomas v. Union of India & Ors.). Nor can a person claim any right arising out of his own wrong doing. (jus ex injuria non oritur). 9. On cumulative effects of facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements the impugned order dated 11.12.2009 vide Annexure-14 to the writ application do not warrant any interference by this Court. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merit.