ORDER : Pramath Patnaik, J. In the accompanied writ application, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the letter dated 26.05.2005 issued by respondent no.2 whereby the appointment of the petitioners was declared as forged and consequently, the payment of salary of the petitioners were stopped and the petitioners have further prayed for directing the respondents not to disturb the petitioners in functioning as Assistant Teachers at Ram Bilas High School, Bermo and for payment of other service benefits. 2. The brief facts as disclosed in the writ application is that the petitioners having requisite qualification were appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher by the erstwhile state of undivided Bihar and accordingly joined their respective posts. The petitioners continued to render unblemished services in Ram Bilash High School, Bermo. The appointment of the petitioner no.1 was duly approved by the Deputy Director, Secondary Education, Government of Bihar vide order dated 05.12.1993. The petitioner no.2, services were duly 2 approved by the Deputy Director, Secondary Education, Government of Bihar vide order dated 16.08.1996 and the petitioner no.3 was transferred from the High School, Amarut, Gaya to Ram Bilas Intermediate School, Bermo, Bokaro by the office order dated 05.11.1995 issued by the Director, Secondary Education, Government of Bihar and the petitioner joined the post of Assistant Teachers and rendered satisfactory services. But to the utter surprises, salary of the petitioners was stopped by the Director, Secondary Education, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi on the basis of frivolous complaints regarding the fake educational qualification and the forged appointment of the petitioners as an Assistant Teachers. On receipt of letter from Director, Secondary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna dated 07.07.2004, the Director, Secondary Education, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi wrote a letter to the District Education Officer, Bermo on 07.10.2004 requesting him to submit appointment letters and transfer letter along with the educational qualification of the petitioners and the District Education Officer, Bermo, on receipt of the said letter wrote to the Director, Secondary Education, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi on 19.10.2004 mentioning therein that the names of 15 teachers including petitioners to make a high level enquiry regarding their appointment and the Director, Secondary Education, Jharkhand, Ranchi instead of making high level enquiry issued a letter on 03.01.2005 with a direction not to take work from all 15 persons including the petitioners and directed to stop the salary of the aforesaid 15 persons. Thereafter, Director, Secondary Education, Government of Jharkhand sent a letter to the Secretary, Information and Public Relation Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi on 05.02.2005 requesting to publish the notice for appearance of all the aforesaid persons and for bringing the original appointment letter, transfer letter, adjustment letter and other relevant documents and to appear on 01.03.2005 before the Director, Secondary Education, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi and the petitioners appeared before the Director, Secondary Education along with the all documents on 18.03.2005 but the Director, Secondary Education, Government of Jharkhand passed the order to stop the salary for recovery of the salary taken by initiating a certificate proceeding and for filing the criminal case against those persons including the petitioners vide order dated 26.05.2005 (Annexure-9) to the writ petition. Being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 26.05.2005 vide Annexure-9 to the writ petition, the petitioners left with no other efficacious speedy remedy have knocked the doors of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of their grievances. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that before issuance of the impugned order dated 26.05.2005, no departmental proceeding has ever been initiated against the petitioners for imposing major punishment and the petitioners have not been given sufficient opportunity for putting forth their cases before the competent authority. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the impugned order is contrary to law and violation of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the action of the Director, Secondary Education, Government of Jharkhand declaring the appointment of the petitioners as forged without holding proper enquiry under the law amounts to colourable exercise of power. 4. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents controverting the averments made in the writ petition. It has been submitted that the Director, Secondary Education, Bihar, Patna vide letter dated 07.07.2004 informed that some fake teachers are working in Ram Vilas +2 High School, Bermo, Bokaro. Subsequently, pursuant to above said letter, The District Education Officer, Bokaro was directed to submit a report vide letter dated 07.10.2004, who after due enquiry reported that 15 fake teachers were working in the said school. Thereafter, vide memo dated 03.01.2005, direction was issued to District Education Officer, Bokaro to stop the payment of salary as evident for Annexure-A to the counter-affidavit. Thereafter, vide memo dated 03.01.2005, direction was issued to District Education Officer, Bokaro to stop the payment of salary as evident for Annexure-A to the counter-affidavit. It has further been submitted that after thorough verification it was found that the then Headmaster, Ram Vilas +2 High School, Bermo, Bokaro accepted the joining of 11 fake teachers without proper verification of appointment letters and allowed the payment of their salary. He also allowed the joining of so called fake teachers without genuine order of Director, Secondary Education, Bihar, Patna. The petitioners were among those 11 fake teachers and 11 teachers were posted in Ram Vilas +2 High School, Bermo, Bokaro, there appointment were fake. These teachers were not appointed by Human Resource Development Department, Bihar neither they were transferred to the said school. In the said list, the names of petitioners figured as per Annexure-B to the counter-affidavit. Since, the appointment of the teachers were fake, the Director, Secondary Education, Jharkhand directed to District Education Officer, Bokaro for submitting an enquiry report. The District Education Officer, Bokaro submitted the enquiry report vide letter dated 19.10.2004 in which appointment of all the teachers, who were said to have been appointed by Human Resource Development Department, Bihar were found fake and doubtful as per Annexure-C to the counter-affidavit. It has further been submitted that the teachers who were working in Ram Vilas +2 High School, Bermo, Bokaro were given chance to prove the validity of their service. Director, Secondary Education, Jharkhand published an advertisement, in which the fake teachers were informed to appear before the Director, Secondary Education to prove the validity of their services on 01.03.2005. But on that date only two teachers could appear. Again those who were not present on the aforesaid date, they were given a last chance of hearing on 18.03.2005. On the said date the petitioners appeared before the Director, Secondary Education, Jharkhand. After hearing the petitioners, the Director, Secondary Education, Jharkhand passed a reasoned order vide memo dated 26.05.2005 rejecting the claims of the petitioners on the grounds as mentioned in paragraph-10 of the counter-affidavit. On the said date the petitioners appeared before the Director, Secondary Education, Jharkhand. After hearing the petitioners, the Director, Secondary Education, Jharkhand passed a reasoned order vide memo dated 26.05.2005 rejecting the claims of the petitioners on the grounds as mentioned in paragraph-10 of the counter-affidavit. It has further been submitted that it is clear from the reasoned order passed by the Director, Secondary Education, Jharkhand that the modus operandi adopted by all the petitioners was same like forged appointment letter and transfer order for one school and on the pretext of unavailability of post in that school again forged transfer letter and finally joined in Ram Bilas +2 High School, Bermo as per Annexure-E to the counter-affidavit. Further it has been submitted that the petitioners could not show the interview letter and other relevant service documents to the competent authority. The appointment and transfer letters of the petitioners were verified through the issuing office that is from the office of Director, Secondary Education and it has been reported that the letters are fake. It has been submitted that the petitioners were getting salary from the date of appointment, an order was passed by Director, Secondary Education, Jharkhand for recovery of the payment of salary through certificate cases and the direction was given to District Education Officer, Bokaro for lodging F.I.R against the petitioners as per Annexure-F to the counter-affidavit. The Director, Secondary Education, Jharkhand, after having full satisfaction, passed the reasoned order dated 26.05.2005 terminating the petitioners from services following lawful procedure. 5. The Director, Secondary Education, Jharkhand, after having full satisfaction, passed the reasoned order dated 26.05.2005 terminating the petitioners from services following lawful procedure. 5. After hearing learned counsels for the respective parties at length and on perusal of the records, I am of the considered view that the petitioners do not make out a case for interference due to the following facts and reasons:- (I) In the case in hand, the petitioners by adopting fraudulent means have managed to join in Ram Bilas +2 School at Bermo, Bokaro and subsequently, on the information given by Director, Bihar, Patna to which the counter parts to Jharkhand regarding fake teachers including petitioners with regard to verify the genuineness of appointment of the teachers, inquiry was conducted by District Education Officer, Bokaro who submitted report vide annexure-c to the counter-affidavit, in which the appointment of all the teachers who are said to be appointed by Human Resource Development Department, Bihar found fake and doubtful and the teachers were given opportunity to prove the validity of their services by the Director, Secondary Education, Jharkhand. After hearing the petitioners, the Director, Secondary Education, Jharkhand passed a reasoned order vide memo dated 26.05.2005 rejecting the claims of the petitioners on the ground that their appointment orders and transfer are fake nor the petitioners could show the interview letter, refusal of joining in original posted school. (II) The facts which have surfaced in the counter-affidavit discloses that all the petitioners adopted fraudulent means and modus operandi were same and the forged document and transfer order of one school, on the pretext of unavailability of post in that school against forged transfer letter finally joined in Ram Bilas +2 High School, Bermo. Therefore, the action of the respondents in terminating the services of the petitioners cannot be construed to be unlawful or illegal but same has been passed in consequence with the principle of natural justice. (III) Moreover, it would have to be refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in (2013) 9 SCC 363 [: 2013 (3) JLJR (SC) 487] in the case of Devendra Kumar Vs. State of Uttaranchal & Others at paragraph nos.12 & 13 to the said judgment are illuminative on this aspect reads as under:- “12. So far as the issue of obtaining the appointment by misrepresentation is concerned, it is no more res integra. State of Uttaranchal & Others at paragraph nos.12 & 13 to the said judgment are illuminative on this aspect reads as under:- “12. So far as the issue of obtaining the appointment by misrepresentation is concerned, it is no more res integra. The question is not whether the applicant is suitable for the post. The pendency of a criminal case/proceeding is different from suppressing the information of such pendency. The case pending against a person might not involve moral turpitude but suppressing of this information itself amounts to moral turpitude. In fact, the information sought by the employer if not disclosed as required, would definitely amount to suppression of material information. In that eventuality, the service becomes liable to be terminated, even if there had been no further trial or the person concerned stood acquitted/discharged. 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 the 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.” 6. In view of the factual and legal aspect as stated in the forgoing paragraphs and as a logical sequitur to the aforesaid reasons the impugned order of punishment dated 26.05.2005 issued by the respondent no.2 does not warrant any interference by this Court. 7. Resultantly, the writ petition sans merit is dismissed.