AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Police on 8.8.1994. A criminal case vide FIR No. 32 dated 29.6.1997 under Sections 420/467/468/471 IPC was registered against the petitioner at Police Station, Jalandhar Cantt., alleging that at the time of his recruitment in service, he had produced a forged matriculation certificate bearing Roll No. 601712 purportedly issued by the Punjab School Education Board, Mohali and that on verification from the Board, it was found that no such Matriculation Certificate was ever CWP No. 5812 of 2010. ::-2-:: issued in the name of the petitioner, rather the matriculation certificate bearing afore-stated Roll Number was issued in favour of one Kamaljit Kaur daughter of Suvinder Singh, namely, the sister of the petitioner. [3]. In the criminal trial, the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar acquitted the petitioner vide order dated 22.2.2006 on the plea that the petitioner had produced the Matriculation Certificate bearing Roll No.

304108 [Ex.D1] to prove that he had actually passed the Matriculation examination in the year 1987 by securing 2nd division and, thus, had no occasion to forge or produce such Matriculation Certificate. [4]. It may be noticed here that the services of the petitioner were terminated after registration of the criminal case, obviously on the allegation that he got himself recruited to the police by producing a forged certificate. [5]. After acquittal in the criminal case, the petitioner made a revision-cum-appeal to set aside the order of termination of his service dated 21.4.1997 and sought his re-instatement in the service. The said appeal has been turned down by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Punjab vide order dated 30.8.2006 and it would be apposite to reproduce the relevant part thereof which reads as under:- “The Commandant 13th Battalion, PAP, Chandigarh has written in his comments that the appellant was recruited as constable on 8.8.1994 and that time he had produced his matriculation certificate bearing roll No.

701712 and this certificate was got verified from the P.S.E.B. According to the verification report the certificate bearing CWP No. 5812 of 2010. ::-3-:: this roll number was allotted to Kamaljit Kaur d/o Swinder Singh. As per verification report the date of birth is also different. The date of birth in the certificate is 16.03.1972 but in the report is 15.03.75. From this it is proved that he was recruited on the basis of fake certificate. The departmental inquiry was opened as his qualification certificate was found fake. The inquiry officer conducted the inquiry under the police rules. He was granted time of 4 hours to furnish the list of defence witnesses. After the expiry of time he submitted in writing that he does not want to supply any list. Thereafter, he was given ten days time to produce the defence witnesses and he was directed to produce his statement in defence within the given time.

He did not produce his statement rather remained absent. In the departmental inquiry he was given full opportunity to lead defence evidence. After considering all the aspects he received this notice in person and file reply in writing. Finding no truth in the same and holding him guilty he was dismissed from service vide order No. 224-31/Steno dated 21.4.1997. The then commandant keeping into view the fraud got registered the case FIR No. 32 dated 26.9.97, u/s 420/467/471 IPC in PS Jalandhar Cantt. The Hon'ble Court acquitted him giving benefit of doubt. According to the certificate which was produced by him in the court, his date of birth is 16.3.1968 while in the certificate bearing roll No. 601712 produced at the time of recruitment his date of birth is 16.03.1972. The DGP, Punjab at the time of selection had allowed the concession of 1.25 inches in height and 3” x 3” in chest but not in age. As per certificate produced in court his date of birth is 16.3.1968 and as per this certificate his age was 25 years at the time of recruitment but as per the certificate bearing roll No.

601712 his age was 21 years 10 months and 2 days and he got recruitment taking benefit of that certificate and he recommended for dismissal of the appeal”.[Emphasis CWP No. 5812 of 2010. ::-4-:: applied]. [6]. The petitioner's further appeal/revision petitions having been turned down by the Additional Director General of Police as well as by the Director General of Police, Punjab, that he has approached this Court. [7]. It may be true that the order terminating the petitioner from service was founded upon the allegation that he had produced a forged Matriculation Certificate at the time of his recruitment. It is also a fact that the charge of 'forgery' could not be established against the petitioner beyond any pale of doubt before the criminal court. However, it is quite well known that the parameters required to be followed in a criminal trial, namely, that the prosecution must prove the guilt beyond any doubt need not be replicated in a departmental action/domestic inquiry.

What emerges from the categoric findings returned by the DIG, Police in his above reproduced order is that as per the petitioner's own matriculation certificate his date of birth is 16.03.1968 and he being more than 25 years of age at the time of his recruitment was over-age and wholly ineligible. On the other hand, as per the date of birth mentioned in the Matriculation Certificate bearing Roll No. 601712, his age was 21 years 10 months and 2 days and, thus, he took undue benefit of the Matriculation Certificate of his sister in which he erased her name and interpolated his own name so as to procure eligibility. It may, thus, be seen that the petitioner may or may not be guilty of 'forgery' but certainly he entered into service through 'fraudulent' means. He was over-age and could not have been recruited but for the fact that he produced a forged certificate. Whether the certificate was forged CWP No.

5812 of 2010. ::-5-:: by him or by any one else, the needle of suspicion stops on the petitioner who was the sole beneficiary of the fraudulent act. [8]. The reliance placed upon by learned counsel for the petitioner on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Baljit Singh v State of Punjab & Anr.2007[3] SLR, 754 is of no consequence as in that case the petitioner was dismissed from service on account of his conduct which led to his conviction in a criminal case and having earned acquittal, he was held entitled for re-instatement [9]. Be that as it may, no case to interfere with the impugned orders in exercise of discretionary writ jurisdiction of this Court is made out. [10]. Dismissed. March 31, 2010. dinesh ( SURYA KANT ) JUDGE