TEJPAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, Dr. Tejpal Singh, joined the Bachelor of Dental Surgery Course (in short " the B.D.S.") in Mysore in the year 1969 and appeared for the B.D.S. Part I examination held by the University of Mysore in the year 1970. He passed the same obtaining 250 marks out of 488. Therefore, he shifted to the Government Dental College, Patiala, and passed the B.D.S. Parts II, III and IV from the Punjabi University, Patiala, and got the degree in May, 1974. Thereafter, he completed the house job. He was appointed as a Demonstrator through the Punjab Public Service Commission and he joined as such the Dental College, Patiala on 2.1.1976.

(2.) While in service the petitioner applied for admission to the M.D.S. Course in the Dental College, Amritsar, for the session 1977-78. By this time he had acquired one years's experience as Demonstrator in the Dental College, Patiala. The petitioner was eligible to apply for admission to the M.D.S. Course under the eligibility clause which provides that a candidate must be a teacher in a recognised Dental College, who had been recruited on regular basis and must have held such an appointment atleast for a continuous period on one year. It may further be observed that there are certain other categories of eligible candidates who can apply for admission to the M.D.S. Course. It has further been provided in the University Calendar that from amongst the various eligible categories the first preference shall be given to those having one year's teaching experience in a Dental College and holding regular appointment. The petitioner had submitted attested copies of the certificates in proof of having passed B.D.S. Part I to B.D.S. Part IV examination. The petitioner passed the M.D.S. Course in the year 1979.

(3.) Somewhere in the year 1980 a complaint was made that the petitioner had obtained admission in the M.D.S. Course in the Session 1977-78 by producing a forged attested copy of the B.D.S. Part I certificate of the Mysore University in which it had been shown that he had obtained 290 marks out of 488 instead of 250 marks. The complaint was forwarded to the Director, Vigilance, Punjab, and later on the petitioner was charge-sheeted on 6.9.1982. The charge reads as under :-