JOGINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner was enlisted as Constable on 17th November, 1981 being found eligible for enrolment. The Matriculation Certificate produced by the Petitioner at the time of enrolment was sent to the Secretary, Punjab School Education Board, Mohali for verification, - vide memo No. 4662/CRC dated 2nd May, 1983. The Secretary, Punjab School Education Board, Mohali intimated the Commandant, 36th BN PAP Bahadurgarh, Patiala, that the Matriculation Certificate of the Petitioner was found tampered with regarding the date of birth and the same was not genuine. He further intimated that the date of birth of the Petitioner has been changed from 6th March, 1954 to 6lh March, 1955. On receipt of report by the Commandant, the Petitioner was discharged from service under Rule 12.21 of the Punjab Police Rule (hereinafter to be referred to as the Rules), - vide office letter dated 6th May, 1983 and F.I.R. No. 381, dated 20th December, 1983 under Section 420/467 & 468/471, I.P.C. was got registered against the Petitioner and five other Constables whose Matriculation Certificates were found to be defective and tampered with, in Police Station Sadar, Patiala. During the pendency of trial, the Petitioner applied to the Secretary, Punjab School Education Board, Mohali for correction of date of birth on the basis of Panchayat record and managed to get a duplicate certificate. In the certificate, his date of birth was recorded as 22nd July, 1955 by concealing certain facts. The Petitioner obtained duplicate certificate with new dale of birth and preferred an appeal against the order of discharge from service to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, P.A.P. Jalandhar Cantt. and managed to get an order dated 4th September, 1985 for reinstatement. In the appeal filed by him, he concealed vital facts of criminal case pending against him and submitting of forged /fabricated certificate at the time of enlistment. When the said facts were brought to the notice of the Inspector General of Police, PAP Jalandhar, he reversed the order of Deputy Inspector General of Police and reinstated the Petitioner, - vide order dated 4th September, 1985 and the period during which the Petitioner remained out of service was treated as leave without pay. His Commandant refused to allow him to join duty as he was discharged from service as per directions of Inspector General of Police, P.A.P. Jalandhar Cantt. The Petitioner faced trial in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala who acquitted him by giving him benefit of doubt. It is also relevant to mentioned here that the Petitioner was also declared Proclaimed Offender, - vide order dated 30th November, 1985 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala. The Petitioner filed Civil Writ Petition No. 6269 of 1990 which was withdrawn by him with liberty to file Revision Petition before the inspector General of Police. The Petitioner thereafter filed Revision petition which was dismissed by the Inspector General of Police, - vide order dated 16th August, 1994, copy annexure P -ll to the writ petition.

(2.) THE impugned order has been challenged primarily on the ground that the order of discharge of Petitioner is punitive in nature. The counsel argues that the Petitioner was discharged on the ground that he had tampered with the Matriculation Certificate by changing date of birth. The Petitioner was sent up for trial and has been acquitted. The counsel argues that the trial Court has held that the State has miserably failed to prove that the Matriculation Certificate of the Petitioner was forged and as such the impugned order is liable to be quashed. The counsel further argues that under Rule 12.21 of the Punjab Police Rules, a Constable can be discharged from service if he is found unlikely to prove an efficient police officer. The counsel contends that there was no material on the record that the Petitioner was not an efficient police officer and as such the impugned order deserves to be quashed.

(3.) THE learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, has argued that the Petitioner has tampered with the Matriculation Certificate on the basis of which he was discharged. He was declared Proclaimed offender . The State counsel contends that the conduct of the Petitioner is such that had he been retained in service he would not have been proved to be an efficient police officer. He further argues that the Petitioner was only given benefit of doubt and it cannot be termed as honourable acquittal and as such the writ petition may be dismissed.