KULWINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF HP AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE main grievance of the Petitioner is that despite his acquittal in the Criminal Case, though his colleagues have been re -instated in service, but he was not re -instated.

(2.) THE stand of the Respondent -State is that no doubt, the colleagues of the Petitioner were re -instated, but according to the Respondent -State there was another criminal case against the Petitioner and he was also removed from service because he had forged the order leading to his reemployment in service. The question whether the Petitioner has forged this order directing his reengagement in service, was the subject matter of another criminal case, wherein the present Petitioner was convicted under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420 read with Section 120B and Section 13(2) of the prevention of Corruption Act.

(3.) AS stated above, the Petitioner was convicted by the learned Trial Court. He filed an appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 471 of 2003 which has been decided by a learned Single Judge of this Court on March 8, 2011. The learned Single Judge of this Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt, as to who had forged the letter in question. The relevant portion of the judgment of the learned Single Judge reads as follows: