Punjab-Haryana High Court
Baldev Singh (Ex. Constable) vs State Of Punjab And Ors. on 20 March, 2002
Author: Jasbir Singh
Bench: Jasbir Singh
JUDGMENT V.K. Bali, J.
1. Baldev Singh, an Ex.Constable in the State of Punjab, through present petition filed by him under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari so as to quash order dated 4.6.1998 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Commandant, 1st Indian Reserve Battalion, Pa-tiala, 4th respondent herein as also order dated 24.2.1999 (Annexure P-10) passed by 2nd respondent and in consequence of setting aside the orders aforesaid, the petitioner further prays that he be reinstated in service as Constable with all consequential benefits in the matter of pay, seniority, back wages etc. with effect from the date of his dismissal, i.e., 4.6.1998 with 18% interest.
2. Brief facts on which relief claimed in this petition is sought to rest reveal that the petitioner was enrolled as S.P.O. in Ludhiana Police on 15.6.1992. He was enrolled in the First Indian Reserve Battalion, Patiala and allotted Constable number on 1.1.1994. It is the case of the petitioner that without holding any enquiry, 4th respondent issued show cause notice proposing punishment of dismissal from service. The petitioner filed reply to the show cause notice. However, no regular departmental enquiry was conducted in the matter and the petitioner was dismissed from service vide Annexure P-6 dated 4.6.1998. Petitioner filed appeal against the orders aforesaid and the 3rd respondent accepted the same. The petitioner was reinstated in service vide order dated 7.10.1998, Annexure P-9 and copy of this order was supplied to the petitioner on 21.10.1998 by the office of 4th respondent and when the petitioner was not reinstated in service, He met 4th respondent and requested for a favourable order of his reinstatement. When entreaties of the petitioner brought no tangible result and in fact 2nd respondent re-opened the appeal case of the petitioner, which has since already been decided by 3rd respondent and passed order, Annexure P-10, and dismissed the appeal of the petitioner by making certain changes in the impugned order, Annexure P-6, present writ petition came to be filed by the petitioner.
3. Pursuant to notice issued by this Court, respondents have entered defence and hotly contested the cause of the petitioner. It has, inter-alia, been pleaded in the written statement filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 4 that while the petitioner was enrolled in the Police Department, he submitted his Matriculation certificate passed from Punjab School Education Board in March 1987 under Roll No. 225530, which was issued by the Punjab School Board, in which his date of birth is recorded as 15.8.1972. On verification of the said Matriculation certificate, it was intimated by the office of the Secretary, Punjab School Education Board, Mohali, vide letter dated 27.1.1998 that there was an alteration in the date of birth as compared to the Result Gazette March, 1987 from 5.8.1969 instead of 15.8.1972. A copy of the letter aforesaid has been annexed to the written statement as Annexure R-1. The petitioner was ineligible on the basis of date of birth as on 15:8.1969 to be enrolled as a Constable in the Police Department. He changed his date of birth as 15.8.1972 in his Matriculation certificate and, thus, forged the same and cheated the department. In this connection, an FIR No. 107 dated 26.6.1998 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of Indian Penal Code was registered against the petitioner at Police Station Civil Lines, Patiala. Copy of the FIR has been annexed to the written statement as Annexure R-2. It was then pleaded that work and conduct of the petitioner was not upto the required standard. He absented himself from duty, for which his absence period was treated as non-duty, period vide order dated 20.3.1997. It has also been pleaded that when office of the Secretary, Punjab School Education Board, Mohali, intimated vide memo dated 27.1.1998 that Matriculation certificate submitted by the petitioner had an alteration in the date of birth as compared to Result Gazette March 1987 from 15.8.1969 instead of 15.8.1972, a preliminary enquiry was initiated against the petitioner and Enquiry Officer Shri Sant Kumar, PPS, DSP/Adj. Ist IRB, Patiala, submitted his report that original date of birth of the petitioner stands as 15.8.1969 instead of 15.8.1972. The petitioner in reply to the show cause notice issued to him has stated that his date of birth in the Matriculation certificate was according to the school record. In this regard, the department had also enquired into the matter from the concerned school Headmaster, i.e., Government High School, Bhindi Syadan, District Amritsar. In response to the same, Headmaster, Government High School, Bhindi Syadan, District Amritsar, gave his report on 28.5.1998 that as per school record the date of birth of the Headmaster has been annexed to the written statement as Annexure R-3. The eligibility age required by the department was 21 years maximum as on 1.2.1993 and the petitioner was over-age with actual date of birth as 15.8.1969 instead of I5.6.I972. The petitioner, thus, defrauded the department by producing Matriculation certificate with forged date of birth to secure his appointment as Constable for which he was not qualified, obviously being over-age. After going through the facts of the case and the enquiry report, 4th respondent issued show cause notice dated 26.2.1998 to the petitioner proposing therein punishment of dismissal from service. Petitioner clarified in reply to the show cause notice dated 26.2.1996 that his date of birth is 15.6.1972 as correctly mentioned in his Matriculation certificate and which is in tune with the school records. That being the reply, Headmaster of the concerned school, i.e., Government High School, Bhindi Syadan, District Amritsar, was also asked by the department regarding actual date of birth of the petitioner and the Headmaster vide report dated 28.5.1988, reported that actual date of birth of the petitioner is 15.8.1969 as per school records.
4. Mr. S.K. Sharma, learned counsel representing the petitioner, on the facts as fully detailed above, vehemently contends that once there were allegations against the petitioner for obtaining the job as Police Constable by fraudulent means, i.e., forging date of birth in his Matriculation certificate, preliminary enquiry that was conducted, in which only show cause notice was given to the petitioner to which he had replied also should not have been enough. The circumstances of the present case required a detailed and proper departmental enquiry to be made so that petitioner might have a chance to prove his innocence. The impugned order of dismissal that came to be passed by the con-
cerned authorities is in violation of principles of natural justice and so is the position of the order passed in appeal preferred by the petitioner against the original order of his dismissal, as that came into being without hearing the petitioner in the matter.
5. Mr. Vikas Cuccria, learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, with equal vehemence contends that when the delinquent may be confronted with unimpeachable evidence and the stand that might be taken by him in his show cause notice be such that the same cannot sustain, it would not be necessary to go through the formality of holding a regular departmental enquiry.
6. In the present case, evidence that came on the record of the case and on which the petitioner was confronted was such that he had no plausible defence. Intimation by the office of the Secretary, Punjab School Education Board, Mohali dated 27.1.1998 that there was an alteration in the date of birth as compared to Result Gazettee, March, 1987 from 15.8.1969 to 15.8.1972 as also report dated 28.5.1998 sent by the Head Master, Government High School, Bhindi Syadan, District Amritsar that as per school record the date of birth of petitioner was 15.8.1969, were such documents authenticity whereof could not be questioned by the petitioner. There was in deed show cause notice issued to the petitioner and all that he could say in response thereto was that his actual date of birth could be enquired from the school from where he passed his matriculation. The defence projected by the petitioner was gone into by calling the report of Head Master of the school which, as mentioned above, came against the petitioner. Regular departmental enquiry in the case, contends the learned Assistant Advocate General, would be an empty formality, particularly when petitioner even now is unable to either plead or prima facie bring some evidence on record to show that his actual date of birth is 15.8.1972 and not 15.8.969.
7. It is further the contention of learned State Counsel that petitioner submitted his matriculation certificate while obtaining the job of police constable issued by the Punjab School Education Board. He is stated to have passed the matriculation examination in 1987. His date of birth as recorded therein is 15.8.1972 which has been found to be forged. The petitioner obtained job of a police constable knowing it fully well that he was not eligible for the same, being over-age. One, who may go to the extent of even making a forgery in the certificate so as to become eligible for a job and that too of a disciplined force, does not deserve any concession from this Court, further contends the learned counsel.
8. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised by the learned counsel representing the parties. In the context of facts and circumstances of the case, as fully detailed above, we are of the view that whereas the respondents could not give a complete go by to the settled procedure under the rules of holding a regular departmental enquiry when there is a proposal to inflict major punishment, in the present case dismissal from service, the petitioner cannot get away from the consequences of obtaining the job fraudulently by forging date of birth in his Matriculation certificate so as to be within the age her bar prescribed for appointment on the post of a Constable. In the totality of facts and circumstances of this case, interest of justice requires that whereas the respondent-State should be directed to hold regular departmental enquiry, the impugned order vide which the petitioner was dismissed from service, i.e., Annexure P-6 dated 4.6.1998 as also order passed by the Appellate Authority, Annexure P-9, dated 7.10.1998, vide which 4th respondent reinstated the petitioner in service as also the order passed by 3rd respondent dated 24.2.1999, Annexure P-10, should be kept in abeyance. The only order that needs to be kept intact for the time being is the order passed by 3rd respondent, dated 7.10.1998, Annexure P-9, to the extent only that a direction has been issued to hold regular department enquiry. If the petitioner is really guilty and has obtained job of a Police Constable by forging date of birth in his Matriculation certificate and was not eligible even as per the age prescribed for the post, he does not deserve any concession or leniency from the Court. The technical ground of not holding a regular departmental enquiry should not come to the rescue of the petitioner which may in turn entitle him to all wages and consequential reliefs from the date he was dismissed from service. However, on the other hand, the petitioner should also not suffer in case he is successful in projecting that his actual date of birth is the one which is mentioned in the Matriculation certificate or in other words, in proving that he has not forged or altered the date mentioned therein. We are intentionally not going into the issue raised by learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, that the petitioner has nothing to say or shall not be able to say anything in his defence, as he has been confronted with unimpeachable evidence, as that would prejudice the case of the parties before the Enquiry Officer, who may now conduct regular departmental enquiry. In the event, however, the petitioner may be able to show that he had not forged date of birth in his Matriculation certificate, he shall obviously be entitled to reinstatement from the date he was dismissed from service with all consequential benefits, failing which order of dismissal shall stand from the date it was passed.
9. The writ petition is disposed of in the manner fully indicated above.