IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. LPA No. 1045 of 2011 Date of Decision: July 8, 2011 Const. Jasvir Singh ...Appellant Verus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. Navneet Singh, Advocate, for Mr. K.S. Sidhu, Advocate, for the appellant. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. The instant appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 26.5.2011 rendered by the learned Single Judge rejecting the claim made by the appellant for quashing the charge sheet on the allegation that at the time of re- cruitment he obtained entry in the Punjab Police by producing a bo- gus certificate of Matriculation. 2. The argument that the appellant has been acquitted in the criminal case, did not find favour with the learned Single Judge on the reasoning that the appellant was merely given a benefit of doubt and the acquittal was not on the ground that Matriculation certificate produced by him is a genuine one. In fact, the Magistrate LPA No. 1045 of 2011 has found that the prosecution failed to prove that bogus certificate was produced by the appellant. Accordingly, there is no finding that the certificate was not bogus but the benefit of doubt has been given because it could not be established that the appellant pro- duced the same. Thereafter the services of the appellant were ter- minated without holding any inquiry which resulted in filing of a suit. The order of termination has been set aside by the Civil Court which culminated in the order dated 29.6.2010 passed by this Court in Regular Second Appeal No. 1860 of 1996. The observation made in the Regular Second Appeal, vide order dated 29.6.2010, reads as under:- “As far as question No. (i) is concerned, the same is pure question of fact. If the appellant had conducted a regular enquiry and came to the conclusion that a forged certifi- cate was utilized by the respondent no doubt his service should have been terminated. Since, admittedly, no de- partmental enquiry was held, this question of fact cannot be held in favour of the appellant. Question No. (ii) as proposed does not arise….” 3. It is, thus, evident that the Civil Court as well as the High Court has left it open to the respondents to hold a domestic inquiry in order to prove the misconduct of the appellant. It was thereafter that a charge sheet has been issued on 31.12.2010. Accordingly, the second argument of the appellant that the Civil Court has earlier decreed his suit, which has been upheld by this Court, was also rightly rejected. 2 LPA No. 1045 of 2011 4. Having perused the judgment of the learned Single Judge, we are of the considered view that no interference would be warranted in the well reasoned order passed by the learned Single Judge. Once the respondents have been given liberty in the Regular Second Appeal, so as to hold a regular inquiry in accordance with law then there is no impediment to the issuance of charge sheet. The acquittal by the Criminal Court would be inconsequential par- ticularly in view of the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge that the appellant merely was given a benefit of doubt and there is no finding that the Matriculation certificate produced by him was not bogus. Accordingly, the appeal does not merit admission and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (GURDEV SINGH) July 8, 2011 JUDGE PKapoor 3