HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL (Court’s order whether the case is or not approved for reporting.) (Chapter VIII Rule 32 (2) (b) Description of the case W.P. No. 4490/2001 Kishnapal Pal Singh Vs. State and others. Approved for reporting Not approved for reporting Date of decision 03.7.2006 Initial of Judge 2 HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 4490 of 2001 (SS) Krishna Pal Singh, Ex Lans Nayak No. 50212 S/o Sri Sukhbeer Singh r/o Kheri Kramu, District Muzzffarnagar ………… Petitioner Versus 1. State of Uttaranchal 2. D.I.G. Garhwal Range, Pauri Garhwal 3. Commandant 40 Btn. P.A.C. Haridwar… Respondents Sri S.S. Negi, Advocate for the petitioner Standing Counsel for the respondents. Dated: July 3, 2006 Hon’ble Rajesh Tandon, J. Heard Sri S.S. Negi, Advocate for the petitioner and Standing Counsel for the respondents. By the present writ petition, the petitioners has prayed for a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 23.8.2001 passed by the D.I.G. Garhwal Range and to reinstate the petitioner in service. Briefly stated according to the petitioner, he was appointed as constable in 40th Battalion, P.A.C. Haridwar in 1986. According to the petitioner his work and conduct was very good and during his service he was promoted to the post of Lans Nayak. One Sri Munnu Singh resident of village Karmu Kher P.O. Khas, District Muzaffar Nagar has made a complaint against the petitioner, which was received in the office of the 3 Commandant, 40th Btn. P.A.C. on 29.9.2000. According to the complainant the petitioner had appeared in matriculation examination from National Kissan Inter College, Shamali, in three consecutive years from 1978-79 to 1980-81 but could not succeed and thereafter Board has restricted him from appearing in the examination. According to the allegations made by the complainant Munnu Singh, the petitioner obtained fake High School certificate and also tampered his date of birth. Enquiry under U.P. Police Officer of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules 1991 was entrusted to Sri G.P. Nainwal, Deputy Commandant. Two charges were framed against the petitioner: Firstly that Lans Nayak Krishna Pal Singh got appointment as constable in P.A.C. fraudulently by showing him High School passed from Adult Education Institute, Delhi, when in point of fact he had no required educational qualification. Secondly that the date of birth of Sri Krishna pal Singh was 1.12.1964 on the basis of scholar register and transfer certificate issued by National Kisan Inter College, Shamli whenever he submitted Matriculation Certificate issued by Adult Education Institute, Delhi in which his date of birth has been shown to be 1.12.1968. Thus on the date of his recruitment in P.A.C. his actual age was 22 years 8 months and 14 days, which was two years 8 months and 14 days in excess to the maximum age limit and as such the delinquent employee contravened the rules for recruitment on the post of constable P.A.C. The petitioner has submitted his reply and denied the allegations made in the charge sheet. According to the 4 petitioner he lodged a complaint under section 323, 324 and 506 I.P.C. against Munnu Singh, Meghraj Singh and Pradeep Singh and the case is pending in the Court at Kairana, Muzzafar Nagar. The petitioner denied that he ever took education in Junior High School, Shamli. He passed six to eighth class from Dev Vani Shiksha Niketan Barot. Thereafter he took education at Delhi and passed High School in 1986. the petitioner disowned the copy of transfer certificate issued by Junior High School Shamli and Rastiya Kisan Inter College, Shamli and submitted that said Transfer certificate did not belong to him. He has stated that the said transfer certificate belonged to one Krishna Pal son of Sukhbir Singh, who was working with Jasbir Singh. The said Krishna Pal expired about 15 years ago. The petitioner has submitted that the person to whom the said transfer certificate belong is Krishan Pal whereas the name of the petitioner is Krishna Pal Singh. Sri G. P. Nainwal, Assistant Commandant conducted enquiry against the petitioner and submitted his report dated 2.3.2001. He recommended dismissal of the petitioner from service under clause 14 (1) of U.P. Police officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules 1991. On the basis of the enquiry report, the punishing authority issued show cause notice to the delinquent employee Sri Krishna Pal Singh, who submitted his reply and contradicted the findings, arrived at by the enquiry officer. The punishing authority, Commandant, 40th Btn. P.A.C. vide order-dated 3.4.2001 passed the order of dismissal of the service of the petitioner. 5 Feeling aggrieved the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Garhwal Region, Pauri, who dismissed the appeal vide order dated 23.8.2001. The petitioner was appointed as a constable in P.A.C. in the year 1987 by the recruitment board. At the time of his appointment he had submitted his matriculation certificate of 1986 and mark sheet issued by the Board of Adult Education and Training, Delhi. There is no allegation that the certificate and mark sheet submitted by the petitioner was any way fake or not having been issued by the Board of Adult Education & Training. Now the question arises as to whether the matriculation examination held by the Board of Adult Education & Training is recognized by the Government. Much emphasis has been place by the punishing authority on the letter-dated 4.10.2000 by the Deputy Secretary (Parishad) High School Board, Allahabad. The extract of the letter reads as under: egksn;] d`i;k vius i= la[;k ,lVh&„@ „000 fnukad „ˆ&ˆ&„000 dk lUnHkZ xzg.k djsa tks cksMZ vkQ ,MYV ,twds’ku ,.M Vªsfux ¼izkS< f’k{kk laLFkku½ ubZ fnYyh }kjk lapkfyr mPprj ek/;fed ijh{kk dh led{krk ds lEcU/k esa gS A bl lEcU/k esa lwP; gS fd mi;qZDr ijh{kk bl ifj”kn dh gkbZ Ldwy ijh{kk ds led{k ekU; ugh gS A Surprisingly enough the Commandant 40th Btn. P.A.C. wrote letter to the Secretary, Board of High School, U.P. regarding recognition of the certificate of Matriculation issued by the Board of Adult Education and Training, New Delhi, while it ought to have been written either to the Central Government or to the Delhi Administration. The recognition to an education certificate, diploma or a degree is given by the State 6 Government or Central Government and not by any Education Board either it is U.P. High School Board, Central Board of Secondary Education or Uttaranchal High School and Intermediate Board etc. Thus the U.P. High School Board was not at all competent to decide that the certificate produced by the petitioner was a genuine and valid certificate of Matriculation/High school education. In reply to this there is a letter dated 17.1.2001 on record which has been written by the Assistant Secretary of Board of Adult Education to the Secretary, Board of High School, U.P. Allahabad and copy of which was endorsed to the Commandant 40th Btn. P.A.C. The extract of the letter is quoted below: fo"k;%& bl ifj”kn }kjk lapkfyr ijh{kkvksa dh ekU;rk ds lUnHkZ esa egksn;] vkids i=kad ifj”kn ‹@…‰‡ fnukad †@ƒ0@„000 ftlesa vkius lsuk uk;d †0oh okfguh ih0,0lh0 gfj}kj dks mudks muds „ˆ@ƒ@„000 ds i= ds lEcU/k esa fy[kk gS fd cksMZ vkQ ,MYV ,twds’ku ,.M VªSfux ubZ fnYyh dh nloh dh ijhds led{k ugha gSA mijksDr ds lUnHkZ esa vkidks lwP; gS fd ;g ifj”kn Hkkjr ljdkj dh Lohd`fr i= la[;k „@‡0) vkbZVh@‰ˆ fnukad „ˆ tqykbZ ƒ‹‰ˆ ds rgr LFkkfir gSA vkidh lwpuk ds fy, ;g Hkh izsf”kr gS fd bl ifj”kn }kjk lapkfyr ijh{kk,as ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; fnYyh }kjk fn, x;s fu.kZ; okn la[;k ‡„Š@‹‡ Jh n;k flag cuke ;wukbZVsM dkef’kZ;y cSad ¼„½ lqJh jktjkuh efgyk flikgh ¼fnYyh½ cuke iqfyl deh’kuj fnYyh] okn la0 „‡…Š@‹‰ rFkk Jh czEgkuUn cuke lsdsVªh ,tqds’ku fMikVZesUV gfj;k.kk okn la[;k ƒ‡ƒ‡‹‰ rFkk Jh jktdqekj] cuke f’k{kk funs’kd fnYyh okn la[;k †‰ƒ@„000 vkfn ekeyksa es aekuuh; U;k;ky; us bl ifj”kn ds izek.k i=kas dks iw.kZ :i ls ekU; ekuk gSA vr% ;g iqu% Li”V gS fd Jh d`”.kiky flag iq= Jh lq[kohj flag dk izek.k i= iw.kZ :i ls oS/k gS ftudk jksy ua0 ƒ0†ˆ0 gS rFkk gkbZ Ldwy ds led{k gS bl lEcU/k 7 esa Nk= dks vuko’;d :i ls mRihfMr fd;k tkuk ekuuh; U;k;ky; dh voekuuk le>h tk;sxhA From the letter of the Secretary, Board of Adult Education and Training, New Delhi it is clear that the board is being run by Delhi Administration and it is recognized by the Government of India vide recognition letter dated 26th July 1976. If a certificate of Matriculation is recognized by the Central Government, it is always acceptable for all purposes. Thus the certificate of Matriculation (High School) and mark sheet issued by the Board of Adult Education and Training are equally acceptable irrespective of the certificates issued by other educational boards. The enquiry officer or the disciplinary authority has not concluded that the certificate is fake or fraudulently obtained. The Board in its letter-dated 17.1.2001 has clearly mentioned that Sri Krishna Pal Singh son of Sri Sukhbir Singh obtained certificate from the Board and his Roll No. was 10460. Strangely enough the petitioner was appointed in P.A.C. in the year 1987, the Commandant 40th Btn. P.A.C. has initiated inquiry on the complaint of Munnu Singh after a lapse of 14 years. A complete inquiry was to be made regarding educational qualifications and other essential information submitted by the candidate before appointing him in service. Police verification was also to be made regarding his character educational qualification and residential address etc. If at the time of appointment all information submitted by the petitioners were found correct and on the basis of which appointment was given to him in P.A.C. later on after a lapse of 14 years, such certificate cannot be said to be not recognized merely on a complaint of a 8 person who is inimical to the petitioner and against which the petitioner has registered a criminal case. In the case of Sunita Devi and others vs. State of Haryana and others AIR 1997 Punjab and Haryana 84. In this case it has been observed as under: “After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance going through the records of the case, the Court is of the considered view that the petitioners deserve the desired relief on the sole ground that whild making their applications they had not misrepresented the facts at all. They had filed their certificates obtained from Board of Adult Education and Training, New Delhi along with their application. They had at that stage nowhere attached any certificate either from the institution or anywhere else to plead that the certificate obtained by them was recognized by the School Education Board of Haryana as equivalent to Matriculation. Despite that, their applications were entertained and on the strength of their merit they were admitted to the course under contention. The authorities i.e. the respondents herein woke up after about a year to cancel the admission granted to the. A Division Bench of this Court in Kamal Masin vs. Guru Nanak Dev University, 1992 (1) RSJ 551 held that recognition of equivalent of the qualifications possessed by a candidate for admission is a matter to be determined and decided before such admission is granted and not on subsequent date.” The principle of law enumerated in the case of Sunita Devi (Supra) squarely covers the facts of the present case. In the present case the petitioner had submitted his certificate along with the mark sheet before the respondents’ authorities. He has 9 not misrepresented the facts. The certificate and mark sheets are neither fake nor corrupt. Thus it was incumbent upon the authorities of P.A.C. to verify all the facts regarding educational qualifications, age, domicile etc. of the petitioner before giving him appointment. The counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the minimum qualification for appointment on the post of constable in P.A.C. was High School or equivalent examination recognized by the State Government or by the Central Government. There is no specific condition that such examination must have been recognized by U.P. High School Board equivalent to its High School examination. It is the prerogative of an Education Board to recognize and accept the certificate of a particular examination issued by any other Education Board for admission in Higher classes but it cannot be said that said certificate cannot be accepted for other purposes, if it is duly recognized by a State of Central Government. Thus if the High School certificate issued by Board of Adult Education and Training, New Delhi is not recognize by U.P. High School Board, as qualification for admission in its intermediate examination, it cannot be said that such certificate is not a valid certificate of High School/Matriculation for other purposes e.g. for getting appointment in the Government jobs where minimum qualification prescribed is High School/Matriculation. In view of the discussion made above, I find that the first charge framed against the petitioner is not proved against him. The disciplinary authority was not justify by holding the petitioner guilty of misrepresentation and not qualified for the post of constable in P.A.C. 10 Another charge against the petitioner is that on the basis of scholar register and transfer certificate issued by Junior High School Shamli and National Kisan Inter College, Shamli, the date of birth of the petitioner was shown as 1.12.1964, whereas in the High School certificate issued by the Board of Adult Education and Training his date of birth has been shown as 1.12.1968 as such the petitioner was overage at the time when he was recruited in P.A.C. The alleged transfer certificate issued by the National Kisan Inter College, Shamli was sent to the commandant 40th Btn. P.A.C. by one Munnu Singh along with his complaint. There is nothing to show as to under what authority, the complainant could get this certificate from the College on 28.9.2000. The petitioner has denied at all that he ever took education in Kisan Inter College, Shamli. As already stated above there was another person in the village whose name was Krishna Pal and the certificates might have related to that person and he died about 15 years ago. The petitioner has filed primary school certificate issued by Ashok Primary School, Railpar, Shamli from where he passed examination of 5th standard in the year 1980 and further transfer certificate issued by Devbani Shiksha Niketan, Badhaut (Bagpat) where he took education from 19.7.1981 to 20.5.1984 and passed eighth class. Thereafter, he appeared in High School examination conducted by the Board of Adult Education and Training Delhi and passed such examination in the yea 1986. In all these certificate the date of birth of the petitioner has been shown as 1.12.1968. The petitioner has duly proved the certificates and the education in those institutions. 11 Sri Munnu Singh has not bee able to prove that the petitioner is the same person regarding whom certificate has been issued by the Principal of National Kisan Inter College, Shamli and there was no other person in the village except the petitioner, whose name was Krishna Pal son of Sri Sukhbir Singh. The petitioner has submitted that his name is ‘Krishna Pal Singh’, whereas the person named in the alleged certificates is ‘Krishna Pal’. The disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority has shifted the burden of proof on the petitioner where as the burden of proof lies on the complainant who levels the allegation. For all purposes according to rules, the High School certificate is only a valid proof of date of birth and dated of birth mentioned in the High School Certificate is acceptable irrespective of the date of birth mentioned in other documents. Thus if a different date is mentioned in other documents, the date of birth mentioned in the High School Certificate is to be taken into consideration. Thus the complainant has utterly failed to prove that the certificates filed by the complainant Munnu Singh along with his complaint were valid documents and were legally obtained by him from the College and the person mentioned in those certificate is no other but the petitioner. Admittedly the certificates submitted by the petitioner at the time of his recruitment in P.A.C. in the year 1987 were genuine and valid and were issued by the authorities/institutions, which were duly recognized by the Government. The Recruitment Board at the time of appointment of the petitioner in the year 1987 had accepted the 12 certificates produced by the petitioner and on the basis of that certificates appointment was given to him in P.A.C. The petitioner has not played any fraud or misrepresentation at the time of his recruitment. If appointment was given to the petitioner in Police Force, the authority concerned was expected to have made a thorough enquiry regarding qualification and character of the petitioner. After completing 14 years of service in P.A.C. and after giving him the promotion, the order impugned cannot be allowed to stand. For the reasons stated above, a writ of certiorari is issued quashing the orders dated 3.4.2001 and 23.8.2001 passed by the respondents no. 3 and 2 respectively and the petitioner is reinstated on his post with all consequential service benefits. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. Dated: July 3, 2006 Rajesh Tandon, J. *Dhyani