IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civl Writ Petition No.9419 of 2011 Date of Decision : May 26, 2011. Const.Jasvir Singh .....Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.H.S.Mann, Advocate, for the petitioner. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 31.12.2010 (Annexure P-6) whereby he has been charge-sheeted on the allegations that he got recruited himself in the Punjab Police by producing a fictitious and bogus certificate of matriculation. The charge-sheet is sought to be impugned on two counts. Firstly, the petitioner contends that on the identical allegation, an FIR No.143 dated 19.5.1987 under Sections 198/420 was registered against him at Police Station Division No.4, Jalandhar, in which he was acquitted by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jalandhar vide judgment dated 24.2.1989 (Annexure P-1), hence no disciplinary action on the same set of allegations is permissible in law. Secondly, notwithstanding his acquittal by the CWP No.9419 of 2011 [2] Criminal Court, the petitioner was dismissed from service on the basis of same allegations vide an order dated 28.8.1993 which was successfully challenged by him in a Civil Suit and the judgment and decree passed in his favour has attained finality after dismissal of the Regular Second Appeal No.1860 of 1996 by this Court vide order dated 29.6.2010 (Annexure P-5). Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and after perusing the material on record including both the judgments relied upon by the petitioner, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned charge-sheet. I say so for the reason that while acquitting the petitioner in criminal case, the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class has categorically held that “simply because a bogus certificate was produced on the record which was in the name of the accused, a presumption cannot be taken that such certificate was produced by the accused only......” It may, thus, seen that the acquittal was not on the ground that the matriculation certificate produced by the petitioner is a genuine certificate, rather the benefit of doubt was given to the petitioner on the assumption that the prosecution failed to prove that the bogus certificate was produced by the petitioner. It appears that instead of correcting their error, the respondents compounded the same by terminating the services of the petitioner without holding any enquiry. The Civil Court set-aside the order on the ground that since the punitive action was founded upon a specific misconduct, it was imperative upon the authorities to serve a charge-sheet and hold an enquiry to prove such misdamnorums. The aforesaid finding of the Civil Court was approved by this Court vide order dated 29.6.2010 in RSA No.1860 of CWP No.9419 of 2011 [3] 1996 observing as follows: “.....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 certificate was utilized by the respondent no doubt his services should have been terminated. Since, admittedly, no departmental enquiry was held, this question of fact cannot be held in favour of the appellant. Question No.(ii) as proposed does not arise......” The Civil Court/High Court, thus, left it open for the respondents to hold a domestic enquiry and prove the misconduct of the petitioner. It is well settled that the parameters or standard of proof to establish a misconduct in a criminal trial on the one hand and those required to be followed in a domestic enquiry on the other, are quite different. In the criminal prosecution, the charges must be proved beyond any doubt but a delequent employee can be held guilty in a departmental enquiry on the basis of pre ponderence of evidence. In the instant case, there is no finding by the criminal court on appreciation of evidence that the certificate produced by the petitioner was genuine. The findings returned by the criminal court, therefore, are not likely to have any direct bearing on the domestic enquiry. The charge-sheet served upon the petitioner pertains to the production of a bogus matriculation certificate for getting himself recruited in police force. So far as the petitioner's reliance on Rule 16.3 of the Punjab Police Rules is concerned, suffice it to mention that the said rule is CWP No.9419 of 2011 [4] inapplicable in the present case for two reasons. Firstly, the said rule applies in a case where the police officer has been tried and acquitted by the criminal court in relation to an offence allegedly committed in his capacity as a Police Officer. The allegation against the petitioner is that he got recruited himself in police force by producing a bogus certificate and it does not pertain to performance of duties by him. Secondly, the acquittal of the petitioner by the trial Court is on a technical ground and the disciplinary action sought to be taken against him is saved by the exception contained in Clause (a) of Rule 16.3 (ibid). Similarly, the plea of delay in taking disciplinary action , has no substance. As noticed above, the services of the petitioner were earlier terminated and the said order was successfully challenged by him before the Civil Court. The respondent-authorities were pursuing their remedy of appeal against the judgment of the Civil Court and their regular second appeal was dismissed by this Court on 29.6.2010 only. Within six months thereafter, the charge-sheet has been issued to the petitioner. In the facts and circumstances, no delay can be attributed to the respondents. In any case, no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner, who is continuing in service despite such serious charges. For the reasons afore-stated, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. Dismissed. May 26, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE