IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 4555 of 2008 Date of decision: 27.7.2011. ______________________________________________________ Kulwinder Singh …. Petitioner. Versus State of HP & Ors. ….. Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the petitioner: Mrs. Ranjana Parmar, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Vivek Singh Thakur, Addl. AG for respondents No.1 to 3. _________________________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral) 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 120-B and Section 13(2) of the prevention of Corruption Act. 3. The petitioner was recruited as a constable in the year 1989. He applied for leave in February, 1991. This leave was not sanctioned and thereafter he served notice of resignation, which resignation was accepted. Thereafter the petitioner made a representation to the Director General of Police seeking reemployment. The said representation was also rejected on 25.8.1994. His further representation was also rejected. It was the case of the prosecution that thereafter the petitioner alongwith S/Shri B.D. Verma, Kartar Singh and Sukh Dev entered into a conspiracy and forged a letter allegedly issued by the Under Secretary (Home). As per this letter dated 24.11.1994, there was a direction to the Director General of Police to reemploy Kulbinder Singh. Later the police authorities came to know that Kulbinder Singh had given a forged letter and therefore, another criminal case was registered. 4. 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:- “ x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 22. It is true that appellant Kulbinder Singh got benefit of reemployment under this communication and, therefore, it does appear that he was involved in the preparation of this bogus letter in one way or the other, but there is not enough evidence to definitely hold such a view. This is especially so when the allegation of the prosecution that the letter Ext. PW3/E is forged does not stand established, though undoubtedly the letter is fake as its contents are contrary to the decision of the Secretary (Home), on the file, as indicated hereinabove. 23. In view of the above stated position, both the appeals are accepted. Impugned Judgment of the trial Court, convicting and sentencing the three appellants is set aside and the appellants are acquitted. It is clarified that letter Ext. PW3/E being bogus, no benefit can be claimed by appellant Kulbinder Singh on the basis of it. I have been told that he is no longer in service. If it is so, he shall not be taken back because of his acquittal and if he is still in service, he shall be immediately removed, the letter being bogus as it is contrary to the decision of Secretary (Home). Both the appeals stand disposed of.” 5. In view of the aforesaid directions of the learned Single Judge of this Court while allowing the Criminal Appeal, it is apparent that no benefit of acquittal can be given to the petitioner, in so far as his reemployment is concerned. Therefore, the petition is rejected. 6. At this stage, it is pointed out that the petitioner has filed a Special Leave petition in the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Obviously, if the matter is decided in favour of the petitioner, he may file a fresh petition asking for his reinstatement of service in which the State shall be entitled to raise all defences as raised in this petition. 7. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition is rejected. No costs. (Deepak Gupta) Judge July 27, 2011. (Krn Guleria)