IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.1396 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : 28.01.2010. Jarnail Singh .....Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.J.S.Bhatia, 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? --- ORDER Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 22.8.2009 (Annexure P-9) whereby the Director, Public Instructions (School), Punjab has turned down his claim for reinstatement in service as a Math Master. The petitioner was appointed as a Math Master vide appointment letter dated 7.7.1998 (Annexure P-1) purely on temporary basis and on two years probation period subject to some of the following terms and conditions:- “1. xx xx xx xx 2. This appointment is purely temporary but likely to continue and at present it cannot be assured of its being permanent. C.W.P.No .1396 of 2010 (O&M) 2 3. The appointment is subject to two years probation. 4. xx xx xx xx 5. This appointment is subject to the antecedents/ character verification of the candidate and if not found satisfactory, his/her services will be terminated without any notice. 6 to 21. xx xx xx xx 22. The candidates antecedents will be got verified through C.I.D./Inq. D.E.O. concerned, it has not been already in case of Punjab Government employees and others.” Even 1½ year had passed when the services of the petitioner were terminated on 19.3.2000 (Annexure P-2) after about 1½ year of his appointment for the reason that during the course of verification of his character and antecedents, two criminal cases were found to have been registered against him vide FIR No.1040 dated 16.12.1996 under Sections 419, 420, 461, 471, 120-B IPC, P.S.Kurukshetra and another vide FIR No.97 dated 1.6.1996 under Sections 406, 409, 420 and 120-B IPC, P.S. Dhuri, District Sangrur. Both the FIRs pertain to the allegations of leakage of question papers of the annual examinations conducted by the Punjabi University, Patiala with the allegations that the petitioner, who was running Guru Nanak Academy, was the kingpin in the racket. It was alleged that the petitioner impersonated and appeared in the examination for some other candidate. True it is that in the FIR registered at PS Dhuri, the cancellation report was presented by the police which was accepted by the S.D.J.M., Dhuri, on 11.3.1998 (Annexure P-3). C.W.P.No .1396 of 2010 (O&M) 3 In the Kurukshetra's case also, the petitioner earned acquittal vide judgment dated 28.3.2006 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra. The acquittal order reveals that in order to prove the physical presence of the petitioner in the examination his specimen signatures and specimen hand-writing were sought to be taken during his police remand but the petitioner refused to give the same. The other documentary and oral evidence led by the prosecution was found insufficient by the trial Magistrate to hold the petitioner guilty. The petitioner thereafter sought his reinstatement in service on the ground that the termination order was founded upon the criminal cases in which he had earned acquittal. The authorities did not respond to the petitioner's claim, therefore, he approached this Court in CWP No.7132 of 2009 which was disposed of vide order dated 12.5.2009 (Annexure P-8) with a direction to the respondents to take a decision on the representation/legal notice served on behalf of the petitioner. Pursuant thereto, the Director, Public Instructions (School), Punjab, has passed the impugned order dated 22.8.2009 (Annexure P-9) rejecting the petitioner's claim for reinstatement in service, inter-alia, for the following reasons:- “While forwarding the report of Additional Director General Police Intelligence, Punjab, Chandigarh, about the antecedents of the petitioner, recommended that he is not fit for job as two criminal cases under Sections 419, 420, 461, 471, 120-B IPC at Kurukshetra and FIR No.1-6-96 U/s 406, 409, 420, 120-B at Dhuri are pending against the petitioner. In view of this, the petitioner was served with a C.W.P.No .1396 of 2010 (O&M) 4 notice dated 13.1.2000 as to why his services should not be terminated. After considering the reply furnished by the petitioner in response to the show cause notice, his services were dispensed with vide office order No.6/102- 99 Estt.II(4) dated 7.3.1999. After considering all facts, I have arrived at the conclusion that at the time of appointment of the petitioner, his antecedents were not satisfactory which was a pre-requisite condition, therefore, he should not have been appointed. Owing to his conduct, it would not be in public interest to retrain the petitioner in public service. Therefore, the representation and claim of the petitioner for retaining in public service is hereby declined.” I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and perused the records. The employment of a teacher is not an ordinarily employment `Government service'. He is the moulder of our future generation. The most precious assets of the nation is entrusted to him. If a teacher lacks in more values, character or integrity, it is more dangerous than an external aggression. Even a strong suspicion should be sufficient to disqualify for appointment as a Teacher. The petitioner was on two years' probation. No right ever accrued in his favour to hold the post. Had the charges been proved beyond any doubt, he would have been behind the bars. It was not a case of no evidence. It is only the appreciation of the evidence on record and following the principle that the charges must be proved “beyond any doubt” that the petitioner has been acquitted. It is not a fit case where this C.W.P.No .1396 of 2010 (O&M) 5 Court should exercise its writ jurisdiction, directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service. Dismissed. 28-01-2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE