RSA No.1860 of 1996 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.1860 of 1996 Date of decision: 29.06.2010 The State of Punjab through Director of Police, Punjab, Chandigarh and others .. Appellants Versus Shri Jasbir Singh, Ex. Constable .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI a). Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? b). To be referred to the Reporters or not ? c). Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Present:- Mr.Kirat Singh Sidhu, DAG, Punjab Mr.H.S.Mann, Advocate for the respondent . . . AJAY TEWARI, J. (ORAL) This appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments of the Courts below decreeing the suit of the respondent challenging his dismissal from service. The brief facts are that the respondent was appointed in the Police as Constable on 15.4.1985. An FIR was lodged against him under Section 198/420 IPC on the allegation that at the time of recruitment he had produced a bogus Matriculation Certificate. After trial, the respondent was acquitted by giving him benefit of doubt. However, thereafter a notice was issued asking him to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service. The allegation was again that he had produced a forged Matriculation Certificate at the time of joining the Police Force. The respondent filed a reply but the same was rejected, and without holding any enquiry in the matter, his services were terminated. Both the Courts below found on fact that indeed no departmental enquiry was ever initiated or conducted before the services of the respondent were terminated. It was for this reason the suit of the respondent was decreed. RSA No.1860 of 1996 ::2:: At the time, when the appeal was filed, no questions of law were proposed. Subsequently, the following questions of law were formulated. (i) Whether respondent can get service who does not even fulfil the basic qualifications ? (ii) Whether the Government servant is fit to be retained in service in spite of his acquittal by the Criminal Court ? As far as question No.(i) is concerned, the same is a pure question of fact. If the appellant had conducted a regular enquiry and came to the conclusion that a forged certificate was utilised 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. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE June 29, 2010 sukhpreet