In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... R.S.A. No.2458 of 1988 ..... Date of decision:29.11.2011 The State of Punjab and others .....Appellants v. Jasbir Singh .....Respondent .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL ..... 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? ...... Present: Mr. Ranvir S. Chauhan, Advocate for the appellants. None for the respondent. ..... Mohinder Pal, J. The present is appeal by the State of Punjab against the judgment of reversal passed by the Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur vide which the finding of the trial Court has been reversed. The plaintiff filed suit for declaration that he was entitled to the benefit and privileges of provisions for recruitment in Police force in place of his father Wattan Singh, Police Constable on compassionate grounds, who died during the course of employment. His father Wattan Singh died on 13.4.1978 because of the injuries suffered by him in the Nirankari R.S.A. No.2458 of 1988 [2] incident at Amritsar. He submitted his application for appointment on compassionate grounds to the Director General of Police, who in turn asked certain information from the Senior Superintendent of Police, Gurdaspur vide letter dated 18.9.1984, which was supplied by the SSP vide his letter dated 21.10.1984 (Ex.P.2). The SSP pointed out therein that the plaintiff was Matric fail and that his father died during the course of employment under the State due to the injuries received by him at Amritsar. The Director General of Police issued order (Ex.P.1) dated 6.11.1984 and ordered the enlistment of the plaintiff as a Constable in the Police Force at Gurdaspur by relaxing the educational qualifications and chest measurement. However, in para 3 of the above order, it was mentioned that the plaintiff may be enlisted “if found medically fit and that nothing politically or otherwise is found against him”. In the confidential inquiry conducted by the SSP, Gurdaspur through C.I.D., Gurdaspur and SSP, Amritsar, it was found that the plaintiff was earlier recruited as a Constable in the Police Force, Amritsar. As he was not a Matriculate and he had forged the Matriculation certificate to get enlistment, he was discharged from service w.e.f. 31.12.1983 by the SSP, Amritsar under Rule 12.21 of Punjab Police Rules. The SSP, Gurdaspur informed the DGP vide letter dated 21.1.1984 that the plaintiff could not be enlisted as a Constable. The suit was contested by the defendants in their joint written statement. They admitted that Wattan Singh father of the plaintiff died as a result of the injuries caused to him in the Nirankari incident during the course of his employment under the State. According to them, the plaintiff had earlier been recruited as a Constable in Amritsar and discharged from service under Rule 12.12 of the Punjab Police Rules, as he had produced a R.S.A. No.2458 of 1988 [3] false and fabricated certificate of Matriculation before the death of his father. Therefore, he was not entitled to be recruited as a Constable. The trial Court on the pleadings of the parties framed issues and the main issue whether the plaintiff was entitled to the benefit and privileges of provisions for recruitment in Police Force in place of his father Wattan Singh as alleged was decided against the plaintiff on the ground that previously he was discharged from service as he produced fabricated Matriculation certificate at the time of enlistment and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. However, in appeal the findings of the trial Court were reversed as the order of discharge dated 31.12.1983 passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Amritsar against the plaintiff did not show that he had forged such certificate. No inquiry was got conducted into the said allegations, therefore, it could not be said that he had given false information. The wording of the order dated 31.12.1983 merely shows that “he was unlikely to prove an efficient Police officer”. Aggrieved against this judgment and decree of the appellate Court, the appellant State has come in regular second appeal. I have heard learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the State, however, no one has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent, therefore, I have gone through the records of the Courts below. Learned Deputy Advocate General argued that as the plaintiff- respondent was discharged from service of the Police under Rule 12.21 of the Punjab Police Rules due to his fraudulent act of producing false and fabricated certificate of Matriculation before the death of his, therefore, he is not entitled to be recruited again in the Police Force on compassionate grounds. R.S.A. No.2458 of 1988 [4] From the perusal of the record, it is proved that the respondent has earlier been recruited as a Constable in Amritsar and his services were terminated under Rule 12.21 of the Punjab Police Rules, on the allegation that he produced false and fabricated Matriculation certificate, however, in the order of termination, the only wording written are that “he was unlikely to prove an efficient Police Officer”. The order does not show that he has forged or produced fabricated Matriculation certificate. No inquiry was got conducted against the plaintiff to prove the allegations of fabrication of certificate. Constable Sukhdev Singh (PW-1) of Police Station, Kahnuwan brought the verification register of that Police Station and deposed that on 24.12.1984, character verification of the respondent was made and nothing had been reported against him. Therefore, admittedly the plaintiff was not connected with any anti-social elements or political activities. The words “otherwise found against him” used in Order (Ex.P.1), on which the learned trial Court laid much emphasis cannot be used as bar against the respondent for future employment. An order of discharge or even an order of removal from Government service does not operate as a bar against future employment. From the wording “unlikely to prove an efficient Police Officer” does not mean that the allegation of fabrication of certificate has been proved against him. As the respondent was seeking employment on compassionate grounds in place of his father for which relaxation in educational qualification has been granted by the Director General of Police, as per the Government instructions, therefore, employment could not have been refused to him. If the conduct of the respondent during his probation period is again found to be such, the competent authority is R.S.A. No.2458 of 1988 [5] competent to take necessary action as per rules. From the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that there is no illegality or irregularity in the findings recorded by the appellate Court. Resultantly, I find no fault with the judgment and decree of the appellate Court and the present appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. November 29, 2011. (Mohinder Pal) Judge *hsp*