IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.3180 of 2007 Date of Decision: 21.10.2008 Paramjit Singh .... Appellant vs. State of Punjab and another .... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajive Bhalla. Present: Mr. R.S. Bajaj, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. H.S. Gill, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Rajive Bhalla, J, (Oral) The appellant, challenges the judgments and decrees dated 2nd February, 2005, and dated 31st May, 2007 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jalandhar and Additional District Judge, Jalandhar dismissing his suit and his appeal, respectively. The appellant was appointed as a Special Police Officer, in the Punjab Police on 13th November, 1992. Vide order dated 25th November, 1997, the Commandant, 5th Battalion, IRB, Amritsar appointed the Deputy Superintendent of Police, to inquire into an allegation that the appellant had produced a false matriculation certificate. However, vide order dated 4th December, 1997, the enquiry was dropped and a criminal case was registered against the appellant. In addition, he was served with a notice, requiring him to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service for producing a false matriculation certificate, allegedly issued by the Punjab School Education Board, Mohali. The appellant filed a reply but vide order dated 24th December, 1997, he was dismissed from service for producing a false matriculation certificate. The appellant, thereafter filed a suit challenging the legality of the said order by alleging that as no minimum educational qualification is prescribed for appointment as a constable, the appellant was neither RSA No.3180 of 2007 -2- required to nor submitted a matriculation certificate. It was also asserted that as the appellant had put in more than three years service, he could not be dismissed, without holding a regular departmental inquiry under Rule 16.24 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (hereinafter referred to as Rules). The respondents filed a written statement, alleging that as the appellant produced a false matriculation certificate at the time of his selection and a criminal case was registered against him, they were justified in dismissing him. After considering the pleadings, evidence adduced and the arguments addressed, the learned trial court dismissed the suit. The appellant thereafter filed an appeal. The Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the findings recorded by the trial court. Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant did not submit any matriculation certificate much less a false certificate and as a result could not have been dismissed, without a regular departmental inquiry. It is also argued that the courts below lost sight of the fact that no minimum educational qualification is prescribed for recruitment to the post of a constable and therefore, even if the certificate is false it would not effect appellant's selection. It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned judgments and decrees be set aside and the order dismissing the appellant from service be quashed being illegal and void. Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that as the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below do not suffer from any error whether of law or of fact, they do not require interference. It is submitted that as per the instructions Ex. D-11, minimum educational qualification of matric are prescribed for recruitment to the armed as well as the civil police. As the appellant's induction into service was based upon a fraud, he was rightly dismissed from service. RSA No.3180 of 2007 -3- I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgments and decrees. Counsel for the appellant does not assert or even allege that the matriculation certificate is genuine. His argument in defence is that as the appellant was not required to submit a matriculation certificate he did not submit any certificate much less a false certificate. The submissions made by counsel for the appellant are devoid of any merit. The trial court as also the first appellate court have recorded concurrent findings of fact that the appellant submitted a forged matriculation certificate, at the time of his recruitment as a constable. As held by the courts below, the instructions Ex.D-11 govern the recruitment of constables to the Punjab Armed Police and provide a minimum qualification of matriculation. Fraud is a species of conduct that vitiates all acts and where fraud perpetuated while obtaining appointment is alleged and established, a person shall not be heard to urge that he is entitled to a regular departmental inquiry or the protection of constitutional provisions. The respondents were, therefore, justified in dismissing the appellant from service for securing employment by fraud. In view of what has been stated hereinabove, the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below, do not require interference and as no question of law much-less a substantial question of law arises for consideration, the appeal is dismissed. 21.10.2008 (Rajive Bhalla) sk Judge