CWP No.6430 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.6430 of 2008 Date of decision: January 12, 2009 Agyakar Singh ...Petitioner Versus Punjab State Electricity Board and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Rajiv Malhotra, Advocate, for the respondents. Rajan Gupta, J. The petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing a charge-sheet issued to him on 30th November, 2005, Annexure P-8 on the ground that he has been punished twice for the same charge. The petitioner has also sought quashing of the inquiry report, Annexure P-13 and the show cause notice, Annexure P-17. The petitioner was inducted as a lineman in the Punjab State Electricity Board on 19th October, 1985. On 9th June, 1987 his services were terminated. The petitioner challenged his termination order by way of a civil suit before the Civil Judge, Kapurthala. The said suit was dismissed on 17th March, 1990. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the District Judge, Kapurthala against the said decision which was also dismissed on 27th May, 1992. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a Regular Second Appeal which was registered as RSA No.1561 of 1992. The second appeal was admitted to regular hearing CWP No.6430 of 2008 2 by this court on 21st September, 1992. The petitioner was, however, taken back in service on 16th January, 2000 vide order dated 27th February, 2001, Annexure P-2. The petitioner thereafter withdrew the RSA preferred by him and the same was dismissed as withdrawn on 29th August, 2001. On 30th November, 2005, a charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner for having submitted a bogus certificate at the time of his appointment. An Enquiry Officer was appointed who opined that a compromise had been arrived at between the petitioner and the Board and in view of the same the charge-sheet be dropped. The matter was, however, remanded back to the Enquiry Officer. The said officer after holding a detailed inquiry came to the conclusion that the experience certificate produced by the petitioner at the time of his initial appointment was forged and, therefore, the said charge stood proved. He recommended disciplinary action against the petitioner. A notice was thereafter issued to the petitioner as disciplinary action was proposed to be taken against him. Reply has been filed on behalf of the Board wherein it has defended its action in issuing charge-sheet to the petitioner for producing a bogus certificate at the time of his initial selection. It has also been stated that the decision of their administrative member to reinstate the petitioner in service was reviewed in a meeting of the whole time members in exercise of power conferred by Regulation 32 of the Punjab State Electricity Board (Employees Punishment and Appeal Regulations), 1971 and it was decided to initiate regular inquiry against CWP No.6430 of 2008 3 the petitioner. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and given our thoughtful consideration to the entire matter. It is apparent from the record that at the time of his initial appointment as Lineman, the petitioner produced a bogus experience certificate. The certificate was to the effect that Agyakar Singh (the petitioner) had served in PSEB Sub Division, TLSC, Batala from 1st June, 1977 to 12th July, 1978 as work charge TMM for a total period of 408 days. The certificate was issued allegedly by SDO, PSEB, TLSC, Batala. It was a Vigilance Department of PSEB which found that the petitioner had never worked as work charge TMM in the said Sub Division during the period 1st June, 1977 to 12th July, 1978. The Vigilance thus came to the conclusion that the experience certificate produced by the petitioner was forged. Later on, in the inquiry held pursuant to the disciplinary proceedings, the Enquiry Officer also found the certificate to be forged. We thus find no substance in the submission of the counsel that the petitioner has been punished twice for the same charge. In fact, the services of the petitioner were terminated way back in the year 1987. He was suddenly taken back in service in 2001 despite the fact that in the civil litigation initiated by the petitioner, the stand of the Board had been vindicated. In the judgment of the apex court reported as Bank of India and Anr. Vs. Avinash D. Mandivikar and Ors., (2005) 7 S.C.C. CWP No.6430 of 2008 4 690, it was held that a person who seeks equity must come with clean hands. Equity jurisdiction cannot be exercised in the case of a person who gets appointment on the basis of a false certificate or by playing fraud. No sympathy or equitable consideration can come to rescue of such a person. It was further held that compassion cannot be allowed to bend the arms of law where an individual acquired a status by practicing fraud. Fraud and collusion vitiate even the most solemn proceedings in any civilized system of jurisprudence. In this view of the matter, we find no ground to interfere in the present case and the writ petition is hereby dismissed. However, before parting with the judgment, we may notice with concern that due to the decision taken by the administrative member of the Board, the petitioner was reinstated in service vide order dated 27th February, 2001 and was able to continue in service thereafter. This is despite the fact that the petitioner had lost the civil litigation before two courts below where the Board had opposed the claim of the petitioner. His Regular Second Appeal before this court was merely admitted to regular hearing. There was no interim order in the same. The administrative member despite being aware of the fact that the petitioner had secured appointment on the basis of a bogus certificate, decided to reinstate him in service. The petitioner was thus able to work with the Board and able to draw salary from the year 2001 onwards. After a charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner, the Enquiry Officer submitted a report vide Annexure P-13 wherein he observed that a CWP No.6430 of 2008 5 compromise had been arrived at between the petitioner and the Board and, therefore, the charge-sheet deserved to withdraw. It is inexplicable how the administrative member issued the order dated 7th February, 2001 reinstating the petitioner in service despite the fact that he was aware that the petitioner had secured appointment on the basis of a forged certificate. It is also surprising that the Inquiry Officer opined in his inquiry report, Annexure P-13 that there had been a compromise between the petitioner and the Board. It is evident that both these officers acted against the interest of the Board and in total violation of law. We fail to understand how there can be a compromise between an employee who secures appointment on the basis of a forged certificate and the Board. Such a compromise between a delinquent employee and an instrumentality of State, is unknown to law. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct that in case at the time of culmination of the disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner is held guilty, the Board shall fix responsibility for directing his reinstatement in service. In case it is found that petitioner was not entitled to be reinstated, the Board shall take a decision regarding recovery of the amount paid to the petitioner as salary for the period he was not entitled to remain in service. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE January 12, 2009 (ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) 'rajpal' JUDGE