Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 2545 (PNJ)

Balbir Kaur v. State Of Punjab

2010-09-07

AJAI LAMBA

body2010
Judgment Ajai Lamba, J. 1. This civil writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing Order dated 23.8.2010 (Annexure P-11) vide which the experience certificate furnished by the petitioner to get employment as ETT Teacher has been found to be bogus and forged. The respondents have directed that criminal prosecution be initiated against the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is only aggrieved by initiation of criminal prosecution for commission of offence of forgery and does not claim any other relief in the petition. 3. Learned counsel contends that Certificate, Annexure P-3, was furnished by the petitioner for having served G.G.S. Public School, Guru Ki Dhab (Matta), District Faridkot, from 1.4.1996 to 30.4.1999. Without doubt, the School was given recognition w.e.f. 1.4.1998 and therefore, for the period before 1.4.1998, the petitioner could not have claimed advantage of experience. 4. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner might not be given the benefit of experience, however, it remains a fact that the petitioner served the School from 1.4.1996 to 30.4.1999 and therefore, the experience certificate in that context is true and correct, and cannot be dubbed as bogus and forged so as to call for criminal prosecution for committing offence of forgery. 5. Notice of motion. 6. On the asking of the Court, Mr. B.S. Chahal, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. Requisite number of copies of the writ petition have been handed over to learned counsel for the respondents in Court. 7. On request of learned counsel for the parties and in view of the limited prayer made in the petition, the matter is taken up at this stage itself for final adjudication in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. 8. Heard. 9. The relevant portion of impugned order dated 23.8.2010 (Annexure P-11) reads as under:- "4.0 For further verification of the bogus experience certificate, the management/principals of the school, who issued experience certificate, was directed by the District Education Officer to submit the original record/document/Proof before the Committee Members in the office of Director Public Instructions (SE), Punjab, Chandigarh, Sector 17. In compliance thereof, the representative of the Guru Gobind Singh Public School, Guru Ki Dhab (Matta), District Faridkot, Sh. In compliance thereof, the representative of the Guru Gobind Singh Public School, Guru Ki Dhab (Matta), District Faridkot, Sh. Naib Singh, Manager appeared in person and submitted the original record for the period 1.4.1996 to 31.3.1998 and made statement in writing and also submitted entire attendance and pay record of Smt. Balbir Kaur and submitted that Smt. Balbir Kaur resigned on 14.7.99 on medical ground. As per the report of the inquiry committee, the school was given recognition w.e.f. 1.4.98, due to which, the experience prior to 1.4.98 i.e. 1.4.96 to 31.3.98 cannot be accepted. In the light of the aforementioned facts, the committee comes to the conclusion that the candidate is guilty of using bogus/forged certificate of un-recognized period for her benefit and her experience certificate is bogus. Therefore, allegation of preparing bogus/forged certificate by Balbir Kaur D/o Sh.Pritam Singh, Registration No.2387, Sr. No.28, Govt. Elementary School, Panjgrian Khurd, District Moga for the period 1.4.1996 to 31.3.1998 from Guru Gobind Singh Public School, Guru Ki Dhab (Matta), District Faridkot, still stands. In concurrence with the report of aforementioned committee, I come to the conclusion that the decision of terminating the services of Balbir Kaur D/o Sh. Pritam Singh, Registration No.2387, Sr. No.28, Govt. Elementary School, Panjgrian Khurd, Block Bagha Purana, District Moga vide this office order No.624-26 dated 22.10.09 is appropriate. Therefore, I, Baldev Singh, District Education Officer (E.E.), Moga affirmed the order of termination of the said candidate." 10. Consequent to passing Order Annexure P-l 1, letter Annexure P-12 has been passed, addressed by the District Education Officer (Elementary Education), Moga to Senior Superintendent of Police, Moga, indicating that the petitioner is guilty of commission of offence of fraud under the Indian Penal Code, and therefore, case be registered against her. 11. The above extracted portion of Order Annexure P-l 1 discloses that there is no dispute to the fact that petitioner served the School for the period mentioned in Certificate, Annexure P-3. Benefit of experience could not be claimed by the petitioner for the period the School was not recognised i.e. before 1.4.1998. 12. 11. The above extracted portion of Order Annexure P-l 1 discloses that there is no dispute to the fact that petitioner served the School for the period mentioned in Certificate, Annexure P-3. Benefit of experience could not be claimed by the petitioner for the period the School was not recognised i.e. before 1.4.1998. 12. Forgery has been defined under Section 463 (Chapter XVIII) of Indian Penal Code as, "Whoever makes any false document or false electronic record or part of a document or electronic record, with intent to cause damage or injury, to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any expressed or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery." 13. Fraudulently has been defined under Section 25 (Chapter II) of Indian Penal Code as - A person is said to do a thing fraudulently if he does that thing with intent to defraud but not otherwise. 14. Cheating has been defined under Section 415 (Chapter XVIII) of Indian Penal Code as, - "Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to" cheat". 15. In the case in hand, there is no finding recorded by the respondents that the petitioner had made any false document or part of the document/ record to support his claim to get employment. The main ingredient of forgery is making of a false document or part of a document. This having not been done, I am of the considered view that the petitioner has not committed the offence of forgery even as per the case of the respondents from the above extracted portion of the order. 16. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that language of certificate, Annexure P-3, indicating teaching experience of the petitioner, per-se, cannot be said to indicate wrong facts. 16. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that language of certificate, Annexure P-3, indicating teaching experience of the petitioner, per-se, cannot be said to indicate wrong facts. The certificate does not anywhere say that the School was recognised all-through 1.4.1996 to 30.4.1999 and in this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the certificate is forged so as to call for criminal prosecution of the petitioner for forgery of a document. The petitioner was required to furnish experience certificate from a School that was recognised, in terms of instructions issued in that context. Surely, the petitioner had not served in a recognised school from 1.4.1996 to 1.4.1998 (the period for which the School remain unrecognised). 17. In view of the limited prayer, this petition is disposed of while holding that the petitioner would not be amenable to criminal prosecution for committing offence of for- gery, as forgery of certificate is not established, for reasons given above. 18. It is made clear that if the petitioner is found involved in committing any other offence other than forgery of the document, this order shall not be a bar for the respondents to proceed against the petitioner.