IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 15.01.2025 Sukhjinder Singh ......Petitioner(s)

Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present: Mr. Puneet Jindal, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Arshnoor Singh Chugh, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Aman Dhir, DAG, Punjab.

****

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner through instant petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of order dated 25.02.1999 (Annexure P-8) whereby he was dismissed from service and order dated 17.05.1999 (Annexure P-9) whereby his appeal was dismissed.

2. The petitioner passed the matriculation examination from Central Board of Higher Education, New Delhi in September' 1980. He came to be appointed as Constable vide order No.110/81 and joined service on 19.10.1981. The respondent vide order dated 15.10.1982 dismissed him from service invoking Rule 12.21 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (in short '1934 Rules'). He was dismissed from service forming an opinion that he has submitted a forged matriculation certificate in support of his educational qualification. He successfully preferred civil suit. It is apt to notice here that an FIR was also registered against him and he was discharged by Trial Court vide judgment dated 08.09.1986 holding that no prima facie case is made out against him. The Civil Court vide judgment dated 28.03.1989 decreed his suit and set aside order of termination from service. Pursuant to orders of Civil Court, he was permitted to rejoin on 13.08.1989. The respondent initiated fresh inquiry wherein petitioner was again declared guilty and vide order dated 10.09.1990 dismissed from service. It was again held that he has used a forged certificate. He unsuccessfully preferred appeal before Appellate Authority. He again filed civil suit which was decreed. He vide judgment dated 07.06.1993 was held entitled to be reinstated. The respondent preferred an appeal before Appellate Court against order of Civil Court. The said appeal came to be dismissed vide order dated 18.12.1996. The respondent unsuccessfully preferred RSA-2014-1997 before this Court. Pursuant to orders of Courts, he came to be reinstated w.e.f. 11.03.1998. Despite specific findings of learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, the respondent, on the same set of material and same allegations, initiated fresh inquiry and passed impugned order whereby he came to be dismissed from service. The findings recorded by learned Additional District Judge which are relevant for the adjudication of instant petition are reproduced as below:-

“11. Therefore, I affirm the findings of the court below in respect of issues framed in the suit. However, the court below when accepted the suit of the plaintiff ought to have given his relief in respect of arrears of pay etc. The plaintiff has been deprived of that relief to which he in legally entitled. Therefore, in addition to the relief granted by the court below, I also grant him relief of arrears of pay etc. as claimed in the suit. There is no force in the appeal and the same is dismissed with the above modification in the impugned judgement and decree. However, this order will not be deemed as order restraining the competent authority/disciplinary authority to hold fresh enquiry, if it is so advised in respect of the matter not covered in the previous enquiry. There is no order as to costs. Decree sheet be prepared. File be consigned to record room.”

3. In view of aforesaid findings of learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, the respondent was inhibited to initiate fresh inquiry on the basis of same material and allegations. The fresh inquiry could be initiated in respect of the material not covered in the previous inquiry. Despite aforesaid findings, fresh inquiry was initiated and petitioner was dismissed from service vide impugned order dated 25.02.1999.

4. Mr. Puneet Jindal, Sr. Advocate, counsel appearing f