Balbir Kaur vs State of Punjab and Others

Ajai Lamba, J.—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-ll) 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.

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.

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. With-out 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.

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.

Notice of motion.

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.

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.

Heard.

The relevant portion of impugned order dated 23.8.2010 (Annexure P-ll) 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, Gum

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.

Consequent to passing Order Annexure P-II, 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.

The above extracted portion of Order Annexure P-ll 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.

""Forgery"" has been defined u/s 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"".

""Fraudulently"" has been defined u/s 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"".

""Cheating"" has been defined u/s 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"" "".

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.

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).

In view of the limited prayer, this petition is disposed of while holding that the Petitioner would not be emanable to criminal prosecution for

committing offence of forgery, as forgery of certificate is not established, for reasons given above.

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.