Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurbachan Singh Alais Gurbachan Dass vs State Of Punjab And Others on 30 April, 2024
Author: G.S. Sandhawalia
Bench: G.S. Sandhawalia
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058969-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Neutral Citation No. 2024:PHHC:058969-DB
(110) LPA-509-2024 (O&M)
Decided on : 30.04.2024
Gurbachan Singh @ Gurbachan Dass ......Appellant(s)
Versus
State of Punjab and others ......Respondent(s)
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA,
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI
Present:- Mr. Nikhil Sabharwal, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Saurav Khurana, Addl. AG, Punjab.
*****
G.S. Sandhawalia, Acting Chief Justice (Oral)
CM-1231-LPA-2024
Application for condonation of delay of 23 days in filing the
appeal, is allowed, in view of the averments made in the application, duly
supported by affidavit. Delay of 23 days in filing the appeal is condoned.
CM stands disposed of.
LPA-509-2024 (O&M)
Consideration in the present letters patent appeal is sought of the
order dated 12.12.2023 of the learned Single Judge passed in CWP-26677-
2015, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed. The
learned Single Judge chose not to interfere in the punishment order of
forfeiture of one year service, which was awarded by the punishing authority
vide order dated 05.03.2010 (Annexure P-3). The same was further upheld in
appeal by the Appellate Authority on 26.11.2010 (Annexure P-5) and by the
Revisional Authority vide order dated 27.04.2011 (Annexure P-7). The mercy
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058969-DB
petition was also dismissed on 29.05.2012 (Annexure P-11) by the Secretary,
Department of Home, Government of Punjab.
2. The Learned Single Judge was primarily of the view that under
Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India scope of interference is very
limited regarding the issue of punishment. Reliance was placed upon
judgment of the Apex Court in Union of India and others Vs. Subrata Nath,
2022 LiveLaw (SC) 998 and Union of India and others Vs. P.
Gunasekaran, 2015 AIR (Supreme Court) 545 to come to the said
conclusion. The ground which prevailed with the Learned Single Judge was
that the writ petitioner was head of the security team and was posted at
Passport Office, Khanna and the FIR No.133 dated 24.07.2009 had been
registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC against different
persons regarding preparing of fake passports.
3. The reasoning given by the punishing authority as such was that
above referred FIR No.133 was registered against Avtar Singh and Tarlochan
Singh regarding the preparing of fake passports of the people with wrong
names and addresses after preparing forged voter cards and forged ration
cards. The same was being done in connivance with the officials of
government departments. The allegations against the present appellant were
that he did not bring the said fact into the notice of any senior officials. In
such circumstances the inquiry was initiated. Keeping in view the fact that the
departmental inquiry had been conducted and on the basis of the said
allegations, show cause notice dated 09.02.2010 (Annexure P-2) was issued as
to why three years regular services be not forfeited. Resultantly, keeping in
view the reply submitted and the personal appearance of the appellant, the
order was passed forfeiting only one year service. It was noticed that a lenient
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058969-DB
view was already being taken and being the dealing hand, it was the
responsibility of the appellant to prepare correct passports. By noting that
only one year permanent service was being forfeited, in spite of the proposal
of three years of forfeiture of service, which had been given, the said order had
been passed which has been duly upheld on the departmental side.
4. Counsel for the appellant has tried to convince us by pointing out
that in FIR No.132 dated 23.07.2009 Avtar Singh son of Devinder Singh and
other accused have been given benefit of doubt. He has referred to the order
of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Khanna dated 25.01.2017, now placed on
record as Annexure AX1 by way of application for placing additional
evidence. It is, accordingly, argued that the basis that the documents were
forged has not been substantiated. It is also pointed out that in the said FIR
some zimni orders were recorded mentioning the fact of his knowledge and
same could be used for recording conviction by referring to Annexure AX2.
5. On the other hand counsel for the State has specifically pointed
out that the said accused were also involved in FIR7 No.133 dated 24.07.2009
(Annexure R-1) which was also registered against the same Avtar Singh,
Tarlochan Singh on the same set of allegations regarding preparing of false
passports.
6. A perusal of the above facts would go on to show that the said
person is a habitual offender and benefit of doubt having been granted cannot
take away the preponderance of probabilities which is the standard of proof in
the departmental proceedings, which are based on a totally different concept,
rather than the principle which would apply in criminal proceedings regarding
the fact that the prosecution has to prove its case beyond any shadow of doubt.
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058969-DB
Challenge as such was also raised to the inquiry report before the Learned
Single Judge.
7. In such circumstances, once the punishment order has been
passed on the basis of the material available on record, the argument which has
now been raised is without any basis. Resultantly, keeping in view the settled
principle it is not for the Writ Court to interfere with the punishment which has
been imposed on the departmental side unless it shocks the conscience of the
Court and is per se arbitrary, is beyond the scope of judicial review. The
Learned Single Judge has, thus, chosen not to interfere and we do not find any
tangible reason to take a different view than what the Learned Single Judge
has taken. The present appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. All pending
applications including CM-1232-LPA-2024 for additional evidence are also
disposed of.
(G.S. SANDHAWALIA)
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
(LAPITA BANERJI)
30.04.2024 JUDGE
Naveen
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether Reportable : No
4 of 4
