MUHAMMAD ANWAR vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, FAISALABAD and others
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the judgment of the Service Tribunal, whereby the petitioner's departmental appeal against the penalty of dismissal from service—subsequently converted to removal from service—was partly dismissed. The disciplinary action was initiated against the petitioner under the Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, for procuring employment as a Police Constable through a forged and fake 9th class certificate. The core legal question was whether the petitioner's service could be terminated for producing a forged certificate when he allegedly possessed the requisite Middle qualification and obtained no benefit from the fake document. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact regarding forgery and the production of a fake certificate determined by the department and upheld by the Service Tribunal cannot be interfered with in the absence of plausible justification, and that producing a fake certificate demonstrates a conduct that disqualifies the incumbent. The court laid down the principle that the production of fabricated documents to secure public employment constitutes grave misconduct warranting removal from service, regardless of whether alternate qualifications were possessed.
- Can an employee's removal from service be sustained when grounded on the procurement of employment through a forged certificate?
- Are concurrent findings of fact by a departmental authority and the Service Tribunal open to interference by the Supreme Court without plausible justification?
- Does the failure to utilize or derive benefit from a forged educational certificate absolve an employee from disciplinary liability for producing it?
- Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975
ORDER
' JAVED IQBAL, J.--- Pursuant to disciplinary action initiated against the petitioner under the Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 on account of procuring employment of Police Constable on a forged, false and fake certificate showing that he had passed class 9th, major penalty of dismissal, from service was imposed by means of order, dated 7-12-1995. After 'exhausting the, departmental remedies the petitioner preferred an appeal which has partly been accepted and penalty of dismissal from service has been converted to that of removal from service.
2. Mr. Talib H. Rizvi, learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court entered appearance on behalf of petitioner and urged with vehemence that the service of petitioner could not have been terminated on the basis of alleged forged and fake certificate as no benefit whatsoever was obtained on the basis of said certificate but the prescribed qualification for appointment of Constable was Middle and the authenticity and genuineness of Middle certificate was never disputed. It is also pointed out that the certificate in question was not filed by the petitioner nor utilized by the appointing authority and on this score alone the judgment impugned is liable to be set aside.
3. We have carefully examined the contentions as agitated on behalf of the petitioner in the light of relevant provisions of law and record of the case. The factum of forgery and production of fake certificate for procuring employment being questions of fact have been determined by the department after having a thorough probe, findings whereof were upheld by the learned Service Tribunal which cannot be reserved in absence of any plausible justification which is lacking in this case. We are not persuaded to agree that no benefit had been obtained by the petitioner for the reasons that petitioner could not have been appointed without producing the said certificate. No certificate regarding middle class was either produced before the learned Service Tribunal or this Court, hence the question of determination of its genuineness or authenticity does not arise.
Besides that it is not the question of benefit simpliciter but the petitioner has exposed his bent of mind and conduct which cannot be appreciated. No question of law of public importance is involved in the matter and the judgment impugned being well-based does not warrant any interference. The petition being devoid of merit is dismissed and leave refused.