Saurabh Malik
Chandigarh, August 25
Less than two years after the police were directed to file an affidavit on the investigation into the role of PSPCL officers/officials in a case involving alleged acceptance of fake certificates during assistant linesmen’ recruitment, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has summoned the Additional Director-General of Police (Crime). He has been asked to explain why it has taken so long to investigate the matter “in terms of the order of this court”.
The direction by Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal of the High Court came on a petition filed against the state of Punjab and other respondents by Kuljinder Singh and other petitioners through counsel Ranjit Singh Kalra and Ajay Kaushik.
Taking up the matter, Justice Grewal asserted that the court, vide an order dated October 27, 2020, had directed the DIG/IG (Crime) to file an affidavit regarding the investigation into the role of the officers/officials. However, the state counsel was seeking additional time for investigation on the grounds that the record was voluminous.
Justice Grewal added that a status report, too, had been filed on January 6 seeking more time. “The directions of this court were issued on October 27, 2020, about two years ago and not much progress has been made,” Justice Grewal observed before asking the Additional Director-General of Police to be present in the court on the next date of hearing.
Before parting with the case, Justice Grewal also fixed the matter for further hearing on September 27. Handing over the probe to the crime branch of the Punjab Police, the High Court, in its previous order, had observed that at least prima facie evidence was “seen to have come that the experience certificates, or some of them, are wholly ‘false’ and, therefore, they are fake certificates”.
The Bench had also directed that the crime branch would investigate the matter in its entirety “with regard to whether the experience certificates in question were issued at all” by the firms concerned or whether the firms now simply disowned them to try and wriggle out of any criminal liability. The direction followed submission by a counsel that two of the firms had written back to state that the experience certificates shown to have been issued were not actually issued by them.
Court’s observation in previous order
The High Court, in its previous order, had observed that at least prima facie evidence was “seen to have come that the experience certificates, or some of these, are wholly ‘false’ and, therefore, they are fake”.
