Chandigarh: GMCH-32 doctor’s forgery complaint against ex-VC of Faridkot University dismissed

Ramkrishan Upadhyay

Chandigarh, June 14

A local court has dismissed a complaint filed against Dr Raj Bahadur, former Vice-Chancellor of Baba Farid University, Faridkot, Punjab, and Dr Vidur Bhalla, former Head of Department of Urology, Government Medical College and Hospital, Sector 32 (GMCH-32), filed by a GMCH doctor to summon them to face trial for forgery and cheating charges.

The complaint was filed by Dr Mahesh Chandra of the GMCH with the prayer to summon both the doctors to face trial for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the IPC.

The complainant had stated that Dr Bhalla was working in the GMCH as Head of Urology Department. He alleged that Dr Bhalla, with the connivance of Dr Raj Bahadur, made a fake ‘experience certificate’ and got the job. He claimed that Dr Bhalla joined the GMCH in 2008 as a part-time medical officer (urology) only for two days a week (Friday and Saturday) for the purpose of OPD and OT and that he had no experience of specialty work and teaching.

In the absence of experience certificate, he could not fulfil the ‘essential qualifications/conditions’ for the post of reader as well as senior lecturer in urology. However, the complainant alleged, on the basis of the ‘fake’ certificate, he got selected as reader (urology) in the GMCH-32 on a deputation basis.

Dr Chandra said he gave a complaint to the police, but no action was taken on it till date.

After hearing of the arguments, the court observed that there was no ingredient of cheating in the present case as alleged by the complainant, who also failed to prove that the offence of criminal breach of trust was committed by Dr Bhalla and Dr Raj Bahadur.

Moreover, the complainant alleged that Dr Raj Bahadur issued a fake certificate in favour of Dr Bhalla wherein it is mentioned that he teaches undergraduates and postgraduates. However, the complainant did not have any evidence that the certificate was a forged and fabricated document.

In the certificate, it was not mentioned that Dr Bhalla had a teaching experience of two years, to meet the condition as mentioned above.

It seemed that the real dispute was regarding the appointment of Dr Bhalla in the GMCH department, the court observed, adding that the complainant had already challenged the appointment in the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh, as per the status report furnished by the police.

Thus, this court was of the considered view that no offence as alleged by the complainant was made out against the accused and the complaint stood dismissed, the court observed.