IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. 5669 of 2008. Decided on: 28.05.2010. Mahani Ram alias Mani Ram. …Petitioner. -Versus- State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. __________________________________________________________ For the petitioner. : Mr. Lovneesh Kanwar, Advocate. For the respondents. : Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral): Material facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner was appointed on daily wage basis in the respondent-department in the year, 1981. He was to be given work charge status after completion of ten years of service. The appointment letter to this effect was issued on 31.01.1995. Petitioner showed his inability to join his duties as he could not produce the birth certificate from the concerned Panchayat. A complaint was lodged by his younger brother that the petitioner had already completed 60 years of age in the year, 1991. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a certificate from District Hospital Mandi, whereby his age was shown 55 years as on 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?. Yes. 19.01.1991. He was permitted to work on daily wage basis. Petitioner furnished a birth certificate obtained from Medical Board, Mandi, whereby his age was shown to be 57 years as on 18.05.1996. Petitioner was given work charge status after the receipt of certificate issued by the Medical Board, Mandi vide letter dated 19th September, 1996. His joining was accepted w.e.f. 01.01.1994. The brother of the petitioner again made a complaint to the Government. The matter was handed over to the Director (Vigilance) regarding the age of the petitioner. The Director (Vigilance) concluded that the petitioner had already attained the age of 60 years and the documents submitted by him were incorrect. Thereafter, the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. Inquiry Officer was appointed. He submitted his report vide Annexure R-5 to the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority after taking into consideration the report of the Inquiry Officer, dismissed the petitioner from service vide memorandum dated 22.12.1998. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 3. Petitioner was appointed on daily wage basis in the year, 1981. He was given work charge status, as noticed above, on 31.01.1995. However, since he could not produce the birth certificate, the work charge status could not be conferred upon him. His brother filed a complaint that his elder brother (petitioner) has already attained the age of 60 years. Thereafter, the petitioner obtained a certificate from District Hospital Mandi, whereby his age was shown 55 years as on 19.01.1991. He was permitted to work on daily wage basis. Petitioner again obtained a certificate from Medical Board, Mandi, whereby his age was shown 57 years as on 18.05.1996. On the basis of this certificate, he was given work charge status vide letter dated 19.09.1996. The Director (Vigilance), on the basis of the complaint filed by the brother of the petitioner, came to the conclusion that the petitioner has submitted false documents since he had already attained the age of 60 years. The regular disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under Rule 14 of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965. Shri S.N. Dhiman, Assistant Engineer was appointed as Inquiry Officer. He enquired into the matter and submitted his report vide Annexure R-5 to the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority agreed with the report furnished by the Inquiry Officer and imposed the penalty of dismissal upon the petitioner. There is variance in the certificates produced by the petitioner regarding his date of birth. In the certificate issued by the Medical Officer, District Hospital Mandi, his age was shown 55 years as on 19.01.1991 and in the certificate obtained from Medical Board, Mandi, his age was shown 57 years as on 18.05.1996. His younger brother has retired from Government service in the month of March, 1994. The date of birth of the petitioner as per Pariwar Register was found to be 30 years in 1962. Thus, it is evident that the petitioner has made false declaration at the time when he was given work charge status on 19.09.1996. He had already attained the age of 60 years at the time of issuance of letter dated 19.09.1996. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has failed to point out any discrepancy, shortcoming or illegality in the inquiry conducted by Shri S.N. Dhiman, Assistant Engineer. Accordingly, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge May 28, 2010. (bhupender)