IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.: 11929 of 2008. Reserved on: 30.12.2010. Decided on: 07.01.2011. _____________________________________________________ Premu. … Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and another. … Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the Petitioner : Mr. T.S. Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Vinod Thakur, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. Rajiv Sharma, J. Petitioner was appointed as T/Mate in the respondent/ department on 22.8.1985. The petitioner was conferred work- charged status vide Annexure R-1 on 6.3.1986. In Annexure R-2 he has given his date of birth as 28.4.1962. A complaint was received by the department from Shri Joginder Singh and Shri Rameshwar Dass that the actual date of birth of the petitioner was 1938. Thereafter departmental proceedings were initiated against 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - the petitioner under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the CCS (CCA) Rules for brevity). Assistant Engineer, Ramshahar was appointed as Inquiry Officer on 5.3.2001. He submitted the inquiry report to the disciplinary authority and on that basis, the petitioner was dismissed from service vide Annexure A-2 on 30.4.2001. He preferred an appeal before the Superintending Engineer. He allowed the same on 4.2.2003 and the order of dismissal was set aside. The petitioner was reinstated on 4.7.2003. Thereafter the decision was taken to initiate fresh inquiry as per office order dated 5.2.2004. The petitioner challenged this order before the erstwhile learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by way of O.A. No.659 of 2004. On 19th March 2004, a statement was made by the learned Additional Advocate General that vide office order dated 17th March, 2004, letter issued on 5th February, 2004 was withdrawn. Copy of office order dated 17th March, 2004 is annexed as Annexure A-7. However, it is apparent that thereafter Rule 29 of the CCS (CCA) Rules was invoked to revise the order passed by the Superintending Engineer vide Annexure A-3 on 4.2.2003. The petitioner was directed to make himself available before the Principal Secretary (PW) on 3.5.2005 vide order dated 21st April, 2005. 2. Mr. T.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that the Rule 29 of the CCS (CCA) Rules - 3 - could not be invoked after two years. He also contended that the date of birth of his client is 28.4.1962 and not 1938. 3. Mr. R.P. Singh, learned Assistant Advocate General has strenuously argued that the decision has rightly been taken to revise the order passed by the Superintending Engineer, under Rule 29 of the CCS (CCA) Rules. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. 5. The petitioner has given his date of birth as per Annexure R-2 as 28th April, 1962. According to Annexure R-3, his date of birth is 1938. Before the Medical Board, he has given his age 32 years. In Annexure R-5, the date of birth of the petitioner given is 30th November, 1953. Petitioner’s son was also working as Work-Charged Beldar in Nalagarh Sub-Division. His date of birth, on the basis of school leaving certificate is 1st September, 1958. In Annexure R-7, the date of birth of the petitioner has again been reiterated to be 30th November, 1953. The disciplinary authority on the basis of inquiry report has imposed the penalty of dismissal from service upon the petitioner. However, the appellate authority has set aside the penalty of dismissal on 4.2.2003. An attempt was made by the respondent-department to hold de-novo inquiry, which was not permissible under law and the learned Additional Advocate General has rightly made a statement that order dated 5th February, 2004 was withdrawn vide office order dated 17th March, 2004. However, on the plain reading of Rule 29 of the CCS (CCA) - 4 - Rules, it is apparently clear that the order may be revised at any time though the order has to be revised expeditiously. However, in this case the decision has been taken only within a period of two years to revise the order of Superintending Engineer. The Superintending Engineer has erred in law by not taking into consideration the conflicting dates of birth of the petitioner. In Annexure R-1, the date of birth of the petitioner has been shown to be 28.4.1962. According to Pariwar Register, Annexure R-7, his date of birth is 1938. In Annexure R-5, copy of births and deaths register, his date of birth is 30th November, 1953. 6. The date of birth of petitioner’s son, Shri Ram Pal, as per Annexure R-6, transfer certificate issued by Head Master, Govt. High School, Manpura, District Solan, H.P. is 1st September, 1958. Even assuming hypothetically that the date of birth of petitioner was 30th November, 1953, it is not possible that the difference in the age of father and the son would be only five years. It can safely be presumed that the date of birth of the petitioner has rightly been recorded as 1938 and by the common sense view, he was of 20 years age at the time when his son was born on 1st September, 1958. In case the date of birth of the petitioner is taken as 28.4.1962, the father will be younger in age by four years vis-à- vis his son, Shri Ram Pal. The petitioner has only been directed to make himself available before the Principal Secretary (PW) vide Annexure A-8, dated 21st April, 2005 on 3.5.2005. The petitioner has filed the present petition pre-maturely. He had been given - 5 - opportunity to explain his position by the Principal Secretary (PW) vide letter dated 21st April, 2005. Petitioner is also required to be given reasonable opportunity of making a representation against the penalty proposed after setting aside the order passed by the Superintending Engineer. 7. Accordingly, in view of the above discussion and the observations made hereinabove, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. However, it shall be open to the respondents to proceed with the matter under Rule 29 of the CCS (CCA) Rules. Interim order dated 11.5.2005 is vacated. The pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. January 07, 2011. (sck).