IXU *Mu|n-t»! • |y lni.bg Itb l-t>^l ws>i hl>yly11" in>*iy>i»i>>y»ii»Ks.^ nih^>j>Bip ish bb^lle ('B 'lt) bllAll-lnlX - ItOln) 'sl.l),^. (cb&B. fijl t-bk) JtUtiy Injhy ib|t>> '^Khhft &lbU>l»lb-^ •Sty»-R ('JS 'h) bll.bll.ltM), - l»ln)'sltix^ (tb&t). ^ l-t>lt.) l>lh^| ln]>«ylb]W \fh l-t»lhj>ld>• t ('B 'lt) bll.bll.lnlk - IKlln) 'BI>IXg> (aatt fih t'bh) l>llt.B] Injtty U>|W l^icbRjic by.ikytio 't Root^R-1-y Wlh|h 'l-bh hlflb hWieh l.lhy InJKy tl>|»'bbJIMXIS fcttIB B^Bbab' I; aay fvU'Hf!'J.:-' ^.:»- (•js •h) uitSifcisa^ - luiy 'si>i».^-fi^aE Mh(sft '|h "^hBk 1.11t - ^lby ('B 'h) bll>bll«lnlX-IU>to]»>l,ikE> '(<^gl.>. p?i >-f>lt) l>lh.y Injhy tb|» 't •tB£^•^•c^'fc41t.4fiS ((fllirt' 'aitt Itlklbb |j* : InWIIP ^b 1> l> SlK'iltt caittkbib ;lnltib*>^II-lt> ibb^llf v^ (^-g'-^s'.;. h&nK»^ol?^7v^ ^ Jfcll 'iQlifeJ^jte ttey^ll^Ci J^fil^jl JSlttt w HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH : BILASPUR SINGLE BMICH : HON'BLESHRI IVIANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,J^ -Writ Petitlon (S) No.3358/2005 PETITIONER Kawnarlal Sahu RESPONDENTS Versus State of Madhya Pradesh Chhattisgarh) and others (now V Appearance: 1, Shri Shushobhit Singh, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Bhaskar Payasi, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents No. 1 to 3. None for respondent No.4. ORAL - ORDER (Passedon 17.02.2010) 1. By this petition, the petitioner has called in question the coramunication dated 11.8.2000 (Annexure A-6) and his consequent v ,; retirementw.e.f 31.8.2000. 2. Facts of the case necessaiy for adjydication of conta-oversy involved in this petition are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Gangman in the year 1977 in the Public Works Department (Building 8s Road), Khairagarh. At the time of enta-y into service, service book of the petitioner was prepared: Petitioner thereafter continued to work as Gangman. Vide communication dated 11.8.2000 (Annexure A-6), Sub Divisional Officer, P.W.D., Khairagarh informed the pedtioner that as he is attaining the age of superannuation on 31.8.2000 as per the entries relating to date of birth recorded in his service book; he is being -2- @ superannuated and retired w.e.f. 31.8.2000. After receipt of such communication, petitioner submitted a representation dated 24.8.2000 (Annexure A-7) to the Sub-Divisional Officer stating therein that his date of birth as recorded in the service book is 13.6.1949 and not 13.6.1940. He specifically alleged that digit "9" as originally recorded in the service book has been scratched/interpolated and it has been changed to "O" whieh calls for inquiiy. Along with such representation, petitioner submitted the certificates of passing primary, middle and higher secondary examination. It was also stated that in the duplicate service book retained by the petitioner, his date of birth has been recorded as 13.6.1949 only. Petitioner prayed for an inquiiy, treating his date of birth as 13.6.1949 instead of 13.6.1940. In fact when the petitioner had come to know that some interpolation has been made in his service book, the petitioner, much before issuance of communication dated 11.8.2000, made a representation on 12.5.2000 to the Sub-Divisional Officer. The petitioner had submitted his originals along with letter dated 12.5.2000 in the course of inquiry made by the Sub Divisional Officer on petitioner's complaint regarding interpolation of his service record. However, the said inquiry was not brought to its logical conclusion. This led to retirement of the petitioner by treating his date ofbirth as 13.6.1940 w.e.f. from 31.8.2000. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner at the time ofentry into service, disclosed his date ofbirth as 13.6.1949 only and it was so recorded in his service book, duplicate of which has been placed on record as Annexure A-1. He further submits that documents annexed along with petition i.e. mark sheets ofpassing primaiy, middle r\ and higher secondary school examination as also school transfer -3- certificate placed on record would show that in all these docuraents the date of birth of the petitioner has invariably been recorded as 13th June 1949. He submits that having preferred representation and having brought to the nofice of the respondent authorities that there has been interpolation in his service record, a detailed inquiiy was required to be made into the allegations, which was not done. In his submission, petitioner was errfitled to continue in service till he attained 60 years of age and his premature retirement on 31st August 2000, treating his date ofbirth as 13.6.1949 is illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable in law. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State/respondents No. l to 3 submits that the petitioner has been retired only on the basis of entries raade in his seryice book, in which his date of birth has been recorded at 13.6.1940 and not 13.6.1949. It has been argued that at the time of entry in service, entries in the service book are made as per the disclosure made by the Government einployee. Once, an entiy has been made, the petitioner is bound by the same and estopped from challenging the correctness at the fag end of his service. Referring to the provisions contained in Madhya Pradesh Financial Code- Part-4 Rule 84 8s 85, it is stated that entries once made in the service record with regard to date of birth shall be treated as final and no claim for any change would be entertained. It has been also stated that the allegation of interpolation in the service record are vague and not specific. It is submitted that petitioner is bound by the enta-ies made in the service book at the time of entry into service and the same cannot •be changed at the fag end of his service on any ground whatsoever. It is also stated that no reliance can be placed on duplicate service book ^ssyai^ <r.s<"' :'~'<' i •fc. -4- V) filed by the petitioner, copy of which has been filed by the petitioner as Annexure A-l as the same is not attested by the competent authority. 5. Taking into consideration the nature of controversy involved in the petition, this Court had directed the respondents to produce original service book of the petitioner for the perusal of this Court. Learned counsel for the State produced before me priginal service book of the petitioner. Prima facie, it is seen that figure "9" written at different places in the said original service book, if compared with alleged figure "O" appearing after figure "4', there appears to be some discrepancy. Looking to the size of figure as written in the service book it appears quite improbable that figure "O" would be written in the manner shown against column 5 of the service book. If this is compared with the copy of duplicate service book filed by the petitioner along with the petition, it cannot be said that the petitioner's allegation of interpolation with his service book was baseless and without any foundation. 6. Petitioner has brought on record a representation dated 12.5.2000 (Annexure A-8) Gled by him even before issuance of the impugned communication submitting his original documents containing date of birth. Impugned communication relating to petitioner's superannuation on 11.8.2000 (Annexure A-6) was issued subsequent to petidoner's representation dated 12.5.2000. Vide representation dated 24.8.2000 (Annexure A-7), petitioner categorically alleged that figure "9" appearing in his service book showing his date of birth has been erased mischievo'Hsly and it has been changed to "O which calls for an inquiiy. In the return filed by the respondents all that has been stated is that there is no interpolation in the service book. No material has been 1 '-^•ViS^K^ ^7S'iws^. '""^""1 S ^ -5- placed before this Court to show that on the representadon made by the petitioner, any inquiry was inade at any level to examine the correctness of allegations of interpolation. 7. Prom facts and circumstances ofthe case and taking into consideration various anomalies with regard to the fact that ifyear 1940 is taken as date of birth, this would mean that petitioner passed primary school examination at the age of 25 years, and matriculation at the age of 28 years and also taking into consideration that all the documents indicate his date of birth as 13.6.1949, as also that the allegation of interpolation is not without any basis and foundation, I am of the view that the respondents were duty bound to make proper inquiiy and investigation into the allegation and arrive at just conclusion in a fact finding inquiry which has not been done. If the allegation of interpolation is found correct, it would mean that petitioner was retired from his service 9 years before the date of his actual retirement. 8. Taking into consideration the seriousness of the matter, I deem it expedient to direct the respondents No.l/Secretary, Public Works Department, Govt. of Chhattisgarh to hold a fact finding inquiiy into the petitioner's allegations of interpolation of his service record with regard to his date of birth. Respondent No.l/ Secretary, Public Works Department, Govt. of Chhattisgarh shall hold that inquiry either by himself or thorough subordinate officer not below the rank of Chief Engineer. It would be open for the respondents to obtain opinion of experts, Government examiner with regard to questioned documents. If upon inquiiy it is found that the date of birth of the petitioner was changed unauthorizedely and his original date of birth was only 1949, petitioner shall be granted entire benefit of service which he would got -6- s had he continued in serpice. If the inquiiy reveals any niischief played by any officer in dealing the service record of the petitioner, it shall be open for the respondent to take appropriate disciplinary/criminal action against the responsible person. 9. Taking into consideration that the petitioner has been retired on 31.8.2000, it is expected that the inquiry as ordered by this Court shall be held as expeditiously as possible. The original service book produced before this Court for inspection shall be kept in safe custody of the concerned Enquiry Officer. 10. With the aforesaid direction, the petition is finally disposed of. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge Sinha