IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.2416 of 2008 Decided on : June 22, 2010 Maghi Singh …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. R.D. Kaundal, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) Petitioner is aggrieved by Annexure P-12, dated 3rd June, 2008, whereby order for withholding his pension, in full, with immediate effect, has been passed. Petitioner was engaged as daily-wage mason on 1st December, 1983. On completion of ten years job, as daily-waged worker, he was offered work-charge status, vide Annexure P-1, subject to certain conditions. One of the conditions was that he would be producing proof of his age, in the form of matriculation certificate or a certificate obtained from the Panchayat. Petitioner submitted his affidavit, Annexure P- 3, per which he was born on 1st February, 1946. He retired from service on 31st January, 2004 and was granted pension. Lateron, he was chargesheeted for having made a false claim about his date of birth. Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… 2. Allegation was made against the petitioner that in fact he was born in the year 1932 and had made misrepresentation that his date of birth was 1st February, 1946. Enquiry was conducted. Enquiry Officer gave the report that he was born in the year 1932 and that his claim about his date of birth being 1st February, 1946 was false. On the basis of that report, impugned order Annexure P-12 was passed. Petitioner seeks quashing of this order. According to him, there was no record maintained by the Panchayat and, therefore, finding of the Enquiry Officer that as per Panchayat record petitioner was born in the year 1932 is bad on the face of it. His plea is that when he was born a horoscope was prepared, copy of which is Annexure P-3, and as per this horoscope his date of birth is 1st February, 1946. Respondents have stated in their reply that regular enquiry was conducted and the petitioner was afforded opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses of the presenting side and also to produce his own evidence and that he did not produce his evidence in support of the claim, which he has now made in the present petition. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 4. Enquiry report Annexure P-10 reads that the petitioner used to be present during the course of enquiry. He was afforded several opportunities to produce his …3… evidence, in support of his claim that his date of birth was 1st February, 1946, but he did not produce any. He did not rely upon horoscope Annexure P-3, during the course of enquiry. He has produced the same in this Court, for the first time and this is also not the original one, but only a Photostat copy. This Court is not supposed to make enquiry as to the genuineness of the horoscope. 5. Enquiry Officer relied upon the record from the Panchayat, i.e. entry in the Pariwar Register, copy Annexure R-2, to come to the conclusion that the claim of the petitioner, regarding his date of birth was false. As per Annexure R-2, Pariwar register was prepared in the year 1974-75 by the Panchayat and the age of the petitioner was recorded 42 years at that time. The document further shows that the petitioner has a younger brother, namely Bhag Singh, who is educated and is a Government servant and his age is recorded as 35 years, in the year 1974-75, meaning thereby that he was born in the year 1939 or 1940. If a younger brother of the petitioner was born in the year 1939 or 1940, per this entry in the Pariwar Register, Annexure R-2, petitioner cannot be heard to say that he was born in the year 1946. 6. In any case, the petitioner having adduced no evidence during the course of enquiry, in support of his claim about his date of birth, he cannot be allowed to …4… produce documents in the present petition to show that his claim is true and correct. In view of the abovestated position, writ petition is dismissed. June 22, 2010(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J