M V SANJEEVA SETTY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner was an employee of the 1st respondent State of Karnataka. He was employed in the services of the Government as Weaving Demonstrator in the year 1949. Soon after entry into service, his date of birth was recorded as 29-5-1924 in the service register. He has, however, averred that immediately thereafter he represented to the authorities that his date of birth had been wrongly shown in the service Register and the same required rectification. However, on the representation made on 5th June, 1975, the matter was referred to the solicitor and Ex-Officio Deputy Secretary, Department of Law and Parliamentary Affairs, and he in turn, appointed an Enquiry Officer in terms of the provisions of the Karnataka State Servants (Determination of Age) Act, 1974, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Enquiry Officer by his order dated 25-2 1979 rejected the claim of the petitioner for a change in the service register in relation to his date of birth. Thereafterwards, the 1st respondent-State of Karnataka by its Notification dated 25-4-1979 has determined the age of superannuation for the petitioner depending upon the entry made in the service register originally. Aggrieved by the said notification ordering his retirement as well as the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the petitioner has presented this writ petition, on several grounds inter alia contending that the findings of the Enquiry Officer that the application was belated and made beyond the period prescribed under the Act and further that the evidence adduced before the Enquiry Officer had not been properly appreciated and the conclusions reached ought to have been in favour of the petitioner's date of birth being determined as 29-5-1932. The other contentions raised do not require to be noticed because they are relatable directly or indirectly to the second of the grounds mentioned above.

(2.) The learned Government Pleader has made available the service register of the petitioner, In, the said register, on 7-5 1950 an entry relating to date of birth has been made showing the said date as 29 5 1924. In the column relating to the basis for that entry is shown as horoscope. It is significant also to notice that under the column "by the Hindu year" it is shown as 1846 "ds^j^do *o3^d sS^stia: 3l-" Before the Enquiry Officer appointed under the Act, the petitioner examined his parents and produced a number of documents, among which were the birth extracts of his elder brother and his sisters together with a transfer certificate from the School.

(3.) It is better to take the second contention first and deal with the same. Under the Act proceedings before the Enquiry Officer are said to be quasi-judicial proceedings for purposes of Sees. 193 and 228 of the I.P.C. The proceedings are essentially quasi-judicial in nature. The findings of the Enquiry Officer are produced as Ext-A to the petition. The Enquiry Officer framed the following two issues :