(1.) BY way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner prays for setting aside the order dated 30th June, 2011 whereby a request for voluntary retirement from service was accepted w.e.f. 31st July, 2011. The petitioner has also prayed for issuance of a writ of certiorari praying for setting aside of an order dated 11th February, 2013 whereby the petitioner's representation dated 7th November, 2012 was rejected. The sole ground in support of the prayer made in the writ petition is that the impugned orders have been passed pursuant to a forged and fabricated application dated 2nd February, 2011 purportedly seeking to voluntarily retire from service with the Border Security Force made in the petitioner's name to the Commandant of 152 Battalion, BSF. The petitioner has taken a categorical position that he received information in this regard from the respondents on 1st August, 2012 in response to a query made by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act. In support of his submission, the petitioner places reliance on the opinion of a hand writing expert which has been obtained by him to the effect that the handwriting and signatures are not that of the petitioner.
(2.) SO far as the opinion which the petitioner has obtained is concerned, it is an admitted position before us that the petitioner has sought the opinion on a photocopy of the application dated 2nd February, 2011. It is well settled and needs no elaboration that a photocopy cannot be considered a document is not a document in the eyes of law. Certainly, there can be no meaningful comparison of photocopy of a document with an original.
(3.) A scrutiny of the original record of the petitioner completely belies the stand taken in the writ petition. The original record of the petitioner contains his specimen signatures which were given by him on 22nd March, 2010 which were in vernacular. The application on which the petitioner has been voluntarily retired, was submitted by him in vernacular and it was signed in the same script on 2nd February, 2011.