BASUDEO LAL SRIVASTAVA Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff filed a suit praying that the order dated 11.10.1982 passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the order dated 14.7.1983 passed by the appellate authority censuring the plaintiff and fixing his date of birth as 31.10.1925 be declared illegal, invalid, unconstitutional, void and not binding upon the plaintiff. The plaintiff further prayed that a declaration be issued holding that the correct date of birth of the plaintiff was 10.7.1932 and that the plaintiff was entitled to work till the date of superannuation, i.e., 31.7.1992.

(2.) The plaintiff alleged that he was appointed as a Daftari in Punjab National Bank in December, 1945. when he was only 13 years 5 months old. In the year 1953, the plaintiff, while in service passed the High School examination in which the date of birth was recorded as 10.7.1932. In the year 1965, the plaintiff realised that his date of birth recorded in the service register was incorrect and accordingly he made a representation to the District Manager, Lucknow to correct his date of birth on the basis of the date of birth recorded in the High School certificate. It was alleged that the District Manager, Lucknow, directed the Manager Branch Office, Varanasi, to make the necessary correction in the service agreement of the plaintiff with regard to his date of birth on the basis of the date of birth recorded in the High School certificate. According to the plaintiff, pursuant to the aforesaid direction, the date of birth was corrected and recorded as 10.7.1932 in the service book of the plaintiff. The plaintiff alleged that after a lapse of 17 years, a charge-sheet dated 28.9.1981 was issued alleging that the plaintiff had mentioned different date of birth at various point of time, with the ulterior motive of continuing in the service beyond the age of superannuation. The plaintiff further alleged that without making any enquiry the disciplinary authority passed an order dated 11.7.1983 censuring the plaintiff and fixing his date of birth as 31.10.1925. The plaintiff, thereafter, preferred an appeal, which was rejected, hence the suit.

(3.) The defendant bank contended that at the time when the plaintiff joined the services of the bank in December, 1945, he had declared his date of birth as October, 1925. Subsequently at different point of time, the plaintiff gave different declarations with regard to his date of birth. The plaintiff deliberately suppressed his previous declarations and by playing a fraud, got an order for correcting his date of birth on the basis of the date of birth recorded in the High School certificate. The interpolation in the date of birth in the service book was noticed in the year 1981 and accordingly the plaintiff was given a notice and subsequently he was charge-sheeted. Since the reply of the plaintiff was not found satisfactory, the disciplinary authority took a lenient view and only censured him and further directed the Regional Manager to determine the date of birth of the plaintiff. The Regional Manager accepted the date of birth as 31.10.1925, as declared by the plaintiff in the Confidential Report Form dated 26.5.1949. The defendant contended that the plaintiffs date of birth as 10.7.1932, could not be accepted on the ground that the plaintiff would have been a minor when he was employed in December, 1945 and that as a minor he could not be employed in the service of the bank in December, 1945. The defendant further contended that the retirement of the plaintiff is governed by the date of birth as declared by him at the, time of his appointment.