BHAN SINGH BHADORIA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER, Bhan Singh Bhadoria son of Lalloo Singh was working as Forester in Forest Department and his date of entering in the service in the department was admittedly 25th April, 1962. His date of birth in the service record was recorded as 19-7-1940. On the entries of service record, it seems that this date of birth was also attested on 13-4-1974 by Assistant Conservator of Forest, Forest Division, Guna. On 14-11-1994, petitioner was required to submit a certificate regarding his date of birth. Petitioner submitted a copy of school leaving certificate regarding his date of birth. However, the department found this date of birth incorrect and the enquiry revealed that the correct date of birth was 29-7-1935 and accordingly he was retired from the service. Against which, the petitioner filed a petition before the State Administrative Tribunal being O. A. No. 1073/95. The Tribunal by its order dated 28-7-1998 found that he was prematurely retired without affording him any opportunity of hearing and accordingly, quashed the order of retirement. It was further directed that the date of birth of petitioner shall be deemed to be 19-7-1940. However, it was directed that it is open to the department to challenge this date of birth subject to procedure mentioned in the Rule 84 of the M. P. Financial Code, after affording him an opportunity of hearing.

(2.) THE department concerned thereafter issued a show-cause notice dated 28-8-1998, stating that since his date of birth was found incorrect, he may submit any document within three days regarding his correct date of birth. However, it seems that petitioner did not submit any fresh document except he had already submitted earlier. The department, thereafter passed an order dated 25-9-1998, maintaining its previous order of retirement by giving more details of enquiry made in this regard. This order was again challenged by petitioner in another O. A. No. 1288/98, however his petition was dismissed by the Tribunal by the impugned order.

(3.) THE learned Counsel of the petitioner has submitted that whatever enquiry was made regarding his date of birth was done behind his back and no enquiry report was given to him to controvert the findings arrived at in such an enquiry. Therefore, it does not amount to affording him of any proper opportunity of hearing. It is further submitted that such an enquiry regarding date of birth should not have been done at the fag end of the service life. Heavy reliance is placed on the decisions of the Apex Court in case of Union of India v. Hamam Singh, reported in AIR 1993 SC 1367, State of Orissa and Ors. v. Ramanath Patnaik, reported in AIR 1997 SC 2452 and G. M. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. , West Bengal v. Shib Kumar Dushad and Ors. , reported in AIR 2001 SC 72.