MAKRADHWAJ SINGH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER Makradhwaj Singh joined the Rewa State service in the year 1940 as a clerk. He was transferred to the Revenue Deportment in January, 1941, and came to be appointed as Naib Tahsildar on 11th March, 1949. He was a confirmed Naib Tahsildar when the Rewa State was merged into Vindhya Pradesh. He was later promoted as Assistant Settlement Officer (a rank equivalent to that of a Tahsildar) on 31-10-1956. Upon the formation of the new State of Madhya Pradesh on 1-11-1956, the petitioner was absorbed in the services of the new State and was promoted as Deputy Collector on 13-2-1969. The petitioner continued in service till 22nd April, 1971. By order of the Government dated the 12th July, 1971 [order No. 4703/2777/1 (2)] the petitioner was retired from service with effect from the 22nd of April, 1971. By an earlier order dated the 27th January, 1970 (Annexure 'e'), he was granted an extension in service for a year, with effect from the 8th April, 1970. When the petitioner received this order of extension, he made a representation in February, 1970, that his date of birth according to his Service Book was of the year 1917 and he would complete the age of superannuation in July, 1972 ; there appeared some mistake as regards his date of birth which needed correction response, probably, to this representation, the Government sought clarification from the petitioner by their letter dated the 3rd April, 1970, to explain how the date of birth was shown as of the year 1917 when as per matriculation certificate the date of birth was 8th April, 1915. The petitioner gave his explanation on 15-5-1970 reiterating that 1917, the year of birth, shown in the service bock was as per horoscope which was produced at the time of entry into service. That the matriculation certificate recorded incorrect age. The school teacher, at the time of admission, noted the date of birth as per his estimation without verifying it from any document or without obtaining a declaration from the petitioner's guardian. That the rule 84 of the Financial Code Volume I made the record of the date of birth in the Service Book absolutely conclusive and no alterations could be made by agitating the issue. The explanation offered by the petitioner did not find favour with the government. The Government had already communicated to the Accountant general that they had accepted the petitioner's date of birth to be 8th April, 1915. The Service Book entry recording'1917' was struck off and the one according to matriculation certificate, retained. The petitioner's grievance before this Court is that he was not given a-reasonable opportunity of showing cause; he was not heard on the evidence he possessed to convince the authorities that he was born in the year 1917; and that the date of birth mentioned in the matriculation certificate was incorrect. His order of retirement was, in consequence, contrary to rules since he had not reached the age of superannuation. That the decision of the Government to strike out the entry made in the Service Book without hearing the petitioner, was violative of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner prays that the orders of the Government retiring him from service with effect from 22nd April, 1971, be quashed, so also the order deleting the year of birth '1917' shown by the petitioner in the Service Book.

(2.) IN the return which the Government have filed, the plea taken is that the year '1917' that happened to be mentioned in the Service Book was, it appears, without verification or investigation, otherwise the date and the month should also have been mentioned. After the merger of the State of vindhya Pradesh into the State of Madhya Pradesh, verification of the service records were undertaken and the petitioner was asked to give his date of birth. On page 3 Part II of his Service Book, the petitioner made the entry showing the date of birth to be the 8th April, 1915, as per matriculation certificate. The entry is signed by the petitioner. The earlier entry which only mentioned the year 1917 was rendered superfluous and could any time be deleted. That it was the second part of the Service Book, prepared after reorganization, which governed the petitioner's service conditions and the Government could without enquiry, pass orders of retirement on its basis. In further support of their contention, the Government relied on the list of Tahsildar and naib Tahsildars prepared and corrected upto 1st November, 1956. The petitioner's name appears at serial No. 17 and in column 3 relating to date of birth, it is shown April 15. This list was circulated to all Tahsildars and naib Tahsildars with a request that errors and omissions should be brought to the notice of the Government at once with necessary proof. The petitioner never objected to the particulars given in the list. It would be reasonable to presume that the petitioner was anxious to see this list and know where in seniority he was placed in the new set up and whether his service particulars were correctly recorded. Another document on which the Government rely is the declaration dated the 24th February, 1960, where under the petitioner had given his service particulars since 1940 to 1956. In column 3, he has shown his date of birth to be the 8th April, 1915 (Annexure 1 ).

(3.) THE petitioner sought permission to file a rejoinder and pleaded that the second part of the Service Book did contain an entry in his handwriting showing the date of birth to be 8th April, 1915, as per matriculation certificate, but he said, the entry was made on the insistence of Shri R. L. Gupta, the settlement Officer some time in the year 1958. He, at the same time, retained the earlier entry showing the year of birth to be 1917 which was in fact the correct year of birth and could not be erased without notice to him to show cause. That the Settlement Officer had been sending annual establishment returns and the one sent by the petitioner in the year 1969, mentioned his date of birth to be 1917 (Annexure M-3 ). No objections were raised. The petitioner contended that if the Service Book raised doubt as regards the date of birth, and as there appeared conflicting dates, the Government could resolve the doubt only after hearing the petitioner and after appraising the evidence he was going to produce.