BALDEO PRASAD Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was appointed in the post of Patwari on 3-9-1964. Vide order dated 2-3-1996 he was compulsorily retired. The order was passed on 1-3-1996 asking the petitioner to handover the charge. It is urged in the petition that the respondent No. 2 issued a notice on 1-3-1996 requiring the petitioner to clarify the discrepancy that had crept in his service-book due to overwriting. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply on 2-3-1996.

(2.) ACCORDING to the writ petition, his date of birth is 20-4-1940 as per the service book but his school leaving certificate shows it to be 1-1-1932. The petitioner filed series of documents in support of the proof that his date of birth is 20-4-1940. The respondent No. 2 without holding any inquiry and ascribing cogent reasons retired the petitioner on 2-3-1996. It is contended that the said order passed vide Annexure A-1 is illegal and invalid as the same is done without holding an inquiry. In this backdrop the prayer has been made to quash the impugned order contained in Annexure A-1.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed contending, inter alia that on 14-2-1996 the Tehsildar, Khandwa issued a letter for verification of the age of the Patwaris and accordingly steps were taken directing the Patwaris to produce the original documents regarding their dates of birth. It is also putforth that the service book was not verified in the year 1966 but the thumb impression and the signature of the applicant were attested by the Tehsildar. After instructions were issued by the Tehsildar, Khandwa the petitioner submitted his school leaving certificate mentioning the date of birth. It is also setforth that there has been some tampering with regard to the date of birth. It is setforth that the proper procedure was followed to find out the real date of birth but the petitioner failed to produce the school leaving certificate. It is urged that the Head Master of the School issued a certificate recording the date of birth as 1-1-1932. It is contended that the petitioner filed an affidavit in support of his date of birth as 20-4-1940 but the photocopy of the affidavit was not clear. It is also putforth that the petitioner was given adequate opportunity before the change of date of birth had taken place and hence, the impugned order does not deserve to be lanceted.