GHANASHYAM MISHRA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has assailed the order of termination dated November 3, 1979 issued by the District Inspector of Schools, Chatrapur, (opposite party No. 3) temporarily terminating the service of the petitioner with effect from March 31, 1979 and directing deduction of the amount paid to him from April 1, 1979 till termination from the amount available to him in the Provident Fund deposit and the disciplinary proceeding initiated as per Annexure -4, dated November 16, 1979.

(2.) THE petitioner joined as a teacher in a Lower Primary School in 1941. He had read upto Class VIII and had undergone training. In 1978, he was called upon to produce the certificate indicating his qualifications and date of birth. As the petitioner had lost the original certificate, he applied for a duplicate and submitted the same to the authorities. On October 31, 1979 he was called upon by the Block Development Officer, Polosara, to produce his academic and training certificates in original as it was apprehended that his date of birth had been tampered with On November 3, 1979, the order temporarily terminating his service with effect from March 31, 1979 was passed and direction regarding recovery of the excess amount paid to him was given.

(3.) IN the return submitted by the opposite parties reliance has been placed on two documents : an extract of the admission register maintained at the Chikiti E. T. School where the petitioner got himself admitted in the year 1954 for undergoing training. In the register, the date of birth of the petitioner is shown as 9. 3, 1921. The said extract has been marked as Annexure -A. The other is a statement filed by the petitioner on June 12, 1972 which is called the numerical return. Therein he had himself shown his date of birth as 9. 3. 1921. Having seen the admission register prepared in 1954 and the return submitted by the petitioner himself in 1972, we have no doubt in our mind that the correct date of birth is 9.3.1921 and if any alteration was made in 1972, the same was erroneous In view of the documents, Annexures -A and B, which are unimpeachable in character, the attack of the petitioner has no force. Hence, though technically the petitioner was entitled to an opportunity before the alteration was made to his detriment, having regard to the facts found, the said aspect loses importance. Hence, we see no merit as regards the first contention.