HARIBANSH SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed on the post of Constable on 27.11.1968. At the relevant time he had already passed matriculation examination. The certificate, Annexure-2, shows that his date of birth was 9.1.1947. The petitioner was doing his job. In the year 1972 the petitioner was asked to produce matriculation certificate vide Annexure-4. According to the petitioner he produced original matriculation certificate and also filed an application to the aforesaid effect. Subsequently, in the year 1980 again original matriculation certificate was called from the petitioner. According to him he again produced the matriculation certificate. However, the petitioner was served with a notice dated 19.9.2002 intimating that he was to superannuate with effect from 30.11.2003, Annexure 7. The petitioner has challenged Annexure-7 in this writ petition. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has passed matriculation examination before his appointment and in the matriculation certificate his date of birth is mentioned as 9.1.1947. In the year 1972 and 1980 he was asked to produce the matriculation certificate. He produced the same and as such the date of birth mentioned in the certificate has to be accepted by all concerned.

(2.) A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents wherein stand has been taken that at the time of appointment he did not produce the matriculation certificate. In the service book maintained by the office at the time of appointment the date of birth was mentioned 1945 which was cut and subsequently the date of birth was mentioned 10.1.1947 i.e. 21 years, 10 months, 17 days and as such the petitioner cannot take advantage of the date of birth mentioned in the certificate. In support of his submission learned counsel for the respondents produced the original service book.

(3.) Learned counsel for the parties argued on the basis of their pleadings. On consideration of the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties and the material on record this much is obvious that the petitioner passed matriculation examination in the year 1966, Annexure 2. The date of birth mentioned in the certificate is 9.1.1947. The petitioner was also asked to produce matriculation certificate in the year 1972 and 1980. According to the petitioner he produced on both occasions the original certificate of matriculation. It is further obvious from the original service book that no date of birth was mentioned in the original service book Initially it was only mentioned 1945 which was cut and it was mentioned 21 years, 10 months, 17 days. This writing was cut and signature of the authority was put. The date of signature is 27.11.1968, i.e. the date of appointment of the petitioner and thereafter 21 years 10, months 17 days were mentioned and in different ink 10.1.1947 has been mentioned. The cutting of 1945 and mentioning 21 years, 10 months, 17 days is in one pen and 10.1.1947 was mentioned in different pen. Obviously a person may suspect the genuineness of mentioning correct date of birth/cutting over it. In such a situation, the employer is required to issue notice to the employee to show-cause under what circumstances this has been done. Normally the service book remains under the custody of the employer and not of the employee It may be assumed that the petitioner for his gain has got it tampered but that depends upon the circumstances as well as establishing forgery on the part of the employee For the said reason notice is must but in the instant case not notice prior to issue of Annexure 7 has been issued to the employee, the petitioner.