SHANKER SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, by this writ petition, has challenged the order Annexure. 5 dated 21 -12 -92, passed by the Chief Engineer, C.A.D., Indira Gandhi Nahar Pariyojna, Bikaner, by which the appeal filed by the petitioner -appellant was dismissed and he was ordered to be retired with immediate effect and his date of birth dated 5.12.1931, entered in the Service Book, was taken as a correct one. The petitioner has, also, challenged the consequential order Annexure. 3 dated 26.12.92, passed by the Assistant Engineer, Mechanical Division, C.A.D., Suratgarh, by which the petitioner was relieved from the government service with effect from 30.12.92. These orders have been challenged by the petitioner on various grounds including that the order passed by the Chief Engineer, rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner -appellant, is not a speaking order.

(2.) THE petitioner joined the service of the respondents as a Driver on work -charge basis on 6.3.1958. He continued in the service with the respondents. In the Service Book of the petitioner, his date of birth was entered as 5.12.1939. On 21.9.90, the petitioner was asked to produce proof regarding his date of birth as the facts stated in the Service Book of the petitioner have not been verified by producing any certificate to this effect. He was, also, asked to submit an affidavit duly verified as well as the Matriculation Certificate alongwith the Driving License. On an enquiry held by the respondents, it was found that the Service Book of the petitioner was tampered with and the date of birth recorded in the Service Book as 5.12.1930 was changed to 5.12.1939. The petitioner was, therefore, retired by the respondents w.e.f. 30.12.1988 on attaining the age of superannuation, treating his date of birth as 5.12.1930. The petitioner challenged the order of his retirement before this Court on the ground that before passing the order, no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner and the date of birth of the petitioner was changed without hearing him. The writ petition, filed by the petitioner, was allowed and a direction was issued to the respondents to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner after supplying him a copy of the report of the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur, and thereafter to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. After the decision of the writ petition, the petitioner was again served with a notice to show cause why the report of the Stale Forensic Science Laboratory may not be accepted and his date of birth may not be treated as 5.12.1930. The petitioner filed reply to the Show Cause Notice and raised certain objections. The Chief Engineer thereafter, passed an order dated 25.12.1992(Annexure. 5), which has been placed on record. In pursuance to this order Annexure. 5, the Assistant Engineer, vide his order Annexure. 3 dated 26.12.92, relieved the petitioner from service with effect from 30.12.1992. It is against these two order Annexure. 5 and Annexure. 3 that (he petitioner has preferred this writ petition.

(3.) I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties.