STATE CBI Vs. SHRIPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been preferred by the State through the CBI, Jaipur, against the order of discharge dated 8th Feb 88 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (S. P. E. Cases), Jaipur District Jaipur, and prayed that the impugned order be quashed.

(2.) IF we look into the history of this case, it is found that the matter relates to the year 1950. On 16th Sept. , '50, non-petitioner Shripal was appointed as a Cleaner in the Railway Department. He was interviewed by the Department for the post, when he narrated verbally that he was 18 years of age; and on the basis of his that statement, he was given the appointment Shripal was then asked whether or not he had submitted any application at the time of his appoint-ment, and he replied that he had not submitted any written application, but, on oral interrogation, he had given his age as 18 years. There is nothing on the record to controvert this statement of Shripal given in the Court, today. Therefore, it is expected that Shripal was appointed as such, and at the time of his appointment he had not submitted any written application but on his verbal reply his age was 18 years. Later on in the year 1952, Shripal was asked to submit some document about his age, so that, his service-sheet might be completed. According to his service-sheet, a school certificate bearing No 4740 dated 10th July, '51 was submitted by Shripal, wherein, his date of birth was mentioned as 21st April. , '33. On the basis of that certificate his service-sheet was completed on 20th October, 55 by the Railway Department and therein, his date of birth was mentioned as 21st April, 33. It is alleged that in the year 1952 the railway authorities asked Shripal to explain as to why he had secured the service by misrepresenting his age as 18 years in the year 1950, which, according to his school certificate, he was of the age of 17 years and 5 months on 16th Sept 50. Thereupon Shripal submitted a certificate of Municipal Committee, wherein, his date of birth was shown as 9th March 31. As is evident from his service-sheet, correction was made in the date of his birth, by a pencil, as 9th March 31, as per the certificate of the Municipal Committee.

(3.) NOW, the question is that Shripal had intentionally submitted a false certificate from the Municipal Committee in the year 1952 whereafter, somebody made a complaint to the SP, CBI for certain things, against Shripal, and while investigating that complaint, it was disclosed that he had submitted a false certificate of the Municipal Committee in order to meet the order of suspension. Here I would like to mention that even if that certificate was not a correct one then too, his services could not be terminated in 1952, because, the rules say that a person below 18 years of age, could well be appointed, but at a reduced rate of pay, and Shripal was appointed on a reduced pay. Therefore, the question of his not continuing in service or termination of his services, is not a material one.