Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 882 (MP)

P. Narayan v. State of M. P.

2004-11-02

U.C.MAHESHWARI

body2004
JUDMENT By this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of order dated 27.1.2001, Annexure A-I, passed by the respondent No.2 whereby an amount of Rs. 77,118/- has been directed to be recovered from him. The petitioner retired as a Peon from the Office of Directorate of Health Services, Bhopal. Admittedly he was allowed to perform his duties by the respondents in that office upto 7.1.1998. According to the respondent, the petitioner ought to have been retired on 30.11.1995 on the basis of his date of birth recorded in the service book as 14.11.1935. The petitioner had challenged the action of respondents retiring him from 7.1.1998 by filing a petition, Original Application No. 274/1998 before the State Administrative Tribunal, Bhopal Bench. In that petition he had claimed that his date of birth is 14.11.1938 and not 14.11.1935. The Tribunal decided the petition by order dated 13.5.1999 (Annexure A-7). In Paragraph 8 of the order (Annexure A-7), it held as under: "On perusal of the original entry of the service book of the applicant, it is seen that the original entry of date of birth in the service book was not 14.11.1938. It is seen that the unit figure of the year is over written. After careful observation, it will be clear that the first digit of the year 5 has been corrected as 8 and only for this reason the entire date, month and year has been struck off and below it a new entry 14.11.1938 has been written. It is also seen that this has been done by the Leprosy Specialist, Raipur, who has attested original entries. It is, therefore, clear that the original date of birth corrected in the service book was 14.11.1935 and no 14.11.1938. If the original entry could have been 14.11.1938, then there was no question of over writing in the year and also striking off the entire entry and re-writing below it. It is, thus, apparent that the applicant has originally declared his date of birth as 14.11.1935 and it was so recorded in the service book but the Leprosy Specialist who had attested the original entry unauthorisedly made interpolation and finally struck off the original entry. In fact, the Leprosy Specialist has no authority whatsoever to take such corrections. It is, thus, apparent that the applicant has originally declared his date of birth as 14.11.1935 and it was so recorded in the service book but the Leprosy Specialist who had attested the original entry unauthorisedly made interpolation and finally struck off the original entry. In fact, the Leprosy Specialist has no authority whatsoever to take such corrections. His action, therefore, comes within the meaning of tampering of service book and is responsible for such unauthorized tampering. Such tampering in the service book is of serious nature. Consequent to such tampering wrong date of birth were not only mentioned in the Gradation List but also the applicant unauthorisedly was permitted to continue his service upto 7.1.1998, beyond his actual date of superannuation, i.e., 30.10.1995. The Leprosy Officer who is responsible for such correction is, therefore, liable to be taken to task by holding necessary departmental enquiry against him and if he has retired the necessary action be taken against him according to the pension rule, for the excess payment made to the applicant by way of salary, etc. after 30.11.1995. It is, therefore, expected from the respondents to take necessary action against the concerned Leprosy Officer by holding the necessary enquiry according to the rules. The date of birth recorded in the first leaf of the service book is further supported by the Leave Account attached with the service book. As per Leave Account, actual date of birth is recorded as 14.11.1935 and not 14.11.1938." From the aforesaid observation, it is apparent that there was no allegation against the petitioner that he had interpolated with the entry regarding his date of birth in the service book. The Tribunal held one Leprosy Officer responsible for the alleged interpolation. No disciplinary action has also been taken against the petitioner. He was allowed to work and was paid the wages earned by him performing actual duties. Therefore, I am of the considered view that there cannot be any recovery of the salary from the petitioner for the work actually performed by him. It is, however, made clear that as the Tribunal has held that the petitioner's correct date of birth IS 14.11.1935 and not 14.11.1938, his date of retirement shall be treated as 30.11.1995 for the purposes of calculating payment of post-retiral benefits and he shall be deemed to have retired on 30.11.1995. It is, however, made clear that as the Tribunal has held that the petitioner's correct date of birth IS 14.11.1935 and not 14.11.1938, his date of retirement shall be treated as 30.11.1995 for the purposes of calculating payment of post-retiral benefits and he shall be deemed to have retired on 30.11.1995. Subject to mentioned above, the impugned order (Annexure A-I), is quashed and the petition is allowed.