JUDGMENT 1. - In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5442/1996, petitioner has prayed that respondents be directed to treat his date of birth as 12/2/1946 and on that basis allow him to continue in service. 2. In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1074/1998, petitioner has prayed that order of penalty dated 22/4/1996 by which petitioner was awarded penalty of reduction in rank reverting him from the post of Secretary to that of Assistant Secretary be quashed and set-aside. 3. Shri Ashok Gaur and Shri A.K. Jaiman, learned counsel for petitioner have argued that charge against the petitioner was that he by manipulating the service record changed his date of birth whereas, petitioner denied this allegation in reply to the charge-sheet which was considered by the respondents as his admission. Learned counsel referring to the reply to the charge-sheet submitted by the petitioner argued that it was not at all a case of admission of guilt by the petitioner. On the contrary, he in para 3 of the reply thereof submitted that tampering with the column of date of birth in the service record was not done by him since the record was maintained at the head office. He also categorically stated in para 4 of the said reply that recording of date of birth as 12/2/1946 as his date of birth in APR by him was erroneous but mere use of word 'erroneous' cannot at all be termed as admission of guilt on his part. Penalty has been imposed without holding full fledged departmental enquiry just on the basis of alleged admission by the petitioner whereas, fact is that there no admission at all. Order of penalty is absolutely illegal and decision of the respondents to retire him on that basis is also illegal. Writ petition therefore be allowed and the impugned-order be quashed and set-aside. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has cited judgment of Debidas Banerjee v. The Chairman & Managing Director, Bank of India and others, reported in 1991 (4) SLR 590 to argue that in that case matriculation certificate was subsequently produced by the petitioner and on that basis, he was rendered under-age for appointment. Action of the bank in treating the petitioner in that case under-age was declared to be illegal. Action of the bank in treating the petitioner in that case under-age was declared to be illegal. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that there are number of other employees in the department whose date of birth is considered vis-a-vis their date of birth and they are found to be appointed at the age of 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 etc. Therefore, petitioner cannot be singled out for being discriminated. 5. Per contra, Shri L.L. Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the writ petitions and submitted that initial date of appointment as 7/11/1957 on which date petitioner is shown to have been appointed on the post of L.D.C. in the Government Secretariat is not possible because according to this entry of date of birth, petitioner was appointed at the age of 11 years which is not possible and in case date 12/7/1960 is considered to be his date of birth then also, petitioner's age hardly comes to 14 years when he joined service with RSEB which is also not possible. Petitioner in reply to the charge-sheet has categorically admitted that he erroneously entered that date of birth in his APR with a request that this mistake of mentioning the date of birth as 12/2/1946 may be considered sympathetically and inconvenience caused thereby was regretted. Learned counsel submitted that as per para 7(2) of Rajasthan State Electricity Board Employees (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1962 (for short, "Rules of 1962"), regular departmental enquiry need not follow if the delinquent admits of the charge. It was therefore that the matter of the petitioner was placed before the Board which in its discretion awarded penalty of reduction in rank. In fact, this penalty was also diluted because he was promoted in the year 1990 whereas, the penalty order was passed on 22/4/1996 and therefore he should be stood reverted only for a period of less than two years because ultimately he retired on 28/2/1998 i.e. one year & four months having been allowed to retain all the benefits of promotion. 6. Upon hearing learned counsel for parties and perusing the impugned-order, I find that para 7(2) of the Rules of 1962 is a procedure for awarding major penalty which ultimately has been awarded to the petitioner. The charge against the petitioner is quite grave in that he committed forgery and by committing forgery, he changed his date of birth. 6. Upon hearing learned counsel for parties and perusing the impugned-order, I find that para 7(2) of the Rules of 1962 is a procedure for awarding major penalty which ultimately has been awarded to the petitioner. The charge against the petitioner is quite grave in that he committed forgery and by committing forgery, he changed his date of birth. Contention that there was no admission on the part of the petitioner, cannot be accepted although it is true that petitioner qualified his admission by stating that there was mere erroneous mistake on his part whereby he mentioned 12/2/1946 as date of birth in his ACR form. But this Court cannot overlook last para of the reply wherein petitioner had tendered apology for erroneously mentioning the said date of birth and regretted the inconvenience caused. It cannot be a matter of co-incidence that not in one ACR but in number of ACRs for years together, such erroneous entry continued to be made. When such erroneous entry or mistake is repeated not once but number of times, it becomes a design and calculated move. I am therefore not inclined to uphold this contention that there was no admission on the part of the petitioner that fulfledged enquiry should have followed. If that be so, nobody prevented the petitioner from categorically denying the charges rather than requesting that his matter be considered sympathetically. The assertion of the petitioner in reply to the charge-sheet that since service record was maintained in the office of the respondents therefore he could not be held responsible for tampering with or overwriting in the service book, also cannot be accepted because as already mentioned above, it was he whose date of birth was changed. The effect of change of date of birth would result into extension of period of his effective service by as many as six years. 7. Contention that there are so many other employees of the respondents and if their service record is examined with reference to their date of birth vis-a-vis date of their entry in the service, their age also comes between 11 to 15 years, also cannot be a basis to uphold the argument of discrimination because equality in law is always treated as a concept of positivity and such a concept cannot be enforced in negativity. Even if it is assumed that the respondents have chosen not to take any action in the case of others, that cannot be a yardstick or criteria to judicially scrutinise their action so as to annul impugned-order of penalty if otherwise, in law, it can be sustained. It is for the respondents to examine the matter but it cannot provide any basis to hold that petitioner would also be entitled to continue in service on the basis of manipulation or overwriting of the date of birth in the service record. The judgment of Calcutta High Court is entirely distinguishable because in that case the Matriculation Certificate was produced after entering into service whereas in the present case, very basis of appointment of the petitioner is Matriculation Certificate; whether in the Government Secretariat as LDC or thereafter Stenographer in the respondent-Board. The said judgment cannot therefore have any application. 8. In view of above discussion, I do not find any merit in either of the writ petitions, which both are dismissed with no order as to costs.Writ Petitions Dismissed. *******