Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 178 (HP)

DULE RAM v. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

2012-04-09

RAJIV SHARMA

body2012
JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. 1. Petitioner was engaged on daily wage basis on 1st March, 1984. His services were regularised on 31.01.2007. He has given his date of birth at the time of regularisation as 12.05.1959. One Shri Devi Ram filed a complaint against the petitioner, stating therein that the date of birth of the petitioner was 1949 and not 1959. Thereafter, an F.I.R. No. 58 of 2010 was also registered against the petitioner, under Sections 420, 467 and 468 of the India Penal Code. A memorandum was served upon the petitioner under Rule-14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 on 1st June, 2010. The inquiry officer submitted the report to the disciplinary authority on 28.09.2010. The same was supplied to the petitioner on 18.10.2010. A show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 05.02.2011. He filed reply to the same on 18.02.2011. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority has imposed the penalty of removal from Government service upon the petitioner on 28.02.2011. Petitioner filed an appeal. The same was not decided. Petitioner approached this Court by way of CWP No. 3322 of 2011, which was decided on 25th May, 2011. Thereafter, the appellate authority decided the appeal on 02.09.2011. Petitioner again approached this Court by way of C.W.P. No. 8336 of 2011. It was decided on 21.09.2011. Thereafter, the appellate authority has passed a fresh order on 01.11.2011. 2. Mr. H.K. Paul, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that the date of birth of the petitioner was 12.05.1959 and not 08.01.1949. He further argued that the disciplinary proceedings have not been concluded in accordance with Rule-14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. He then argued that the orders passed by the disciplinary authority and appellate authority are not reasoned and detailed. 3. Mr. Rajinder Dogra, learned Additional Advocate General has supported the orders passed by the disciplinary authority which has been up-held by the appellate authority on 01.11.2011. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. 5. Petitioner was regularised on 31.01.2007. He has given his date of birth as 12.05.1959. It has come on the records that the petitioner has approached the Executive Magistrate, Nirmand, who vide order dated 25.06.2001, has ordered the correction of date of birth as 12.05.1959. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. 5. Petitioner was regularised on 31.01.2007. He has given his date of birth as 12.05.1959. It has come on the records that the petitioner has approached the Executive Magistrate, Nirmand, who vide order dated 25.06.2001, has ordered the correction of date of birth as 12.05.1959. The date of birth of the petitioner has been certified vide Annexure P-4 by the Secretary, Gram Panchayat Durah to be 12.05.1959. However, it has come in the inquiry report that the date of birth of the petitioner was 08.01.1949 and not 12.05.1959. The inquiry officer has relied upon School Leaving Certificate of the petitioner, whereby he was admitted on 13.05.1960 and has withdrawn from the School on 17.01.1961 at Sr. No. 65. This certificate is at page No. 54 of the paper-book. Initially the case of petitioner, as is evident from the inquiry report, was that one Shri Dola Ram was his elder brother. He died in 1961. According to the petitioner, his elder brother was admitted in the School and he has never gone to the School. Petitioner has been given repeated opportunities to substantiate his claim by bringing on record the date of birth certificate. He failed to do. Earlier, at page No. 28, he has stated that Shri Dola Ram, S/o Sh. Tehku Ram was his elder brother. However, at page No. 29, whereby his statement has been recorded, he stated that he did not know any person by the name of Dola Ram, S/o Sh. Tehku Ram. Petitioner has failed to place any tangible evidence on record to establish that he has never gone to the School. It is evident from certificate issued by the Block Elementary Education Officer that the petitioner was admitted in the School on 13.05.1960, i.e., Government Primary School, Koil and was withdrawn on 17.01.1961. It is also established from the Parivar register placed on record at page No. 57 that the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as 08.06.1952 and the same has been corrected as 12.05.1959. Inquiry Officer has taken into consideration the evidence produced on record. The inquiry report is reasoned and self speaking. The disciplinary authority has also passed a detailed order after supplying the copy of the inquiry report to him on 18.10.2010. Inquiry Officer has taken into consideration the evidence produced on record. The inquiry report is reasoned and self speaking. The disciplinary authority has also passed a detailed order after supplying the copy of the inquiry report to him on 18.10.2010. Initially, the appellate authority has not passed a speaking order, but later on, the appellate authority has passed a detailed and reasoned order on 01.11.2011. The contentions raised by the petitioner in the appeal have been taken into consideration in-depth by the appellate authority. Rather, the appellate authority has also granted opportunities to the petitioner to lead evidence to prove that he born in 1959 and not in 1949, but he has failed to do so. 6. It cannot be believed that a person would not know the details of his elder brother. It cannot be believed that this fact has been brought to the knowledge of petitioner by the elders of the village. The entire exercise has been undertaken by the petitioner to get un-due advantage by giving the date of birth as 1959 instead of 1949. 7. Since the petitioner has already been admitted to School, there was no occasion for the matter being referred to the Medical Board to assess the age of the petitioner. Thus, the entries even recorded in the Parivar register are required to be overlooked. Petitioner cannot take the advantage of entries subsequently made in the Parivar register. It is reiterated that even as per document placed on record at page No. 57, the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as 08.06.1952. This aspect has also not been explained by him. 8. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made here in above, there is no merit in this writ petition and the same is dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any. No costs.