Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 789 (JHR)

Bhola Ram v. State of Jharkhand

2015-07-10

PRAMATH PATNAIK

body2015
JUDGMENT : Per Pramath Patnaik, J.: In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia, prayed for quashing the impugned order dated 30.05.2014 vide Annexure 12 to the writ application issued by Inspector General, (Prison), Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi -respondent no. 2 and Memo dated 31.05.2014 (Annexure 13) on the ground that the petitioner has been retired from services prior to the date of superannuation due to the alleged mis-description/overwriting in the service book without signature of the competent authority. 2. The facts, as delineated and described in the writ application, in a nutshell is that initially the petitioner was appointed as warder under the respondents and was posted as such in the Central Jail, Hazaribagh with effect from 01.05.1983 and continued to discharge his duties to the utmost satisfaction of the superior authorities and the petitioner throughout his service career has got unblemished service record. After lapse of about 30 years of service, abruptly a letter was issued to the petitioner on 20.08.2013 (Annexure-1) stating therein to submit document in relation to actual date of birth as there is certain discrepancy in the service book showing date of birth as 14.05.1964 when compared with the medical fitness certificate conducted at the time of appointment of the petitioner showing date of birth as 14.05.1954. On receipt of Memo dated 20.08.2013, the petitioner submitted his reply dated 22.08.2013 (Annexure-2) objecting the contention of the respondents in the letter stating the date of birth as 14.05.1954 and prays one month's time to file necessary documents showing date of birth as 14.05.1964. Again reminder was issued to the petitioner on two subsequent dates 02.12.2013 and 07.01.2014 to produce necessary document showing his date of birth as 14.05.1964, failing which the petitioner would be deemed to have been retired on 03.05.2014. In pursuance to the aforesaid letters, the petitioner submitted schooling leaving-cum-character certificate issued by Nirmal High School, Hazaribagh, in which, his date of birth has been shown as 14.05.1964, as evident from Annexure 4 and 4/A of the writ application. After receipt of the said certificate, the Jail Superintendent, Hazaribagh conducted an enquiry from the District Education Officer in order to verify the veracity of the document. The District Education Officer referred the matter to School Sub Inspector, Corporation, Hazaribagh to conduct enquiry and submit report. After receipt of the said certificate, the Jail Superintendent, Hazaribagh conducted an enquiry from the District Education Officer in order to verify the veracity of the document. The District Education Officer referred the matter to School Sub Inspector, Corporation, Hazaribagh to conduct enquiry and submit report. Accordingly, the School Sub-Inspector, Hazaribagh enquired into the matter and submitted report dated 24.04.2014 (Annexure 7) to the District Education Officer stating as follows: (a). School Leaving Certificate found to be genuine when verified with enrolment register; (b). School is not affiliated to C.B.S.E, I.C.S.E nor Jharkhand Academic Council. (c).School have been affiliated by sub-Divisional Education Officer, Hazaribagh from Class IV to VIII in public interest. It has further been stated in the writ application that Nirmala Secondary School, Corporation, Hazaribagh has been granted approval from Sub-Divisional Education Officer, Hazaribagh since 01.01.1964 for imparting education from class IV to VII in public interest vide memo dated 22.02.1963 (Annexure 8). Thereafter, the petitioner was show caused to appear before Inspector General (Prison) on 27.05.2014 and accordingly the petitioner produced several documents including the School leaving Certificate, Seniority List (Annexure 9) issued by the Inspector General Office, wherein the date of birth of petitioner finds mention at serial no. 88 as 14.05.1964 and the date of retirement is mentioned as 31.05.2024. The relevant portion of service book and medical fitness certificate has also been annexed as Annexure 10 and 11 of the writ application. It has further been stated that after perusing the entire material, the respondent no. 2 passed the impugned order dated 30.05.2014 (Annexure 12) holding the petitioner guilty of tampering/over-writing the service book and accordingly Memo dated 31.05.2014 was issued to the petitioner whereby he was made to retire, considering his date of birth, as 14.05.1954. The petitioner, left with no efficacious and alternative remedy, has approached this Court invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances. 3. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no. 3 and 4 controverting the averments made in the writ application. It has been stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner was appointed as Jail warder in Jail on 1.05.1983. During process of appointment, health check up was made by Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Hazaribagh, who entered his date of birth as 14.05.1954 in the Medical Fitness Certificate. 3 and 4 controverting the averments made in the writ application. It has been stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner was appointed as Jail warder in Jail on 1.05.1983. During process of appointment, health check up was made by Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Hazaribagh, who entered his date of birth as 14.05.1954 in the Medical Fitness Certificate. Furthermore, the G.P.F. Officer, Hazaribagh vide letter date 294 dated 23.05.2014 has also communicated date of birth of the petitioner as 14.05.1954. It has been submitted that the date of birth entered in the service book is suspicious due to over-writing. It seems initially the date of birth was entered as 14.05.1954 and later on after over-writing it has been made as 14.05.1964 by different inks. Hence, the petitioner was asked to submit his Birth Certificate. After various letters, Transfer Certificate (School Leaving Certificate) was sent by him. After verification by the District Education Officer, Hazaribagh, it came to surface that the aforesaid school was affiliated by the then Sub-Divisional Education Officer, Hazaribagh only for class IV to Class VII and not affiliated to CBSE, ICSE and Jharkhand Academic Council. Since, the said certificate shows that the petitioner was studying in Class IX, the certificate was not acceptable. It has further been submitted in the counter affidavit that the matter was lastly referred to I.G. Prison, Jharkhand who after verification of all relevant letter, cross examination of petitioner, declared the date of birth of the petitioner as 14.05.1954 vide letter dated 30.05.2014 (Annexure B). Therefore, after completion of sixty years of age, the petitioner was declared retired on 31.05.2014 vide office letter dated 31.05.2014 (Annexure C ) and all retiral benefits have been paid to the petitioner through Bank Account. It has further been submitted that the School Leaving Certificate cannot be accepted because the said school was affiliated only by District Corporation not by Government Board like CBSE, ICSE or Jharkhand Academic Council that too only for class IV to VII and not for class IX. It has further been stated that seniority list demonstrated by the petitioner was only “B Provisional” not final. The Superintendent of Loknayak Jayprakash Narayan Central Jail, Hazaribagh sent a list of candidates who were to retire in I.G. Prison, in which, the date of birth of petitioner is shown as 14.05.1954 and date of retirement is shown as 14.05.2014. 4. It has further been stated that seniority list demonstrated by the petitioner was only “B Provisional” not final. The Superintendent of Loknayak Jayprakash Narayan Central Jail, Hazaribagh sent a list of candidates who were to retire in I.G. Prison, in which, the date of birth of petitioner is shown as 14.05.1954 and date of retirement is shown as 14.05.2014. 4. During pendency of the writ application, supplementary counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent nos. 3 and 4 reiterating the submissions made in the counter affidavit. It is stated that from perusal of Medical Register, wherein the date of birth of the petitioner is mentioned as 14.05.1954, the age of the petitioner was 29 years at the time of joining. It has further been stated that overwriting has been made in the service book and there is no signature of competent authority on the said over-writing, therefore, the said manipulation/over-writing appears to have been done with ulterior motive to derive undue benefit for overstaying in government service. Relevant photocopy of pages of service book is annexed as Annexure A to the Supplementary counter affidavit. 5. Heard Mr. Ayush Aditya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Shivani Verma, J.C to learned A.G, for the respondents. 6. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the impugned orders at Annexure 12 and 13 are wholly arbitrary and unsustainable infringing Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It has been submitted that almost after lapse of 30 years of unblemished service, the petitioner could not have been made to retire under coercion due to alleged over-writing in the service book, which is maintained by the Officers of respondent no. 2 itself and the petitioner cannot be blamed for that over-writing. The counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the School Leaving Certificate produced by the petitioner showing the date of birth as 14.05.1964 has not been accepted by the authorities for no rhyme or reason and the action of the respondents in passing the impugned orders on the basis Medical Certificate is vitiated and perverse. The counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the School Leaving Certificate produced by the petitioner showing the date of birth as 14.05.1964 has not been accepted by the authorities for no rhyme or reason and the action of the respondents in passing the impugned orders on the basis Medical Certificate is vitiated and perverse. Finally, the counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no disciplinary proceeding has been initiated against the employee(s) who was in-charge of the service book of the petitioner for such over-writing/manipulation/interpolation, so blame ought not have been fastened on the petitioner for such manipulation by such impugned action of the respondents under Annexures 12 and 13, by which the petitioner has been visited civil consequences infringing Article 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. 7. In order to buttress his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Single Judge rendered in the case of Digvijay Singh Vs. Bharat Coking Coal Limited & Ors. as reported in 2008 (3) JLJR 3 , in which, direction was issued to correct the date of birth as per the matriculation certificate and also to reinstate the petitioner with back wages. Learned counsel for the petitioner further relied upon the case of Bharat Coking Coal Limited Vs. Chhota Birsa Uranw as reported in (2014) 12 SCC 570 , wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the respondent-employee is entitled to change in his date of birth on the basis of his school leaving certificate. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has tried to justify the action of the respondents by submitting that the impugned order under Annexures 12 and 13 do not warrant any interference by this Court because the disputed question of facts under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be gone into by the writ Court. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that due to over-writing/manipulation, it is the petitioner and none else who is beneficiary of such over-writing/manipulation and on cursory look of the original service book, there cannot be any shadow of doubt or debate that the there is manipulation in date of birth by over-writing 1964 in place of 1954. For these two entries, two different inks appears to have been used, which creates doubt. Moreover, there is no initial of the competent authority on the alleged over-writing. For these two entries, two different inks appears to have been used, which creates doubt. Moreover, there is no initial of the competent authority on the alleged over-writing. Therefore, the respondents have rightly accepted the date of birth of the petitioner as 14.05.1954 and hence, the impugned orders at Annexure 12 and 13 cannot be said to be arbitrary and illegal so as to call for any interference by this Court. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents has also referred the decision rendered in the case of Marang Baski Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors as reported in 2013(1) JLJR 213 , wherein the Hon'ble Court has held that when a person obtains matriculation certificate after entering into service, there is every possibility of submitting a wrong statement of fact regarding date of birth, therefore, such evidence cannot be blindly relied upon. 10. Having gone through the records and after hearing the parties at length, the impugned orders under Annexure 12 and 13 do not call for any interference by this Court, due to following facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements: (i). On perusal of the original service book, it appears that there has been interpolation in the service book by change of year i.e. 1954 to 1964, both in numeral and in words, which is in Devnagri, and the said over-writing is made by different ink and further there is no signature of the competent authority over the said over-writing, which creates serious doubt. Furthermore, there is no gainsaying that it is the petitioner, who is the beneficiary of such over-writing. (ii). In Medical Fitness Certificate prepared at the time of appointment, the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Hazaribagh entered the date of birth of the petitioner as 14.05.1954. Furthermore, the G.P.F. Officer, Hazaribagh vide letter date 294 dated 23.05.2014 has also communicated date of birth of the petitioner as 14.05.1954. (iii). On perusal of Annexure B to the counter affidavit, it appears that the District Education Officer, Hazaribagh has submitted report to the effect that aforesaid school was affiliated by the then Sub-Divisional Education Officer, Hazaribagh only for class IV to Class VII and not for Class IX for which School Leaving Certificate was issued and further the school was neither affiliated to CBSE, ICSE nor Jharkhand Academic Council. Therefore, the said certificate was rightly not accepted by the respondents authorities. (iv). Therefore, the said certificate was rightly not accepted by the respondents authorities. (iv). The decisions cited by the petitioner is of no assistance to the petitioner since the factual aspect of the petitioner is quite different from the facts in issue in the said decisions. (v). That the change in date of birth at the fag end of the service career has been deprecated by the Hon'ble Apex Court and petitioner cannot take advantage of the over-writing made in the service book so as to become a beneficiary of such interpolation/over-writing. (vi). Apart from the factual assertions made by the respondents, documentary evidences lean in favour of the respondents so as to negative the claim of the petitioner. (vii). Moreover, it is no more res integra that the disputed question of facts regarding veracity or genuineness of the certificate pertaining to date of birth cannot be effectually adjudicated by the Writ Court. Therefore, the reliefs sought for in the writ application is thoroughly misconceived, illegal and unsustainable. 11. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements and logical sequitur to the discussions made in foregoing paragraphs, the impugned order at Annexure 12 and 13 to the writ petition do not warrant any interference and accordingly, the writ petition, is dismissed being devoid of any merit.