Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 301 (JK)

Gh. Mohd. Ganaie v. State of J&K

2016-05-30

ALI MOHD.MAGREY

body2016
JUDGMENT : Ali Mohd. Magrey, J. 1. This is yet another instance where a simple case has unfortunately remained pending disposal in this Court for the last about twelve years, though returns on behalf of the parties in the case were filed and completed in 2005 itself. The petitioner preferred this writ petition challenging and seeking quashing of Order No. 244 of 2004, dated 27.08.2004 issued by Respondent No. 4 (Dy. Inspector General of Police, Armed Range, Jammu) under Endorsement No. AROJ/GB/10606-08, dated 27.08.2004 whereby, only on the basis of the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, sanction was accorded to treating the date of birth of the petitioner as 03.08.1945 instead of 03.08.1947 and, consequently, to his retrospective retirement on superannuation with effect from 31.08.2003. The petitioner also challenged Communication No. AROJ/P-File/04-GB/1125-38, dated 28.08.2004, addressed by Respondent No. 4 to Respondent No. 5 (Commandant, JKAP 4th Security Battalion, Jammu) directing him to request the SSP, Crime and Railways, Jammu, to register a criminal case against the petitioner and others in regard to the tampering in question. The petitioner further prayed that the respondents be directed to continue him in service till his superannuation on the basis of the date of birth recorded in his school leaving certificate viz. 03.08.1947 and to pay him all the service benefits. 2. I heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and the material placed before the Court and considered the matter. 3. Briefly put, the facts attendant to the case are as follow. These facts are drawn from the overall record before the Court, including the original service record produced by the respondents. 4. The petitioner was appointed as a Constable in the Jammu and Kashmir Armed Police in terms of Order No. 199, dated 14.06.1966. With the passage of time, he rose to the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector. 5. On 03.01.2003 the Police Headquarter issued Circular No. G-II/2003/PHQ whereby Respondent No. 2, the Director General of Police, J & K, desired all the concerned Police authorities to verify and ascertain whether there had been any mutilation, overwriting or obliteration committed in the recorded date of birth of any force personnel. 6. The petitioner on the relevant date was posted in JKAP TV Battalion Security, Jammu. 6. The petitioner on the relevant date was posted in JKAP TV Battalion Security, Jammu. The Commandant, JKAP IV Battalion Security, Jammu (Respondent No. 5) wrote Letter No. Estt/Sec/IV/03/10557, dated 16.12.2003 to Respondent No. 4, inter alia, to the following effect: "On perusal of 1st page of Character Roll in respect of Shri Ghulam Mohd. ASI No. 8769/NGO of this office, his date of birth has been found mutilated. The Character Roll reveals that he has been appointed as Constable on 15.6.1966 and as per medical form the official has declared his age 20 years on 15.6.1966 which has been certified by the Police Medical Officer. According to his declared age he is due to superannuate with effect from 30.6.2004 in view of his calculated date of birth as 15.6.1946. But perusal of his Character Roll further reveals that after mutilation his date of birth has been recorded as 3.8.1947 as per School Certificate showing him reading upto 8th class issued by Head Master Govt. High School Hardu Panzu (Beeru) issued on 7.4.1964. Since the School certificate shows date of issue as 7.4.1964 which indicate that the official was having school certificate in his possession on 15.6.66 and he should have got his date of birth recorded as per school certificate and should not have declared his age 20 years on 15.6.1966. It is as such requested that the matter of adoption of his date of birth may kindly be taken up with higher authorities as warranted under rule 6.4 of J&K Financial Code Vol. I. The matter requires your immediate attention because in case of adoption of his declared age he is superannuating w.e.f. 30.6.2004." 7. Respondent No. 4 vide his Communication No. ARO/J/ESTT/ASI/8769/NGO/4th/1041-42, dated 23.1.2004, in turn, referred the matter to Respondent No. 3, i.e., the Addl. Director General of Police, Armed, J & K, Jammu, for necessary orders. 8. In return, the Staff Officer to Respondent No. 3, vide his Communication No. APHQ/Pers/Enq-3/2004-6325-26, dated 25.03.2004, wrote to Respondent No. 4 that the retirement order of the ASI shall be issued as per his date of birth recorded in his character roll by the competent officer and that, with regard to mutilation in entry in the character roll and school certificate, Commandant JKAP 4th Bn will hold a proper enquiry and submit his report in accordance with Police Rules and CSR. Respondent No. 4, vide his communication dated 07.04.2004, on his part, passed on the above direction to Respondent No. 5 for doing the needful. 9. On receipt of the above direction, Respondent No. 5, vide his communication dated 27.03.2004, entrusted the enquiry to the Deputy Commandant, JKAP, 4th Bn Security, Jammu. But at the same time addressed communication dated 10.4.2004 to the Principal, Government Higher Secondary School, Hardu Panzu Beeru, Budgam to the following effect: "Sh. Ghulam Mohd. Ganayi S/o. Sh. Qadir Ganayi R/o Kangari Pura Tehsil Beeru District Budgam has passed 7th class examination in the year 1966 in your school. In this connection, a School leaving certificate has been issued vide No. D.C/03, dated 07.04.1966, under Registration No. 334, from your School. You are requested to provide Photostat copy of admission register, under which the above named candidate has passed the said examination. The Photostat copy of the said Register should be duly signed/stamped by your goodself, as the same is urgently required in connection with clarification of date of birth of the said candidate, presently working as ASI in JKAP 4th Bn. The copy of the same may kindly be provided through constable Mohd. Shafi No. 768 of this Battalion. However, Photostat copy of School leaving certificate of the said ASI is enclosed herewith for ready reference." 10. The Deputy Commandant vide communication dated 26.04.2004 made his report on the enquiry to Respondent No. 5, inter alia, stating therein as under: "...It is submitted that the Character Roll of the said ASI was perused by the undersigned which reveals that the date of birth reflected in the Ch. Roll of the said ASI was found tampered and in the meanwhile the date of birth of the said ASI has also been found reflected as 03.08.1947 by the then Character Roll Clerk and initial was also reflected by the then CRC in date of birth column, but the same has not been authenticated by any Gazetted Officer. However, School leaving certificate issued by the Headmaster Govt. High School Hardu Panzu (Beeru) vide No. D/C/03, dt. 07.04.1966 was also perused which shows that the date of birth of the said ASI is 03.08.1947. In this regard vide this office Letter No. 2627-28, dated 10.04.04, the Principal Govt. Higher Secondary School Harda Panzu Beeru Distt. However, School leaving certificate issued by the Headmaster Govt. High School Hardu Panzu (Beeru) vide No. D/C/03, dt. 07.04.1966 was also perused which shows that the date of birth of the said ASI is 03.08.1947. In this regard vide this office Letter No. 2627-28, dated 10.04.04, the Principal Govt. Higher Secondary School Harda Panzu Beeru Distt. Budgam was approached for obtaining Photostat copy of admission and withdrawal register of the said period. The Principal vide Letter No. nil dated 12.-.2004 addressed to the Headmaster Govt. High School Kandura has intimated that the record of the said period was gutted in the year 1990 and has requested to the said Headmaster to issue copy of the admission register of the time the said ASI was reading in the said School. Copy of Letter No. quoted above is enclosed herewith for ready reference. The Headmaster Govt. High School Kandura Beeru Budgam has issued a copy of withdrawal Registrar duly sealed and signature in pursuance to Principal, Govt. Higher Secondary School Hardu Panzoo Beerwah Budgam which reveals that the actual date of birth of the said ASI is 03.08.1947. The copy of the same is enclosed herewith for ready reference. It is worthwhile to mention here that the insertion made in the Character Roll of the officer is probably of the period of 1966 or 1967 and it is very difficult to hold liable to the dealing Assistant of that time. Keeping in view of the aforesaid facts and record collected from the concerned institution where the said ASI was reading at that time, the date of birth should have been treated as 03.08.1947 in respect of the said ASI. It is, therefore, recommended that the Dy. Inspr. Genl. of Police Armed Range, Jammu may kindly be requested to treat actual date of birth i.e., 03.08.1947 in respect of the said ASI, and the adoption/mutilation on the character roll of the said ASI may kindly be rectified." 11. On receipt of the report on the enquiry so held by the Deputy Commandant, Respondent No. 5 addressed letter dated 06.05.2004 to Respondent No. 4 recommending therein as under: "Keeping in view of the above mentioned facts and report submitted by the enquiry officer, it is recommended that the date of birth may be treated as 03.08.1947 in respect of the above said officer, as per record." 12. Respondent No. 4, in turn, addressed communication dated 16.6.2004 to Respondent No. 3 (Addl. Director General of Police, Armed Police Hqrs., Srinagar) bringing to his notice all the relevant facts and recommending as under: "The detailed report of the enquiry officer/Commandant concerned is enclosed herewith alongwith above mentioned comments for favour of kind perusal. It is further requested that the recommendations made by the enquiry officer/Commandant concerned be considered. Keeping in view the above mentioned supporting documents and actual date of birth of the ASI be treated as on 03.08.1947 as shown in the concerned records and necessary orders on the subject be issued/communicated so that further action is taken accordingly." 13. A lot of correspondence thereafter exchanged inter se the respondents on the subject. However, nothing material was done until issuance of Communication No. ARO/J/ESTT/DOB/9153-55, dated 26.07.2004 by Respondent No. 4 to Respondent No. 5 intimating to him that the Armed Police Headquarter (APHQ) vide Signal No. APHQ-Pers/Enq-3/13259, dated 15.7.2004 had communicated that the request could not be entertained at that stage and desired that necessary action be taken accordingly at an earliest. Thereafter, Respondent No. 4 issued the impugned Order No. 244 of 2004, dated 27.08.2004 which reads as under: "Commandant JKAP 4th Security Jammu has requested vide Letter No. Estt/04/5436, dated 26.07.04 for accord of retirement sanction in favour of ASI Gh. Mohd. No. 8769/NGO w.e.f. 30.6.2004 as per the date of birth i.e. 3.8.1947. On perusal of Character roll of the above said ASI it reveals that the data of birth as originally written was 3.8.1945 at the time of appointment and later on the year in the time showing date of birth has been apparently found tampered. Accordingly the character roll of the said ASI was sent to the Director, FSL, Srinagar vide this office Letter No. AROJ/Pen-40/GB/9730, dated 6.8.2004 for experts opinion with regard to tampering of date of birth. Subsequently Director FLS Srinagar vide his Letter No. FSL/1179-DOC/Srinagar, dated 19.08.04 has opined that 'the existing figure 7 has been made from the original figure 5' the remnants of figure 5 are visible under VSC-2000-HR. Hence the original date of birth in Q-1 be read as on 3.8.1945 instead of 3.8.1947. The said ASI therefore is deemed to have been retired w.e.f. 31.8.2003. As such, the sanction is hereby accorded to the grant of retirement on superannuation in favour of ASI Gh. Mohd. Hence the original date of birth in Q-1 be read as on 3.8.1945 instead of 3.8.1947. The said ASI therefore is deemed to have been retired w.e.f. 31.8.2003. As such, the sanction is hereby accorded to the grant of retirement on superannuation in favour of ASI Gh. Mohd. No. 8769/NGO of JKAP 4th Security w.e.f. 31.8.2003. Further it is also ordered that all dues/payments of the said officer be stopped forthwith. Recovery of the salary/other payments taken by the said ASI after his due date of retirement shall be made from his dues of leave salary and gratuity etc. The pension case shall be processed by the Comdt. only after the finalization of the case/enquiry being order separately." 14. As if the above draconic order was not enough, Respondent No. 4 addressed communication dated 28.08.2004 to Respondent No. 5 directing him to request SSP, Crime and Railways, Jammu, to register a criminal case against the petitioner. 15. The petitioner, as mentioned earlier, has challenged the above order dated 27.08.2004 and the communication dated 28.08.2004 in this petition, among others, on the grounds that he has been condemned unheard; that the impugned order is unfounded, based on no material; that the petitioner could have been compulsorily retired before attaining the age of superannuation only by the Government; that the impugned order grossly suffers from non-application of mind on the part of Respondent No. 4 inasmuch as, on the one hand, he accepted the recommendation of Commandant JKAP 4th Bn on the enquiry conducted by the Deputy Commandant for accord of retirement of the petitioner with effect from 30.06.2004 on his date of birth as 03.08.1947 recorded in the School registers obtained by the enquiry officer from the concerned School but, on the other hand, has passed the impugned order which clearly goes against his own satisfaction contained in his communication dated 16.6.2004 addressed to Respondent No. 3; that the impugned order is totally unreasonable and against the mandate contained in Rule 6.4 of the Financial Code. It is also the case of the petitioner that there was no justification for the respondent to send the matter to Forensic Science Laboratory and/or to rely on the opinion of the FSL in presence of the School records and the fact that on the date the petitioner was enrolled in June 1966, his age was recorded as 20 years which, if taken to be true, would still determine his date of birth as 14.06.1946, not as 14.06.1945. 16. The respondents have resisted the petition on the ground that at the time of his appointment on 2.6.1966 (should be 14.06.1966) his age as per his own version was written as 20 years which stood authenticated by the Police Medical Officer. As regards the entry of date of birth as 03.08.1947 as per School leaving certificate, it is averred that the same had been managed after petitioner's appointment with connivance of the dealing Assistant. It is stated that the date of birth recorded in the character roll of the petitioner was found mutilated and during the course of enquiry the relevant record was sent to the Director, Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), to ascertain the actual figure of date of birth that had been recorded therein. The opinion of the FSL detected the date of birth of the petitioner as 03.08.1945 instead of 03.08.1947. It is stated that the figure at units place had actually been 5' and it had been mutilated to change it to figure 7', making the year of birth of the petitioner as 1947 instead of 1945 originally recorded in the Character Roll. Therefore, on the basis of the opinion of the FSL, the date of birth was read as 03.08.1945 and, consequently, by the impugned order, the petitioner was rightly ordered to be deemed to have retired with effect from 31.08.2003 having attained the age of 58 years. 17. The result of this writ petition hinges on the ascertainment and determination of the correct date of birth of the petitioner. No rocket science is required. The relevant facts can be ascertained from the original record produced by the respondents which mainly consists of the Character Roll of the petitioner and the correspondence file. 17. The result of this writ petition hinges on the ascertainment and determination of the correct date of birth of the petitioner. No rocket science is required. The relevant facts can be ascertained from the original record produced by the respondents which mainly consists of the Character Roll of the petitioner and the correspondence file. The Character Roll itself, apart from the Service Book of the petitioner, contains the Descriptive Roll filled in at the time the petitioner had presented himself for enrolment in the force which, apart from the petitioner, is shown to have been signed by the Head of the Office. It also bears the medical opinion/authentication and the order of the Commandant concerned. 18. Having considered the records, the most important undisputed fact that comes to forth is that in the Descriptive Roll prepared on 02.06.1966, i.e., at the time of enrolment of the petitioner, his age was mentioned as 20 years. Items 8 and 9 of the Descriptive Roll, in this connection, read as under: "8. Date of birth: 20 years as stated by him. 3-8-1947 9. Grounds on which head of the office has satisfied himself of the correctness of age declared, PMO will please certify his age." It may be mentioned here that the aforesaid underlined portions are written by hand in blue ink. However, a naked eye observation makes it clear that the words 20 years as stated by him' and the figures 3-8-1947' written against item 8 are in two different pens. This is distinctly observable. 19. Then there is an endorsement at the bottom of this Roll, probably of the Doctor, which reads: "Appears only about 20 years of age in my opinion." This endorsement bears a similar signature as that of the PMO, Assistant Surgeon. This opinion, obviously, had been framed by the Doctor, as is mentioned therein, merely on the petitioner's 'appearance'. The endorsement does not speak of the age having been determined, ascertained or assessed on the basis of any scientifically recognized method. 20. In any case, if the above is taken to have been the truest age of the petitioner, viz. 20 years in June, 1966, then by no mathematical calculations, his year of birth could have been 1945, since 1966 minus 20 would come to 1946, not 1945. 20. In any case, if the above is taken to have been the truest age of the petitioner, viz. 20 years in June, 1966, then by no mathematical calculations, his year of birth could have been 1945, since 1966 minus 20 would come to 1946, not 1945. Again, the Descriptive Roll, which bears the signatures of not only the candidate, i.e., the petitioner; but also the Head of the Office; the PMO/Assistant Surgeon and the Commanding Officer, is shown to have been filled in on 02.06.1966. What mathematical formula would bring the date and month of birth - 2nd June of the year 1966 minus 20 years, i.e., the age of the petitioner at that time, to 3rd August of the year 1945. Subtracting 20 years would not change the date and month of birth of the petitioner. It is simple calculation viz., 1966th year, 6th month and 2nd day minus 20 years would come to 1946th year, 6th month and 2nd day, not 8th month and 3rd day. 21. It needs to be mentioned here that the Descriptive Roll does not anywhere contain or bear the entry of the petitioner's date of birth as 03.8.1945. It only records his age as on 2.6.1966 as 20 years, which the respondents strenuously contend to have been declared by the petitioner himself and authenticated by the Police Medical Officer. The entry 3.8.1947 against item 8, as mentioned above, is certainly in a different pen. 22. Obviously, therefore, even on the admission of the respondents, the petitioner's date of birth could not by any standards have been 03.08.1945, but, calculating it on the age so declared by the petitioner and authenticated by the PMO, it could, at best, have been 02.06.1946 if it had to be determined only on the basis of such age. 23. 22. Obviously, therefore, even on the admission of the respondents, the petitioner's date of birth could not by any standards have been 03.08.1945, but, calculating it on the age so declared by the petitioner and authenticated by the PMO, it could, at best, have been 02.06.1946 if it had to be determined only on the basis of such age. 23. Now, coming to the entry made in the last but one row, i.e., the relevant row, of the first page of the Character Roll, the same reads as under (It is in Urdu): "Umr Barwaqte bartiye police kisqadar taleem yafta hai" meaning "age at the time of enrolment in Police, how much educated he is." A naked eye observation of the entry against the aforesaid reveals that as to the qualification, "Jamat-e-Hashtam" in Persian and "8th Class" in English have been recorded by the same pen and in the same hand as most of the other entries made on the page. Further, the date 3.8.194(sic) (something, at the units place) is also written by the same pen and hand. Then there is another entry in words recorded as, 3rd Aug Nineteen Forty (something, at the units place). It is apparent to the naked eye that it has been recorded by a different pen. The figure and word at the units place in both the aforesaid entries, viz. 3rd Aug Nineteen (something, at the units place) and 3.8.194(sic) (something, at the units place) have been overwritten by a thick pen which gives a blurred look so much so they are not readable. However, below 3.8.194(sic) (something, at the units place) with the same thick pen is written 03.8.1947 and this entry is readable and initialled. The original entry has been attested by Commandant, JKAP IV Bn somewhere on 11/4. 24. If nothing, one fact becomes crystal clear and evident from a bare reading of the aforesaid entries, and that is, that by, or at, the time of preparation of the petitioner's Character Roll it had become known to the office that he was a literate person, having read upto 8th Class, Jamat-e-Hashtam (which Persian term also means Class 8th). These entries "8th Class and Jamat-e-Hashtam" made in the relevant row by no standards are interpolations and, in any case, that is nobody's case. These entries "8th Class and Jamat-e-Hashtam" made in the relevant row by no standards are interpolations and, in any case, that is nobody's case. Obviously, this particular entry relating to his educational qualification could not have been recorded unless the petitioner had produced some documentary proof in that regard. 25. One does not need to delve deep to find out what document had been produced by the petitioner. Underneath the Descriptive Roll pinned on the right-cover page of the Character Roll is the original Discharge Certificate of the petitioner issued by the Head Master, Government High School, Harda Panzu (Beeru). This certificate is written in blue pen. Obviously so, and in context of the present-day developmental scenario at all fronts, looking from any angle, this document has an antiquated seem. At the top, it bears a three-liner original seal of the office of the Head Master of the School, of course, everything thereof is not clearly readable, but most part of it is visible. It bears the No. D.C/3, Dt. 7-4-1966, certifying that Gh. Mohd. Ganayi son of Quadir Ganayi Resident of Kangri-pora had been reading in 8th Class of the School under Ad. No. 334 and that he was struck off on 6th June 1964 due to his long absence from the School. It further records that "His date of birth according to the Admission Records of the School is (3-8-1947) Third of August, Nineteen-hundred and Forty Seven". This Certificate is signed by three persons, namely, the Teacher In-charge, Checking Officer and the Head Master of the School, and bears the original seal of the Head Master under his signatures dated 7/4 (1966). From a bare look, it appears to be as old as the Descriptive Roll. 26. So, therefore, there are three probabilities about the actual date of birth of the petitioner coming forth from the records: first is 02.06.1946 which is determinable and founded on the basis of the age of the petitioner declared by him at the time of his undergoing the process of enrolment, recorded in his Descriptive Roll which is duly authenticated by the Police Medical Officer; Second is 03.08.1947 duly supported by the Discharge Certificate issued by the Head Master, Govt. High School Hardu Panzu Beeru, which is alleged to have been interpolated later in the Character Roll; and the third one is 03.08.1945, the date which the FSL alleges to have been originally recorded in the Character Roll. 27. Now, the question is which of the above three probabilities could be said to be nearer to the fact or factually correct. The date alleged by the FSL viz. 03.08.1945, is wholly unnatural and, I must say, a wild presumption with no supporting material or evidence. It belies and contradicts the entries made in the Descriptive Roll duly authenticated by the Police Medical Officer on or around 02.06.1966 which is vehemently relied upon by none other than the respondents themselves. It is reiterated that on that basis the date of birth of the petitioner comes to 02.06.1946. It also runs wholly contrary to the Discharge Certificate issued by the Headmaster, Government High School, Hardu Panzu, Beeru, on 07.04.1966. Apart from that, as mentioned earlier, an enquiry was instituted and got conducted by Respondent No. 5 on the directions of Respondent Nos. 3 an 4 and on such enquiry conducted by a responsible Police Officer, who obtained a duly sealed and signed photocopy of the withdrawal Register from the Head Master, Govt. High School, Kandura, Beeru, Budgam, pursuant to Principal, Govt. Higher Secondary School Hardu Panzu Beerwah Budgam's intimation thereabout, it was revealed that the actual date of birth of the petitioner was 03.08.1947. The Enquiry Officer, accordingly, recommended that keeping in view the facts detailed by him in the report and record collected from the concerned institution where the petitioner was reading, his date of birth should have been treated as 03.08.1947 and, accordingly, recommended that the Dy. Inspector General of Police, Armed Range, Jammu, may be requested to treat the actual date of birth of the petitioner as 03.08.1947. The date viz. 03.08.1945, suggested by the FSL contradicts not only the School Admission Withdrawal Register but also undermines the concerted effort put in by a responsible police officer of the rank of Deputy Commandant to find out the truth. It is beyond comprehension how come the weakest evidentiary value document at law, viz. the FSL report, could be treated to be containing the gospel truth turning a blind eye to every document of sound and confirmatory evidentiary value. It is beyond comprehension how come the weakest evidentiary value document at law, viz. the FSL report, could be treated to be containing the gospel truth turning a blind eye to every document of sound and confirmatory evidentiary value. The FSL report seems to be nothing more than the trick of the deceivers who made an innocent person to believe that the goat he was carrying on his back was a wild dog which resulted in he off loading and throwing it away. Frankly speaking, the records show that all the Police Officers upto the rank of Addl. DG Armed Police seem to have been convinced that the petitioner's actual date of birth was 03.08.1947. That is how and why the matter was referred to the Addl. DG for adoption of the said date as the date of birth of the petitioner. But then ultimately Respondent No. 4, as it appears, only with a view to shedding the load from his shoulders and to get rid of the nerve pestering case, passed the impugned order. The declaration of the petitioner at the time of his enrolment, the authentication of the Police Medical Officer made in 1966, the original Discharge Certificate issued by the Head Master, the Admission Withdrawal Register of the School now collected by the Enquiry Officer, the Enquiry Officer's report have all been belied and befooled on the basis of one FSL report - a weak evidence at law. The things ought to have been the other way round, in that all these evidences should have trashed the FSL report, but, unfortunately, that has not been. However, that will not impact the course of justice; it is held that FSL opinion being the weakest form of evidence, it ought not to have been taken into account being uncorroborated by any other evidence and, in any case, it cannot be relied upon in presence of the overwhelming above evidences. 28. The question now remains what was, or ought to be taken, the correct date of birth of the petitioner: 03.08.1946 or 03.08.1947, the date 03.08.1945 being wholly impossible is eliminated. I have already discussed that the date and month viz., 3rd August could not have been derived by deducting 20 years from the date 02.06.1966. It could at best make out to 2nd June, 1946. I have already discussed that the date and month viz., 3rd August could not have been derived by deducting 20 years from the date 02.06.1966. It could at best make out to 2nd June, 1946. Note (1)(b) under Rule 6.4 of the J&K Financial Rules prescribes that if a Government servant is only able to state his approximate age, his date of birth may be assumed to be the corresponding date, after deducting the number of years representing his age, from his date of appointment. The petitioner was, admittedly, appointed on 14.6.1966, though the process of recruitment commenced on or around 02.06.1966, therefore, deducting 20 years of the age declared by him, the corresponding date could have been 02.06.1946 (on the basis of the date the Descriptive Roll was filled in) or 14.6.1946 (on the basis of the date of his appointment) not 03.08.1946. This, therefore, raises a suspicion about the correctness of the figure of 5 or 6 at the units place of the year as well. Since the figures at the day's place and the month's place in 02.06.1946 and 14.6.1946 are wholly improbable, the figure at the unit's place of the year 1946 cannot be said to be perfect. It points to only one probability that the entry that existed in the Character Roll was not 3.8.1945 or 3.8.1946 but was 3.8.1947, the date reflected in the Discharge Certificate of the petitioner and this appears to have been mutilated by someone. This is further fortified by the fact that just abreast the date, the petitioner's qualification was mentioned as "8th Class" and "Jamat Hashtam" at the time of preparing the Character Roll. There is no allegation about interpolation of this entry mentioning the educational qualification of the petitioner. Once it was mentioned that the petitioner was literate, then the date of birth mentioned in the educational qualification would have to be taken as the most authentic date and would take precedence over all other entries, opinions or documents. At the top of it, there has been a thorough enquiry to find out whether the date mentioned in the Discharge Certificate was truly founded on the School records/Registers and it has been established on such enquiry. Therefore, there was no reason, justification or cause not to take this as the real and correct date of birth of the petitioner. At the top of it, there has been a thorough enquiry to find out whether the date mentioned in the Discharge Certificate was truly founded on the School records/Registers and it has been established on such enquiry. Therefore, there was no reason, justification or cause not to take this as the real and correct date of birth of the petitioner. In fact, this is the date mentioned in the service record of the petitioner, though allegedly by interpolation, but under the signatures of someone, not ascertainable by the Department at this stage. Nonetheless, it is held that once the date of birth recorded in the School Discharge Certificate is corroborated by the School Registers, such date of birth is to be treated to have been established to be the actual date of birth of the petitioner. 29. Now, let the Rule position be examined. The requirement of Rule 6.4 of the Jammu and Kashmir Financial Code under Chapter VI Section III, Age, Health and Permanent Residentship Certificates is as under: "6.4(i) Every person newly appointed to a service or a post under Government, should at the time of appointment declare the date of his/her birth by the Christian era with confirmatory documentary evidence such as Matriculation Certificate, School Leaving Certificate, Municipal Birth Certificate and so on, as required by or permitted under Article 35-AA of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Service Regulations service under Government and once recorded, it cannot be altered, except in the case of a clerical error, without the previous orders of Government. Government, however, reserve the right to make a correction in the recorded age of a Government servant at anytime against the interests of that Government servant when it is satisfied that the age recorded in his service book or in the history of services of a Gazetted Government servant is incorrect and has been incorrectly recorded, with the object that the Government servant may derive some unfair advantage therefrom. This will, however, apply to cases of those Government servants only who entered service after the date of issue of Council Order No. 677-C of 1941, dated 22.7.1941, as in the cases of those who entered service prior to 22.7.1941 the basis is the age declared at the time of their entry in Government service." 30. This will, however, apply to cases of those Government servants only who entered service after the date of issue of Council Order No. 677-C of 1941, dated 22.7.1941, as in the cases of those who entered service prior to 22.7.1941 the basis is the age declared at the time of their entry in Government service." 30. Among others, four important things become axiomatic from a bare reading of the above Rule: (i) first, that School Leaving Certificate is the confirmatory documentary evidence of date of birth. In other words, it not only proves, but confirms the date of birth. The word "confirm" means 'to corroborate and sub-stantiate'. In the instant case, therefore, once the date of birth was substantiated by the School Discharge Certificate which is equivalent to and same as School Leaving Certificate, together with contemporaneous School records, there was no occasion for, need or purpose of disputing the date of birth of the petitioner so entered and/or sending such disputed entry to the Forensic Science Laboratory and then, at the top of it, to rely on its report trashing all other valuable evidences on record, the enquiry report and the aforesaid confirmatory documentary evidence; (ii) second, that a clerical error could be rectified without the previous orders of the Government. Since the date of birth as was interpolated in the Character Roll was in consonance with the School Certificate, there was no need of doubting the entry. It appears that the clerical error stood rectified by showing the correct date of birth of the petitioner in accordance with the confirmatory documentary evidence; (iii) third, that once recorded, the date of birth could not be altered without the previous orders of Government, that too at the fag end of the petitioner's service and without any notice to him or affording him an opportunity of hearing. It is observed here that the Enquiry Officer found that the entry with regard to the date of birth in question had been made somewhere in the years 1966 or 1967, i.e., at or around the time of enrolment of the petitioner or at the time of preparing his Character Roll, therefore. It is observed here that the Enquiry Officer found that the entry with regard to the date of birth in question had been made somewhere in the years 1966 or 1967, i.e., at or around the time of enrolment of the petitioner or at the time of preparing his Character Roll, therefore. In fact, it is one of the assertions made by the petitioner that the date 03.08.1947 has been mentioned in all the relevant official documents during all these years, without any demur taken thereabout; (iv) fourth, that the Government reserve the right to make a correction in the recorded age of a Government servant at anytime against the interests of that Government servant when it is satisfied that the age recorded in his service book is incorrect and has been incorrectly recorded, with the object that the Government servant may derive some unfair advantage therefrom. In the instant case, it is nobody's case and there is no evidence or finding recorded anywhere that the interpolation had been done with the object that the petitioner may derive an unfair advantage of any kind, including to overstay in service beyond the retirement age calculable on his real and actual date of birth. Furthermore, it is nobody's case that 03.08.1947 recorded as the date of birth of the petitioner in the Character Roll is incorrect. 31. Article 35-AA of the Jammu and Kashmir CSR, in essence, is almost to the same effect. In any case, when it is alleged that an interpolation etc. has taken place in the date of birth of a government servant, the best remedy available is to hold an enquiry and, if the government employee's involvement in doing so is established, to proceed against him in accordance with law and the principles of natural justice. In the instant case, as mentioned hereinabove, an enquiry was duly ordered by the higher authorities, which culminated into a finding and recommendation that petitioner's date of birth is 03.08.1947. There was no reason or justification not to accept the recommendation of the Enquiry Officer which was based on record and confirmatory documents. Even so, if the higher authorities were not convinced with the finding of the Enquiry Officer, they ought to have rejected it and ordered a de novo enquiry and given due hearing to the petitioner. There was no reason or justification not to accept the recommendation of the Enquiry Officer which was based on record and confirmatory documents. Even so, if the higher authorities were not convinced with the finding of the Enquiry Officer, they ought to have rejected it and ordered a de novo enquiry and given due hearing to the petitioner. They neither rejected the recommendation of the enquiry officer, nor gave a hearing to the petitioner before passing the impugned order and instead Respondent No. 4 issued the impugned order with drop of hat. Therefore, the impugned order and the communication are wholly unreasonable, arbitrary and hit by the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The same cannot withstand the scrutiny of law. I must say that the impugned order and the communication are draconic, despotic and cruel, having thrown all established norms to winds. 32. Let me now advert to the other part of the record produced before the Court viz. the correspondence file. This file is entitled HC Now ASI Gh. Mohd. Ganaie No. 8767/NGO ARP 665509. Its index shows that it contains 90 documents comprising 96 pages. The Character Roll already discussed is shown as item No. 91 containing 1-24 pages and at serial 92 is a Note comprising 2 pages. 33. I have already mentioned the correspondence that ensued, exchanged between various functionaries of the department concerning the petitioner and culminated into passing of the impugned orders. The Correspondence File makes certain glaring disclosures. These are mentioned hereunder. 34. As in the case of the petitioner, mutilations were also detected to have been made in the Character Roll of the following Police officials as well: (i) Smt. Shashi Bala SI (M) No. 3258/NGO; (ii) Sh. Jawan Singh SI No. 5162/NGO; (iii) Sh. Ghulam Nabi ASI No. 8446/NGO; (iv) Sh. Gulbachan Singh SI No. 3805/NGO. 35. Smt. Shashi Bala had been appointed as Junior Assistant on 21.6.1976. Her date of birth on the basis of Matriculation Certificate was recorded as 4.8.1952. It had been mutilated and altered to 4.8.1953. 36. Sh. Jawan Singh SI No. 5162/NGO had been recruited like the petitioner, on 27.10.1966. He age was recorded as 20 years which was authenticated by the Police Medical Officer. Her date of birth on the basis of Matriculation Certificate was recorded as 4.8.1952. It had been mutilated and altered to 4.8.1953. 36. Sh. Jawan Singh SI No. 5162/NGO had been recruited like the petitioner, on 27.10.1966. He age was recorded as 20 years which was authenticated by the Police Medical Officer. His date of birth on the first page of the Character Roll was recorded as 07.03.1947 as per the School Certificate, a copy whereof was placed on record. Suspicion was raised about the correctness of the date of birth of the said SI on the ground that the said date of birth was attested by Adjutant 6th Bn which itself was raised in 1980. It was inferred that the said entry had been made 14 years after the recruitment of the said person, therefore, the entry was suspected to be mutilated. 37. Shri Ghulam Nabi ASI No. 8446/NGO also was appointed as Cook on 12.07.1966. Again, his age was recorded as 20 years. Subsequently, he was converted as Constable on 06.09.1968 and his date of birth was separately recorded as 06.09.1948. 38. Sh. Gulbachan Singh SI No. 3805/NGO also was appointed as Constable on 09.07.1966 and his age was recorded as 20 years. After 17 years of his enrolment, his date of birth as 20.04.1949 was authenticated by the Commandant. 39. So far as Smt. Shashi Bala SI (M) No. 3258/NGO is concerned, her case may not have any impact on the petitioner's case, but the cases of the other three Police officers mentioned above have some bearing on the case of the petitioner, inasmuch as in 1966 all of them were shown to be of the age of 20 years just like the petitioner, but their dates of birth have subsequently been changed/altered to 07.03.1947, 06.09.1948 and 20.04.1949 respectively. Their cases were simultaneously referred to the higher authorities and ultimately to the Financial Commissioner, Home. The Home Department, vide their Communication No. Home/533/PB-HI/D.O.B/2003, dated 12.08.2004, addressed to the Director General of Police, Jammu and Kashmir, Srinagar, conveyed its approval to the adoption of the date of birth in favour of the said three police officers as 27th October 1946, 09 July, 1946 and 12th July, 1946 respectively. Thus in their case, the date of birth has been taken to be the corresponding date determined on the date of appointment minus the declared age. Thus in their case, the date of birth has been taken to be the corresponding date determined on the date of appointment minus the declared age. I am not saying even for a second that what the Government has done in their case is correct, but what I am trying to pin point is that in case of the petitioner even this has not been done and thus he has been picked up for hostile discrimination. 40. Let me now refer to a few of the judgments cited and relied upon by Mr. M.I. Qadri, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the petitioner. In Sarjoo Prasad v. General Manager, AIR 1981 SC 1481 , the Supreme Court held as under: "...That the date of birth without notice and without giving opportunity to the appellant cannot be altered to the disadvantage and prejudice of an employee because an administrative order which involves civil consequences must be made in conformity with the rule of natural justice which at its lowest minimum requires notice and opportunity to the person affected thereby. That admittedly having not been done, on the short ground, we allow this appeal and set aside the order retiring the appellant from service as well as the order correcting the birth date." In Pushpa Devi v. State of J&K & Ors., 1986 SLJ 423 : JKJ Soft JKJ/10168, a learned Single Judge of this Court has held that great sanctity is attached to the entry of date of birth recorded in service book of a Government servant at the time of his first appointment by the competent authority after due verification of the declaration of the date of birth entry so made by the Government servant. The sanctity is so great that its alteration, except in the case of a clerical error, without the previous orders of the Government is not permitted. However, even if the Government has to pass an order altering the date of birth initially recorded in the service book, it has to do so after holding an enquiry and after being satisfied that the age recorded in the service book or the history of service initially was incorrect and had been incorrectly recorded. In Bajrangi Rabidas v. Chairman, 2008 (1) SLR 13 (Cal), a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court held that date of birth recorded in the Matriculation Certificate should be treated as authentic. In Bajrangi Rabidas v. Chairman, 2008 (1) SLR 13 (Cal), a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court held that date of birth recorded in the Matriculation Certificate should be treated as authentic. The principle and the spirit of law so enunciated has been grossly violated in the present case and, therefore, applying the ratio of the above judgments, this is a fit case where the impugned orders deserve to be quashed. 41. Now, the issue arises what relief, apart from quashing the impugned orders, can be granted at this stage. On the basis of his date of birth viz. 03.08.1947, the petitioner on attaining the age of 58 years, as it was prevalent then, would have retired on 31.08.2005, but he has been deemed to have retired with effect from 31.08.2003, i.e., two years prior to his actual date of superannuation. Nonetheless, till the date of issue of the impugned order, viz. 27.08.2004, the petitioner was in service and he had only one year and 4 days of service left. But by the impugned order it was also ordered that salary and other monetary benefits drawn by the petitioner beyond 31.08.2003 be recovered from him and that all other payments be stopped. Since this Court has come to a definite finding that the impugned order is wholly unconstitutional and the petitioner's service has been unreasonably cut short in a wholly illegal manner, therefore, the petitioner would be entitled to all service benefits, including salary, increments, arrears on that count, DA and other monetary benefits, promotion, if any, falling due to him upto 31.08.2005, the date he would ordinary attain the age of 58 years had his tenure not been cut short unreasonably and unjustifiably. 42. For the foregoing reasons, this petition is allowed. The impugned Order No. 244 of 2004, dated 27.08.2004 issued by Respondent No. 4 (Dy. Inspector General of Police, Armed Range, Jammu) under Endorsement No. AROJ/GB/10606-08, dated 27.08.2004 whereby, on the basis of the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory alone, sanction was accorded to treating the date of birth of the petitioner as 03.08.1945 instead of 03.08.1947 and, consequently, to his retrospective retirement with effect from 31.08.2003, is quashed. Inspector General of Police, Armed Range, Jammu) under Endorsement No. AROJ/GB/10606-08, dated 27.08.2004 whereby, on the basis of the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory alone, sanction was accorded to treating the date of birth of the petitioner as 03.08.1945 instead of 03.08.1947 and, consequently, to his retrospective retirement with effect from 31.08.2003, is quashed. Consequently, the Communication No. AROJ/P-File/04-GB/1125-38, dated 28.08.2004, addressed by Respondent No. 4 to Respondent No. 5 (Commandant, JKAP 4th Security Battalion, Jammu) directing him to request the SSP, Crime and Railways, Jammu, to register a criminal case against the petitioner in regard to the tampering in question is also quashed. Any action taken pursuant thereto would automatically meet the same fate. The respondents are directed to treat the petitioner in service upto 31.08.2005 on the bases of his date of birth of 03.08.1947 as recorded in his School Certificate/records and reflected in his Character Roll, and pass fresh orders of his retirement with effect from 31.08.2005. Consequently, the petitioner would be entitled to all service benefits, including salary, increments, arrears on that count, DA and other monetary benefits, including promotion, if any, that had fallen due to him upto 31.08.2005, the date he would ordinary attain the age of 58 years, and all such benefits shall be released in his favour within a period of 40 days from today. The respondents shall, in consequence thereof, also process and complete his pension papers within the same period. 43. This is a case which warrants levy of heavy costs against the respondents. However, taking a lenient view, I order levy of just Rs. 20,000/- as costs against the respondents which shall be deposited by Respondent No. 4 in the Registry of this Court within a fortnight from today to be handed over to the petitioner on his proper identification by his counsel. In the event the costs awarded are not deposited within the time allowed, the salary head of Respondent No. 4 shall stand seized after 15 days from today and no bills operable by debit to such head of Respondent No. 4 shall be entertained by the Treasury Officer concerned until the deposition of the costs. 44. The original records produced on behalf of the respondents is returned to the learned State counsel in the open Court. Now a caution for the Registry. 44. The original records produced on behalf of the respondents is returned to the learned State counsel in the open Court. Now a caution for the Registry. It has been observed that the Registry officials, meant to manage case files, do not properly tag the applications filed for copies of orders and emergency memos moved by the counsel and parties, and such applications are kept lose in the case files. In the instant case, there are seven such applications kept haphazardly lose. It suggests that the Registry officials are not interested in properly maintaining the case files. The Registrar Judicial will take notice of this lapse and take appropriate measures to arrest such derelict and slack tendency on the part of the officials concerned. In future if any such paper is found lose in the case files, the Court will take serious action, including levy of heavy fines on the concerned officials.