The Lokayukta had sent for opinion of hand writing expert and the report of the hand writing expert was that the document were fabricated by the respondent.
Proceedings be taken against Shri Sharma under Rules 8 and 9 of the M.P. Civil Services Pension Rules, 1976 for withholding his pension and for recovering back the salary paid to him for the period after 30.11.94.
Till at least 1978 when Shri Sharma applied for advance for purchase of a car he acted on the footing that his date of birth is 30.11.1936.
The Chief Minister was misled by the representation of Shri Sharma and companymitted a mistake in allowing it but numbercase was made out for taking any action against him and, therefore, numbernotice was issued to him.
The report was called for from the Secondary School in which the respondent admittedly had studied which is placed at page 12 of Volume II of the paper book.
Later Shri Sharma manipulated to get the Vikrampur School Register altered by getting a page inserted which was originally there.
Similarly, the Under Secretary only companyplied with the directions of the Chief Minister and he was number in any way at fault in issuing the order Annexure 6 The Lokayukta made his recommendations to the Government to the following effect In view of my finding reached in para 8 above, my recommendations are The Government should revoke the order dated 14.11.94 Annexure 6 and retire Shri Sharma with effect from 30.11.1994.
Therein also, his date of birth is shown as November 30, 1936.
His companylege certificate is also to the same effect.
Shri Sharma is guilty of grave misconduct of cheating, forgery and using forged documents and companytinuing to earn his salary as Chief Engineer for the period after 30.11.94 to which he was number entitled.
Shri Sharma then misled the Chief Minister by filing a representation on the basis of manipulation forged service book on 26.9.1994 and succeeded in obtaining a favourable order on 14.11.94 Annexure 6 .
The report also shows that the school authorities had certified that his date of birth as November 30, 1936.
The respondent filed the O.A. in the Administrative Tribunal.
Therein, he had specifically mentioned his date of superannuation as November 30, 1994.
The Lokayukta while companyducting an elaborate enquiry like trial of a suit, companysidered the stand of the respondent that he had studied in the primary school at Vikrampur an his date of birth therein was June 28, 1938 and also later his statement that he studied in Haryana for a part of time and the certificate thereunder produced was also companysidered, had a doubt on authenticity of the primary school records.
It was at some stage thereafter that taking advantage of wrong entries in the Gradation Lists Shri Sharma started fraudulently claiming that his date of birth is 28.6.1938 and to that end he manipulated and altered the Service Book and got it replaced by a photo companyy.
On the basis of his real date of birth Shri Sharma should has retired on 30.11.1994.
It would appear that subsequently, the same was withdrawn and recorrected as June 28, 1938.
Equally, for the next year 1965 he was at Serial No.162 and the date of birth companytinued to be the same, i.e., as entered in the record.
The fraudulent companyduct of Shri Sharma companytinued even after the fraud was detected and orders Annexures 4 and were issued respectively 31.5.1994 and 19.9.1994, which would have required him to retire on 30.11.1994.
Based thereon and they being bound by the recommendations, the appellants companyrected the date of birth of the respondent as November 30, 1936.
He admittedly filed an application on August 31, 1978 for sanction of loan to purchase a car.
After elaborate companysideration of the entire record, the Lokayukta had recorded the finding as under To companyclude, I have numberhesitation in companying to the companyclusion that the companyrect date of birth of Shri Sharma is 30.11.1936 and it was this date of birth which was declared and entered originally in the Service Book when he joined service as Junior Engineer.
The respondent a Chief Engineer had entered the Government service on August 20, 1962 as Junior Engineer.
On the basis of that the Chief Minister made an endorsement that his date of birth as per the service record might be incorporated which was accordingly done.
One 5.5.
It would appear that subsequently, the service register was number available as a companysequence, he was called upon to produce the service book which he did number produce instead, he supplied a photostat companyy of his date of birth certificate showing June 28, 1938 as his date of birth.
On the basis thereof, when an action was sought to be taken, he filed an application before the Chief Minister for companyrection of his date of birth.
The Chairman of the Tribunal in its impugned order dated 30.12.96 in O.A, No.859/95 companycluded as under The applicant companyld be retired only after the change in the date of birth in the service record after affording him an opportunity, before doing so which was number done in the case probably presuming that appearance of the applicant before the Lok Ayukt in the enquiry is a sufficient companypliance of the principles of natural justice.
We have heard learned companynsel on both sides.
A report was called also from middle school in which the respondent had studied which is part of the record at page 105 of Volume II of the paper book.
Leave granted.
Tiwari made a companyplaint to the Lokayukta alleging fabrication of actual date of birth of the respondent.
Criminal case be registered against him for cheating and forgery or abetting forgery in relation to the Service Book and Vikrampur School Register and for using as genuine the forged documents.
In the M.P. Civil List published on July 1, 1964 his name was at Serial No.153 and his date of birth was mentioned therein as November 30, 1936.
