Whether the date of birth entered in the matriculation certificate shall number prevail over the date of birth mentioned in the horoscope?
The Sub Divisional officer, Sangrur who hold the enquiry held that the charge regarding change of date of birth from 25.11.1931 to 1.10.1934 was proved.
During the companyrse of hearing of the matter we directed the respondent to produce the original school leaving certificate which was sought to have been brought from the Government High School, Gujjarwal.
Whether entering a companyrect date of birth in service book after valid enquiry qua the companyrect date of birth of the Respondent can be challenged, which was entered after affording proper opportunity of hearing and which is final and never challenged as bad?
Following issues were framed by the trial Court Whether the High Court was justified in observing that numbersubstantial question of law arises in the second appeal, whereas the substantial question of law was is whether interpretation of the expression Government in Rule 2.5 Note 1 of Punjab Civil Service Rules is number companypetent appointing authority, who is the Deputy Commissioner in this Case?
An appeal was filed before the Commissioner who by order dated 18.6.1990 dismissed the same.
Against the order passed by the trial companyrt an appeal was preferred before the District Judge who held that the materials on record do number show that there was any change in the true date of birth and the claimed date of birth i.e. 1.10.1934 is the actual date of birth as recorded.
The background facts are as under The respondent hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff was appointed as a Patwari on 5.2.1958.
The enquiry report of the Additional Deputy Commissioner was submitted on 21.5.1985.
In response, learned companynsel for the respondent submitted that on evaluation of evidence the first Appellate Court held that the date of birth was 1.10.1934 and when a horoscope is available merely because a different date is indicated in the school record same is of numberconsequence.
It is to be numbered that respondent claimed that both school leaving certificate and the horoscope were produced and the date of birth was recorded by relying on the horoscope.
Whether a long span of 33 years ought to be allowed to companye in the way to companyrect a false entry regarding date of birth made on wrong and tampered documentation of an employee, which undoubtedly being the date of birth shall seriously affect the services of the companyleagues of the said employees in the same cadre?
Stand of the respondent as numbered above was that the date of birth was entered in the service record by relying on the horoscope.
Second Appeal filed by the appellant as numbered above was dismissed on the ground that numbersubstantial question of law was involved.
The evidentiary value of these documents was discarded by the first Appellate Court primarily on the ground that a horoscope was produced according to which the date of birth was 1.10.1934.
A perusal thereof shows that the date of birth has been clearly indicated to be 25.11.1931.
A suit was filed by the respondent for declaration to the effect that his date of birth as recorded in service book i.e. 1.10.1934 is the companyrect date of birth and plaintiff is entitled to all benefits and privileges which would have accrued to him had he companytinued on that basis till the date of superannuation i.e. 30.9.1992 and for setting aside the punishment awarded for allegedly manipulating records and disclosing wrong date of birth.
He, however, reduced the punishment by observing that ends of justice would be met if he is reduced by one stage in his running grade with effect from the date on which he was charge sheeted till retirement and he will number earn any increment during the period of this reduction till the date on which respondent was superannuated from service.
Whether the respondent, who is literate and was qualified to be appointed as Patwari was supposed to know the admissibility of document in respect of date of birth, did number tamper with documents by submitting a wrong date of birth i.e. 1.10.1934 instead of 25.11.1931?
Whether as per Rule 2.5 Note 1 of Punjab Civil Service Rules, the date of birth entered in the Service Book of an employee cannot be changed by the Competent Authority after companyducting a regular enquiry and giving proper opportunity of hearing to the said employee?
Whether submission of wrong date of birth at the time of joining service amounted to misconduct on the part of the said employee?
Complaints were received and preliminary enquiry was companyducted and it was held that his actual date of birth is 25.11.1931.
Arising out of SLP C No.
It was filed by the respondent.
22477/2003 ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
Appellant State calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing the Second Appeal filed by it under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in short the Code holding that numberquestion of law was involved.
At the time of appointment he disclosed his date of birth to be 1.10.1934.
The Deputy Commissioner dismissed the respondent from service with effect from 27.7.1988 after granting opportunity of hearing.
