Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
P. B. BAJANTHRI, J.
CWJC No.17398 of 2014
(8.3.2022)
Vijay Kumar
@ Vijay Kumar Singh ... Petitioner
vs.
State of Bihar & Ors. ... Respondents
Service Law – Dismissal – From post of Constable – Charge of furnishing two dates of birth – Authors of transfer certificate and matriculation certificate have not been examined in order to ascertain which is correct date of birth – As long as date of birth is reflected in Matriculation, same is required to be taken note of in light of policy decision of State-respondent issued on 15.01.2000 – Official respondents from inception while framing article of charges have not cited relevant documents to be relied on in order to prove charge that petitioner has misled selecting and appointing authority in furnishing date of birth and incorrect name – On this very issue, petitioner was subjected to criminal proceedings in which he was acquitted – Prosecution has failed to prove charges in criminal proceedings – Before order of appointment was issued in favour of petitioner, petitioner's documents have been verified and there were no objections till he was appointed – Petitioner's application for the post should have been rejected at threshold or at the time of verification of documents – There are lapses on part of selecting authority – Concerned respondent hereby directed to reinstate petitioner to post of Constable – However, petitioner is not entitled to any monetary benefits during intervening period – It is not appropriate asking disciplinary authority to hold fresh enquiry, since it is not a case of misappropriation of government money – Concerned respondent hereby directed to extend all service benefits like grant of increment, re-fixation of pay, seniority, even for pension, and other issues at par with his immediate junior. (Paras 7 to 10)
P. B. Bajanthri, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. In the instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following relief/reliefs:—
“The petitioner prays for issuance of appropriate order/orders, direction/directions, writ/writs for following reliefs:
(i) A writ in the nature of certiorari setting aside the order containing Memo No. 5405 dated 30.09.2013 (Annexure-17) passed in Departmental Proceeding No. 108/2011 by Respondent No.6 whereby and where-under petitioner who is constable bearing No.676 of Munger District Force has been dismissed from service with further direction that he will not get anything except subsistence allowance for the period of suspension and suspension period will be adjusted against half earned leave.
(ii) For setting aside the Memo No.1391 dated 27.06.2014 (Annexure- 18) passed by Respondent No.4 whereby and where-under the Appellate Authority has dismissed the appeal preferred against the order of dismissal and affirmed the order passed by Disciplinary authority.
(iii) For a direction upon the Respondents concerned to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential monetary benefits.
(iv) Any other order/orders for granting any other relief/reliefs for which the petitioner is found entitled to in the facts and circumstances of this case.”
3. The petitioner was appointed as Home Guard on 07.08.1989 while furnishing date of birth as 20th October, 1968. Pursuant to the advertisement to the post of constable on 10.02.2004, petitioner was a candidate for the selection and appointment to the post of constable. He was selected on 09.05.2008, his documents were verified for the purpose of appointment on 04.07.2008. Before issuing order of appointment, an F.I.R. was registered on 18.07.2008 on the charge that petitioner has furnished two date of births, namely, 20.10.1968 and 02.06.1975 (transfer certificate and matriculation certificate). The petitioner is stated to have passed matriculation while he was holding the post of Home Guard on 25.11.1992. Thus, he had furnished the date of birth for the purpose of selection and appointment to the post of Constable with reference to matriculation certificate.
4. Similarly situated persons have approached this Court, insofar as rectification of date of birth and it was disposed of vide Annexure-6. Petitioner also approached this Court, his petition was disposed of vide Annexure-7, asking the petitioner to submit detailed representation and in the light of earlier decision of this Court, it was disposed of. Thus, petitioner was appointed on 14.04.2011. Based on Investigating Officer on the criminal side, disciplinary authority placed the petitioner under suspension on 04.11.2011. On the departmental side, petitioner was issued a charge memo on 13.11.2011. Petitioner submitted his reply on 25.01.2012. Disciplinary authority was not satisfied with the petitioner’s reply and proceeded to hold domestic enquiry and it was concluded on 11.07.2013 while holding the charge levelled against the petitioner was proved. Based on the Enquiring Officer’s report dated 11.07.2013, the disciplinary authority issued second showcause notice on 05.08.2013. Further, the disciplinary authority proceeded to impose penalty of dismissal from service on 13.09.2013. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of penalty, petitioner exhausted the remedy of appeal and memorial and it was rejected on 27.06.2014 and 23.06.2015 respectively. Thus, the petitioner has presented this petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that for the purpose of Home Guard, the eligibility qualification is 8th standard and he was appointed on 07.08.1989. He has passed matriculation on 25.11.1992. In the Home Guard records, date of birth has been shown as 20.10.1968. At the time of selection and appointment to the post of Constable which is based on the matriculation qualification. In the matriculation certificate, date of birth has been shown as 02.06.1975. Thus, there is a var
In disciplinary proceedings, the burden of proof rests on the employer, and failure to provide adequate evidence can invalidate dismissal orders.
Correction of date of birth in the service book can only be made within five years of entry into government service, and a genuine mistake must be established.
The court emphasized the importance of evidence and approval for any alterations made in official records, especially regarding personal details such as date of birth.
The court established that discrepancies in personal information provided during the appointment process can justify dismissal from service, and that the High Court's role is limited to reviewing the....
The central legal point established in the judgment is that a typographical error in official documents should not hinder a candidate's appointment, and corrected certificates should be considered fo....
The court emphasized the importance of rectifying small errors in certificates that could significantly impact an individual's career and held that delay in resolving such issues should not prejudice....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
