The court affirmed that official educational records are decisive in determining an individual's date of birth for employment purposes, and the burden of proof lies with the petitioner to substantiate claims against manipulative allegations.

JUDGMENT :

N. Unni Krishnan Nair, J.

Heard Mr. K. Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard by Mr. B. Gogoi, learned Addl. Advocate General, Assam, appearing for the respondents.

2. The petitioner, by way of instituting the present proceeding, has presented a challenge to an order dated 04.12.2017, issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Golaghat, imposing upon the petitioner, penalties on conclusion of a departmental proceeding instituted against him.

3. The facts, in brief, requisite for adjudication of the issue arising in the present proceeding is noticed as under:

The petitioner, herein, had joined as a Lower Division Assistant in the establishment of the Deputy Commissioner, Golaghat, on 01.01.1989. It is projected in the written petition that the petitioner, while serving in such capacity, was required, vide the communication, dated 14.12.1993, to produce his original mark sheet and certificate of his educational qualifications from HSLC to graduation. It is further projected that the petitioner had submitted the original certificates pertaining to his educational qualifications to the designated authority in the establishment of the Deputy Commissioner, Golaghat. The petitioner contends that, basing on a suspicion arising with regard to the date of birth of the petitioner, an enquiry was initiated by the authorities. On conclusion of the enquiry, the petitioner, herein, was required to submit his original/duplicate copy of his HSLC pass certificate. It is also projected by the petitioner that he had submitted his duplicate copy of the HSLC certificate.

Being not satisfied with the projection made by the petitioner of his date of birth; the Deputy Commissioner, Golaghat, issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner on 20.06.2012, requiring him to show cause as to why departmental proceedings would be not instituted against him for alleged manipulation of his date of birth in service records. The petitioner, basing on the allegations as set-out in the said show-cause notice, dated 20.06.2012, came to be placed under suspension vide an order, dated 20.07.2012, issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Golaghat. Pursuant to the said developments taking place; the Deputy Commissioner, Golaghat, as the disciplinary authority, proceeded to issue a show cause notice, dated 01.11.2012, to the petitioner under the provisions of Rule 9 of the Assam Service(Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1964, instituting a departmental proceeding against the petitioner.

4(four) allegations came to be levelled against the petitioner in the said show-cause notice, dated 01.11.2012. The petitioner, herein, submitted his written statement of defence on 04.04.2013. The written statement of defence submitted by the petitioner not being found to be satisfactory, an enquiry came to be ordered in the matter by the disciplinary authority of the petitioner. Accordingly, an enquiry was conducted and on conclusion of the same, the enquiry officer submitted his enquiry report on 05.11.2015 and therein, concluded that the charges framed against the petitioner vide the show-cause notice, dated 01.11.2012, stood established.

The petitioner submitted his representation against the enquiry report on 18.12.2015. The disciplinary authority, thereafter, on consideration of the matter, proceeded vide order, dated 04.12.2017, to impose penalty upon the petitioner. The penalty imposed upon the petitioner was withholding of one annual increment with cumulative effect. Further, the petitioner's date of birth was determined a