Mohammad Rafiq, J. - (1.) IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5442/1996, petitioner has prayed that respondents be directed to treat his date of birth as 12/2/1946 and on that basis allow him to continue in service.
(2.) IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1074/1998, petitioner has prayed that order of penalty dated 22/4/1996 by which petitioner was awarded penalty of reduction in rank reverting him from the post of Secretary to that of Assistant Secretary be quashed and set -aside. Shri Ashok Gaur and Shri A.K. Jaiman, learned Counsel for petitioner have argued that charge against the petitioner was that he by manipulating the service record changed his date of birth whereas, petitioner denied this allegation in reply to the charge -sheet which was considered by the respondents as his admission. Learned Counsel referring to the reply to the charge -sheet submitted by the petitioner argued that it was not at all a case of admission of guilt by the petitioner. On the contrary, he in para 3 of the reply thereof submitted that tampering with the column of date of birth in the service record was not done by him since the record was maintained at the head office. He also categorically stated in para 4 of the said reply that recording of date of birth as 12/2/1946 as his date of birth in APR by him was erroneous but mere use of word 'erroneous' cannot at all be termed as admission of guilt on his part. Penalty has been imposed without holding full fledged departmental enquiry just on the basis of alleged admission by the petitioner whereas, fact is that there no admission at all. Order of penalty is absolutely illegal and decision of the respondents to retire him on that basis is also illegal. Writ petition therefore be allowed and the impugned -order be quashed and set -aside.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has cited judgment of Debidas Banerjee v. The Chairman & Managing Director, Bank of India and Ors. reported in, 1991 (4) SLR 590 to argue that in that case matriculation certificate was subsequently produced by the petitioner and on that basis, he was rendered under -age for appointment. Action of the bank in treating the petitioner in that case under -age was declared to be illegal. Learned Counsel for petitioner submitted that there are number of other employees in the department whose date of birth is considered vis -a -vis their date of birth and they are found to be appointed at the age of 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 etc. Therefore, petitioner cannot be singled out for being discriminated.;