- (1.) BY this writ petition, a challenge has been made to the order of termination dated 24.3.1994.
(2.) NO explanation of delay has been given as to why writ petition has been preferred after a lapse of 16 years of the date of passing of the impugned order. It is stated by learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner was waiting for outcome of the criminal case and, accordingly, writ petition was filed after its decision. I have considered the submission and perused recod of the case. Perusal of the writ petition does not show that any explanation has been given regarding latches in maintaining the writ petition though oral submission has been made that when petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case, immediately writ petition has been filed. On perusal of the record, I find that order of termination is not based either due to pendency of criminal case or as to outcome thereof. The order of termination is independent and has no nexus with the criminal case. In fact, qua criminal case standard of proof is different in the departmental action. Guilt of the accused is required to be proved beyond doubt while trying a criminal case thus justification to maintain this writ petition after waiting for the outcome of the criminal case does not take out rigour of latches in maintaining the writ petition. Accordingly, writ petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of latches itself.
(3.) HOWEVER, I have considered the matter on merit also and find that even while trying the case court has taken note of the fact that all the documents from P-4 to P-9 were containing petitioner's date of birth as 5.8.1971, but, later on, by over-writing, it was changed to 10.1.1974. During the course of arguments, learned counsel could not specify as to how date of birth of the petitioner was changed to 10.1.1974 when it was throughout recorded as 5.8.1971 in all the relevant documents which include original application of the petitioner for admission in school showing date of birth as 5.8.1971, scholar register, certificate of passing Class-VIII, transfer certificate book, character certificate etc. In all those documents, date of birth of the petitioner has been recorded as 5.8.1971, which was, later on, changed to 10.1.1974 by fraudulent means and it is only abovesaid certificate which was produced by the petitioner. In the light of aforesaid, petitioner was terminated from service thus there is no illegality in the action of the respondents. The Hon'ble Apex Court has also observed that if one seeks appointment by fraudulent means, he deserves no sympathy and in such a case, neither regular enquiry is required to be conducted nor show cause notice is required to be served. Hence, even on merit, no case is made out by the petitioner. Accordingly, writ petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed on the ground of delay and latches as it has been filed after expiry of 16 years of the impugned order without any explanation and otherwise no case is made out on merit. ;