G. K. SHARMA, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition has been preferred by the State through the CBI, Jaipur, against the order of discharge dated 8th Feb 88 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (S. P. E. Cases), Jaipur District Jaipur, and prayed that the impugned order be quashed.
(2.) IF we look into the history of this case, it is found that the matter relates to the year 1950. On 16th Sept. , '50, non-petitioner Shripal was appointed as a Cleaner in the Railway Department. He was interviewed by the Department for the post, when he narrated verbally that he was 18 years of age; and on the basis of his that statement, he was given the appointment Shripal was then asked whether or not he had submitted any application at the time of his appoint-ment, and he replied that he had not submitted any written application, but, on oral interrogation, he had given his age as 18 years. There is nothing on the record to controvert this statement of Shripal given in the Court, today. Therefore, it is expected that Shripal was appointed as such, and at the time of his appointment he had not submitted any written application but on his verbal reply his age was 18 years. Later on in the year 1952, Shripal was asked to submit some document about his age, so that, his service-sheet might be completed. According to his service-sheet, a school certificate bearing No 4740 dated 10th July, '51 was submitted by Shripal, wherein, his date of birth was mentioned as 21st April. , '33. On the basis of that certificate his service-sheet was completed on 20th October, 55 by the Railway Department and therein, his date of birth was mentioned as 21st April, 33. It is alleged that in the year 1952 the railway authorities asked Shripal to explain as to why he had secured the service by misrepresenting his age as 18 years in the year 1950, which, according to his school certificate, he was of the age of 17 years and 5 months on 16th Sept 50. Thereupon Shripal submitted a certificate of Municipal Committee, wherein, his date of birth was shown as 9th March 31. As is evident from his service-sheet, correction was made in the date of his birth, by a pencil, as 9th March 31, as per the certificate of the Municipal Committee. Thereafter, somebody made a complaint to the SP. CBT, Jaipur, against Shripal, and on the basis of that complaint, the SP started investigation. And, during the investigation, it was found that the certificate of the Municipal Committee, submitted by Shripal, was a false one. According to the prosecution, this municipal certificate shows that one child was born to one Ramsahai, whose father's name was Champalal or Jampa, as it was difficult to read it correctly. The name of Ramsahai's father as stated by Shripal, was Bansidhar. So, according to the CBI, the certificate of Municipal Committee was not pertaining to this Shnpal whose grandfather's name was Bansidhar, but, it pertained to birth of a child to Ramsahai whose father's name was Champalal or Jampa. However, after completing investigation, the CBI submitted a challan before the ACJM,. Jaipur District, Jaipur, alleging that Shripal had submitted a false certificate from the Municipal Committee showing his date of birth as 9th March, '31, and thus, intentionally, he had submitted a false certificate. The learned ACJM, after going through the record, submitted along with the challan, found that it was a fit case where the non-petitioner should be discharged as there was no prima facie case to frame charge. It is that order which has been challenged hereby way of this revision petition. I have heard both the learned counsel and also perused the documents. It is very surprising that Shripal was appointed in the year 1950 when he verbally stated his age as 18 years. But, at that time the railway authorities did not consider it proper to verify his date of birth or his correct age. In the year 1952, when he submitted a school certificate showing his date of birth as 21st Apr. '33, the eyes of the railway-authorities were opened and they discovered that on 16th Sept. 50, Shripal was of the age of 17 years and 5 months, i. e. below 18 years, and they thought of having some proof in this regard. The Railway Establishment Manual has a provision for recruitment of Class-IV employees. According to R. 307 of the said Manual, the age for appointment would be 18 years and above, but below 40 years. According to Note 1 under this rule, if the person is below 18 years of age, he, should be fixed at a reduced rate by Re. 1/- for each year by which his age falls below 18 years, and should be increased annually by Re. 1/- from his next date of birth onwards until he attains the age of 18 years when he would draw minimum of the time-scale of Rs. 30/- Keeping this rule in mind, the railway-authorities, in the service-sheet, appointed Shripal as a Cleaner on the pay of Rs. 27/- per month, on 16th Sept. '50. Then as per R. 307, increments were given to him of Re. 1/- on 21st Apr. , '52, and in the year 1953; and on 21st Apr. , '54, he was given Rs. 30/- as his pay, which was minimum of the pay scale. In other words, the railway-authorities had accepted that a person below the age of 18 years, could also be appointed under R. 307, and Shripal was given that benefit; and in the year 1952, when he was suspended on the fact that at the time of his appointment, he was below 18 years of age, the matter was examined by them, and on submission of the Municipal Committee's certificate, his suspension-order was revoked, and he continued in the service, which might have been on account of submission of the Municipal Committee's certificate which showed his date of birth as 9th Mar. , '31. Even keeping in view the school certificate wherein his date of birth was shown as. 21st Apr. ' '33, his services could not be terminated, though he was below 18 years of age, because, there was a provision for it in the Manual.
(3.) NOW, the question is that Shripal had intentionally submitted a false certificate from the Municipal Committee in the year 1952 whereafter, somebody made a complaint to the SP, CBI for certain things, against Shripal, and while investigating that complaint, it was disclosed that he had submitted a false certificate of the Municipal Committee in order to meet the order of suspension. Here I would like to mention that even if that certificate was not a correct one then too, his services could not be terminated in 1952, because, the rules say that a person below 18 years of age, could well be appointed, but at a reduced rate of pay, and Shripal was appointed on a reduced pay. Therefore, the question of his not continuing in service or termination of his services, is not a material one. Mr. Tyagi, the learned counsel for the CBI argued that in the year 1986 it was found that Shripal had submitted a false certificate from the Municipal Committee, and therefore, it is a fit case where charge should have been framed. The important aspect is that the railway-authorities had no grievance against Shripal. They had with them the school certificate, wherein the date of birth of Shripal was shown as 21st Aug. 33, and also a Municipal Committee's certificate wherein, his date of birth was shown as 9th Mar. , '31. The rail authorities, however, did not like to take any action whatsoever against Shripal on account of the two contradictory dates of birth, any they continued him in the service, accepting his date of birth as 9th Mar. , '31. In the year 1986, i. e. after 36 years of service, the matter was, dealt with by the CBI. I do not find it so important a matter for the CBI that after a lapse of long 36 years, they should come to this Court, to get punished a person who is going to retire only after 4 months, i. e. , in March, '89. It is really creditable for the CBI that they investigated even such petty matters, and do not lose strength for coming to this Court, in which, the authorities concerned have no grievances even. Some body sent a complaint to the SP, CBI, and the said SP was so much irritated/annoyed by the complaint that despite there being the fact of rendering 36 years long service by the employee concerned, he proceeded to take action against him, for which, ironically, the department concerned has no grievance. It is nothing but simply waste of valuable time and energy. I would like to mention here that instead of pursuing some important matters, the CBI has chosen to come to this Court with such a matter which has no significance even for the authorities concerned. Because the person concerned has completed 36 years of service, and he is to retire in Mar. '89, I do not think that any interference is called for in the order of the learned ACJM dated 8th Feb. , '88, though, it may be a technical matter. This was a question of verifying the correctness of the certificates of a school granted to the non-petitioner in the year 1951 and of Municipal Committee pertaining to the year 1931. It is worth while to spend energy after verifying the correctness of a certificate granted 37 years back. I do not think that it would be a wise step to enter into such matters. There is nothing to interfere in the order of the learned ACJM. Consequently, the revision petition being devoid of any force, is hereby dismissed. And, it is made here clear that the date of birth of non-petitioner Shripal as 9th Mar. , '31, which has been accepted by the Railway-authorities, would be treated as his correct date of birth. . ;