- (1.) Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 23.4.2004 (Annexure -14) passed by respondent no. 3 whereby the petitioner was removed from service. Challenge is also to the order dated 9.2.2005 ( annexure 16) passed by the respondent whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 23.4.2004, was dismissed. Besides praying for quashing the impugned orders, the petitioner has also prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with full consequential benefits and also to promote him on higher post w.e.f. from due date with all consequential benefits.
(2.) FACTS of the case of the petitioner lies in a narrow compass. The petitioner was appointed in the service of CISF on 27.6.1982. At the time of recruitment, he had produced relevant documents including the original certificate of the Bihar School Examination Board (BSEB for short) along with mark sheet issued by the Board in confirmation of his date of birth which, according to him, is 7.1.1959. He had also produced a certificate issued by the Middle School, Aurangabad, Bihar in confirmation of his aforesaid date of birth. Upon being inducted in service, he continued to discharge his duties for more than 18 years and during this period, had also earned promotion to higher posts. It was after more than 18 years that the respondent authorities disputed the correctness of his date of birth on the ground that as per the Boards Matriculation certificate declaring him to have passed the Matriculation examination in the year 1971, it was doubtful that he could not have passed the examination at the age of 12 years and 3 months. Upon entertaining such doubt, his promotion was withheld. The certificate produced by the petitioner was verified by the Vigilance Officer of the BSEB, who reported that the petitioners date of birth, as recorded in the Register of the Board, was 7.1.1954 upon which in December, 2000, after putting him under suspension, the respondent authorities served him with a charge sheet on 19.3.2001 on the allegation that he had fraudulently and dishonestly obtained appointment by producing a fake certificate. In course of departmental proceeding, the Enquiry Officer had also felt the need to verify the authenticity of the documents produced by the petitioner and to ascertain the correct date of birth as entered both in the records of the High School and in the records of the BSEB, Patna, directed the concerned authorities of the school and the Board, to make available the relevant documents/registers for inspection and also to depute a competent official for recording their statement. The only response received from the Board to the several letters issued by the Enquiry Officer, was the letter dated 19.9.2003 / 15.11.2003 stating the date of birth of the petitioner as per records, was 7.1.1954, although in absence of the name of Centre and Roll Number, the aforesaid entry could not be confirmed easily. The contention of the petitioner is that such dubious reply of the Board was misleading in view of the fact that the mark sheet submitted by the petitioner does contain reference to the Centre and the Roll Number allotted to him. At the conclusion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer had recorded his finding that neither of the two charges were proved. The disciplinary authority upon receipt of the enquiry report did not agree with the findings and had sought to differ and issued a second show cause notice which was served upon the petitioner asking him to show cause as to why the punishment of removal from service should not be imposed against him. The reply submitted by the petitioner was not accepted and ultimately by the impugned order dated 23.4.2004, the disciplinary authority dismissed the petitioner from service. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority, namely DIG, Eastern Zone CISF, but the appellate authority by his impugned order dated 9.2.2005 dismissed the appeal. Counter affidavit has been file on behalf of the respondents.
(3.) HEARD counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the respondents.;