BHUPESH CHANDRA GHOSH Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE CALCUTTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petitioner joined police service in Calcutta Police in 1956. In his Service Book opened at that time his date of birth had been recorded as 29th November, 1934. The contention of the petitioner is that, as a matter of fact, his date of birth was wrongly recorded by the dealing clerk in his Service Book and his actual date of birth is 15th August, 1937. It is also the contention of the petitioner that although at the time of entry in the service he told his correct date of birth to the dealing clerk, the latter made a mistake in recording the same in his Service book and the petitioner was not aware of the same. It is also the case of the petitioner that subsequently when he came to know that his date of birth was wrongly recorded in the Service Book, he submitted a representation dated 30. 9. 89 to the Commissioner of Police, Calcutta, which is Annexure 'c' to the writ petition. Along with the said representation he also submitted two xerox copies of his school leaving certificates. One of those certificates was granted by the headmaster of Sundarganj A. Majid H. E. School district Rangpur of the erstwhile East Pakistan (now Bangla Desh ). That certificate is dated 20. 4. 48 and in that certificate it is stated inter alia that on 20. 4. 48 the age of the petitioner who was reading in class VI at that time, was 10 years 5 months 5 days according to the admission register According to that certificate, his date of birth is 15th August 1937. Subsequently, the petitioner read in Maharaja nripendra Narayan High School of Cooch Behar and he read there up to class viii. He subsequently obtained a certificate from the headmaster of the said school (Annexure 'b' to the writ petition) wherein it is certified by the headmaster on the basis of the admission register [maintained in the school that the date of birth of the petitioner as recorded in the admission register was 15. 8. 37. The xerox copies of both those certificates were enclosed with the representation dated 30. 9. 89 addressed to the Commissioner of Police for correction of his date of birth in his Service Book. It was also mentioned in that representation that Shri Tapash Chandra Ghosh, the older brother of the petitioner, was a government servant working in a gazetted post and he was to retire on attaining the age of superannuation on 20. 3. 94. This fact was mentioned in the said representation only to show that he being the younger brother, cannot reach the age of superannuation before his elder brother. In this writ petition the petitioner has also enclosed a xerox copy of his said elder brother's School final Examination Certificate (Annexure 'd' to the writ petition) where the date of birth of his elder brother has been recorded as 23rd October 1936. Be that as it may, the petitioner was not given any hearing by the departmental authority about his representation for correction of his age nor was he informed specifically about the fate of his representation. A copy of D. O. No. 3403 dated 13. 9. 90 was only forwarded to the petitioner for information. In the said D. O. it was recorded by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, special branch, Calcutta, that the date of birth as recorded in the Service Book of the petitioner, who was working as Sub-Inspector in the Special Branch, Calcutta police, was accepted under Rule 9 ( 1) of W. B. S. R. part I. Nothing is indicated therein as to whether his representation in the matter and the documents enclosed therewith regarding his age were at all taken into consideration and if so, why the same could not be accepted or acted upon by the authorities concerned.

(2.) THE facts and the supporting documents are so plain and simple that there is seemingly no reason, far less any good reason, as to why the petitioner's date of birth as supported by the documents should not have been accepted by the authorities concerned.

(3.) IT is the case of the respondents that the petitioner made declaration of his age under Rule 9 of W. B. S. R. part I in the prescribed form at the time of his entry in service. This again is plainly not correct because W. B. S. R. part i of which Rule 9 has been referred to, I find, came into force in October 1971. whereas the petitioner joined his service as far back as in 1956 when the present W. B. S. R. was not in existence and consequently, the form of declaration as appended to Rule 9 was also not there. As a matter of fact, the service Book of the petitioner also as now produced before me shows that there is no declaration of age of the petitioner in the form which is appended under Rule 9 of the present W. B. S. R. part 1. The date of birth as recorded in the Service Book plainly appears to have been recorded in a different ink by a different hand compared to the signature of the petitioner thereby lending support to the, petitioner's contention that he only signed the form but the particulars entered by the dealing clerk and dealing clerk made a mistake in recording the date of his birth At any rate, nothing convincing is forth coming from the side of the respondents to sustain and support the recorded date of birth as appearing in the Service Book,, whereas from the petitioner's side very convincing materials have been produced which I have already discussed. In this connection Mr. Chatterjee appearing for the petitioner has attracted my attention to a Division Bench decision of this court in Nihar ranjan Bhowmick vs. State of West Bengal Ors. , 1991 (r) C L. J. . 93, wherein it has been held that mere self-serving declaration of a recruit, in particular, in public employment, can never be the proof of age of the declarant and that ordinarily the oral statement can hardly be useful to determine the correct age of a person. Mr. Chatterjee has also referred to a Supreme Court decision in the case of State of Orissa vs. Dr. Binapani Dei A. I. R. 1967 S. C. , 1269. That was also a case in connection with age dispute. There it was held that even if an order is administrative in character, yet an administrative order which involves civil consequences, must be made consistently with the rules. of natural justice after informing the person concerned of the case of the State , the evidence in support thereof and after giving an opportunity to the person concerned of being heard and meeting or explaining the evidence. In the present case no hearing was given to the petitioner by the conserved of authorities even when he made a representation supported by determinancy evidence for correct ion of his age in the Service Book. What is worse the authorities concerned even did not inform the petitioner that his representation was ever or at all considered, not to speak of assigning any reason as to why his representation and the documents produced in support thereof could not be accepted.