Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10649 of 2012 ====================================================== Ram Pravesh Sharma Son Of Late Ram Balak Sharma Resident Of Village And P.O. Kaithi Siro, P.S. Goh, District - Aurangabad, Presently Working As Jeep Driver In The Office Of The Executive Engineer, Punpun Barrage Division No. 1, Goh, District – Aurangabad, .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government Of Bihar, Patna 3. The Engineer-In-Chief-Cum-Special Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government Of Bihar, Patna 4. The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Gaya 5. The Superintending Engineer, Water Ways Circle, Gaya 6. The Executive Engineer, Punpun Barrage Division No. 1, Goh, District - Aurangabad 7. The Assistant Engineer (Mechanical), Punpun Barrage Sub-Division Goh, District – Aurangabad, 8. The Superintendent, Patna Medical College and Hospital, Patna, .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : M/s Shashi Bhushan Kumar Mangalam and Ravi Ranjan, Advocates : Mr. Shashi Bhushan Kumar, SC7 For the State ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE RAVI RANJAN ORAL ORDER 9 02-12-2013 I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.
Legal Reasoning
Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to implead the Superintendent, Patna Medical College and Hospital, Patna, as respondent no. 8 in this application. Petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 18.05.2012 as contained in Annexure 21/1 passed by the Chief Engineer, Water Patna High Court CWJC No.10649 of 2012 (9) dt.02-12-2013 2 Resources Department, Gaya by which his date of birth has been fixed as 28.06.1950 in view of the provisions contained in Rules 96 and 97(ii) of the Bihar Financial Rules. Petitioner had earlier moved this Court by filing C.W.J.C. No. 1576 of 2012 which was disposed of on 22.02.2012 as contained in Annexure 19. Short facts which would be necessary for consideration stood enumerated as under:- The petitioner was appointed as a Jeep Driver in the work charge establishment on 27.06.1983. Thereafter, an order was passed directing stoppage of his salary and further that no work should be taken from him pending determination of his date of birth. It is contended that Service Book of the petitioner was opened on 29.11.1983 mentioning his date of birth as 28.06.1953 and, thereafter, at the time of consideration for grant of ACP his date of birth was considered as such. Fresh Service Book was opened on 31.12.1991 after regularisation of his service and date of birth was recorded in like manner. Years later on 30.12.2009 the petitioner was given a show-cause notice that there appeared erasing and re-writing of the date of birth in the Service Book. He was called upon to submit proof of date of birth for comparison Patna High Court CWJC No.10649 of 2012 (9) dt.02-12-2013 3 which stood recorded in his Service Book. The petitioner, in his reply, had submitted that his original birth certificate was submitted at the time of appointment itself which was never returned back to him. Thereafter, the respondents held an inquiry by constituting a committee. The petitioner was directed to participate in the inquiry and his date of birth was fixed as 28.06.2053. That proceeding came be challenged by the petitioner
Decision
by filing a writ application which stood disposed of vide order as contained in Annexure 19 holding that this Court was neither satisfied with the contention raised by the petitioner nor was it satisfied with the manner of the decision making process adopted by the respondents. This Court, on earlier occasion, gave a direction for production of the original Service Book and medical certificate of the petitioner. It appears from the Service Book of the petitioner which was opened on 29.11.1983, that the date of birth of the petitioner stands recorded as 28.06.1953 in number and numeric words.. Learned counsel for the State submits that it would appear from the Service Book that some effort has been made for erasing the earlier entry and, thereafter, new entry has been made which is in different ink also. However, at the same time, the entry with Patna High Court CWJC No.10649 of 2012 (9) dt.02-12-2013 4 regard to measurement of his height also appears to have been made in the same ink and that entry is not in dispute. From the medical certificate it appears that there has been cutting while entering the age which stands recorded as 30 years both in number and word, and the initial appears to have been put there. The respondents are alleging that such entry also amounts to tampering as it appears that earlier it was written as 33, but it has been corrected as 30. However, though it has been stated that in the inquiry report the signature put by the then Medical Officer and the initial put by him do not tally, in my considered opinion, it would be very difficult to arrive at such conclusion without getting it verified by any Expert. It has nowhere been stated that the entry with regard to age put in word “Thirty” was not in the hand- writing of the same Medical Officer who is the author of the certificate. In above view of the matter, the Inquiry Officer should have examined the doctor who would have been the best person to say whether the initials were put by him or not and corrections were made by him or not. Admittedly, that has not been done and no effort appears to have been made to make a search of the Medical Officer concerned for coming to concrete conclusion as to whether any tampering was done in the medical certificate. Even if it is assumed for the time being that such doctor may not be Patna High Court CWJC No.10649 of 2012 (9) dt.02-12-2013 5 available after such a long period, as the medical certificate was issued on 28.06.1983 itself, then in the facts and circumstances of the case, the best option available to the respondents would have been to get the petitioner examined by a Medical Board for ascertaining his age. In the absence of examination of the concerned Medical Officer or examination of the petitioner by a Medical Board, I do not find any material on record on the basis of which it could have been ascertained that on 28.06.1983 the petitioner was 33 years old except the suspicion that the certificate or the Service Book might have been tampered. Therefore, in my considered opinion, there is no material on record including the inquiry report on the basis of which the authorities could have come to the conclusion that the petitioner’s correct date of birth is 28.06.1950. In above view of the matter, the authorities are directed to constitute a Medical Board which should consist of one doctor of Orthopaedics from the Patna Medical College and Hospital to determine the age of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has categorically stated that the petitioner does not have any objection to the constitution of the Medical Board. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in case the Patna High Court CWJC No.10649 of 2012 (9) dt.02-12-2013 6 adverse finding is recorded by the Medical Board then no order of recovery of any amount should be made by the respondents. However, in my considered opinion, that issue cannot be decided at this stage as what would happen and what order would be passed by the authorities after considering the medical opinion of the Board lies in the womb of morrow. Let a copy of this order be communicated by learned counsel for the State to the respondent no. 8, i.e., the Superintendent, Patna Medical College and Hospital, Patna, for fixing a date for examination of the petitioner by the Medical Board and also for communicating the date to the petitioner to appear for examination before the Medical Board which would submit a report with regard to the age of the petitioner after necessary examination to the Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Gaya. Thereafter, the authority would pass necessary order after consideration of the medical report. Both the parties have submitted that they will accept the report submitted by the Medical Board. (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J) SC/-