Binda Deen vs State Of U.P. Thru Addl. Chief Secy Panchayati

Srivastava Court No. - 18 HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.

1. Heard Sri Vijay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Pradeep Kumar Singh,learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State, Sri Vijay Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 3 and perused the record.

2. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the dismissal order dated 12-06-2020 passed by the opposite party no. 3 on the premises that the petitioner has obtained the appointment on the basis of forged certificates.

3. Briefly stated facts of the case; are that the petitioner was engaged as Beldar (Class IVth post), on daily wage/muster roll employee in Zila Panchayat, Raebareli in the year 1985 and since then, the petitioner was kept on working continuously and he completed about 32 years of service. In the years 2010 and 2015, the Government of U.P. issued government orders to regularize the services of the dailywage employees, who were engaged prior to 31st of March,1996, though, the petitioner was employed in the year,1985, but, his services were not regularized.

4. Being aggrieved, he preferred Writ Petition No. 7346 (S/S) of 2 WRIA No. 12141 of 2020 2012 before this court, which was disposed of on 29-01-2016 directing the authority concerned to examine the claim of the petitioner in accordance with law in the light of the government orders dated 08-09-2010 and 13-08-2015. In pursuance thereof, the services of the petitioner have been regularized vide office order dated 11-05-2017. At the time of regularization of the services, the petitioner submitted the fitness certificate dated 15- 05-2017 and the age certificate dated 05-06-2017 before the opposite parties.

5. The controversy arose when a notice/letter dated 06-03-2020 was issued by the opposite party no. 3 directing the petitioner to appear before the Chief Medical Officer and get the age certificate from the Chief Medical Officer and subsequently, on 06-05-2020, the petitioner was again directed to appear before the Chief Medical Officer and fetch the age certificate with the condition that if he does not submit the age certificate after appearing before the Chief Medical Officer, it would be presumed that he got service on the basis of fake documents, resulting into termination of his services.

6. In furtherance of the letter dated 06-05-2020, the petitioner appeared before the Chief Medical Officer on 08-05-2020 and 11- 05-2020 and because of Covid-2019 Lockdown, the examination for age, could not be undertaken. Again on 30-05-2020, the opposite party no. 3 served a notice upon the petitioner while directing him to obtain the age certificate and in compliance thereof, the petitioner appeared before the Chief Medical Officer and the age certificate was issued by the Chief Medical Officer on 06-06-2020 while mentioning the age about 51 years,which was submitted by the petitioner before the opposite party no. 3.

7. Considering upon the age certificate, the petitioner was terminated vide the impugned order dated 12-06-2020, whereas, it is alleged that the order of dismissal of services, has not been passed in consonance with Rule 7 of the U.P. Govt. Servant (Punishment & Appeal Rules)1999 (hereinafter referred to as 3 WRIA No. 12141 of 2020 “Rules,1999”).

8. Contention put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that at the time of the regularization of the services, the fitness certificate dated 15-05-2017 and the age certificate dated 05-06- 2017, were submitted before the departmental authorities, wherein, the certificate dated 05-06-2017, finds mention the age of the petitioner as 48 years and the age certificate dated 06-06-2020 finds mention regarding the age about 51 years and there seems to be no anomaly as the age certificate, which was produced on 05-06-2017 is 48 years and the subsequent age certificate, which was issued after three years, shows the age of the petitioner as 51 years.

9. He further argued that in the fitness certificate dated 15-05- 2017, which was issued under Rule 10 of the Fundamental Rules, the age was mistakenly mentioned by the office of the Chief Medical Officer as 43 years and since the fitness certificate is for the condition of the health of the employee and therefore, both cannot be intermingled.

10. Apart from above, he submits that the departmental enquiry has been held awarding the major punishment i.e. dismissal of the petitioner from services, though, no date, time and place has been fixed and further Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999, has utterly been violated. He submitted that the order impugned is erroneous and perverse and therefore, the same is liable to be quashed.

11. On the other hand,learned counsels appearing for the opposite parties have opposed the contentions aforesaid and submitted that the petitioner has obtained appointment on a Class-IVth post while placing the forged age certificate as there are deviation in several certificates issued by the Chief Medical Officer regarding the age of the petitioner. He next submitted that the fitness certificate dated 15-05-2017, is enough to show that the age of the petitioner was 43 years and as per the age certificate issued by the Chief Medical Officer, the age of the petitioner in the year 2020, is shown as 51 years, which creates strong doubt regarding the age of the 4 WRIA No. 12141 of 2020 petitioner.

12. It is further argued that the order has been passed by the disciplinary authority while affording the opportunity of hearing and therefore, the matter do not call for any intervention by this court, thus, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

13. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of records, it emerges that the order dated 12-06-2020, by which the services of the petitioner have been dismissed, is under challenge in this petition. The reason assigned and discussed by the disciplinary authority is that the petitioner got appointment on the basis of fake age certificate. The order also discloses that in the fitness certificate dated 15-05-2017, the age of the petitioner has been shown as 43 years and in the affidavit given on 05-06- 2017, the age is disclosed as 48 years, whereas in another age certificate, of the year, 2020, the age has been shown as 51 years and this led to the authorities to take a decision for dismissal of the services of the petitioner.

14. What is spelt out from perusal of the finding recorded in the order dated 12-06-2020 that prima-facie, there are certain discrepancies in the age and fitness certificate issued to the petitioner, time to time.

15. The fact remains that the fitness certificate dated 15-05-2017, which was produced at the time of joining, cannot be considered as age certificate and if any entry is made by the officer/official of the Chief Medical Officer, that cannot be assigned to the petitioner so as the declaration of the age in the year 2017 as 48 years and subsequently, the age certificate issued in the year 2020, which shows the age of the petitioner as 51 years, as there seems to be no discrepancy or incorrectness, as there is gap of three years in both the age certificates, thus, really there is existence of difference therein.

16. This court has also noticed that it is an admitted fact in between the parties that there is no schooling certificate of the 5 WRIA No. 12141 of 2020 petitioner and therefore,for ascertaining the age of the petitioner, the medical examination report/ossification report, could be the base to determine the age.

17. The fact is noted in the order impugned that on 11-11-2011, the petitioner submitted the fitness certificate bearing letter E-1 issued by the Chief Medical Officer, Raebareli, wherein the age is shown as 43 years and therefore, the age certificate, which was produced on 08-06-2020 in compliance of the direction of the department, does not have any contradiction regarding the age; as about eight years have passed after the first certificate was issued.

18. In view of the aforesaid submissions and discussions, this court finds, the order impugned is unsustainable, in the eyes of law. Consequently, the order impugned dated 12-06-2020 is hereby quashed.

19. However, it is open to the concerned authority to get verified the age of the petitioner, in accordance with law.

20. The writ petition is allowed accordingly.

21. Consequences shall be followed.

22. Consigned to records. November 4, 2025 AKS (Shree Prakash Singh,J.) ANUJ KRISHNA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Srivastava Court No. - 18 HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.

1. Heard Sri Vijay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Pradeep Kumar Singh,learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State, Sri Vijay Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 3 and perused the record.

2. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the dismissal order dated 12-06-2020 passed by the opposite party no. 3 on the premises that the petitioner has obtained the appointment on the basis of forged certificates.

3. Briefly stated facts of the case; are that the petitioner was engaged as Beldar (Class IVth post), on daily wage/muster roll employee in Zila Panchayat, Raebareli in the year 1985 and since then, the petitioner was kept on working continuously and he completed about 32 years of service. In the years 2010 and 2015, the Government of U.P. issued government orders to regularize the services of the dailywage employees, who were engaged prior to 31st of March,1996, though, the petitioner was employed in the year,1985, but, his services were not regularized.

4. Being aggrieved, he preferred Writ Petition No. 7346 (S/S) of 2 WRIA No. 12141 of 2020 2012 before this court, which was disposed of on 29-01-2016 directing the authority concerned to examine the claim of the petitioner in accordance with law in the light of the government orders dated 08-09-2010 and 13-08-2015. In pursuance thereof, the services of the petitioner have been regularized vide office order dated 11-05-2017. At the time of regularization of the services, the petitioner submitted the fitness certificate dated 15- 05-2017 and the age certificate dated 05-06-2017 before the opposite parties.

5. The controversy arose when a notice/letter dated 06-03-2020 was issued by the opposite party no. 3 directing the petitioner to appear before the Chief Medical Officer and get the age certificate from the Chief Medical Officer and subsequently, on 06-05-2020, the petitioner was again directed to appear before the Chief Medical Officer and fetch the age certificate with the condition that if he does not submit the age certificate after appearing before the Chief Medical Officer, it would be presumed that he got service on the basis of fake documents, resulting into termination of his services.

6. In furtherance of the letter dated 06-05-2020, the petitioner appeared before the Chief Medical Officer on 08-05-2020 and 11- 05-2020 and because of Covid-2019 Lockdown, the examination for age, could not be undertaken. Again on 30-05-2020, the opposite party no. 3 served a notice upon the petitioner while directing him to obtain the age certificate and in compliance thereof, the petitioner appeared before the Chief Medical Officer and the age certificate was issued by the Chief Medical Officer on 06-06-2020 while mentioning the age about 51 years,which was submitted by the petitioner before the opposite party no. 3.

7. Considering upon the age certificate, the petitioner was terminated vide the impugned order dated 12-06-2020, whereas, it is alleged that the order of dismissal of services, has not been passed in consonance with Rule 7 of the U.P. Govt. Servant (Punishment & Appeal Rules)1999 (hereinafter referred to as 3 WRIA No. 12141 of 2020 “Rules,1999”).

8. Contention put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that at the time of the regularization of the services, the fitness certificate dated 15-05-2017 and the age certificate dated 05-06- 2017, were submitted before the departmental authorities, wherein, the certificate dated 05-06-2017, finds mention the age of the petitioner as 48 years and the age certificate dated 06-06-2020 finds mention regarding the age about 51 years and there seems to be no anomaly as the age certificate, which was produced on 05-06-2017 is 48 years and the subsequent age certificate, which was issued after three years, shows the age of the petitioner as 51 years.

9. He further argued that in the fitness certificate dated 15-05- 2017, which was issued under Rule 10 of the Fundamental Rules, the age was mistakenly mentioned by the office of the Chief Medical Officer as 43 years and since the fitness certificate is for the condition of the health of the employee and therefore, both cannot be intermingled.

10. Apart from above, he submits that the departmental enquiry has been held awarding the major punishment i.e. dismissal of the petitioner from services, though, no date, time and place has been fixed and further Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999, has utterly been violated. He submitted that the order impugned is erroneous and perverse and therefore, the same is liable to be quashed.

11. On the other hand,learned counsels appearing for the opposite parties have opposed the contentions aforesaid and submitted that the petitioner has obtained appointment on a Class-IVth post while placing the forged age certificate as there are deviation in several certificates issued by the Chief Medical Officer regarding the age of the petitioner. He next submitted that the fitness certificate dated 15-05-2017, is enough to show that the age of the petitioner was 43 years and as per the age certificate issued by the Chief Medical Officer, the age of the petitioner in the year 2020, is shown as 51 years, which creates strong doubt regarding the age of the 4 WRIA No. 12141 of 2020 petitioner.

12. It is further argued that the order has been passed by the disciplinary authority while affording the opportunity of hearing and therefore, the matter do not call for any intervention by this court, thus, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

13. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of records, it emerges that the order dated 12-06-2020, by which the services of the petitioner have been dismissed, is under challenge in this petition. The reason assigned and discussed by the disciplinary authority is that the petitioner got appointment on the basis of fake age certificate. The order also discloses that in the fitness certificate dated 15-05-2017, the age of the petitioner has been shown as 43 years and in the affidavit given on 05-06- 2017, the age is disclosed as 48 years, whereas in another age certificate, of the year, 2020, the age has been shown as 51 years and this led to the authorities to take a decision for dismissal of the services of the petitioner.

14. What is spelt out from perusal of the finding recorded in the order dated 12-06-2020 that prima-facie, there are certain discrepancies in the age and fitness certificate issued to the petitioner, time to time.

15. The fact remains that the fitness certificate dated 15-05-2017, which was produced at the time of joining, cannot be considered as age certificate and if any entry is made by the officer/official of the Chief Medical Officer, that cannot be assigned to the petitioner so as the declaration of the age in the year 2017 as 48 years and subsequently, the age certificate issued in the year 2020, which shows the age of the petitioner as 51 years, as there seems to be no discrepancy or incorrectness, as there is gap of three years in both the age certificates, thus, really there is existence of difference therein.

16. This court has also noticed that it is an admitted fact in between the parties that there is no schooling certificate of the 5 WRIA No. 12141 of 2020 petitioner and therefore,for ascertaining the age of the petitioner, the medical examination report/ossification report, could be the base to determine the age.

17. The fact is noted in the order impugned that on 11-11-2011, the petitioner submitted the fitness certificate bearing letter E-1 issued by the Chief Medical Officer, Raebareli, wherein the age is shown as 43 years and therefore, the age certificate, which was produced on 08-06-2020 in compliance of the direction of the department, does not have any contradiction regarding the age; as about eight years have passed after the first certificate was issued.

18. In view of the aforesaid submissions and discussions, this court finds, the order impugned is unsustainable, in the eyes of law. Consequently, the order impugned dated 12-06-2020 is hereby quashed.

19. However, it is open to the concerned authority to get verified the age of the petitioner, in accordance with law.

20. The writ petition is allowed accordingly.

21. Consequences shall be followed.

22. Consigned to records. November 4, 2025 AKS (Shree Prakash Singh,J.) ANUJ KRISHNA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench