1993 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

(c) Civil service... ‑‑‑‑Conduct of civil servant‑‑‑Rectification of date of birth in service book‑‑ Service Tribunal deprecated the conduct of civil servant of the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, who after having received all the benefits of his service had resorted to cook up evidence for changing the old entry of his date of birth for seeking some material gain contradicting his own signatures and writing available on record. Ghulam Mustafa Moughal for Appellant. Sheikh Abdul Aziz for Respondent. SARDAR MUHAMMAD SAJAWAL KHAN (CHAIRMAN).‑‑‑This is an appeal by Mr. Fazal‑ur‑Rehman Abbasi, Deputy Superintendent of Police retired against the Government of Azad Jammu and Kashmir through its Chief Secretary. Through this appeal, the appellant h1s impugned the Government Notification No. Admin/A‑8 (73)/86 dated 8‑9‑1986 and Government Notification No. Admin‑8 (71) S.O.‑5 ,/Section‑5/88, dated 3‑7‑1988 by which the application of the appellant for the correction of entry of his age and afterwards his review petition brought before the Authority were respectively rejected.

2. The relevant facts as are contained in the memo of his appeal are that, the appellant appeared in Matric examination in the year 1948 A.D. but he was not successful in that examination because of the fact that he had not received proper education in the school where the education system was completely paralysed and was adversely affected by the War of Liberation in Kashmir. Subsequently the appellant joined service of the Police Department on 7‑9‑1948 as Head' Constable and was thereafter promoted to the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police in the year 1979 on the basis of his efficiency and better performance. In the year 1985, the appellant got it through a reliable source that his date of birth was wrongly recorded as 7‑9- 1926 in his service book and he was due to retire on 7‑9‑1986 A.D. This entry was perhaps done by some Officer of the Police Department at his own discretion without calling for some proof or evidence from the appellant. The appellant approached the Office of University of the Punjab Lahore and got a certificate issued from that Institution to the effect that his‑correct date of birth was 29‑4‑1932. The appellant then moved an application before the respondent‑Government for the correction of the entry of his date of birth in the record. But both his applications were rejected under the impugned orders by the respondent‑Government and he was subsequently retired from service for having completed the age of superannuation according to his date of birth recorded in the service book. It is further claimed by the appellant that his review petition is said to have been rejected on 3‑7‑1988 by the respondent Government but no information to that effect was conveyed to him nor any copy of that order was endorsed and sent to him. However, on his personal inquiry from the office of Home Secretary, Azad Kashmir Government, he got the information about the rejection of his review petition on 6‑3‑1991 through a letter of Home Department No.1014/91, dated 6‑3‑1991 placed on the file and for that reason his appeal before this Tribunal was quite within time from the date of communication of the impugned order. It is further claimed by the appellant that according to the record of University of Punjab, his date of birth is undoubtedly 29‑4‑1932 but he has suffered irreparable loss because of his early and immature retirement ordered by the respondent‑Government.

3. It is prayed by the appellant that after setting aside the impugned orders, the respondent‑Government may be ordered to rectify the entry of his date of birth and he may be held entitled to all the service benefits such as service, promotion and pension etc.

4. The above noted appeal was admitted in this Tribunal for regular hearing and the respondent‑Government was asked to file its objections, if any, as to why the present appeal should not be accepted. On behalf of the respondent Government it was submitted before this Tribunal that the appeal was time‑barred and the appellant had no proof to submit before Government for the change of his date of birth. In fact the entry of his date of birth was recorded in his service book at his instance, and his signatures were also obtained in the column provided for as a token of his attestation. The appellant is not entitled to seek any relief whatsoever at this forum.

5. We have examined the contents of the appeal and the personal record of the appellant placed before this Tribunal. We have also considered the arguments as were addressed by the learned counsel of each party. In his arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant has pressed the same points as are contained in the memo of his appeal. It is argued on behalf of the appellant that since the impugned order of rejection of his review petition was communicated to him on 6‑3‑1991, his appeal at this forum was quite within time. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has invited our attention to the affidavit of the appellant placed on the file. It is true that the appellant was intimated the result of his petition after he had made an application containing no date to the Home Secretary, Azad Kashmir Government for knowing the result of his review petition. But this is not the sufficient proof of the fact that the appellant had not earlier received any information about the rejection of his review petition by the respondent‑Government, especially when a copy of the impugned order shows that a copy of the same was endorsed and directed to go to the appellant on his home address. If for arguments sake, it is held, that the appellant had not received the copy of the impugned order about the rejection of his review petition on his home address still we find that his appeal was submitted to this Tribunal with delay of one day and for that reason, it was time‑barred. According to the appellant, he had made an application to the President of Azad State of Jammu and Kashmir on 26‑4‑1986 for the first time for the correction of the entry of his date of birth. recorded in his service book and that application was rejected on 8‑9‑1986. The appellant had 60 days for preferring his review petition against the order of rejection of his application/representation before the Authority. The copy of review petition placed on the file is undated and presently its institution date is not known. However, the review petition was disposed of on 3‑7‑1988 after a period of about two years from the order of rejection of his application dated 8‑9‑1986. Therefore, we do not have sufficient evidence on the file to show that the review petition was brought before the Authority well‑in‑time. The appellant's residence is situated within the Municipal Limits of Muzaffarabad Town and it is much doubtful that he could not get information about the rejection of his review petition by the Authority for about a period of two years. If a copy of the impugned order was not delivered to him, the appellant could very easily approach to the Office of the Home Secretary for the requisite information. But the appellant kept himself rather disinterested to know the result of his review petition for two years and, therefore, no indulgence can be shown to him for condoning the period of delay in his favour. Consequently the appeal is held to be time‑barred.

6. It shall be noted here that an entry in the service book can be permitted to be rectified within a period of two years immediately after a civil servant has joined his service. It is also doubtful that the appellant remained ignorant about the alleged wrong entry of his date of birth till 26‑4‑1988 when only four months were left to his retirement being made by the Authority. The appellant during the last years of his service held the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police and this argument that he had no approach to the office record is unsound and not tenable. In this behalf a reference to the entries of service `Ahmalnama' of the appellant available in the Office of Accountant‑General is necessary to be made. In his service book, we notice that the entry of his date of birth as 7‑9‑1926 is duly attested by his immediate officer and the appellant has himself also fixed his signatures in the column provided for as a token of his satisfaction to the correctness of his date of birth. The appellant had not denied his signatures on the service book where the alleged wrong entry is recorded. So the change of recorded entry of date of birth which is duly signed by the appellant himself is not permitted by any rule of procedure. The appellant relies upon a University Certificate for the change of his date of birth as 29‑4‑1932 on the basis of a certificate issued by the office of Controller, University of the Punjab. This certificate is undated and without any seal although it is typed on the pad of the University of the Punjab. The appellant has not brought himself in the witness‑box to certify the contents and production of this document nor the officer signing this document was examined by him to certify the contents of the certificate to be correct and true. It may be noted here that only that document is received in evidence, which is issued by an officer of an institution iii the performance of his normal duties. In support of his appeal, the appellant has filed two affidavits one by Haji Munshi Habibullah Khan and the other by Munshi Nazam‑ud‑Din formerly Office Superintendent of the Office of Deputy Commissioner, Muzaffarabad. It is stated by Munshi Habibullah that in his opinion the entries in the service book of the appellant were made in absence of the appellant, while Nazanr‑ud‑Din states on oath that in the year 1938 A.D. he was a primary teacher at Chaila Bandi and at the time of his admission in that school the age of the appellant was near about six years. Both the affidavits do not supply the correct evidence with regard to the age of the appellant. Since the appellant has himself signed the entries of Ahmalnama, no different opinion can be allowed to prevail for changing the entry of his date of birth. If the appellant was 6 years old in the year 1938, then how he was found fit for Police service in the year 1948. The appellant must have completed about ten years of his age in the year 1948 and because of his tender age he was not at all fit for Police service on the date he had joined the Police Department. There is yet another important fact to which the appellant was confronted during the course of arguments addressed to this Tribunal by the learned counsel for the respondents. This fact relates to a photostat copy of the application of the appellant on his personal file at page 370 which he had made to the Inspector General of Police on 30‑6‑1985 two months and seven days before the due date of his retirement from service falling on 7‑9‑1986. In this application, the appellant has himself admitted it that he would be completing the age of his superannuation on 2nd September, 1986 and six months pay on account of L.P.R. may be paid to him in advance as he was not then willing to avail of the same before his retirement. The original application was sent to Secretary, Home Department after receiving a copy of that in the record of the Central Police Office. It shall be deemed an unfortunate event if a Police Officer of the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police after having received all the benefits of his service would resort to cook up evidence for changing the old entry of his date of birth for seeking some material gain conversely to his own signatures and writings available in the record.

7. For the above reason, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to the costs. A.A. /180/SrA Appeal dismissed.