2007 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

MUHAMMAD AFZAL (MEMBER-I):

The appellant is ex-Assistant, Excise and Taxation Officer, who joined service as Excise and Taxation Inspector in 1971 on the basis of matriculation certificate and other academic certificate. The appellant states that when he joined Service, date of birth recorded in his matriculation certificate was I 15-1-1944 and entry was also accordingly made in the service book. The appellant states that he kept serving the department smoothly and also got promoted in the determine when a writ petition was filed by a person in the Lahore High Court challenging the date of birth of the appellant given in his Service record and claiming that the date of birth of the appellant was 15-1-1941 and not 15-1-1944. It is further stated that thereafter the appellant was retired through order, dated 8-7-2002 presuming that the appellant had superannuated oat 15-1-2001 according to date of birth as 5-1-1941. The appellant filed departmental appeal on 13-7-2000, which was not decided within the statutory period of 90 days hence the present appeal before this Tribunal.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant maintains that the appellant has been condemned unheard as he was not given personal hearing before ordering his retirement. It is further maintained that in accordance with rules date of birth once recorded in the service book could not be changed subsequently and that the date of birth given in the service book and the matriculation certificate i.e. 15-1-1944 was the real date of birth. It is further maintained that if there was found any change in the service record of the appellant or in the record of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, the appellant could not be held responsible for the same.

3. The appeal has been opposed by the respondents and record has also been shown. Mr. Mushtaq Ahmad, Advocate has appeared on behalf the respondent No.3/Chairman, B.I.S.E. with the original record relating to admission form of the appellant for Matriculation examination. It is maintained by the respondents that the appellant had. produced a bogus matriculation certificate in which date of girth was recorded as 15-1-1941, whereas actual dale was 15-1-1944, as per record of the B.I.S.E, Lahore. 1t is further maintained that fraud is fraud and as and when the same was detected the authority had legal right to proceed against appellant in accordance with law. It is also maintained that no legal sanctity could be attached to any entry in the service book if the same was found to be fictitious subsequently.

4. I have considered the contentions from both sides and also perused the relevant accord. I have also seen the original record, particularly, the Admission. Form of the appellant which he had submitted as candidate in the matriculation examination. According to original B.I.S.E. record, the appellant himself wrote his date of birth as 15-1-1941. The appellant was asked to produce the original matriculation certificate. He stated that he had submitted original matriculation certificate to the appointing authority and, therefore, he could not produce the same. This contention of the appellant was not accepted, since original academic certificates are always returned by the appointing authorities and only attested copies of documents are kept on record. This fact supports the contention of the respondents that the appellant is deliberately avoiding to produce the original matriculation certificate since in this way the fraud committed by him shall be clearly uncovered. I agree with the respondents that fraud as and when detected could be taken notice of and proceedings could also start as held by Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistani in their judgment reported as 2001 SCMR 1592. Therefore, considering the facts of the case as well as the original record as produced before me regarding date of birth of the appellant the appeal is dismissed as being devoid of any legal footing. It is however, ordered that as the appellant was actually retired on 8-7-2002 and he kept serving from 15-1-2001 to that date no recovery on account of pay drawn by him during this period, shall be made from him. H.B.T./30/PST Appeal dismissed.