The identical allegation in both the proceedings was that the Appellant altered his date of birth from 21.04.1974 to 21.04.1972 in his 8 standard marksheet. Subsequently, he filed a writ petition in August, 2008 for quashing the dismissal order dated 31.03.2004, the order of the Appellate Authority, and the orders refusing to review and reconsider the above-said orders. The writ appeal filed by the appellant has also been dismissed by reiterating the findings of the learned Single Judge and by further elucidating as to how the parameters for a judicial review against an order in a departmental proceeding are limited and circumscribed. We are conscious of the fact that a writ court’s power to review the order of the Disciplinary Authority is very limited. As part of that exercise, the courts exercising power of judicial review are entitled to consider whether the findings of the Disciplinary Authority have ignored material evidence and if it so finds, courts are not powerless to interfere.
If the court in judicial review concludes that the acquittal in the criminal proceeding was after full consideration of the prosecution evidence and that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the charge, the Court in judicial review can grant redress in certain circumstances. When I enquired him that how you did that, then, Ramlal told me that I have received job by altering my date of birth as 21.04.1972 in my marksheet, whereas, my date of birth was 21.04.1974.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court-upholds-merit-of-candidates-in-sweety-kumari-v-the-appellants-case/
It will be relevant to extract the two charges in the disciplinary proceedings: “Charge No.1 :- In the year 1991, an application for appointment on the post of constable was made by you, alongwith which, Marksheet of 8th pass issued by Government Secondary School, Tiloniya (Ajmer), bearing Roll No 323 and Admission No 2314, in which, your date of birth was mentioned as 21.04.1974, but you by altering it to 21.04.1972 fraudulently got recruited on the post of Constable.
He stated the following in the cross- examination before the enquiry officer: “Raj Singh you conducted investigation of Crime No 102 and sent the copy to Commandant, 9th Battalion, RAC, Tonk, what documents you sent alongwith the same – The documents which were sent by me were copy of FIR, copy of chargesheet which was submitted in the Court and statements of witnesses recorded during the investigation and documents; whose photocopies were also given to the accused. Ram Pratap submitted result of investigation, order and chargesheet against the accused, in the Court.” During the investigation, you had recorded statements of Dharmendra Kumar Jatav and Jairam Gurjar, did you record more statements and whether you would identify the copies of those statements – Yes, I recorded the statement of witnesses as it is.
Date of birth of 21.07.1972 mentioned on E to F part, was not mentioned in deliberate manner, in fact, same has been written due to the human error, whether you are agree with this statement – This statement is correct, whereas, at the time of filling up form for recruitment in Police RAC, Ramlal could enclose T.C.
The Enquiry Officer, after setting out the depositions of the witnesses, set out the chart of the “P” series Exhibits and the Exhibits of the delinquent, namely the “D” series, and without any further discussion or marshaling of the evidence recorded the following with regard to charge-1: “On perusal of statement of witnesses namely PW-1 PW- 2, PW-3, PW-4, PW-5 and Exh.
In the operative part of the enquiry report under the head, ‘conclusions’, there is no reference to the 8 class marksheet, (which was part of the enclosed documents sent by Constable Raj Singh with the chargesheet) or to Exh.D-3 [the original 8 class marksheet] exhibited by the defence.
It is very clear that relevant and material evidence being, the deposition of PW-5/Raj Singh; the marksheet of 8 class of the appellant [enclosed to the chargesheet] and the original marksheet independently marked as Ex. It is well settled that if the findings of the disciplinary authorities are arrived at after ignoring the relevant material the court in judicial review can interfere.
The gravamen of the charge in the criminal case was that the appellant had submitted an application for recruitment along with his marksheet and he, by making alteration in his date of birth to reflect the same as 24.04.1972 in place of 21.04.1974, and obtained recruitment to the post of Constable.
Neither the prosecution has produced any such original documents in the Subordinate Court to this effect that when the admission form of accused was filled, what date of birth was mentioned by the accused in it, what was the date of birth in Roll Register of School, what date of birth was mentioned by accused in the Examination Form of Secondary, and nor after bringing the original records from the concerned witnesses, same were got proved in the evidence.
No doubt, the Appellate Judge says that it becomes doubtful whether the date of birth was 21.04.1974 and that the accused was entitled to receive its benefit. The conclusion that the acquittal in the criminal proceeding was after full consideration of the prosecution evidence and that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the charge can only be arrived at after a reading of the judgment in its entirety.
We are satisfied that the findings of the appellate judge in the criminal case clearly indicate that the charge against the appellant was not just, “not proved” – in fact the charge even stood “disproved” by the very prosecution evidence. The Enquiry Officer’s report makes a reference to the appellant passing 10 standard, and to a 10 standard marksheet exhibited as Exh.
In cross-examination, on being asked, he admitted that the appellant was recruited on the basis of 8th standard marksheet, and he admitted that there was no alteration in the 8th standard marksheet. (J.K.
Case Title: RAM LAL Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Case Number: C.A. No.-007935-007935 / 2023
