' AZAD MUHAMMAD AWAN (MEMBER-III).---Brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the present appeal are that the respondent No,1 vide order dated 12-2-2005, passed the order of retirement of the appellant on attaining the age of superannuation w,e,f, 17-2-2005. Feeling aggrieved the appellant filed a representation/appeal before the respondent No,2 alleging therein that the date of birth of the appellant was 15- 4-1949 which was recorded in the Middle School Certificate, Matriculation Certificate, copy appearing at page 22 of the appeal. It was alleged that said documents were produced by him along with the application for the appointment of lecturer. Likewise his date of birth as per NIC was 15-4-1949 and the same was declared by the appellant at the time of entry into government service. The departmental appeal was filed on 9-4-2005 which was not yet decided within stipulated period time, hence the present appeal.
2. The appeal admitted for regular hearing in view of the copy of the Matriculation Certificate showing the date of birth as 15-4-1949. The appellant had earlier filed representation before the Secretary Education. In the parawise comments the respondent No,2 in para No,5 claimed that the authentic document to check the date of birth was seniority list which was prepared after induction of government servant into government service. It was maintained that seniority list was prepared which contained the date of birth 18-2-1945. It was alleged that no objection was raised against the said seniority list and as such the present claim of the appellant was unfounded. Along with the appeal copy of the seniority list was produced as Annexure-A which contained interpolation at number of places and typewriten entries were at various places changed with pen which were not authenticated. Copy of rule 21-A(3) of Civil Service (Appoint and Conditions of Service Rules, 1974 was also produced which provided that the date of birth once recorded at time of joining of the government service would be final and thereafter no alteration in the date of birth of government servant was permissible.
3. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, District Attorney and have gone through the record.
4. As was evident from the order sheet the Departmental Representatives were allowed various opportunities to produce the record which was made basis of preparation of the seniority list as alleged in the parawise comments. Moreover as per rule 21-A (3) mentioned earlier the date of birth which was recorded in the seniority list was not final because the seniority list was prepared after number of years after joining the government service. Admittedly the appellant was appointed as Lecturer and entered into government service through Public Service Commission. The appellant submitted a C.M. With the prayer that the respondents may be ordered to produce the original application submitted by the appellant along with the documents before the Punjab Service Commission. In reply to the same it was claimed that the respondent No,1 had already written a letter to the Punjab Public Service Commission for the provision of the proposed documents. The copy of the said letter sent to the Chairman Punjab Public Service Commission on 16-11-2005 has also been placed on record. In reply to the same the Secretary Punjab Public Service Commission in his letter dated 22-12-2005 addressed in the name of the respondent No,1 mentioned that the application form along with the enclosures of the appellant had already been forwarded to the Education Department with the recommendation of Lecturer in Maths in 1976. It was stated that as per inter se seniority list prepared by the Punjab Public Service Commission the date of birth of the appellant was 15-4-1949.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant maintained that copy of the Matriculation Certificate appearing at page 22 of the file showed that the date of birth was 15-4-1949. Same were the contents of the Middle School Certificate appearing at page 29 of the appeal. It is not disputed that whenever the selection/appointment is made through the Punjab Public Service Commission the entire record including application for appointment etc. Along with the recommendations are forwarded to the department concerned. The learned counsel for the appellant maintained that since the above said documents i,e, the application form containing the date of birth of the appellant, Matriculation Certificate and other documents have been forwarded to the department concerned therefore the documents ought to be in possession of either of the respondents. The respondents have failed to produce the said documents despite number of opportunities. This being so the provision of Article 129 of the Qanun-e-shahadat Order, 1984 were attracted. Clause of the said Article provided that evidence which could be and was not produced would be unfavourable to the person who withheld that. Since the respondents were intentionally withholding the production of the documentary evidence therefore it shall be presumed that claim of the respondents that date of birth was 18-2-1945 was without legs to stand. Moreover the claim of the respondents in para No,5 of the statement of the respondent No,2 that the authentic document was seniority list prepared after number of years was also contrary to the provision of section 21-A (3) as mentioned earlier and copy produced as Annexure-E by the respondents. The respondents have failed to produce the record from which date of birth was mentioned in the seniority list. The authentic date of birth was the one entered at the time of joining of government service in terms of and R.21-A(3) of Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974 and not the seniority list prepared after number of years.
6. Resultantly I feel no hesitation to conclude that retirement order on the basis of the seniority list was erroneous and liable to be set aside. The date of birth of the appellant was 15-4-1949 as per Matriculation Certificate therefore he shall attain the age of superannuation on 14-4-2009. Resultantly the present appeal is allowed and the orders of the authority as also of the appellate authority are set aside. The appellant shall be deemed to be in government service from the said date onward till the above said date of superannuation.
However this will not affect any future action if retirement or removal is ordered on account of misconduct through independent regular departmental proceedings.
Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.