' NAZAR MUHAMMAD BALOCH (MEMBER).--- The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that appellant entered police service as Assistant Sub-inspector of Police oh 16-9-1968. He remained on various posts due to transfer and on being promoted as sub-Inspector, Inspector and finally as the Deputy Superintendent of police. It is the case of the appellant that his date of birth was 20-9-1947 which was recorded in his service book and subsequent service record maintained from time to time. That it was first time that in the seniority list notified by the Home Department on 17-6-1999 his date of birth was shown as 20-9-1944. That he filed the departmental appeal before the Home Secretary on 15-7-1999 which was forwarded from office of Deputy Inspector-General Police, Hyderabad to the Home Department on 11-5-2000. He kept on pursuing his two separate departmental appeals against that seniority lists challenging entry of date of birth and his number in the seniority list. Subsequently through notification, dated 23-12-2003 fresh seniority list was notified in which he was assigned the correct seniority but hi; appeal to the extent of correction of date of birth was not considered as in that seniority list also his date of birth was shown as 20-9- 1944. Accordingly he made another reminder appeal on 22-1-2004 and he was finally informed vide letter dated 31-3-2004 that his appeal has been rejected. The appellant therefore filed the present appeal before this Tribunal through which he has challenged the entries of his date of birth in seniority list notified by the Home Department on 17-6-1999 and the seniority list notified by the Provincial Police Officer on 23-12-2003. He has also assailed the order passed by the Home Secretary on 31-3-2004 through which his appeal has been rejected. The appellant has produced Photostat copy of certificate dated 2-9-1968 of Civil Surgeon Hyderabad which shows his age according to his statement as well as by appearance about 21 years. He has also produced a photo stat copy of school leaving certificate of Ghulam Hussain Hidayatullah Urdu Primary School, Hyderabad showing his date of birth as 20-9-1947 and copy of NIC showing his date of birth as 20- 9-1947.
2. In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondent No,3 it is stated that:--
(i) The Officer (the appellant) manipulated his date of birth in service book as 20-9-1947 otherwise his actual date of birth was 20-9-1944 and as such he has been retired on 19-9-2004 on attaining the age of superannuation.
(ii) The medical certificate issued by the Civil Surgeon Hyderabad on 2-9-1968 was referred to the M.S./Civil Surgeon, Hyderabad, through Regional Police Officer, Hyderabad for verification. The M.S./Civil Surgeon, Hyderabad in his letter No,CS/Hyd/4992, dated 18-5-2004, informed that the said certificate is correct but the age of the candidate Qazi Chand Muhammad, was 24 years and not 21 years.
(iii) The appellant has manipulated his date of birth as 20-9-1944 and later on as 20-9-1947. The verification report of M.S./Civil Surgeon, Hyderabad clearly speaks that the retired officer, tampered the age mentioned in the medical fitness certificate.
(iv) His educational certificates were got verified through Regional Police Officer Hyderabad, from Head Master Ghulam Hussain Hidayatullah High School, Hyderabad and Registrar of Sindh University Jamshoro. They informed that the date of birth of the appellant is 30-11-1942 and 20-9- 1942 respectively. As such the officer already crossed the age of superannuation i,e, 60 years by 2 years by fraud/manipulation. Having received the verification reports, Qazi Chand Muhammad D.S.P. (now retired) was called to attend the office of Regional Police Officer, Hyderabad along with documents in support of his versions. He appeared in the office of Regional Police Officer, Hyderabad and submitted an application stating therein that he did not submit application for correction in date of birth and further stated that he did not want any further probe in to the matter.
(v) The retired officer has manipulated his date of birth as 20-9-1944 and 'then 20-9-1947.
Otherwise as per educational certificates, he was born in 1942.
3. Mr. M.M. Aqil Awan learned counsel for the appellant arguing the appeal stated that the respondents have not produced any document in support of their version that the date of birth of appellant was 20-9-1944. That it is constant view of the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan that the date of birth recorded in service book is to be treated as final unless corrected within two years.
That mere allegation, of manipulation in the entry of date of birth in service book by the respondents carries no weight as no action for such alleged manipulation was taken by the respondents after its discovery. He further argued that in spite of injunction granted by this Tribunal which was operative the appellant was retired in back date. He also relied upon:--
(a) Rule 171 of Sindh Services Rules Manual.
(b) Punjab Police Rules 1934, Rule 9.7(i).
(c) Circular dated 4th September, 2004 issued by S&GAD (Regulation Wing).
(d) PLD 1970 Lah 33.
(e) 1998 SCMR 1302 and 1494.
(f) 2003 SCMR 444.
4. The learned Assistant Advocate-General vehemently supporting the version of the respondents argued that the appellant at the time of appointment in 1968 was referred for physical fitness certificate to the Civil Surgeon, Hyderabad and through letter No,CS/Hyd/4992 dated 18-5-2004 the Medical Superintendent/Civil Surgeon, Hyderabad had informed that the age of appellant on 2-9- 1968 was 24 years which proves manipulation in the copy of certificate produced by the appellant showing age of 21 years. He further argued that in the education record of the appellant the year of birth is shown 1942. He therefore, argued that claim of the appellant for declaring his date of birth as 20-9-1947 has no support either from education record or from the physical fitness certificate issued by the civil surgeon at the time of his entry in service in the year 1968.
5. We have considered the arguments of both sides and perused the record including Sindh Services Rules Manual on which the learned counsel for the appellant has mainly relied. We have also perused the citations referred to by the counsel for appellant.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant has mainly relied on service book of the appellant in which date of birth is recorded as 20-9-1947. Im order to appreciate the correct legal position relating to making entry of date of birth in the service book and provisions relating to its change it would be proper to reproduced the relevant rule 171 of Sindh Services Manual which reads as under:--
171. In the service book every step in a Government servant's official life including temporary and officiating promotions of all kinds, increments and transfer, and leave of absence taken, should be regularly and concurrently recorded, each entry being duly verified with reference to departmental orders, pay bills, and leave statements, and attested by the head of the office. If the Government servant is himself the head of an office the attestation should be made by his immediate superior.
Officiating and temporary service and leave taken prior to first substantive appointment to a permanent post should also be recorded in the service book and duly attested after verification.
The date of birth should be verified with reference to documentary evidence and a certificate recorded to that effect stating the nature of the document relied on: ' When once an entry of age or date of birth has been made in a service book, no alteration of the entry should afterwards be allowed, unless it is known that the entry was due to want of care on the part of some person other than the individual in question or is an obvious clerical error. Officers of a rank not lower than the Principal District Officer in the Department concerned may correct errors in the service book which are obviously clerical. Cases in which the correctness of the original entry is questioned on other grounds should be referred to a competent authority.
Instruction.--- Officers competent to alter dates of birth should see that no change in the date of birth which will be to the advantage of the Government servant concerned is allowed unless an application in that behalf is made by the Government servant concerned within two years of the date on which his service book was opened under Sindh Civil Services Rule 167. All cases in which applications are made after the period of two years referred to above should be submitted to Government for orders. The date of birth is to be verified with reference to documentary evidence and a certificate is to be recorded to that effect stating the nature of the document relied on as required under Rule 171. A change in the date of birth should not, therefore, be allowed on the evidence which could be available to a Government servant when he entered Government service and his date of birth was recorded in the service book.
7. We have perused the service book of the appellant. Neither the reference to documentary evidence on the basis of which date of birth was written is given nor the certificate was recorded to that effect stating the nature of the document relied on though it was mandatory as word "should" has been used. The entry of date of birth in service book is lacking mandatory requirement of Rule
171. Since manipulation in this record has been alleged by the respondents we have checked it minutely. Its page No,1 shows the date of birth and page No,2 is backside of page No,
1. Apparently this leaf i,e, page Nos.1 and 2 of the service book is changed. The stamp of superintendent of Police Thatta on page No,2 which appears to have been affixed on 26-1-1970 when the clerk put his initial and the stamp of same officer affixed on same date on page No,3 are quite different. Similarly signatures, ink and handwriting on page No,2 and page No,3 do not tally with each other.
Accordingly, the entry of date of birth in the service book in the above circumstances has become doubtful. Moreover, the prohibition of change in the date of birth after two years is only when proposed change is to the advantage of the Government servant. Since the change of date of birth in this case is not to the advantage of the, appellant Government servant, the prohibition of change with two yeas in rule 171 will also not apply to the appellant's case.
8. The other document which the appellant has produced is photostat copy of school leaving certificate of Ghulam Hussain Hidayatullah Urdu Primary School, Hyderabad. As already clarified by the respondent No,3 in the written statement and by producing the verification report of the Head Master of the school it is clear that the date of birth of appellant as per school record was 30-11- 1942. According the date of birth in the school certificate produced by the appellant is incorrect and cannot be relied upon. The appellant has not challenged the verification report of the Head Master of the school and as such it goes unchallenged.
9. So far Punjab Police Rules 1934 are concerned the learned counsel could not convince as to how the same are applicable to the appellant's case. Moreover, according to these rules also the date of birth shown in the Character Roll or corresponding record can be altered with the sanction of the Inspector-General of Police. In this case the impugned seniority list has been issued by the Home Department which has superior status than I.G.P. In circular of S&GAD (Regulation Wing) of 2004 which has also been produced by the appellant the provisions of Rule 171, Sindh Services Rules Manual have been repeated which we have already discussed in the preceding para. In case PLD 1970 Lah. 33 which has been referred by the counsel of the appellant it has been held that "No law provides that date of birth recorded in matriculation certificate should irrespective of other evidence, be considered sole conclusive proof of age of Government servant." In the present case besides matriculation record the respondents have relied on other documentary evidence also which includes date of birth shown in primary school record as well as physical fitness certificate issued by the civil surgeon' at the time of entry into service and as such cited case gives no benefit to the appellant. In case reported in 1998 SCMR 1302 the appellant's case was that his matriculation certificate, Tentative Seniority Lists as well as service book show the date of birth as 16-10-1940 and not 1936. The case was, therefore, remanded to the Service Tribunal Balochistan as the service book was not produced before the Tribunal but the same was then traced and as such verification of which was felt necessary. The present case is different as the appellant's school record as well as seniority lists do not show the date of birth which is claimed by the appellant. The other citations 2003 SCMR 444 and 1998 SCMR 1494 relate to requests of the Government servants for change of the date of birth after two years which also have no relevancy with present case.
10. The appellant in para.(ix) of his appeal has taken the plea that his appeal is identical to appeal of former Deputy Superintendent of Police, Malik Ghulam Hussain which was allowed by this Tribunal on 25-4-2001 vide Service Appeal No 387 of 2000, and the leave to appeal on the petition filed by the province of Sindh was refused by the Honourable Supreme Court vide Civil Petition No,445-K of 2001. We have gone through the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court copy of which has been filed by the appellant and have reached to the conclusion that the facts of cited case are quite different. In that case the Assistant Advocate General had admitted before the Honourable Supreme Court the fact that the appellant was wrongly retired, and claimed that it was due to bona fide mistake whereas in the present case the respondents have not only denied the claim of the appellant but have produced sufficient documentary proof in rebuttal including educational record as well as record relating to the age mentioned in the physical fitness certificate by the civil surgeon at the time of appointment of the appellant.
11. The upshot of the above discussion is that the appellant has utterly failed to prove that his date of birth was 20-9-1947. The documents on which he has based his case viz. Primary school certificate of Ghulam Hussain Hidayatullah High School, the physical fitness certificate issued by the Civil Surgeon and entry of date of birth in service book are not reliable. The date of birth in primary school certificate as well as physical fitness certificate produced by the appellant were declared by the concerned authorities to be false. Whereas entry of date of birth in service book is not reliable. Accordingly, we see no reason to change the date of birth of the appellant in the seniority lists notified during 1999 and 2003. Resultantly the appeal is dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
12. Violation of the order dated 17-9-2004 allowing the request of appellant not to retire him warrants no action in view o objection filed by Prosecuting Inspector Legal Branch C. C. P.O. Karachi on 22-9-2004.
13. Announced in open Court.