' In this appeal the decision, dated 26th March, 1983 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 1, Lahore has been challenged, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his reinstatement in service was dismissed.
2. The appellant was a Foreman Grade-II. On 28th September, 1981 notice of retirement was issued informing him that he would stand retired on 11th October, 1981. Before this he had been charge- sheeted for tampering with his service book by changing the date of birth from 12th October, 1921 to 12th October, 1924 and stealing away his history sheets. A Board of Enquiry was constituted.
3. The appellant challenged the notice of retirement in a grievance petition. However, in the pendency of the said petition he was retired. The dispute is regarding the date of birth. According to the appellant, he was to retire on 10th October, 1984, and thus was prematurely retired on 11 th October, 1981. The appellant relies upon the medical certificate Exh. P. 1 and service record. As mentioned above, the age given in the service record is tampered with and this fact will be discussed presently. So far as Exh. P. 1 is concerned, firstly the age given is on the basis of general appearance and thus cannot be said to be the opinion of an expert. Any person can give the age by general appearance. If a doctor gives the age on this ground, he does so like an ordinary person and not as an expert. If age is determined on the basis of X-rays off bones etc. It has some evidentiary value. Secondly, it is not stated on what date the age of the appellant was 20 years.
Usually by general appearance age is given on the date of examination. The appellant, according to Exh. P. 1, was examined on 22nd March, 1975 meaning thereby that his age was 20 years on the said date. If this document is relied upon, then the appellant was born on 22nd March, 1955 and was not existing in this world on 12th October, 1944 the date of his appointment. This document does not state that the age of the appellant was 20 years on the date of his appointment. If this had been the opinion of the doctor, he would have clearly written that the age on the date of appointment of the appellant was 20 years. The date of appointment is given in Exh. P. 1 as 12th October, 1944 but the same is, by way of description according to record, not that the age was .20 years on the date of appointment. Anyhow, even if it be said that the age, according to Exh. P. 1, was 20 years on the date of appointment, this date too is tampered with. Digit '0' is overwritten upon some other digit. Apart from it, as mentioned above, since the age given in Exh. P. 1 is based upon general appearance only, it has no evidentiary value, and was rightly not relied upon by the learned lower Court.
4. So far as service record Exh. P. 2 is concerned, the year of the date is tampered with. Digit '1' was changed into digit '4' to read the year as 1924, instead of 1921. Pen was moved on the whole date to remove the difference in colour of the ink. The date of birth was originally given in words also as "twelveth Oct. N/H. Twenty-one". The word `one' was changed into the word 'four' by putting the letter 'f' before the letter 'o'. Letter 'n' was left as it was and only pen was moved over it. The letter `e' was changed into letter 'r' by adding a half curved loop in its end. The colour of the ink with which originally the word 'one' was written is still visible. If the newly added letter 'f' and the semi-loop added if the end of letter 'e' are ignored, then the word 'one' is clear. So far as the date of birth given in figures is concerned, it is clear to even a naked eye that digit '1' of '1921' was changed into digit '4' to read the year as 1924. A careful perusal would show that the first arm shown as 'a' with pencil is quite close to the digit '2' of figure '24'. Figure '19' is speciously written but figure '24' is congested. If from the very beginning the year had been written as 1924, the first arm 'a' of figure '24' would have been at the place where new arm 'b' is situated and the second arm would have been at the end of horizontal/ line shown as 'c'. There was ample place and there was no need of writing figure '24' in the congested form. Apart from it digit '4' is not in the same handwriting in which other entries are made. The official who made genuine entries writes digit '4' in a different manner than the way in which the disputed digit '4' is written. At two other places digit '4' appears. On the top is written 'T.
No, 431'. Digit '4' of it is greater in shape and characteristics. Likewise digit '4' of words 'street No, 4' is quite different from the disputed digit '4' in shape and characteristics and is identical with digit '4' of writings 'T. No, 431'. I am, therefore, quite satisfied and do not hesitate in holding that originally the year was written as 1921 and afterwards forgery was committed by changing the year to read as 1924 in figures as well as in the words. No doubt, P.W. 1 has said that he made the entry of date of birth in Exh. P. 1 that the same was 12th October, 1924 and that there is no interpolation but when the interpolation is evident as discussed above, the statement of P.W. 1 has no value. He being not an expert cannot give any opinion. He says that he entered the date as 12th October, 1924 but his memory cannot be relied upon when the interpolation is conspicuous. Exh. R-1 shows that the appellant had access to the service record. The appellant was entrusted the service book to be taken to the Accountant-General. He signed in token of the receipt of the document. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that Exh. R. I is, dated as 30th August, 1980 but the date appearing under the alleged signatures of the appellant is 30th July, 1980, so the appellant was not delivered the service book. The argument is without any force. It appears that the pen was carrying excessive ink, so while writing the digit '8' loops of the digit could not be formed. This is noteworthy that eye of digit '0' of figure '30' was not formed but eye of '0' of figure '80' is conspicuous. Since the pen was carrying excessive ink of inferior quality, so the eye of digit zero of figure '30' and loops of digit '8' of the month could not be formed. But as after writing '30/8/' the quantity of ink had become normal, so loops of digit '8' and eye of digit '0' of figure '80' were clearly formed. So, the date of receipt of service book is 30th August, 1980 and not 30th July, 1980. P.W. 2, no doubt, has said that the service book was not brought to him by the appellant and had come to him by post. But Exh. R. I is not addressed to him but to the Accountant-General. If Exh. R. 1 had been addressed to P.W. 2, of course, his evidence may have carried some weight. He says that verification Exh. P. 3/A is in his handwriting, whereas no such verification appears on Exh. R-1. Rather on Exh. R-1 it is mentioned that it was brought by hand. So P.W. 2 speaks of Exh. P. 3 but as no date of birth is given on it, the same is not relevant nor it contradicts. Since the appellant had access to his service book, so he succeeded to either himself change the year of his birth from 1921 to 1924 or got it changed from someone else. Since only the appellant could be benefited by this interpolation and not the respondent, so only at his instance forgery could have been committed.
Exh. R-2 also, bears the signatures of the appellant. The date of birth is given as 12th October, 1921 and not 12th October, 1924. The appellant has admitted in cross-examination his signatures on Exh.
R.
2. Since the date of birth is given as 12th October, 1921 on Exh. R-2, it further supports the case of the respondent that the appellant was rightly retired in 1981. It has been argued that history sheets of the appellant have been withheld by the respondent, inasmuch as the date of birth on them is given as 1924. This argument too has no force. One of the charges against the appellant was that he had stolen his history-sheets. Since history sheets had been lost, so they could not be produced and not that they were intentionally withheld. The appellant examined P. W. 4 in this respect who stated in examination-in-chief that he had seen the Labour Officer taking away on his motor cycle service record of the appellant. In cross-examination he corrected himself by saying that history sheets of the appellant were taken away by the Labour Officer. He still further corrected himself by saying that it was a card. On the face of it the evidence of this witness is incorrect. How could he know that the card pertained to the appellant unless he had the opportunity to read it while the card was in the custody of the Labour Officer it could not have been read by the witness. Again a card which usually is of one leave was not to be taken away on the carrier of a motor-cycle but in the pocket. So, the evidence of P.W. 4 is not believable and was rightly not relied by the learned lower Court. P.W. 3 was examined to show the motive to retire the appellant. He says that the appellant had given evidence against the son of the Labour Officer. This witness said that the son of the Labour Officer was not working under the appellant. Zahid Hussain son of Bashir Ahmed, Labour Officer, is said to have been punished for refusing to work. Only the incharge of Zahid Hussain could have asked him to work, so only the incharge could be a witness and not the appellant under whom the said lad was not working.
5. As the date of birth given in Exh. P. 1 is 12th October, 1921 and was interpolated to read as 12th October, 1924 the appellant was rightly retired in 1981 and has no case of re-instatement.
6. As a result, the appeal is dismissed.