S.ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN). --Taj Muhammad Khan, retired D.S.P. Has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974 in which he has impleaded the Province of Punjab through the Chief Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Lahore. The Inspector-General of Police Punjab, Lahore and the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Sargodha Range, Sargodha, as respondents. The appellant has prayed that the order dated 24-8-1981 be set aside and the appellant be declared entitled to retire from service w.e.f. 29-5-1984, on the basis of the Birth Certificate so produced by him.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant joined service as Constable w.e.f. 2-4-1941. The appellant was promoted as Head Constable within a period of 2 years and then within the next 6J years by 1947, the appellant was promoted as A . S . I . And later on promoted in the year 1957 as S.I.
In the year 1965 the appellant was promoted as Inspector and D.S.P. In the year 1971 and then promoted as S.P. w.e.f. 1977 and was posted as S.P., Jhelum. The appellant stood retired by virtue of superannuation on 4-9-1981. It was only 8 days earlier than the incident of his retirement, he placed a Birth Certificate in which his date of birth was mentioned as 5-9-1921. On 23-8-1981 the appellant filed a representation to the I.-G.P. Through proper channel in which he claimed that his data of birth has wrongly been considered earlier than the date of birth mentioned in the birth certificate.
On 24-8-1981, All Irfan Malhi, D.I.-G. Police Sargodha declined to accept his contention and his representation was rejected. Hence this appeal.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned D.A. At length and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the date of birth as mentioned in the birth certificate so produced by him as Annexure 'A' in this appeal, should be accepted and his retirement so enforced be declared as without any legal effect. What we find in this case is that as per entry recorded in his Character Roll, the date of birth of the appellant was shown as 5-9-1921. On the strengh of school leaving certificate in which the date of birth mentioned was 5-9-1921, meaning thereby that he was born of earlier and was thus eligible for recruitment as constable. He was enrolled in service. According to the Police Rules 12.15, it is laid down that a Recruit who presents himself for induction into service as constable will not be more than 25 years or less than 18 years. The Police Department by accepting the said certificate, recruited the appellant as such. In_ case the appellant had produced a birth certificate which he has now produced, he would have been about 16 years and 10 months 2 days, at that particular time. In this manner the Department would have rejected his application and would have refused to recruit him as being under age. We also further find that the appellant continued in service for over 40 years and did not bring to the notice of the respondents that actually his entry into service was misconceived according to the date of birth so entered in his birth register. According to Police Rules 9.2 and 9.3 of P.F.R. Vol. I the appellant was entitled to get his birth entry changed within 2 years of his joining service. It is also not controverted that the appellant was required to fill page 1 of the A . C. R. Form every year in which he was required to reiterate his date of birth. It has also not-been further disputed that the appellant continued this process till the year of his retirement and also mentioned the earlier date by which he was recruited in his application for pension also.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the judgment delivered by this Tribunal in case of Mrs. R.A. Khawaja v. Secretary Education Case No. 665/1439 of 1981 and has relied on the observation of this Tribunal that the date of birth entered in the birth register would be conclusive proof for his actually coming into existence in this world. We have no dispute about the proposition that for the purpose of the determining one's date of birth so entered in the birth register would be conclusive evidence for that purpose. But what we have to see is the conduct of the appellant whether he relied on this authentic document, as it must have been within his knowledge for full 40 years and only came - out' it when it suited his purpose. In the present case the appellant would not have been recruited as Constable if he had produced this Birth Certificate as by virtue of the same he would have been declared ineligible. We have settled this principle in the case of Munshi Khan v. I.-G.P. No. 335/514 of 1979, decided on 6-7-1981, which is a case of identical nature and observed as under:- "We have given our anxious thought to all the points raised by both the parties and are of the considered opinion that the appellant was complacent with the state of affairs during more than 40 years service knowing fully that his date of birth entered in the S. B. Is 1-4-1919. It would be too much to permit him to one vise fine morning to tell the authorities that he was born on 14-11-1919 and not on the date entered in his S.B. The rules allowed him to agitate the matter within two years of joining service which he did not avail. Therefore, the production of Matric Certificate after 40 years would be of no avail to him.
In case of Mrs. R.A. Khawaja so mentioned above, we have also held that in matter of service we cannot ignore the only authentic document which is always prepared by the Department i.e. Service Book. We were of the opinion that the said record was always prepared by the Department immediately on the induction of a civil servant into service, after they were fully satisfied with age, qualification and other antecedents of the new entrant in the Department. It is also an established practice that the said document is maintained by the Department and is always checked periodically.
5. In the present case the appellant in fact misrepresented about his date of birth and thus taking advantage of the same persuaded the authorities to find him eligible person whereas now according to him, he was not. In these circumstances we have apprehension that a person who could act in the said manner at the time of his induction into service, can also manage a certificate which now suited his purpose. The principle of approbation and reprobation fully applies to his case and we will not permit him to choose what suited him and to deny what goes against him.
6. The result is we upheld the decision of the respondents whereby the represents[ion of the appellant was rejected and he was retired according to the entry of his birth so declared by him when he joined service and kept on repeating the same for full 40 years, and dismiss his appeal as being without any merit. However, the parties shall bear their own costs. The result of this judgment may be communicated at the given address of the parties.