VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

DECISION - 206
(205)
475
Misconduct — of false date of birth
Furnishing false date of birth at the time of entry
into service constitutes misconduct, irrespective of
his entitlement otherwise.
Musadilal vs. Union of India,
1981(2) SLR P&H 555
A Store Issuer was recruited by the Railways in 1955. At the
time of entry into service, he gave his date of birth as 16 May 1929.
It was later discovered by the Railway authorities that his actual date
of birth was 5 Sept. 1918. He was charge-sheeted and an inquiry
was held. The Inquiry Officer held the charge as established and the
disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of withholding of two
increments with cumulative effect. The Departmental Reviewing
Authority suo moto reviewed the case and removed him from service.
The petitioner contended before the Punjab and Haryana
High Court that the interpolation in his certificate of birth was a wrong
entry made probably by the Medical Officer. The High Court did not
find it acceptable and held that the petitioner had made a misstatement
of an important fact like his date of birth and that the
responsibility for the mis-statement rested solely on him.
It was further contended by the petitioner that even if a wrong
statement had been made by him, he could not be removed unless it
was shown that had he not made the false statement he would not
have been inducted into Railway Service and that irrespective of the
wrong statement made by him, he was still entitled as an ordinary
applicant, to enter Railway Service. The High Court did not find this
contention acceptable.
(206)
Reversion — of probationer
Order simpliciter of termination/reversion of service
of Probationer/Temporary employee, where
misconduct, negligence, inefficiency may be motive