JUDGMENT R.B. Misra, J.
Heard Sri Irshad Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.S. Sharma / Sri Raj Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the State. None appears for the Kanpur University in short called University.
1. In this petition prayer has been made to quash the order dated 12.9.1989 ( Annexure-11 ) whereby the petitioner has been terminated and salary allowance during the suspension period was refused, further prayer has been made to quash the order dated 25.8.1990 ( Annexure-21 ), whereby communication of the Chancellor of 'University' was made to the petitioner rejecting his representation on the ground that there was no provision for consideration of disputes of non- teaching employees under Section 68 of U.P. State University Act 1973.
2. It appears that petitioner was appointed previously as 'Daftari' in the year 1968, later he had passed junior High School and subsequently he appeared as a private candidate with Roll No. 755115 in High School through Shri Kasturva Vidyalaya, Nawabganj, Kanpur as the centre with Hindi, General-Maths, Civics, Book Craft and Allied Art as the subjects. The petitioner had initially failed but had appeared in supplementary examination on new allotted roll number 117843 in the supplementary examination of 'General-Maths,' and was declared successful and a separate mark sheet dated 17.9.1979 was said to have been issued to him. On the basis of such High School Certificate the petitioner was promoted to the post of routine clerk and was working as such in the office of Registrar of 'University'. On the basis of a preliminary inquiry conducted in reference to some complaint it was revealed that the petitioner had procured a forged High School Certificate in that reference the petitioner was placed under suspension, and the Dy. Registrar appointed as an Inquiry Officer had served a charge sheet on 15.9.1988 and proceeded for inquiry. During course of inquiry it was noticed that it was not the petitioner but the candidate bearing roll number 117843 belonging to an another candidate was declared pass. The petitioner again agitated before Registrar for fresh inquiry on the ground that the inquiry in question was made in haste without affording the petitioner opportunity of hearing and by non- application of mind based treating the inquiry as correct, the petitioner's service was terminated by order dated 12.9.1989. According to the petitioner indicating the date of birth of petitioner as 27.9.1956 in place of 27.9.47 was completely based on wrong facts based on no documents and the findings in respect of the petitioner's High School Certificate being forged is also erroneous and perverse.
3. Counter affidavit has been filed indicating that while seeking appointment to the post of Daftari, the petitioner had mentioned 7.10.1976 as his date of birth claiming to be twenty five (25 ) years old having five years of experience as a ' Daftari'. In the High School certificate the date of birth and roll number were recorded as Satya Narain Singh s/o Ram Narain Singh 27.9.1957 and 117843 respectively however on such certificate, the report dated 11.4.1988 furnished by Secretary, Madhyamik Siksha Parishad Uttar Pradesh revealed that the roll number claiming to be of petitioner was of another candidate i.e., of Sri Rakesh Kumar Garg. After the transfer of Sri A.N. Seth, earlier Inquiry Officer i.e., subsequent a new Inquiry Officer too has given full opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before whom the petitioner also appeared and submitted also his statement. The letters dated 16.2.1989 and 4.6.1989 of petitioner and his submission for adducing further evidence and other material records were considered and inquiry officer has not only found the petitioner guilty of changing his date of birth for ten years gain in service. A copy of the Inquiry Officer along with show cause notice was served to the petitioner on 20.06.1989 for his reply. However the petitioner, did not avail the opportunity of alternative remedy by filing the appeal to the disciplinary committee under statue 2.07 of the First Statute of the 'University'. A futile endeavourance was made by learned counsel for the petitioner through its rejoinder affidavit to controvert the assertions made in the counter affidavit and to reiterate the averments of the writ petition. During course of hearing it was pointed out that in para 6 of the listing application dated 16.09.2002 the Executive Council of University by its resolution dated 18.12.1993 has issued a fresh appointment to the petitioner a routine clerk and on the strength of that order the petitioner is working as routine clerk.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the documents. The allegations against the petitioner concluded in consonace to the principle of natural justice were found proved in the inquiry report however the order dated 12.9.1989 was passed and the petitioner did not avail the alternative remedy. In these circumstances, I do not find any illegality or impropriety in the order as the petitioner was offered opportunity of hearing and on documentary evidences, the petitioner was held guilty of tampering and utilising forged and fabricated High School certificate claiming his wrong date of birth as 27.9.1957 in place of his date of birth as 27.9.1947 his actual date of birth. The removal dated 12.9.1989 ( Annexuire-11 ) of petitioner was legally correct and his date of birth was correctly acknowledged as 27.9.1947, however if the petitioner was disputing his date of birth he might have filed a plaint in support of documentary evidences including birth register, family register, certificate medical officer of hospital, with oral evidences, horoscope, statements of witnesses and medical certificate on the basis of ossification of bones etc. and the dispute of such date of birth as disputed question of fact could have been adjudicated by trial court only.
5. In these circumstances the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. The petitioner is also not entitled to seek any employment claiming his date of birth as 27.9.1957 also.
In view of the above observations the present writ petition is dismissed.