INSPECTORGENERAL OF POLICE vs MUHAMMAD AKBAR and another
This matter concerns a service appeal regarding the determination of a civil servant's date of birth and subsequent retirement upon reaching the age of superannuation. The core legal question is whether a civil servant can rely on a school-leaving certificate to alter their recorded date of birth after the fact, particularly when such documentation was not submitted at the time of induction into service. The Supreme Court observed that the Tribunal erred in treating a school-leaving certificate as a Matriculation Certificate and failing to recognize that the respondent did not provide the relevant birth date documentation at the time of his appointment. The Court held that it is the primary duty of a civil servant to volunteer and produce documentary evidence of their date of birth at the time of induction. Failure to do so, or the late production of such documents, raises concerns regarding the authenticity of the records or potential fraud. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to examine the validity of the Tribunal's judgment, emphasizing the obligation of the employee to provide accurate records upon entry into service.
- Is a civil servant required to volunteer documentary evidence of their date of birth at the time of induction into service?
- Can a civil servant rely on a school-leaving certificate to alter their date of birth record after the commencement of their retirement proceedings?
- Does the failure to disclose a date of birth certificate at the time of induction into service constitute a ground for denying relief in a service appeal?
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--The controversy involved in this case is; whether, the respondent's service appeal regarding the date of his birth and consequential retirement on attaining the age of superannuation, could have been allowed. The Certificate relied upon by the learned Tribunal and described as 'Matriculation' Certificate is, in reality, a school leaving certificate. There seems to be another error in the impugned order. While the learned Tribunal thought that the respondent is a 'Matriculate' the certificate produced from the respondent's side shows only a Primary Awwal. Thus, the normal assumption about a Matriculation Certificate and the entry of date of birth in such a certificate was, prima facie, not available to the respondent. The word 'Matric' written in another Certificate produced from the respondent's side accordingly, will not carry much weight.
2. ' Learned counsel for the respondent No,1 relied on the order of this Court, dated 25th March, 1989 dismissing the Civil Revision No, 196-P of 1988. In that case the civil servant had "submitted to the authorities the school leaving certificate in which his date of birth viz. 15-3-1932 was duly entered, as also the Marticulation Certificate wherein also the same date of birth was recorded, the authorities should have corrected the date of birth accordingly".
3. ' In the present case learned counsel for the respondent admits that the Certificate now marked 'A' alone was submitted by the respondent, as alleged within a year after his induction in service; but the Certificate now marked 'B' or similar other certificate showing his date of birth, was not then submitted. In other words the "date of birth" as indicated in the certificate 'B' is being relied upon only after the impugned retirement. Learned Additional Advocate-General has contended that if the date of birth viz. 1-2-1932 would have been disclosed or a certificate showing this as the date of birth would have been produced at the time of respondent's induction into service or within reasonable time thereafter, he would either not have been taken into service on account of lesser age; or if taken, on disclosure of the said date, his services might have been terminated. According to this reasoning either the certificate now being relied upon is not genuine or a fraud was intended to be committed by withholding it at the time of the respondent's induction into service.
4. The reply by the learned counsel based on the endorsement on the Certificate marked 'A' that it was to be placed on record with the argument that it was the duty of the Department to have asked the respondent to submit (then) the other Certificate (Marked 'B') showing the date of birth also (because, the Certificate marked 'A' does not show the date of birth), is prima facie, untenable.
5. ' As contended by the learned Additional Advocate-General it was the duty of the respondent, if he had documentary evidence of his date of birth, to have volunteered and produced the same at the relevant time. This was not done, as further argued, either for the reason that there was no such evidence and the Certificate marked 'B' is spurious or the respondent wanted to commit fraud on the department at the time of his induction. Either way he was not entitled to any relief before the Tribunal.
6. After hearing at length both the learned counsel we deem it a fit case to examine the validity of the impugned judgment of the Tribunal. This petition accordingly is converted into appeal. It shall be prepared on the present record with direction for filing of all essential documents. To be heard before the summer vacations.
7. ' Both the Certificates marked 'A' and 'B' have been placed on record. The respondent may seek their return if duly certified photostat. Copies are placed on record.