STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH versus R.P. SHARMA

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 156 · Decided: 26-07-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

I 
A 
o 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
v. 
R.P. SHARMA 
JULY 26, 1996 
B 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, J.I.) 
Se1vice Laiv : 
Date of Bi1th-Co!1'ectioll of-Opp01tui1ity of he01ing to be afforded to 
C employee-Date of bilth of respo!lde11t recorded in Second01y School Cotifi-
cate O!ld College CCltificale as also ill se1vice register as 30. l 1. 1936-Service 
Register misplaced-Respo11dent supplying a plwtostat copy of a ce1tificate 
showillg his date of birth as 28.6.1938-Date of birth corrected as 
28.6. 1938-complaillt made to Lokayukta agaillsl the employee alleging that 
D the employee fabricated the documents showing his date of birth as 
28.6.1938-Lokayukta co11ducted an elaborate inquiry like trial of a suit, 
considered the stand of the employee gave him oppomuiity to lead evide11ce 
and reconunended inter alia that the Govenunent should retire the enzployee 
w.ef. 30.l 1.1994 (i.e. taking the date of bi1th of employee as 30.l 1.1936)--<)n 
E 
Gil application filed by the employee Administrative Tribunal held diat the 
Govemment on accepting the report of Lokayukta should have given 11otice 
lo the employee and after hearing his submission should have passed final 
order-Held, pri11ciples of natural justice callnot be stretched to 1idicu/ous 
edge of opportunity at every stage and must be pragmatically allowed ftuitful 
F 
play to meet the given fact situation-When the employee had the opportunity 
before the Lokayukta and had adduced all the evidence, no ftather oppor-
G 
ltmity need be given at the time of co1recting the date of birth on the basis of 
the report submitted by the Lokayuktir--Tlibunal was grossly in e1Tor in 
directing that the en1p/oyee should be given an op11ortunity afresh before 
c01,.ectillg the date of birth. 
Adniinistrative Law : 
Pli11ciples of natural justice-Held, 110 ft.other Opp01nmity of he01ing 
need be given to the employee at the time of co1Tecting his date of bi1th Oil 
H the basis of the report submitted by the Lokayukta. 
156 
-
• 
STATEv. R.P.SHARMA 
157 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 10225 of A 
1996. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.12.95 of the Madhya 
Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Jabal Pur in 0.A. No. 859 of 1995. 
Anoop G. Choudhary, Adv. Genl., KS. Wadhwa, S.K. Agnihorti, B 
Mrs. Suchitra and A. Chitale for the Appellant. 
K. Madhava Reddy and Mrs. S. Janani for the Respondent. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
c 
Leave granted. 
We have heard learned counsel on both sides. 
The respondent, a Chief Engineer had entered the Government 
service on August 20, 1962 as junior Engineer. In the M.P. Civil List D 
published on July 1, 1964 his name was at"Serial No. 153 and his date of 
birth was mentioned therein as November 30, 1936. Equally, for the next 
year 1965 he was at Serial No. 162 and the date of birth continued to be 
the same, i.e., as entered in the record. It would appear that subsequently, 
the service register was not available; as a consequence, he was called upon 
to produce the service book which he did not produce; instead, he supplied E 
a photostat copy of his date of birth certificate showing June 28, 1938 as 
his date of birth. The report was called for from the Secondary School in 
which the respondent admittedly had studied which is placed at page 12 
of Volume 11 of the paper book. The report also shows that the school 
authorities had certified that his date of birth as November 30, 1936. His F 
college certificate is also to the same effect. A report was called also from 
middle school in which the respondent had studied which is part of the 
record at page 105 of Volume II of the paper book. Therein also, his date 
of birth is shown as November 30, 1936. He admittedly filed an application 
on August 31, 1978 for sanction of loan to purchase a car. Therein, he had G 
specifically mentioned his date of superannuation as November 30, 1994. 
On the basis thereof, when an action was sought to be taken, he filed an 
application before the Chief Minister for correction of his date of birth. 
On the basis of that the Chief Minister made an endorsement that his date 
of birth as per the service record might be incorporated which was accord-
ingly done. 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
158 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
It would appear that subsequently, the same was withdrawn and 
recorrected as June 28, 1938. One S.S. Tiwari made a complaint to the· 
Lokayukta alleging fabrication of actual date o
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.