Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Learned Standing Counsel was confronted with the aforesaid fabrication which has been made without any initial of competent authority. He has produced the instructions which have been received from Up-Ziladhikari wherein it is mentioned that it was simply a  human error. The instructions are taken on record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was a Seasonal Collection Peon (Temporary) and in  Prasidh Narain Upadhyay's case also, the similar attempt had been made that in the service record, it was mentioned that he was a Seasonal Collection Peon.

From a perusal of the service record, it is evident that officer concerned who has made the correction, there is no initial. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate in his instructions has tried to explain it as a human error, it appears that Sub-Divisional Magistrate is not aware about the meaning of the word. He has not disclosed that who has made the correction in the service record.

I find sufficient force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that it is a serious fabrication in the public record, accordingly, the District Magistrate may hold an enquiry about the said fabrication and direct to file an F.I.R. against the person who is found guilty in the enquiry. However, the District Magistrate shall pass the order in respect of the petitioner's pension at the first stage and will not hold the order on the ground that the enquiry is pending.