Mere suspicion cannot establish DOB tampering: HC

DB quashes CAT order, grants former Medical Superintendent provisional pension

23/09/2026

Jammu, Sep 22: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that even a strong presumption cannot substitute proof in determining whether a government employee manipulated his date of birth in official service records.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Shahzad Azeem allowed a petition filed by Dr Abdul Hamid Mir, former Medical Superintendent of District Hospital Udhampur, and set aside the October 9, 2025 order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jammu Bench. The judgment was pronounced on September 21.
Dr Mir was appointed as an Assistant Surgeon in the J&K Health Department in November 1973. His original service book was reportedly destroyed in a fire and, when a fresh service book was prepared, his date of birth was recorded as March 27, 1949. A subsequent complaint alleged that his date of birth had been changed from 1947 to 1949.
The Vigilance Organisation later informed the authorities that documentary records showed his date of birth as March 27, 1947, which meant that he ought to have retired on March 31, 2005. The Government subsequently treated him as having retired from that date and initiated steps to recover the salary paid for the period he continued in service.
Appearing for the petitioner, Senior Advocate K.S. Johal, assisted by Advocate Supreet Singh Johal, submitted that there was no show-cause notice or departmental inquiry establishing that Dr Mir himself had manipulated the service record. AAG Raman Sharma, assisted by Advocate Saliqa Sheikh, represented the Government.
The Division Bench observed that although the alteration in the date of birth apparently benefited the petitioner, "presumption howsoever strong it may be is not a substitute for proof". The Court also noted that the criminal case remained pending and that no departmental inquiry had been conducted in which the petitioner was given an opportunity to defend himself.
The Bench held that the action against Dr Mir suffered from violation of the principle of audialterampartem, or the right to be heard, and found that the reasoning adopted by the Tribunal could not be sustained in law.
The High Court accordingly quashed the Tribunal's order and held Dr Mir entitled to provisional pension and to retain the salary received for the period he worked beyond his actual date of superannuation.
The Court, however, directed Dr Mir to furnish an undertaking that if he is ultimately convicted by the criminal court or found guilty in duly constituted departmental proceedings of manipulating or tampering with his date of birth, he would refund the salary received after March 31, 2005, along with interest at six per cent per annum.

Photo Gallery

BSE Sensex

NSE Nifty