Udaipur : Furnishing false birth related information at the time of joining, has landed in trouble a Child Advancement Protection Officer (CDPO) of the Women and Child Development Department, who is presently posted at Bagidaura in Banswara district. The lady officer had mentioned April 24, 1958 as her date of birth, whereas her school records claim her actual date of birth to be 3 December 1951. On a written complaint by some people, a departmental enquiry was called and an explanation was sought from the officer.However, on an unsatisfactory reply, a charge sheet has been further served to her, few weeks ahead of her retirement this month. If the allegation is found true, the department may demand a sum of around 43 lakh rupees from her which she had wrongfully received as salary through furnishing false information.
According to sources,Surekha Trivedi had mentioned her date of birth as 24th April 1958.However, when the enquiry was called, her service book records were examined wherein many discrepancies came into limelight. As per the official records, Trivedi had passed her 10th standard at mere age of 8 years while she became a mother at the age of 11 and a grandmother at the age of 29. In her declaration, the lady had mentioned her first child’s date of birth on 13th April 1969. In 1986, the officer had taken leave of 33 days with the reason mentioned as daughter’s wedding. while as per the official records her age during that time had been just 28 years.The officer had again availed leave during 5th to 19th October 1987 for which she had cited daughter’s delivery as the reason.
During the investigation, the official records from the government school where Trivedi had studied where called and the school records revealed her year of birth to be 1951. A letter from the school principle was sent to the department wherein it was said that Surekha Bhatt do Manshankar Bhatt had appeared in the class 10th examination in 1966-67 in which she had failed. As per the original date of birth, the officer should have retired in 2011, sources claim her younger sister had retired from the department in 2014 and presently serving on contract basis while the elder sister had wrongfully benefited of so many extra years of service. Presently, a committee is hearing the case and is awaiting the officer’s reply.