R.A. Sharma, J. - (1.) Petitioner claims to have been appointed in State of U.P. on work charge basis and continued 1947 in the Public Works Department of the to work in that Department with some interruption in the service. Before final absorption of the petitioner in the Department, he was required in 1973 to submit age certificate from the Chief Medical Officer of the district, as the petitioner has not passed the High School. The C.M.O. gave the medical certificate certifying 9.8.1933 as the date of birth of the petitioner. Petitioner also filed his affidavit in pursuance of the direction issued by the State in support of the date of birth being 9.8.1933. Petitioner was accordingly absorbed with effect from the year 1968 in the Public Works Department and in his service book 9.8.1933 has been mentioned as the date of birth of the petitioner. Vide impugned order dated 20.10.1987 issued by the Superintending Engineer, P.W.D. petitioner has been retired from service with effect from 31.10.1987. This petition has been filed against these orders, changing the date of birth of the petitioner and his retirement on the ground that the petitioner has been retired by changing the date of birth in the service book without giving any reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner.
(2.) Change of the date of birth in the service record of a Government servant results in serious consequences adversely affecting him. If the date of birth is to be changed, it must be strictly in accordance with the principles of natural justice. State is under a duty to give the person an opportunity to set up his case and defence and also an opportunity to controvert and contradict the evidence and the material sought to be relied against him. The employee is entitled to be informed of the case, he is required to meet and the evidence in support thereof. Supreme Court in State of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Devi and Ors. 1967 (15) F.L.R. 299 (S.C.) has laid down that date of birth of an employee cannot be changed in violation of principles of natural justice. Relevant passage from this judgment is extracted below: "It is true that some preliminary enquiry was made by Dr. Mitra. But the report of that Enquiry Officer was never disclosed to the first respondent. Thereafter the first respondent required to show cause why April 16, 1907, should not be accepted as the date of birth and without recording any evidence the order was passed. We think that such an enquiry and decision were contrary to the basis concept of justice and cannot have any value. It is true that the order is administrative in character, but even an administrative order which involves civil consequences as already stated, must be made consistently with the rules of natural justice after informing the first respondent of the case of the State, the evidence in support thereof and after giving an opportunity to the first respondent of being heard and meeting or explaining the evidence." Same principle was reiterated by the Supreme Court in the case of Sarjoo Prasad v. The General Manager and Anr., 1981 (43) F.L.R. 408 .
(3.) From the perusal of the counter-affidavit filed by the State, it appears that one Deo Ratan Yadav sent a complaint to the Department mentioning therein that the petitioner was born in 1921 and not in 1933. On the basis of this complaint, an enquiry was made by the Assistant Engineer on the direction of the Executive Engineer, who submitted his report to the Executive Engineer. The Superintending Engineer sent this report to the Engineer-in-Chief for issuing necessary order for changing the date of birth of the petitioner in his service book and the Engineer-in-Chief accepted the report and changed the date of birth from 9.8.1933 to 1.3.1921 and further directed that the petitioner be retired on 31.10.1987. In accordance with this direction of the Engineer-in-Chief, the impugned order retiring the petitioner from service has been issued.;