J.K. Mathur. - (1.) Petitioner's case is that his date of birth in the records was recorded as 6-9-1925. He moved a representation before opposite party No. 1 who after considering the representation decided it in his favour and held that his dace of birth be recorded as 7 4-1934. Subsequently, however, by the impugned order the aforesaid order was reviewed and pec lied and the petitions was required to retire on 10-1-1992. It appears that subsequently a notice wa9 issued to the petitioner to show cause, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure No. 5 to the writ petition. The main ground of challenge against the impugned order is that the cyder was parsed by opposite party No. 1 without affording any opportunity to the petitioner. Even if the opposite party No. 1 had power to review his order in the circumstances of the present case, as such, the review was to affect the civil rights of the petitioner. It was incumbent upon the opposite patty No. 1 to have afforded an opportunity to the petitioner before reviewing his order and order the retirement of the petitioner earlier than the one stipulated in the order passed by him after hearing the petitioner. This fact is also evident from the impugned order as well from the notice subsequently given by opposite party No. 1 to the petitioner. An order having been passed without having afforded an opportunity and reviewing the order passed earlier is patently violative of principles of natural justice and cannot be sustained.
(2.) Petition is, therefore, allowed and the order as contained in Annexure-1 is hereby quashed.
(3.) It is, however, clarified that it will be open to the opposite party No. 1 to proceed consequent to the notice issued to the opposite party No. 1. The petitioner should file reply to the said notice within 15 days failing which the opposite parties shall be at liberty to proceed to decide the question. Petition allowed.;