S. Rafat Alam, J. - (1.) By means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order of the Deputy Project Manager (respondent No. 2) dated 31-12-1997 retiring him from service on attaining the age of superannuation.
(2.) The facts giving rise to the present petition lies in a narrow compass and centres round to the point as to whether an employee can be retired from service on the basis of the subsequent medical report altering the earlier date of birth recorded in the service book without affording him an opportunity of hearing.
(3.) It appears that the petitioner was appointed against Class IV post on 16-11- 1977 in U.P. State Bridge Corporation Limited (for short the Corporation) and was posted as Chaukidar of Mechanical Store of the Bridges Corporation Unit, Goindwala, Punjab. Thereafter, he was transferred and posted at Bijnor on 1-10- 1979 and remained there till 30-11-1983 when transferred to Gorakhpur and posted at Setu Nirman Ekai of the State Bridge Corporation at Gorakhpur. At the time of appointment his date of birth was recorded in the service record of the Corporation as 2-7-1944. However, in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Corporation it has been stated that the petitioner was initially appointed on daily wage basis in the Mechanical Store of the Construction Unit, Goindwala, Punjab, which was a contract unit, and after completion of work his services automatically came to an end. Thereafter, he was again appointed on 1-4-1985 on the post of Chaukidar in Group 'B' (work charge). It has further been stated that at the time of appointment his date of birth as per Chief Medical Officer's report dated 3-8-1985 was 40 years, i.e., 3-8-1945. However, according to the petitioner, when the petitioner was being promoted in Group 'B' category, he was sent for medical examination by the Chief Medical Officer, Gorakhpur, who, in his certificate gave his age as 40 years in August, 1985. It has further been stated that since the petitioner was an active worker of labour union, the respondents wanted to get him out of job because of his involvement in labour union and, therefore, they asked him to appear before a Committee constituted by the Corporation known as "Karya Kushalta Mulyankan Samiti" (Work Efficiency Evaluation Committee) as per Clause-H of the Standing Order. The said Committee was of the opinion that by appearance the petitioner appears to be more than 58 years of age and, therefore, it recommended for re-determination of his age by medical examination. Consequently, the petitioner was asked to appear before the Chief Medical Officer on 26-12-1997. Thereafter, without giving him any opportunity of hearing or providing a copy of the medical report, the impugned order dated 31-12-1997 was issued retiring the petitioner as he had attained the age of retirement, i.e., 58 years on the basis of the Medical Report dated 26-12-1996, although the copy of the said report was never supplied to the petitioner. The fact of non-supply of the copy of the medical report has not been denied in the counter-affidavit filed by the Corporation. It has also not been asserted in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner was at any point of time asked to explain about the alteration or re- fixation of his date of birth as entered in the service record at the time of entry in service.;