M. Majumdar, J. - (1.) This application is directed against an order as contained in Annexure 'H'. The said order reads thus: - " Please note that your representation was duly considered and you were given personal hearing. Your age has been determined as.60 years on 14/11/88(AN). However, as per the Company Rule you will superannuate from the service of the Company with effect from 30/11/ 198S(AN). A copy of the Order dated 9/11/88 of determination of age passed by Shri D. Mittra, Additional Chief Finance Manager (P) appointed by the Competent Authority of the Company for determination of your age, is enclosed herewith." The petitioner claimed that his date of birth was not properly recorded. His actual date of birth was 15 years 2 months on March 1, 1949. The petitioner was served with notice dated June 6, 1988. By the said notice the, petitioner was informed that on scrutiny of his service record docket, it has been found that his age has not been properly recorded at the time of his joining service in IISCO. Accordingly, the petitioner was advised to produce documentary evidence in supported of his age within seven days from receipt of the letter. Petitioner replied to the said letter dated June 10, 1988. By the said letter the petitioner informed the concerned authority at the time of his joining service, he produced his school leaving certificate and on the strength of that certificate his age was recorded in Service Docket but the letter of the concerned respondent dated June 6, 1988 did not indicate the same. Subsequently it is also stated by the petitioner that after receipt of the Matriculation Certificate from East Bengal Secondary Education Board, Dacca, the same was also produced before the then authorities for endorsement. It is claimed by the petitioner that the records were not kept properly. The petitioner also sent a Xerox copy of his Matriculation Certificate issued by the Controller of Examination, East Bengal Secondary Board, Dacca. Petitioner by a letter dated August 5, 1988 was informed that it had been decided by the Management to record the age of the petitioner as 21 years on November 15, 1949, as recorded at the time of initial appointment and accordingly, the petitioner would Superannuate from the service of the company with effect from 15/30 -11 -88. Petitioner being aggrieved by the order of the concerned authority presented a Writ application before this Court on August 11, 1988 upon notice to the respondents. This Court disposed of the writ application by directing the petitioner to make a representation to the authority for consideration of his age on the basis of the matriculation certificate issued by the East Bengal Secondary Education Board, Dacca. Pursuant to the direction passed by this Court, representation was submitted along with a copy of the Matriculation Certificate. The Additional Chief Finance Manager (P) of the Indian Iron and Steel Company Ltd., Burnpur intimated the petitioner to be present on November 9, 1988 at 3 P.M. for personal hearing pursuant to the order dated October II, 1988. The time was subsequently changed. It was fixed at 11 A.M. instead of 3 P.M. Petitioner was accorded personal hearing which concluded. Thereafter the impugned order was passed. The petitioner challenged the impugned order on the ground that the concerned authority instead of considering the facts and circumstances of the case by taking the Matriculation Certificate into consideration on grounds which are wholly not genuine to the points in issue. It is also claimed by the petitioner that order was passed on (sic)urmise and conjecture as would appear from page 2 of the order where the concerned authority instead of considering the Matriculation Certificate proceeded on hypothetical basis by recording that if he really had appeared at the Matriculation Examination in early 1949 he could have produced Admit Card in November 1949 while joining the service but this was not his case until upto this morning and this is an attempt by him to improve upon his case; nevertheless he has failed to produce the original Admit Card. Further if he had really appeared in the Examination in early 1949 at Dacca he could have also produced the Mark Sheet but he is silent on this point. In fact the Admit Card could not be produced at the time of joining the service in as much as it would be so borne from another letter from Shri Das submitted to the Company on 10/6/88. If he had really appeared and passed the Matriculation Examination from Dacca in early 1949 here was no reason for him to produce Shool leaving Certificate instead of Admit Card and Mark Sheet. Since Shri Das seems to be sufficiently literate and educated and since he claims that he signed service record 'card' himself it can be safely taken that he had signed after satisfying himself about the entries therein. In the said card all particulars are not disputed i.e. name, village etc. The concerned adjudicating authority preceded on pure surmise and overlooked the Matriculation Certificate without assigning any reason by holding inter alia, that he was required to produce a letter from Ministry of External Affairs to this authority about verification of the document and certificate. In the year 1949 thers was no question of granting any Passport or Visa. This fact was completely overlooked and ignored.
(2.) Mr. S. N. Ray, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner claimed and contended that, once the Original Matriculation Certificate or Xerox copy thereof was placed before the authority the petitioner should be treated to have discharged the onus as regards his claim for correction of the date of birth. The onus was then shifted on the respondents for the purpose of disproving the same. Petitioner could not be directed that he should produce a letter from the Ministry of External Affairs to this authority about the verification of the document and certificate. Respondents could have taken up the matter with the Bangladesh High Commissioner but that was not done.
(3.) Mr. Ray further claimed that the Matriculation Certificate should be treated as foundation of the date of birth and that should not have been rejected on the ground of the failure of the petitioner to produce one Admit Card, Mark Sheet and letter of the Ministry of the External Affairs. Mr. Roy cited the decision of this Hon'ble Court in the case of Pramatha Nath Chowdhury v/s. State of West Bengal in 1981(1) S.L.R. page 570. This Court held that the date of birth entered in the Matriculation Certificate should be accepted as correct and the concerned employee can be superannuated only on the basis of the date of birth entered in the Matriculation Certificate. Mr. Ray referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa v/s. Dr. Miss Binapani Dei, reported in AIR 1967 SC 1269 in support of the contention that the order prematurely retiring the petitioner from the service involves civil consequence, Mr. S. N. Tagore, the learned Advocate duly assisted by Mr. Ajit Kumar Chakraborty, claimed and contended that the petitioner was accorded fullest opportunity of representing his case; that order was passed on consideration of the pros and cons of the entire matter that the failure of the petitioner to produce the Mark Sheet and Admit card which constitute the pre -requisite for determination of his age goes to the rest of the matter. Petitioner cannot be allowed to avail of the action of the respondents on ground which are not available to him, that the Matriculation Certificate without being properly verified by the Competent. Authority of Bangladesh, cannot be accepted as genuine. After careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the the sub - mission made by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties this Court is required to consider as to whether Original Matriculation Certificate produced by the petitioner should be ignored on such ground as are contained in the impugned order, whether the order involves civil consequence or not. The Original Matriculation Certificate issued by the East Bengal Secondary Board, Dacca being placed before the adjudicating authority, the conclusion is reached that the petitioner has satisfactorily and primarily discharged his onus as regards the claim for correction of date of birth. After the receipt of the said Certificate the respondents are required to dispose of the same and they should have held an enquiry in conformity with the rules of natural and procedural justice. There should be fairness in the action of the respondents. The claim of the petitioner cannot either be rejected on the grounds of his failure to produce his Mark Sheet and Admit Card or the letter from the Ministry of External Affairs. Respondents should have initiated an enquiry ascertaining the correctness or otherwise of the Matriculation Certificate., They have not done so. The submission of Mr. Roy in my view, draws sustenance from the decision cited at the Bar. Once the certificate is presented before the authority the same shall be accepted, unless the contrary is proved on flimsy ground. The respondents cannot be permitted to discard the substantive evidence.;