G.S.Singhvi, J. - (1.) Petitioner Ram Bharose has challenged order dated 23.3.92 (Exhibit-10) passed by the Managing Director of the Bharatpur Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. retiring him from service with effect from 25 3 92.
(2.) Facts of the case are that the petitioner had joined service of Aroha Vrihad Sehkari Samiti. He was selected for appointment as a Manager in the service of the Bharatpur Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. On the basis of that selection an order dated 13.2.68 was passed by the Executive Officer of the Bank. He was confirmed as Manager in the service of the Bank with eflect from 1.1.72 Petitioner was promoted as Recovery Supervisor by an order dated 28.9.73 of the Bank. He was appointed as Loan Supervisor in ; the service of the Bank. He was confirmed as Loan Supervisor with effect from 1.11.79 by order dated 21.6. 82 of the Managing Director of the Bank. Annexure-8 was issued to the petitioner sometime in the year 1991 calling upon him to submit certificates relating to date of birth and education and also file photostat copies of the same for verification, He was told that his salary will not be paid for the month of October 1991 and decision will be taken regarding his retirement from service in case he fails to submit the documents. Notice dated 22292 was issued to tbe petitiontr calling upon him to appear before the Medical Board for examination because he is said to have not submitted his original certificates for verification. This was followed by order dated 23. 3. 92 for retirement of the petitioner with effect from 25.3.92. This order (Exhibit 10) refers to the opinion of the Medical Board that the petitioner seems to be of 60 years of age. In his order the Managing Director recorded that the petitioner has already crossed the upper age limit calculated on the basis of the opinion of the Medical Board.
(3.) In questioning the legality of Exhibit 10, the petitioner has stated that his date of birth is 22. 2.37. This date of birth has been recorded in the Scholar's register of the Government Multipurpose Higher Secondary School, Bharatpur. Photostat copy of this Scholar's register with registration No. 2274 has been produced on record as Exhibit 11 which shows the date of birth of the petitioner as 22.2 37. Extiibit-1 has also been produced by the petitioner to show that his date of birth is 22. 2. 37 and he has passed the middle examination from the Rajasthan Education Departmental Examination. The certificate Exhibit-1, issued by the Registrar, shows the date of birth of the petitioner as 22.2. 37. Petitioner has specifically stated that the Bank was submitting its audit report every year in which details have been given out in respect of employees including the date of birth. In such audit reports his date of birth has been mentioned as 22.2.37. His date of birth has been recorded in the service book on the basis of the middle examination certificate. He has also stated that petitioner was a member of the Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act in the record prepared under that Act his date of birth has been mentioned as 22 2 37. He has further stated that in the year 1991 a decision was taken by the Bank to terminate the services of large number of employees. In order to fulfill this objective Cyclostyled notices were given to number of employees including the petitioner on 16.9.91 indicating therein that the documents were not submitted by the concerned employee regarding his date of birth and educational qualification. Petitioner has further stated that after receipt of the notice he submitted a detailed reply and again filed the copies of documents. He appeared before the Medical Board in pursuance of Exhibit-9 but after the Medical Board gave its opinion, he has been retired without even giving copy of the medical report and without any notice containing proposal for changing his date of birth. Petitioner's plea is that the impugned action of the respondent Bank is contrary to the principles of natural justice and is therefore, void;