Sandeep Mehta, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) SUCCINCTLY stated, facts of the case relevant and essential for the decision of the instant writ petition are enumerated herein below for sake of convenience: - - "The petitioner was regularly selected and appointed as a Live Stock Assistant in the respondent department in the year 1972. The petitioner claims, that at the time of his appointment, his date of birth was entered in the service book as 6.3.1954. The department's case is that the petitioner's actual date of birth was 6.3.1948 but he managed to put off his scheduled retirement by making interpolations in the service book and altering his date of birth to 6.3.1954. When the petitioner's service record was examined, it was found that there was overwriting by which his date of birth had been altered from 6.3.1948 to 6.3.1954. The education certificates of the petitioner as available on record were summoned and it was affirmed that the petitioner's date of birth as per the certificate dated 12.6.1964 issued by the Board of Secondary Education, Ajmer was 6.3.1948. Accordingly, the petitioner's date of birth was rectified in his service book as 6.3.1948 and a proceeding was initiated by order Annex.P/2 dated 25.2.2010 to retire the petitioner from Government service on attaining the age of superannuation with effect from 31.3.2008. On the very same day i.e. on 25.2.2010, a charge -sheet Annex.P/3 under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 came to be issued to the petitioner. It was alleged in the charge -sheet that the petitioner had managed to make interpolations in his service book and by doing so, altered his date of birth from 6.3.1948 to 6.3.1954 with the ulterior objective of gaining extra length of service. On receiving the charge -sheet Annex.P/3, the petitioner immediately approached this Court by way of the instant writ petition assailing the legality and validity thereof. The principal ground of challenge laid to the charge -sheet is that the same was issued after the petitioner's retirement and thus the same is void as being hit by the mandatory requirements of the Pension Rules, 1996." This Court while entertaining the writ petition stayed further action pursuant to the impugned charge -sheet by order dated 16.4.2010.
(3.) A reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of the respondents wherein it is stated, that the petitioner made interpolations in the service book regarding his date of birth and altered the date of birth from 6.3.1948 to 6.3.1954 and thus, the charge -sheet was rightly issued to the petitioner under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules. It is further asserted in the reply that the inquiry was instituted on 25.2.2010 whereas the formal order retiring the petitioner was issued on 26.2.2010. It is clearly stated in the reply that the petitioner was on duty on 26.2.2010 though illegally when the order of retirement dated 26.2.2010 was served upon him. The order dated 26.2.2010 was placed on record by the learned Govt. counsel during the course of the arguments. On the basis of this averment, the petitioner's claim that the inquiry was initiated after the petitioner's retirement is refuted. It is relevant to note here, that the pertinent assertion in the reply that the formal order retiring the petitioner was issued and served on the petitioner while on duty on 26.2.2010 is not countered by way of any rejoinder etc.;