Permod Kohli, J. - (1.) PETITIONER joined the Government service as a Constable on 1.11.1966. He was retired from service on attaining superannuation on 28th of February, 2005 at the age of 58 years. Respondents have passed an order No. 340 of 2005 dated 2nd of March. 2005. whereby the date of retirement of the petitioner has been declared to be 1.11.2003 and recovery of salary for 16 months has been ordered from his leave encashment and gratuity. Validity of this order has been called in question on the ground that the impugned order is contrary to the service record. According to the petitioner, his date of birth has been correctly recorded in the service record as 1947 and thus petitioner was required to continue in service till he attains the age of superannuation. It is further contended that the recovery ordered by the impugned order is also illegal and impermissible in law.
(2.) IN the counter -affidavit filed by the respondent No. 2, it is stated that the date of birth of the petitioner as recorded on the first page of the service book is of the year 1947. However, in the verification roll attached to the Service Book, the date of birth of the petitioner is shown as 1945. With a view to clarify the contradiction, information was sought from the Office of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ranchi, the place of the initial appointment of the petitioner vide Memo. No. 3565/Raka dated 25th December, 2004. It is further staled that in the Memo No. 702/Raka dated 19th February, 2005 sent by the Sr. Superintendent of Police, Ranchi alongwith the certified copy of appointment, related candidate register, the date of appointment of the petitioner is recorded as 1st November, 1966 and his age is mentioned as 21 years. It is on the basis of this information the petitioner's date of birth is considered to be 1.11.1945. Respondents have, accordingly, passed the impugned order seeking recovery from the petitioner and declared his date of superannuation in the year 2003. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. It is not in dispute that in the service record of the petitioner, the date of birth recorded is of year 1947 though in the accompanying verification roll, the date of birth of the petitioner is reflected of the year 1945. In view of the dispute of date of birth as recorded in the service book/ record employer is entitled to hold enquiry. However, any such enquiry has to be in consonance with the principles of natural justice, meaning thereby that the affected employee/Official is not only to be associated with the enquiry but is also to be provided with the opportunity to explain and establish his point of view. With a view to resolve the conflicting entries in the service record, respondents have sought some information from the place of the original appointment and based upon information received, petitioner has been retired and recovery ordered from him. However, at no stage, petitioner was put to notice or any explanation sought from him nor any enquiry conducted in consonance with the principles of natural justice. Impugned order having been passed in breach of the principles of natural justice, is not sustainable in law, the same is hereby quashed. As a consequence of the quashment of the impugned order, respondents are allowed liberty to hold an enquiry in regard to the correct dale of birth of the petitioner and petitioner shall be associated with any such enquiry, if so held. Let the Enquiry be initiated and completed within a period of four months. If no enquiry is conducted within the above mentioned period, petitioner shall be entitled to all retiral benefits taking into consideration his date of birth in the year 1947 as recorded on the first page of the service book and will be paid all retiral/pensionary benefits including the salary for the period in question. There is no specific averment in the writ petition that on the basis of the date of birth as 1947, petitioner is entitled to continue in service up to the year 2000 on account of the decision of the State Government to increase the date of retirement from 58 years to 60 years. However, if the date of retirement was increased during the period, petitioner was in service petitioner shall also entitled to enhancement of age of retirement. All these questions shall be considered after the completion of the enquiry within the time stipulated hereinabove and consequential order passed within a period of one mouth after the date of the completion. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition is allowed.;