JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner in this case entered the service of the Government of Rajasthan as a Motor Vehicles (Mechanical) Inspector in the Transport Department on March 28, 1952. The petitioner continued to bold the post of Mechanical Inspector-cum-Transport Inspector till July 29, 1972 when he was relieved from service under telephonic instructions from the Director of Transport, Rajasthan. The petitioner on enquiry came to know that the Director of Transport had passed an order on July 29, 1972 directing that the petitioner be retired from service, as he had already attained the age of superannuation. Thereupon the petitioner made representations, but as they went unheeded, he filed the present writ petition in this court. 2. The principal grievance of the petitioner is that no enquiry whatsoever was made by the Director of Transport in respect of the date of birth of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, November 9, 1923 is the date of bis birth and thus according to him, he had not attained the age of superannuation till he was retired and as such he could not have been retired then from Government service on the alleged ground of his attaining the age of superannuation. The petitioner has produced certain material in connection with his date of birth and his present age, bur for the reasons, which I shall hereinafter refer to, it would be neither necessary nor proper for me in these proceedings to consider the entire material which has been placed on record by the petitioner as well as by the respondents, in respect of the age of the petitioner. The respondents' case is that the date of birth mentioned in the petitioner's service book has been interpolated by some one so as to read as December 19, 1923 and on account of the aforesaid tempering with the date of birth of the petitioner, as mentioned in his service book, the Director of Transport relied upon the date specified by the petitioner himself in the declaration which he submitted in respect of the first insurance policy obtained by him from the State Insurance Department. The petitioner had mentioned March 10, 1914 as his date of birth in the declaration submitted by him in the State Insurance Department and accepting it to be the correct date of birth of the petitioner, the Director of Transport by his order dated July 28, 1972 came to the conclusion that the petitioner had already attained the age of superannuation and, therefore, he directed that the petitioner be retired from Government service. It was in pursuance of the aforesaid decision of the Director of Transport that the order dated July 29, 19 72 was issued. Thus the case of the respondents is that the petitioner was rightly retired from Government service on attaining me age of superannuation. The respondents have further contended that a notice was issued to the petitioner on October 22, 1970 by the Assistant Regional Transport Officer, Kota in whose office the petitioner was then wo king, informing him that the date of his birth, as mentioned in the service book of the petitioner, contained an over-writing and asking the petitioner to submit a certificate of the date of his birth. The petitioner's contention is that he did not receive the aforesaid letter alleged to have been sent to him by the Assistant Regional Transport Officer, Kota on October 22, 1970, while the respondents contend that the aforesaid letter was duly delivered to the petitioner and that the petitioner did not submit a certificate regarding the date of his birth as demanded from him. The respondents, therefore, contend that as the petitioner failed to produce relevant material, in respect of his date of birth inspite of the demand made upon him, the Director of Transport, Rajasthan determined the date of his birth with reference to the original declaration filed by the petitioner himself in the State Insurance Department. 3. The service book of the petitioner has been produced before me by the learned Deputy Government Advocate in pursuance of the order of this court dated March 17, 1976 and there is no doubt that there is interpolation and over-writing in the month and year of the date of birth of the petitioner, as recorded in column No. 5 of his service book. In these circumstances, it might be proper for the Director of Transport to determine the date of birth of the petitioner, completely overlooking the entry relating to the date of birth as made in the service book of the petitioner, because the interpolated entry could be entirely ignored. 4. However, the crucial question in the present case is as to whether the principles of natural justice were ignored by the Director of Transport, while determining the date of birth of the petitioner vide his order dated July 28, 1972. According to the petitioner no enquiry at all was held and he was only asked to furnish the particulars about his insurance policy which he 'did, while according to the respondents/ the petitioner was called upon to submit a certificate of the date of his birth, by the letter of the Assistant Regional Transport officer, Kota dated October 22, i970 (Annexure R/3). Even if the aforesaid letter Annexure R/3 might be considered to have been delivered to the petitioner, although the petitioner does not admit the delivery of the same, yet it cannot be said that the letter in question intimated to the petitioner that the Assistant Regional Transport Officer, Kota or the Director of Transport, Rajasthan wanted to make an enquiry in respect of the date of birth of the petitioner or either of them was intending to take any proceedings to determine the date of birth or the age of the petitioner. The petitioner was never required to furnish the entire material in his possession in respect of the date of his birth. By the letter Annexure R/3 the petitioner was called upon to furnish merely a certificate of the date of his birth and the petitioner was informed that in case he failed to comply with that direction, then the matter would be referred to higher authorities. It could not be concluded from a perusal of the aforesaid letter Annexure R/3 that the authority concerned had intended to embark upon an enquiry in respect of the date of birth of the petitioner or that the said Authority intimated to the petitioner about any such intention on its part or the case which he was required to meet, nor he was asked to submit the evidence in his possession in this respect. 5. In State of Orissa v. Dr. 5. In State of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Del and others, AIR 1967 SC 1269 their Lordships of the Supreme Court were pleased to observe:- "The State was undoubtedly not precluded, merely because of the acceptance of the date of birth of the first respondent in the service register, from holding an enquiry if there existed sufficient grounds for holding such enquiry and for re-fixing her date of birth. But the decision of the State could be based upon the result of an enquiry in manner consonant with the basic concept of justice. An order by the State to the prejudice of a person in derogation of his vested rights may be made only in accordance with the basic rules of justice and fairplay. The deciding authority, it is true, is not in the position of a Judge called upon to decide an action between contesting parties, and strict compliance with the forms of judicial procedure may not be insisted upon He is, however, under a duty to give the person against whom an enquiry is held an opportunity to set up his version or defence and an opportunity to correct or to controvert any evidence in the possession of the authority which is sought to be relied upon to his prejudice. For that purpose the person against whom an enquiry is held must be informed of the case he is called upon to meet, and the evidence in support thereof." It was further observed by their Lordships in the aforesaid case:- "It is true that the order is administrative in character, but even an administrative order which involves civil consequences; as already stated, must be made consistently with the rules of natural justice after informing the first respondent of the case of the state, the evidence in support thereof and after giving an opportunity to the first respondent of being heard and meeting or explaining the evidence. No such steps were admittedly taken, the High Court was, in our judgment, right in setting aside the order of the State." 6. The aforesaid decision is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. No such steps were admittedly taken, the High Court was, in our judgment, right in setting aside the order of the State." 6. The aforesaid decision is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. Even if it may be assumed that the State Government was fully entitled to completely ignore the entry existing in column No. 5 of the service-book of the petitioner, relating to the date of his birth, on account of the fact that there is apparently some interpolation in that entry and the overwriting does not bear the signatures of any person or authority yet the competent authority in the present case, was bound to give a notice to the petitioner of his intention to determine the date of birth of the petitioner afresh and also of the fact that the said authority intended to rely, in respect of his date of birth, upon the earlier declaration made by the petitioner in connection with bis State Insurance Policy. The petitioner should also have been afforded an opportunity by the competent authority to set up his version and produce whatever material was in bis possession in respect of the question of the date of his birth. It does not appear from the record that anything of the kind was done in the present case. I am, therefore, of the view that the principles of natural justice were ignored in the present case and the petitioner was not furnished an adequate opportunity to represent his case and to furnish the material in his possession in support of his version regarding his date of birth, nor he was informed about the case of the State and the evidence, it intended to rely in support of its case. 7. Rule 7 of the Rajasthan Service Rules provides that a Government servant is required to be retired on attaining a specified age. 7. Rule 7 of the Rajasthan Service Rules provides that a Government servant is required to be retired on attaining a specified age. The notes given below the aforesaid rule provide for the procedure to be adopted, if the date of birth of a Government servant is not known Under the aforesaid rule, reference has also been made to the decision of the State Government to the effect that in case the entry relating to the date of birth of an employee has been tempered with or over-writings have been made and on that basis the competent authority comes to the conclusion that the date of birth of the Government servant recorded in the official record is incorrect and if he desires to correct it, then he should before doing so, inform the Government servant concerned of his intention to correct the date of his birth. The aforesaid administrative instructions issued by the State of Rajasthan are in consonance with the principles of natural justice as laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Binapani Dei's case (Supra) and there is no reason why they should not have been followed in the case of the petitioner. Learned Deputy Government Advocate referred to the decision of this court in Ganesh Datca v. State, AIR 1937 PC 27 . In that case the Government servant himself desired that the date of birth which was clearly entered in his service record, should be corrected to his advantage. After referring to the relevant rule, a learned Single Judge of this court held in the aforesaid case that the State Government could not be compelled in such circumstances to embark upon an enquiry relating to the date of birth of the Government servant concerned. If the date of birth is duly entered in the service record then it is not necessary for the State Government to embark upon an enquiry in that matter that the instance of the Government employee concerned. But if the entry relating to the date of birth contained in the service record of the Government employee is interpolated or contains over-writings or there is otherwise reason for the competent authority to think that such entry is incorrect, then the competent authority is not precluded from making an enquiry into the matter relating to the date of birth of the employee concerned. The only condition which is required to be complied with when such an enquiry is made by the competent authority, is that the Government employee concerned should be given an opportunity to meet the case which the State intends to set up and also to present his case or defence and produce all the relevant material that he may have in his possession in support of his version regarding the date of his birth. The decision in Ganesh Datta's case (Supra) is not relevant to the facts of the present case, as in that case there was a dear entry regarding the age of the Government employee concerned in his service book. 8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the view that the order passed by the Director of Transport dated July 28, 1972 holding that the petitioner should have retired from Government service on March 10, 1969, assuming his date of birth to be March 10, 1914 without affording the petitioner an opportunity to present his point of view and the material in his possession in respect of his date of birth is null and void, being contrary to the principles of natural justice. 9. The writ petition is consequently allowed- The order passed by the Director of Transport, Rajasthan dated July 28, 1972 and the consequent office order issued by him on July 29, 1972 as well as the order issued by the Regional Transport authority, Udaipur dated July 29, 1972 relieving the petitioner from his post are set aside. The respondents are directed to restore the petitioner to the post occupied by him on July 29, 1972. The petitioner shall also be entitled to all consequential reliefs. Of course, if shall be open to the Director of Transport or other competent authority to make a fresh enquiry and re-determine the date of birth of the petitioner in accordance with law and In the light of the observations made above. The petitioner is entitled to his costr from the respondents.Petition allowed. *******