The petitioner herein impugns release order dated 26.6.91 issued by the Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, Department of Agriculture retiring the petitioner with effect from 30.6.91 vide Annexure C, on the ground that since his date of birth as recorded in the Service Book is 15.1.38 he would retire only with effect from 31.1.1995 and not with effect from 30.6.1991. 2. The petitioner represented against the impugned order of release from service pointing out that as per authentic Service Book, date of birth of the petitioner when he first entered into service was recorded as 15.1.1938. It is contended by the petitioner that on attaining the age of 57 years he would retire with effect from 31.1.1995. His representation was not considered by the Government. 3. The petitioner joined as Gram Sevak on 1.5.1962. He was promoted to the post of Inspector of Agriculture on 17.11.1971. Thereafter he was promoted to the post of SDAO on 1.3.1989. While serving as SDAO the impugned release order was issued. 4. The entry made in the service book is shown at Annexure H. Column 6 of this Annexure is regarding date of birth by Christian Era. The date of birth shown in this document is 15.1.1938. It is contended that this entry still remains in fact as it is. 5. Mr. BN Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner draws my attention to seniority list of the Department as it stood on 1.1.1991. The name of the petitioner is at serial 1. In this seniority list date of birth is shown 15.1.1935. It is contended by Mr. Sarma that this wrong entry in the seniority list came to the notice of the petitioner much later than 1.1.1991. It is contended that in fact the said seniority list was published only on 4.2.1992. That is to say that the said seniority list was published after the release order was issued to the petitioner on 26.6.1991. To put it differently, the said seniority list was published on 4.2.1992 after the retirement of the petitioner. It is contended that the petitioner did not know of the change that had been effected as regards the date of birth of the petitioner. Mr. To put it differently, the said seniority list was published on 4.2.1992 after the retirement of the petitioner. It is contended that the petitioner did not know of the change that had been effected as regards the date of birth of the petitioner. Mr. Sarma submits that from the very first entry into Service Book till the date on which release order was issued and indeed till today, the date of birth has been correctly shown in Column 6 of the Service Book as 15.1.1938. 6. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that it is incumbent on the part of the Government to pass an order on the representation made by the petitioner against the order of release dated 26.6.1991 issued by the Secretary, Agriculture Department. Referring to AIR 1967 SC 1269 Mr. Sarma submits that since the curtailment of the age of the petitioner in the Service Book involves civil consequence there ought to have been a proper enquiry and an opportunity of being heard ought to have been given to the petitioner before the issuance of the order of release impugned herein. Another submission of the learned counsel is that since the Service Book as such clearly shows the date of birth of the petitioner as 15.1.1938, the Government is bound by this document. Annexure I is a certificate issued by the Headmaster, Government High School, Pfutsero in which 15.1.1938 is shown as the date of birth of the petitioner. It may be stated that this date of birth recorded by the Headmaster is disputed at the time of hearing. 7. Mr. EY Renthungo, learned Junior Government Advocate first submits that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands inasmuch as he has not disclosed the fact that he was first employed as Gram Sevak in 1954 and that only from 15.10.1962 the petitioner became a Senior Gram Sevak/SVW. It is therefore submitted that on this score the petition should be dismissed. As against this Mr. Sarma submits that no material fact has been concealed in approaching this Court inasmuch as the petitioner actually began to serve as Gram Sevak in a regular manner from 1962. 8. It is further submitted by learned Junior Government Advocate that the Government noticed some interpolation in the entry column of the date of birth in the Service Book. Sarma submits that no material fact has been concealed in approaching this Court inasmuch as the petitioner actually began to serve as Gram Sevak in a regular manner from 1962. 8. It is further submitted by learned Junior Government Advocate that the Government noticed some interpolation in the entry column of the date of birth in the Service Book. According to the learned Junior Government Advocate this interpolation must have been done by the petitioner himself. However, no enquiry as such was made to find out the truth of the matter. It is also further submitted that there was seniority list published on 23.3.1983 as on 1.1.1^81. According to the learned Government Advocate, in 1983 till date of birth of the petitioner was shown in the said seniority list as 15.1.1935 and not 15.1.1938. As against this, Mr. Sarma submits that such entry made in the alleged seniority list was never brought to the notice of the petitioner. It is further submitted that assuming in 1983 such entry was made in the seniority list, no entry of this date was made in the Service Book. As stated Mr. Sarma submits that till today the date of birth of the petitioner stands earlier, recorded in the Service Book in Column 6 as 15.1.1938 and according to him this shall prevail, 9. In this case also although much time was allowed, Government has not filed affidavit. In this view of the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that all the allegations/averments made by the petitioner in the present writ petition have not been rebutted. In other words, it is submitted that all the contentions/allegations made by the petitioner shall be deemed to have been accepted by the Government in the absence of Government Affidavit rebutting any of the averments made in the writ petition. It is extremely an unfortunate thing that in very many cases Government has failed to come out with the true facts of the case by tiling detailed affidavit. If affidavit had been filed, this Court would have received much assistance from such affidavit. Even the learned Government Advocate is making submission without any affidavit filed in the present case. 10. While making submission at the Bar, learned Junior Government Advocate makes a copy of the parawise comment available received by him from the Department. If affidavit had been filed, this Court would have received much assistance from such affidavit. Even the learned Government Advocate is making submission without any affidavit filed in the present case. 10. While making submission at the Bar, learned Junior Government Advocate makes a copy of the parawise comment available received by him from the Department. Reply to para, 19 and 20 of the writ petition is as follows : "Further it is stated here that in the course of correspondence with the Govt. the Officer has carried away his personal file from the office evidently for reasons best known to him and in the absence of which the office is finding difficulties in replying." It is stated in this comment that in the course of correspondence with the Government the petitioner had carried away his personal file from the office. It is submitted at the Bar today also that since the petitioner took away his personal file, the Government became helpless. I am simply stunned to hear this kind of submission, If such statement is true, Government could have initiated action against the petitioner. There is nothing to show that the Government took any action regarding taking away of file from the office. Learned Junior Government Advocate further submits that some time in July, 1993, an enquiry was made from the High School at Pfutsero regarding the issuance of the certificate by the Headmaster. According to him, the Head­master was examined by Joint Director and recorded his statement in which the Headmaster had stated that he did not remember exactly how he had arrived at this date of birth of the petitioner ie 15.1.1938. In this view of the matter, learned Junior Govt. Advocate submits that the certificate issued by the Headmaster was a wrong one. Unfortunately in such purported enquiry made by the Joint Director also, the petitioner was not given any opportunity of hearing although such enquiry was made in respect of the petitioner. 11. In (1982) 3 SLR 776 it was held that no change as regards the date of birth could have been made at the fag and of the tenure of service of the petitioner. If at all mistake was detected proper enquiry has to be made by taking evidence. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that action was taken behind the back of the petitioner. 12. If at all mistake was detected proper enquiry has to be made by taking evidence. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that action was taken behind the back of the petitioner. 12. I have seen another note prepared by the Joint Secretary regarding his enquiry made from the office bearers of the Church at Pfutsero on 14.7.93. It is noted that the date of birth of the petitioner cannot be found in any file or register. In membership identification, the age of the petitioner was recorded as 52 years. It appears this was also done at the back of the petitioner. No doubt the Government is competent to make proper enquiry in case of dispute as regards the date of birth. But once such exercise is made, principles of natural justice must be complied with. 13. As mentioned above, although interpolation was noticed in the entry of date of birth in the Service Book as stated by the learned Junior Govt. Advocate, Government choose to keep mum and no enquiry whatsoever was ordered. At the same time although in parawise comment it is stated that the petitioner took away personal file from the Government and as such the Government found it difficult to find out the truth of the complaint made by the petitioner, in this case also the Government choose to remain silent and no action whatsoever was initiated against the petitioner. Such allegations are extremely of very serious nature. However, as pointed out by me earlier, the Government has not even cared to file affidavit to oppose the writ application filed by the petitioner in the present case. Even when some enquiry was made from the Headmaster and also from the Church at Pfutsero belatedly, such was also done behind the back of the petitioner in violation of the principles of natural justice. 14. In the result, in the light of the facts and reasons recorded by me above, this petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 26th June, 1991 issued by the Government and also the seniority list published by the Director of Agriculture on 4.2.92 as regards the petitioner especially concerning the date of birth are set aside. 14. In the result, in the light of the facts and reasons recorded by me above, this petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 26th June, 1991 issued by the Government and also the seniority list published by the Director of Agriculture on 4.2.92 as regards the petitioner especially concerning the date of birth are set aside. The petitioner shall be reinstated and indeed shall be deemed to have been in service without any break and the petitioner shall be entitled to his normal pay and allowance throughout inasmuch as for the reasons stated above, the date of birth of the petitioner shall be 15.1.1938 as this it the date which is recorded in column 6 of the Service Book. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I pass no order as to costs.