Judgment Dutta, J.: 1. This Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 6th September, 1993 passed by a Learned Single Judge of this' Court in C. O. No. 1893(W) of 1993 before him allowing the Writ petition filed by the Writ petitioner in terms thereof for the reasons recorded therein. 2. It is contended by the Writ petitioner Abani Kumar Maitra that he was appointed as Assistant Personnel Officer of Hindusthan Steel Ltd. and posted at the Head Office at Ranchi and subsequently posted at Durgapur Steel Plant (hereinafter' shortened into DSP) in February 1969 against Open Press Advertisement. At that time the DSP was the manufacturing unit of Hindusthan Steel Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as H.S.L). In the year 1978 the undertaking of H.S.L. became vested in the Steel Authority of India Ltd. (hereinafter shortened into SAIL), a Government of India Undertaking. After his appointment and posting at DSP in 1969, the petitioner was promoted from time to time to different higher posts. Presently, he is holding the post of Executive Director, SAIL Environment Management Division at Calcutta. 3. In or about the middle of July 1977, the Writ petitioner (hereinafter referred to as petitioner) was informed by the personnel Department of the DSP that his personal File had been misplaced/missing, whereupon be was asked to submit all relevant documents in original in support of his date of birth, which he had duly complied with. On the basis of such documents, including the School Leaving Certificate submitted by him, a Part personal File was constructed by the. Department of Personnel, DSP. He was verbally informed in 1981 that in the records of the Corporate Office of the SAIL there was some anamoly in respect of his date of birth which should be cleared once for all. On his representation, the Chief (P & MS), DSP, had informed the Director (Personnel) of the SAIL by a letter dated 10th June, 1981 that the records at DSP and the School Leaving Certificate of the petitioner bad been duly checked up, wherefrom it was found that the date of birth of the petitioner is 21st January, 1938. A request was made thereunder to pass instructions for necessary correction of the entries relating to the date of birth of the petitioner in the records of the Corporate Office of SAIL. A request was made thereunder to pass instructions for necessary correction of the entries relating to the date of birth of the petitioner in the records of the Corporate Office of SAIL. The fact regarding the date of birth of the petitioner was again communicated to the Corporate Office by the Senior Manager (P & A) of the D.P. by a letter dated 7th August, 1990. 4. In the meantime, the petitioner was offered the post of Director (Personnel) in the Garden Reach Ship Builders and Engineers Ltd. by the Ministry of Defence, Government of India, by a letter dated 29th May, 1989, while he was holding the post of Deputy General Manager (P & A) SAIL at RMD. In the said letter it was mentioned that the date of his superannuation would be 24th August, 1993. Upon receipt of the said letter, the petitioner by letter dated 3rd July, 1989 to the Corporate Office of the SAIL had pointed out that be was not intimated the basis on which the concerned Ministry had calculated his aforesaid date of superannuation. He had requested the Corporate Office to obtain necessary information from the concerned Ministry in this regard so that the could exercise his option to join Garden Reach Ship Builders and Engineers Ltd. The Corporate Office of the SAIL having avoided the aforesaid query of the petitioner he was left with no other alternative but to refuse to take up the assignment in the Garden Reach Ship Builders and Engineers Ltd. He took up the matter regarding his date of birth with the Corporate Office of the SAIL by his letter dated 25th January, 1991 with the request to make necessary correction in the records of the Corporate Office on the basis of the records of the DSP where he was initially appointed. He could neither accept the offer of his appointment to the post of Director (Personnel), Bharat Bhari Udyog Nigam Ltd., Calcutta for similar erroneous recording of his date of birth. 5. The petitioner had thereafter received a letter dated 13th March, 1991 from the Corporate Office of the SAIL informing him that his date of birth had been recorded in the Managerial Inventory as 24th August, 1935 ; and that as per Rules the date of birth once recorded is final and binding on the employees. 5. The petitioner had thereafter received a letter dated 13th March, 1991 from the Corporate Office of the SAIL informing him that his date of birth had been recorded in the Managerial Inventory as 24th August, 1935 ; and that as per Rules the date of birth once recorded is final and binding on the employees. He was also asked to submit his original Matriculation Certificate or a duly attested duplicate copy thereof in support of his contention that his date of birth is 21st January, 1938. By his reply dated 12th April, 1991 he had reiterated the entire facts regarding the entry in the DSP relating to his date of birth and had requested the. Corporate Office to make necessary correction in the Managerial Inventory. But he was again asked by the Corporate Office by a letter dated 24th April, 1991, to produce the original Matriculation Certificate. The Corporate Office by a letter dated 17th February, 1992 had thereupon arbitrarily asked the concerned Authority of DSP to change his date of birth to 25th August, 1935. The appropriate Authority at DSP by a letter dated 20th March, 1992 had pointed out to the Corporate Office that on scrutiny of all available records at DSP no document could be located in support of the record in respect of the date of birth of the petitioner. It is further pointed out therein that is, order to comply with request contained in the letter of the Corporate Office dated 17th February, 1992 it was necessary that the relevant documents be kept at the DSP. The DSP had, accordingly, requested the Corporate Office to send documents forming the basis of their entry regarding the date of birth of the petitioner being 25th August, 1935. 6. The Executive Director (Vigilance) had thereafter by a letter dated 30th May, 1992 to the Managing Director, DSP, had advised him (latter) to instruct the petitioner to bring the original Certificates/Degrees in support of his educational qualifications, particularly the Matriculation Certificate, copy of which was forwarded to the petitioner by the Managing Director of SAIL. The petitioner had duly complied with the request of the Executive Director (Vigilance), who had recorded his statement. 7. By a letter dated 29th August, 1992 the Executive Director (Vigilance) had once again requested the petitioner to produce the documents mentioned therein. The petitioner had duly complied with the request of the Executive Director (Vigilance), who had recorded his statement. 7. By a letter dated 29th August, 1992 the Executive Director (Vigilance) had once again requested the petitioner to produce the documents mentioned therein. By his letter dated 9th October, 1992 the petitioner had pointed out that the entire enquiry was• being held to harass him. But by an Office Order dated 7th December, 1992, the petitioner was informed that on attaining the age of superannuation on 25th August, 1993 be would stand released from the service of the Company with effect from 31st August, (993. By a subsequent letter dated 8th December, 1992 the petitioner was informed that his application for changing the date of birth was not accepted. Hence the writ petition praying, amongst other reliefs, for a writ in the nature of Alandamus commanding the Respondents, their agents and subordinates to cancel, withdraw, revoke and/or to forbear from giving any effect to the orders contained in Annexure 'J','M','T' and 'U' to the petition and further commanding them to correct the entry relating to the date of birth of the petitioner in the Corporate Office of SAIL to be 21st January, 1938 and to allow the petitioner to continue in service on such basis and to give all consequential benefits therefor. 8. The writ Application of the petitioner had been opposed by the Respondents Nos. 2, 4 and 6 by filing Affidavit in-Opposition on the grounds stated therein at length. 9. The learned Trial Judge after due hearing and consideration of the materials on record had found favour with the petitioner's contention and by his impugned Judgment and Order dated 5th September, 1993 had quashed the relevant Office Order dated 7th December, 1992, being Annexure 'T' to the writ Application, as also the letter dated 8th December, 1992, which is Annexure 'U' to the Writ Application. The Respondents were thereunder directed inter alia, to give effect to the petitioner's recorded date of birth as appearing in his part Personal File maintained at the DSP, which is 21st January, J 938, for his service purpose, including his superannuation. 10. Being aggrieved by the Judgment and Order so passed by the Learned Trial Judge, the Respondents Nos. 2, 4 and 6 in the Writ Application have preferred the instant Appeal. 11. 10. Being aggrieved by the Judgment and Order so passed by the Learned Trial Judge, the Respondents Nos. 2, 4 and 6 in the Writ Application have preferred the instant Appeal. 11. The point for decision before us is how far the Learned Trial Judge was justified in allowing the Writ petition of the petitioner on the findings, as he did. 12. The respective contentions of the contending parties being what they are the only point emerging for consideration is what was the date of birth declared by the petitioner on his first appointment in the H.S.L. and recorded in his Personal File? The point may somewhat differently be posed as to whether there has been any change in his recorded date of birth, as pleaded by the writ petitioner. As specifically stated by him in paragraph 3 of the Writ petition, "the subject matter of challenge in the present Writ petition is the wrongful action of the Respondents in changing the recorded date of birth of the petitioner by reason of which the petitioner is going to be retired from service with effect from 31st August, 1993 although as per recorded date of birth at DSP the petitioner is entitled to continue in service till 30th April, 1996". 13. Undisputedly, the petitioner was directly recruited as an Assistant Personnel Officer in H.S.L. and posted at the Head Office at Ranchi and subsequently posted at DSP in February 1969 against Open Press Advertisement. As stated by the petitioner himself in paragraph 28 of his Writ Application. "as per the terms and conditions of Service of the employees at DSP, both before and after requisition by SAIL, one is required to produce all relevant documents, including those in proof of age/date of birth at the point of entry into service or at the time the service record is prepared." The petitioner has also reproduced' extracts of the Personnel Manual of H S.L. and Personnel Manual of SAIL at page 14 of the Writ Application. Rule 7.20 of the Personnel Manual of H. S. L. would clearly indicate that "On first appointment every candidate should declare the date of birth by Christian Era, with confirmatory documentary evidence." 14. Rule 7.20 of the Personnel Manual of H. S. L. would clearly indicate that "On first appointment every candidate should declare the date of birth by Christian Era, with confirmatory documentary evidence." 14. Rule 4.1 of the Personnel Manual of SAIL would as well clearly indicate that "Every employee must .declare his date of birth in the applications of the prescribed form, before his first appointment and must produce confirmatory evidence in support of his declaration as mentioned hereunder. No person should be allowed to join the service of the Company without his date of birth having been declared/recorded as prescribed." 15. And, Rule 43 thereof further makes clear that "Each person entering the service of the company shall in support of declaration of the date of birth, submit Matriculation/School Final Examination Certificate or equivalent examination or School Leaving Certificate". 16. The said Rules being, what they are, the petitioner at the time of his first appointment in H.S.L. in February 1969 must certainly have declared the date of his birth by Christian Era with the abovementioned confirmatory documentary evidence, as required. And, with the aforesaid relevant Rules, such as they are, he could not conceivably have been allowed to join the service of the Company without his date of birth having been declared/recorded, as described. There is further the presumption of law that official acts had been properly done and the relevant Rules and procedures had been duly complied with. There could, therefore, be little mistaking that the petitioner had declared his date of birth with confirmatory documentary evidence in support thereof at the time of his first appointment. He must have submitted his Matriculation/School Final Examination Certificate or equivalent examination or School Leaving Certificate (at the time of entering the service of R.S.L. in February 1969) in support of his declared date of birth, which must have been duly recorded; as prescribed. The question which would at once crop up for consideration is what was the date of birth declared by the petitioner at the time of his entering the service of R.S.L. in February 1969 and recorded by the Company as required by the relevant procedures/Rules. The Personal File of the petitioner, maintained by the DSP, would have provided the answer to the said question. But unhappily and dubiously, the Personal File of the petitioner (maintained by the DSP) is stated. The Personal File of the petitioner, maintained by the DSP, would have provided the answer to the said question. But unhappily and dubiously, the Personal File of the petitioner (maintained by the DSP) is stated. to be missing and the petitioner is stated to have been informed about the missing of the same in the middle of July 1977, by the Personnel Department of the DSP, to which Department the petitioner, admittedly, belonged all throughout. In the absence of his Personal File (wherein the date of birth of the petitioner must have been recorded on the basis of his declaration and confirmatory documentary evidence), we have to fall back upon other Official records/materials to find what date of birth had been declared by him and recorded by the Company at• the time of his entry into the service of H.S.L. in February 1969. There could be little denying that the Official records/ materials, if any, must have prepared on the basis of recording of the date of birth of the petitioner in his personal File, which is stated to be missing around 1977. 17. The contending Respondents in the court below had annexed a series of documents with their Affidavit-in-Opposition in support of their contention that the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as 25.8.1935. The Records of date of birth of the Executives of the DSP, maintained by the DSP, (as appearing at pages 91/92 of the Paper Book) would clearly indicate that the date of birth of the petitioner, Abani Kumar Maitra bearing Ticket No. 495032, was recorded as 25.8.1935. Though an endeavour was made to make interpolation on the said date of birth/the relevant entry appears to have been penned through and clearly written as 258.1935 with initial there against. The Superannuation Register, maintained by the DSP (as appearing at pages 93/94 of the Paper Book), would as well clearly indicate that the date of birth of the petitioner, bearing Ticket No. 495032, had been clearly recorded as 25.8.35. The List of employees of the DSP for the month of July 1977 (appearing at page 95 of the Paper Book) would also indicate that the date of birth of the petitioner had been clearly recorded as 25.8.1935. The List of employees of the DSP for the month of July 1977 (appearing at page 95 of the Paper Book) would also indicate that the date of birth of the petitioner had been clearly recorded as 25.8.1935. The Appraisal Report for the year 1972 in respect of the petitioner (appearing at page 96 of the Paper Book) would also clearly indicate that his date of birth had been clearly recorded as 25.8.1935. The copy of the said Appraisal Report as well appears to have been forwarded to the Assistant Personnel Manager (MD), DSP, on 9th July, 1973, to which Department the petitioner belonged all-throughout in responsible capacities. The Management Inventory in respect of the Top Executives, as on 1.7.82 (as appearing at pages 98/99 of the Paper Book), would also clearly indicate the date or birth of the petitioner had as well clearly recorded to be 25835. The details of the Officers working in the Personnel Department, as intimated by the Chief Personnel Manager of the DSP to the Manager (Personnel), SAIL, by letter dated 12th May, 1977 (appearing at pages 100/101 of the Paper Book) would as well clearly indicate that the date of birth of the petitioner had been clearly recorded therein to be 25.8.35. The Annual Performance Appraisal for executive for the period from April 1, 1983 to March 31, 1984, in respect of the petitioner, maintained by the DSP, would as well clearly indicate that the date of birth of the petitioner, who was then the Chief Personnel Manager of the DSP, had been clearly recorded to be 25.08.1935. The aforesaid Official records for the different periods maintained by the DSP would all clearly and unmistakably show that the date of birth of the petitioner had been recorded therein to be 25.8.1935. The said recordings had been made at different periods, including the period prior 1977 when the Personal File of the petitioner was not missing, as also the period subsequent thereto when the Part Personal File of the petitioner is stated to have been constructed (in 1977) recording his date of birth therein to be 21.1.1938. There could be no denying that all the aforesaid Official records had been prepared and maintained by the DSP in the ordinary course of Official business. There could be no denying that all the aforesaid Official records had been prepared and maintained by the DSP in the ordinary course of Official business. These records recording the date of birth of the petitioner to be 25.8.19.35 must presumably have been prepared on the basis of the recording of his date of birth in his Personal File. 18. Even though all the aforesaid Official records, prepared and maintained by the Personnel Department of the DSP, (to which the petitioner belonged all-throughout in various responsible capacities) had clearly recorded his date of birth to be 25.8.35, both prior to and subsequent to the alleged missing of his Personal File in the year 1977, no objection appears to have been raised by him about the said recording of his date of birth till June 1931 when by an alleged letter dated 10th June, 1981 the Chief (PLMS), DSP, had intimated the Director (Personnel), SAIL, for the first time that the date of birth of the petitioner, Abani Kumar Maitra, bearing Ticket No. 495032, who was then the DCPM(G), a very Senior Official in the Personnel Department of the DSP, had been inadvertently recorded, and that he (the addressor) had checked up the records at DSP and the School Leaving Certificate of the petitioner and found his date of birth to be 21. 1. 1938. It would also seem significant and observable to note that despite the recording of the aforesaid date of birth of the petitioner (21.1.1938) in his Part Personal File, which is stated to have been constructed in 1977, the List of Employees for the month of July 1977, the Management Inventory as on 1.7.1982, as also the Annual Performance and Appraisal for Executives for the period April I, 1983 to March 31, 1984 in respect of the petitioner, all maintained by the DSP, as indicated above, bad clearly mentioned the date of birth of the petitioner therein to be 25.8.1935. 19. The aforesaid relevant official records being, what they are, there could be little doubt that the petitioner had declared his date of birth at the time of his first appointment in H.S.L. in February 1969 to be 25.8.1935 with confirmatory, documentary evidence, which was so recorded in his Personal File at that time. 19. The aforesaid relevant official records being, what they are, there could be little doubt that the petitioner had declared his date of birth at the time of his first appointment in H.S.L. in February 1969 to be 25.8.1935 with confirmatory, documentary evidence, which was so recorded in his Personal File at that time. As per the relevant Procedures/Rules of the Personnel Manual, as reproduced by the petitioner in his application, as already indicated above, be, could not conceivably have been allowed to join the service of the Company without his date of birth having been declared/recorded as prescribed. 20. Let alone the aforesaid Official documents on record, the Appraisal Forms in respect of the petitioner for the years 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973,19/4,1975,1976,1977,1978,1979 and 1980 (appearing from pages 105 to 115 of the Paper Book) would all clearly indicate that his date of birth had clearly been recorded therein to be 25th of August (25 8). An, endeavour appears to have been sadly made therein to make the year 1935 look like 1938; clearly appearing even to a naked eye. The figure 8 therein all appear to be interpolated/over-written so as to make 35 read as 315, The said interpolations/over-writings therein must certainly have been made by a person who is interested in doing so and not certainly by the Office, The petitioner's contention that his date of birth, is 21.1.1938 would neither be substantiated even if the aforesaid interpolated date of birth 258 1938 in-the aforesaid Appraisal Forms from 1-970 to 1980 is accepted. It is never the petitioner's contention that the date of his birth bad been declared by him and recorded to be 25.8.1935. It is his positive case that his date of birth is 21.1.1938. whereas it is the contention of the contending Respondents that his date of birth, as recorded, is 25.8.1935. There could clearly be no third case before us. That being so, there could be little mistaking that the Appraisal Forms in respect of the petitioner from 1970 to 1980 had all recorded his date of birth to be 25.8.1935, which was sadly and vainly sought to be interpolated/over-written to read as 25.8.1938. There could clearly be no third case before us. That being so, there could be little mistaking that the Appraisal Forms in respect of the petitioner from 1970 to 1980 had all recorded his date of birth to be 25.8.1935, which was sadly and vainly sought to be interpolated/over-written to read as 25.8.1938. And, regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the matter, as also the fact that the petitioner has been holding responsible posts in the Personnel Department of the DSP all-throughout, the submission of the contending Respondents that the, aforesaid endeavour bad been made by him or at his instance to serve his purpose, which could not conceivably serve the purpose of an body else, cannot be written off from consideration. As already noted above, none of the aforesaid documents would show that the date of birth of the petitioner had been recorded therein to be 21st day of January of any year and would thus seem to demolish his contention that his date of birth had ever been so recorded in the Official records of the DSP. 21. The Appraisal Forms in respect of the petitioner from 1970 to 1977 (appearing from pages 105 to 112 of the Paper Book) also appear to have recorded his date of birth as 25th day of August and not 21st day of January, as sought to be claimed by him. The years recorded therein clearly appear to have been interpolated/over-written, as already indicated above. The Appraisal Report in respect of the petitioner for the year.1972, however, appears to have clearly recorded his date of birth to be 25.8.1935. So also clearly recorded in the List of Employees for the month of July 1977 (as appearing at. pages 95 and 96 of the Paper Book). All the aforesaid records have been prepared and maintained at the DSP and the petitioner has been holding responsible position in the Personnel Department in various capacities all-throughout. He presumably had knowledge of such recording of his date of birth in the Official records all throughout from 1970 to 1977 to be 25th day of August, 1935 He does not appear to have ever raised any objection there against. He presumably had knowledge of such recording of his date of birth in the Official records all throughout from 1970 to 1977 to be 25th day of August, 1935 He does not appear to have ever raised any objection there against. His Personal File maintained by the DSP is stated to be missing and a Part Personal File is stated to have been constructed at the DSP in 1977 after checking the records at the DSP and the School Leaving Certificate of the petitioner. His date of birth is stated to have been recoded in the said Part Personal File as 21.1.1938. But despite the aforesaid recording of his date of birth in his Part Personal File, constructed in 1977, the Appraisal Forms in respect of him for the years 1978, 1979 and 1980 appear to have been recorded his date of birth as 25th of August, as against 21st day of January, as claimed by him. The year therein appear to have been interpolated/over-written to make the same look as 1938. Even though his date of birth had been recorded to be 25th of August in the Appraisal Forms for the years 1978, 1979 and 1980, no objection appears to have been raised by him there against. He had been conspicuous by silence all-throughout. A letter dated 10th June, 1981 is stated to have been addressed by the Personnel Department of the DSP to the Director (Personnel) of the SAIL for the first time stating therein that the petitioner had represented that his date of birth had been inadvertently recorded and the addressor of the letter had checked up the record by the DSP and the petitioner's School Leaving Certificate and found that his date of birth is 21.1.1938. A request appears to have been made therein for passing instructions for necessary correction at the SAIL Corporate Office. But even thereafter the Appraisal Forms in respect of the petitioner for the years 1981-1982, 1982-1983, 1983-1984 (as appearing at pages 116, 117 and 118 of the Paper Book) had recorded his date of birth to be 25th of August (as against 21st of January, as claimed by the petitioner). But even thereafter the Appraisal Forms in respect of the petitioner for the years 1981-1982, 1982-1983, 1983-1984 (as appearing at pages 116, 117 and 118 of the Paper Book) had recorded his date of birth to be 25th of August (as against 21st of January, as claimed by the petitioner). The Appraisal Forms for the first two years appear to have recorded the year of his birth to be 1938 But it is never the petitioner's case that his date of birth is 25.8.1938 The Appraisal Form for the year 1983-84 has, however, clearly recorded his date of birth to be 25.08.1935. But inspite of the aforesaid recording of the petitioner's date of birth in the aforesaid Appraisal Forms during the aforesaid period no objection appears to have been raised by the petitioner or by the DSP till September 1986. A second letter dated 17th September, 1986 (appearing at page 36 of the Paper Book) is stated to have been addressed by the Assistant Manager (Pers/Exe.) of the DSP to the Deputy Director (Personnel), SAIL, intimating therein that as per record the date of birth of the petitioner (who was then the Deputy General Manager (P & A) of the DSP) is 21.1.1938. A third letter dated 7th August, 1990 from the Senior Manager (P & A) of the DSP is stated to have been addressed to the Senior Manager (Pers.) Executive, Personnel Directorate, SAIL, stating therein that from the records it is found that the date of birth of the petitioner (who was then the General Manager (P & A) of the DSP) is 21.1.1938. The aforesaid second and third letters appear to have been addressed to the Corporate office of the SAIL at Delhi by officers subordinate to the petitioner; and all the aforesaid three letters appear to have been sent to the Corporate Office at New Delhi by the Personnel Department by the DSP, to which the petitioner belonged all-throughout. The contending Respondents in their Affidavit-in-Opposition have denied the receipt of the said letters as also the genuineness of the same. In paragraph 8 of their Affidavit-in-Opposition (appearing at pages 75 and 76 of the Paper Book) the genuineness of the aforesaid first letter dated 10th June, 1981 has been challenged, and it is further specifically stated therein that the letter filed in the Personal File of the petitioner is original type, and not the carbon copy. In paragraph 8 of their Affidavit-in-Opposition (appearing at pages 75 and 76 of the Paper Book) the genuineness of the aforesaid first letter dated 10th June, 1981 has been challenged, and it is further specifically stated therein that the letter filed in the Personal File of the petitioner is original type, and not the carbon copy. The original letter was not received in the office of the addressee. Even though the averments in paragraph 8 of the Affidavit-in-Opposition by the contending Respondents had been denied by the petitioner in paragraph 18 of his Affidavit-in-Reply (as appearing at page 130 of the Paper Book), the assertion of the call tending Respondents that the said letter filed in the Personal File of the petitioner is original type and not the carbon copy has not been specifically denied and controverted by him. The aforesaid assertion not having been specifically controverted by the petitioner in his Affidavit-in-Reply, the same should be deemed to have been admitted by him on the application of principles of doctrine of non-traverse. Since the original of the said letter has been filed in the Personal File of the petitioner, it could reasonably be concluded that the same had not been sent to the Corporate Office of the SAIL at New Delhi, which was never received by them, as contended by them. As regards the aforesaid second letter dated 17th September, 1986, it has been asserted by the contending Respondents in paragraph 9, of their Affidavit-in-Opposition that the authenticity of the same is questionable, and that the petitioner himself was Head in the Personnel Department of the DSP at that time. The aforesaid third letter dated 7th August, 1990 was neither received by the Corporate Office of the SAIL. On querries from the originating office it was revealed that the said letter was not issued from that office, and no record with its reference number, as given in the said letter, exists in the originating office, clearly suggesting the same to be a fake letter. It is also stated therein that the petitioner was the Head of the Personnel Department of the DSP at that relevant point of time. The aforesaid averments of the contending, Respondents in paragraph 9 of their objection do neither appear to have been specifically denied by the petitioner in paragraph 18 of his Affidavit, in-Reply. The implication appears to be immediately apparent and obvious. The aforesaid averments of the contending, Respondents in paragraph 9 of their objection do neither appear to have been specifically denied by the petitioner in paragraph 18 of his Affidavit, in-Reply. The implication appears to be immediately apparent and obvious. In the absence of any other acceptable corroborating material/record, the contents of the aforesaid three letters stating the petitioner's date of birth therein to be 21.1.1938 could hardly be relied upon. But the Judgment of the Trial Court appears to be mainly based on the aforesaid three letters. 22. Upon scanning the materials .on record, such as they are, there seems to be no Official record whatsoever to indicate that the petitioner's date of birth had ever been recorded as 22.1.1938, as sought to be claimed by him. In some few records, his date of birth appears to have been recorded as 21.4.1938, as already indicated above. But it is not the Petitioner's case that his date of birth is 21.4.1938 It is nobody's case either. In some other records, the petitioner's date of birth appears, to have been recorded at 258.1938, as indicate above, which is neither his case; nor, the case of any of the parties. None of the aforesaid two dates could, therefore, be deemed to be the date of birth of the petitioner, The only materials/papers on record indicating the petitioner's date of birth to be 21.1. 1938 are the aforesaid three letters, allegedly sent by the Personnel Department of the DSP to the Corporate Office of the SAIL at New Delhi, which are not worthy of credence for the reasons discussed above, In the absence of any other acceptable corroborating document record, it would be difficult to hold that the petitioner's date of birth had ever been recorded to be 21.1.1938, as claimed by him. That being so, the Learned Trial Judge seems, to us to have gone grievously wrong in holding the petitioner's recorded date of birth to be 21.1.1938, mainly on the basis of the aforesaid three letters, which could hardly be relied upon for the reasons already indicated above. As against that, most of the Official documents/records on. That being so, the Learned Trial Judge seems, to us to have gone grievously wrong in holding the petitioner's recorded date of birth to be 21.1.1938, mainly on the basis of the aforesaid three letters, which could hardly be relied upon for the reasons already indicated above. As against that, most of the Official documents/records on. record prior to the missing the Petitioner's Personal File in 1977 and subsequent thereto appear to have recorded to his date of birth to be 25.8.1935, which had been prepared and maintained at the DSP in the ordinary course of the Official business, which cannot but be accepted, in the facts and circumstances indicated above. 23. The petitioner has pleaded with more than usual clarity that his date of birth is 21.1.1938, as recorded in his Part Personal File on the basis of his School Leaving Certificate and the records at the DSP: The School Leaving Certificate amazingly, however, is stated to be missing from his Part Personal File, maintained by the DSP, The petitioner sought to contend that his School-Leaving Certificate has been missing from the Office, suggesting that the same had been kept by the Office. But while examined by the Enquiring Officer on 24.7.92. he (Petitioner) had clearly stated in answer to question No.2 that attested copy of the School Leaving Certificate' or Matriculation Certificate and extract of Birth Register is called for and kept in the Personal File of the concerned employee and the changes of the date of birth are made. On his own admission, the original Certificate, is not kept in the Personal File of the concerned employee. The petitioner's original School Leaving Certificate presumably, therefore, must have been kept in his custody. He has not stated that the same is missing from his custody. Curiously, however, the same had not been produced by him before the Enquiring Officer despite repeated opportunities granted to him. No explanation either appears to have been issued there for. The original School Leaving Certificate/Matriculation Certificate, clearly, therefore, appears to have been withheld by him. The reasons therefor are not far to seek. In the absence of the School Leaving Certificate/Matriculation Certificate, the basis for recording the Petitioner's date of birth in his Part Personal File (to be 21.1.1938) clearly, therefore, appears to be wanting. The original School Leaving Certificate/Matriculation Certificate, clearly, therefore, appears to have been withheld by him. The reasons therefor are not far to seek. In the absence of the School Leaving Certificate/Matriculation Certificate, the basis for recording the Petitioner's date of birth in his Part Personal File (to be 21.1.1938) clearly, therefore, appears to be wanting. That apart, the Petitioner's contention about his aforesaid date of birth (21.1.1938) is highly inconsistent, with the record, as it is. In paragraph 3 of his writ Application he has stated with conviction that as per his recorded date of birth at DSP, he is entitled to continue in service till 30th April, 1996, implying that his recorded date of birth is 30.4.1938. He does not, therefore, seem to be sure about his own date of birth. It would further appear from the SAIL Managerial Inventory dated 22.8.84 (appearing at Page 34 of the Paper Book) that his date of birth had been recorded as 21.04.38. So also recorded in the SAIL Managerial Inventory dated 22.05.85 (at page 35) and the Annual Performance Appraisal for Executives for the period April 1,1984 to March 31,1985 (appearing at page 119 of the Paper Book). It is not the petitioner's case, nor anybody's case, that his recorded date of birth is 21.4.38 The aforesaid date of birth presumably had been recorded in the aforesaid records at the petitioner's instance in the background of his own aforesaid plea taken in paragraph 3 of the Writ Application. His contention that his date of birth is 21.1.1938 clearly is not acceptable on his own plea in paragraph 3 of his Writ Application, supported by Affidavit, wherein he has clearly stated that he is entitled to continue in service till 30th April. 1996. That apart, the petitioner himself has clearly stated against Serial No 7 of his Application dated 6th November, 1975 for Interest bearing Advance for the Purchase of Motor Car (appearing at page 97 of the Paper nook) that the date of his superannuation or retirement is 31.8.1993, presumably on the basis that his date of birth is 25.8.1935. Even though there seems to be a correction against Serial No 7 of the said Application, it would pretty clearly appear that all the items thereof had been filled up by the petitioner himself in his own hand by the same pen, bearing his signature therein. Even though there seems to be a correction against Serial No 7 of the said Application, it would pretty clearly appear that all the items thereof had been filled up by the petitioner himself in his own hand by the same pen, bearing his signature therein. That the date of his birth is 25 8 1935 clearly, therefore, seems to be admitted by him in his aforesaid Application. That being so, he could not clearly claim his date of birth to be 21.1.1938. So also held by the Supreme Court in (I) Bhupendra Nath Chatterjee v. State of Bihar, (1977) 3 Supreme Court Cases 491. 24. With things as they are, there could clearly, therefore, be no running away from the inescapable conclusion that the petitioner had declared his date of birth at the time of his first appointment in February. 1969 (in H.S.L.) to be 25.8.1935, which was so recorded, as prescribed, as appearing from the series of Official documents on record, as already indicated above, presumably prepared on the basis of the petitioner's Part Personal File, which is stated to be strangely missing around July 1977. It had been submitted during the hearing before us that no other paper/file had been missing. The contending Respondents' suggestion that the Petitioner's Personal File had been caused to be missing by him or at his instance to serve his purpose cannot clearly, therefore, be lightly discarded. None else would possibly have been interested in getting the same lost. And, a question naturally arises, why of all papers and files in the Department, the personal File of the petitioner only would be missing. For much the same reasons, it does occur to us that the attested copy of the petitioner's School Leaving/Matriculation Certificate had also been allowed to be lost/misplaced by him or at his instance from his Part Personal File, being himself a Senior Official of the Personnel Department all-throughout. The suspicion that the interpolations/over writings and manipulations of the various official record;, including the relevant letters, relied upon by the Learned Trial Judge, as indicated above, had been made by the petitioner or at his instance can neither be said to be misplaced or misconceived, in the facts and circumstances discussed above. 25. The suspicion that the interpolations/over writings and manipulations of the various official record;, including the relevant letters, relied upon by the Learned Trial Judge, as indicated above, had been made by the petitioner or at his instance can neither be said to be misplaced or misconceived, in the facts and circumstances discussed above. 25. In view of the belated plea taken by him that his date of birth is 21.1.1938, the petitioner was requested by the Corporate Office of the SAIL by letter dated 13th March, 1991 (appearing at page 44 of the Paper Book) to, submit his original Matriculation Certificate or a duplicate copy thereof duly attested, if he wished to establish that his date of birth is 21.1.1938. An enquiry was also directed for ascertaining the truth of his contention The Executive Director (Vigilance), SAIL, holding the enquiry by letter dated 30th May. 1992 (as appearing at page 50 of the Paper Book) addressed to the Managing Director of the DSP had requested him to instruct the petitioners to bring along with him original Certificates/Degrees in support of his educational qualifications particularly the Matriculation Certificate and any other document which the feels necessary in proof of his date of birth. The Managing Director, DSP appears to have endorsed the same to the petitioner for compliance. By his letter dated 10th August, 1992, addressed to the Executive Director (Vigilance), SAIL. (at page 51 of the Paper Book). the petitioner had intimated him that be has already taken necessary steps for obtaining a duplicate copy of the Certificate which he had not then received, but was expecting to receive the same shortly. He (petitioner) had further undertaken therein that on receiving the said Certificate he would take no time to send a xerox copy of the same to the addressee, duly attested. But he had not produced the same before the aforesaid Enquiring Officer. And, while examined by the said Enquiring Officer on 24.7.92, he (petitioner) had clearly stated in answer to question No.5 that he would want approximately two months' time to submit the original/duplicate of his School Leaving or Matriculation Certificates in support of his date of birth. But he had not produced the same before the aforesaid Enquiring Officer. And, while examined by the said Enquiring Officer on 24.7.92, he (petitioner) had clearly stated in answer to question No.5 that he would want approximately two months' time to submit the original/duplicate of his School Leaving or Matriculation Certificates in support of his date of birth. But he having failed to submit the aforesaid document in support of his date of birth, was again requested by the aforesaid Enquiring Officer by letter dated 29th August, 1992 (appearing at page 52 of the Paper Book) to send the original Matriculation Certificate, if available, or duplicate thereof as also the photocopy of application, along with money receipt of the fee deposited by him (petitioner) for obtaining a duplicate Matriculation Certificate, as undertake by him on 24.7.92, for the purpose of completing the aforesaid enquiry. But despite the aforesaid repeated opportunities granted to him, the petitioner appears to have pointedly failed, neglected and ignored to produce the same in support of his contention that his date of birth is 21.1.1938. It would oddly appear from the record that he had, in the meanwhile, obtained an Extract from the Register of Birth from the Dacca City Corporation dated 3rd December, 1991, registration being made on that very day, as also a Certificate dated 4.2.1992 from the Head Master, Hasara Kali Kishore High School, in support of his contention that his date of birth is 21.1.1938 (appearing at pages 58 and 59 of the Paper Book). Curiously, however, none of the aforesaid documents had been produced by him before the aforesaid Enquiring Officer when examined on 24.7.92, for reasons best known to him. Though the aforesaid documents had presumably been in his custody at that time, the same had not been produced before the aforesaid Enquiring Officer, and had been deliberately withheld by him. The implication is immediately apparent and obvious. The aforesaid Enquiry had been held at the instance of the petitioner on his aforesaid belated plea regarding his date of birth. Though the aforesaid documents had presumably been in his custody at that time, the same had not been produced before the aforesaid Enquiring Officer, and had been deliberately withheld by him. The implication is immediately apparent and obvious. The aforesaid Enquiry had been held at the instance of the petitioner on his aforesaid belated plea regarding his date of birth. But despite repeated opportunities granted to him, as indicated above, he had failed to substantiate his plea that his date of birth is 21.1.1938, his said plea could not be accepted during the Enquiry as such, which was duly communicated to him by the Corporate Office of the SAIL by letter dated 8.12 1992 (appearing at page 57 of the Paper Book). The petitioner having thus been given all reasonable opportunities of being heard in the aforesaid Enquiry, as detailed above, the question of violation of the principles of natural justice could not conceivably arise, in the nature of the relevant matter. The decisions in (2) State of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei & Ors., AIR 1967 SC 1269 and (3) S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1984 , referred to by the Learned Advocate for the Writ Petitioner Respondent dearly seem to us to have little bearing in the facts and circumstances of the instant matter. 26. It would again be pertinent to note that the petitioner in answer to question No.6 before the aforesaid Enquiring Officer on 24.7.92 had stated that he does not remember the exact name of the School from which he had matriculated. 'He only remembers that the School was situated at Domohini Town. He does neither remember the name of the District of the said town. The petitioner is not a rustic illiterate person. He appears to be a fairly educated person, holding responsible office in the SAIL. It would seem so unlikely as to be scarcely credible, and it would be naive to believe that he would not remember the name of the School from which he matriculated. He appears to have obtained a Certificate dated 4.2.1992 from the Headmaster of Hasara Kali Kishore High School, in the meantime Even so, he preferred not to disclose the name of the School for reasons best known to him. He clearly had sought to suppress, the facts known to him. He appears to have obtained a Certificate dated 4.2.1992 from the Headmaster of Hasara Kali Kishore High School, in the meantime Even so, he preferred not to disclose the name of the School for reasons best known to him. He clearly had sought to suppress, the facts known to him. The aforesaid Certificate does neither indicate that the said School is situated at Domohini Town. In answer to the aforesaid question No.6, the petitioner had further stated before the Enquiring Officer (on 24.7.92) that be had passed the School Final Examination in the year 1954. But the aforesaid Certificate of the Headmaster dated 4.2.1992 would seem to indicate that the petitioner had passed the Matriculation Examination in the year 1952. He clearly, therefore, does not appear to be telling the truth, and had been suppressing the relevant facts known to him. He has not come before the Court .with clean hands. He is non entitled to any relief on equity as such. 27. In the premises above, the Learned Trial Judge, to our Judgment, had gone wrong in holding the petitioner's recorded date of birth to be 21.1.1938. For the reasons amply and appallingly discussed above, his recorded date of birth must be held to be 25 8.1935. In the result, the appeal succeeds, and is allowed with costs against the Writ Petitioner-Respondent. The impugned Judgment and Order dated 6th September, 1993 of the Trial Court be hereby set aside. The Writ Application filed by the Petitioner-Respondent be hereby rejected. The Writ Petitioner's recorded date of birth be held to be 25.8.1935. He shall stand released from the service of the SAIL forthwith. In view of the facts and circumstances of the matter and the conduct of the Writ Petitioner Respondent, as discussed above, the Appellant Steel Authority of India Ltd. may, in exercise of its discretion, consider the question of adjustment of the Salaries and Allowances etc. drawn by the writ petitioner from 1.9.93 till the date of his release with the Provident Fund, Gratuity, Leave Encashment Salary, etc. payable to him on his superannuation on 31.8.1993. Majumdar, J.: I agree.