Judgment G. S. SINGHVI, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER Ram Bharose has challenged order dated 23. 3. 92 (Exhibit-10) passed by the Managing Director of the Bharatpur Central cooperative Bank Ltd. retiring him from service with effect from 25 3 92. ( 2 ) FACTS of the case are that the petitioner had joined service of Aroha vrihad Sehkari Samiti. He was selected for appointment as a Manager in the service of the Bharatpur Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. On the basis of that selection an order dated 13. 2. 68 was passed by the Executive Officer of the Bank. He was confirmed as Manager in the service of the Bank with eflect from 1. 1. 72 Petitioner was promoted as Recovery Supervisor by an order dated 28. 9. 73 of the Bank. He was appointed as Loan Supervisor in ; the service of the Bank. He was confirmed as Loan Supervisor with effect from 1. 11. 79 by order dated 21. 6. 82 of the Managing Director of the Bank. Annexure-8 was issued to the petitioner sometime in the year 1991 calling upon him to submit certificates relating to date of birth and education and also file photostat copies of the same for verification, He was told that his salary will not be paid for the month of October 1991 and decision will be taken regarding his retirement from service in case he fails to submit the documents. Notice dated 22292 was issued to tbe petitiontr calling upon him to appear before the Medical Board for examination because he is said to have not submitted his original certificates for verification. This was followed by order dated 23. 3. 92 for retirement of the petitioner with effect from 25. 3. 92. This order (Exhibit 10) refers to the opinion of the Medical board that the petitioner seems to be of 60 years of age. In his order the managing Director recorded that the petitioner has already crossed the upper age limit calculated on the basis of the opinion of the Medical Board. ( 3 ) IN questioning the legality of Exhibit 10, the petitioner has stated that his date of birth is 22. 2. 37. This date of birth has been recorded in the scholars register of the Government Multipurpose Higher Secondary School, bharatpur. ( 3 ) IN questioning the legality of Exhibit 10, the petitioner has stated that his date of birth is 22. 2. 37. This date of birth has been recorded in the scholars register of the Government Multipurpose Higher Secondary School, bharatpur. Photostat copy of this Scholars register with registration No. 2274 has been produced on record as Exhibit 11 which shows the date of birth of the petitioner as 22. 2 37. Extiibit-1 has also been produced by the petitioner to show that his date of birth is 22. 2. 37 and he has passed the middle examination from the Rajasthan Education Departmental Examination. The certificate Exhibit-1, issued by the Registrar, shows the date of birth of the petitioner as 22. 2. 37. Petitioner has specifically stated that the Bank was submitting its audit report every year in which details have been given out in respect of employees including the date of birth. In such audit reports his date of birth has been mentioned as 22. 2. 37. His date of birth has been recorded in the service book on the basis of the middle examination certificate. He has also stated that petitioner was a member of the Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act in the record prepared under that Act his date of birth has been mentioned as 22 2 37. He has further stated that in the year 1991 a decision was taken by the Bank to terminate the services of large number of employees. In order to fulfill this objective Cyclostyled notices were given to number of employees including the petitioner on 16. 9. 91 indicating therein that the documents were not submitted by the concerned employee regarding his date of birth and educational qualification. Petitioner has further stated that after receipt of the notice he submitted a detailed reply and again filed the copies of documents. He appeared before the medical Board in pursuance of Exhibit-9 but after the Medical Board gave its opinion, he has been retired without even giving copy of the medical report and without any notice containing proposal for changing his date of birth. He appeared before the medical Board in pursuance of Exhibit-9 but after the Medical Board gave its opinion, he has been retired without even giving copy of the medical report and without any notice containing proposal for changing his date of birth. Petitioners plea is that the impugned action of the respondent Bank is contrary to the principles of natural justice and is therefore, void ( 4 ) IN reply the respondent Bank has pleaded that disputed questions of fact are involved and such questions should not be examined by the High court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 It has then been pleaded that Exhibits-1 and 2 filed by the petitioner with the writ petition are not available with the Bank. They seem to be forged documents. It has been pleaded by the respondent Bank that no service book is maintained in respect of the bank employees and therefore, date of birth of the petitioner has not been entered in the service book as 22 2 37. Regarding tho audit reports it has been stated that these reports did not contain date of birth of the employees It has then been stated that in response of Annexure-8 the petitioner did not file any reply and did not submit documents. Such record is not available with the Bank. The Bank had taken a policy decision to call upon the employees to appear before the Medical Board and after receipt of the Medical Boards opinion the petitioner was retired by order Exhibit-10. According to the respondent Bank no violation of the principles of natural justice has been committed by it. ( 5 ) IN rejoinder the petitioner reiterated the points which he has narrated in the writ petition ( 6 ) BEFORE considering the merits of the case I consider it proper to decide a preliminary objection raised by the counsel for respondent Bank shri Sharma argued that this court cannot decide questions of fact while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution This argument of Shri Sharma merits summary rejection. Every question of fact is not a disputed question of fact. This court refrains from exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 for determining questions of fact on which there is a serious controversy between the parties and determination of which depends on evidence, oral as well as documentary. Every question of fact is not a disputed question of fact. This court refrains from exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 for determining questions of fact on which there is a serious controversy between the parties and determination of which depends on evidence, oral as well as documentary. However, there is no law that the high Court will not entertain the writ petition and decide it on merits merely because questions of fact are required to be determined. In umpteen number of cases questions of fact are determined by the court for the purpose of giving appropriate relief to the aggrieved party The law laid down by the supreme Court in State of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei, AIR 1967 SC 1269 , and in Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd v. Ulhasnagar Municipal council AIR 1971 SC 1021 , is complete answer to the preliminary objection of Shri Sharma. ( 7 ) COMING to the merits of the case it is clear that the respondent bank has retired the petitioner only on the basis of the opinion expressed by the Medical Board relating to the age of petitioner. Whether opinion expressed by the Medical Board can be conclusive for the determination of age of a person, is not a matter which requires determination by this court suffice it to say that copy of the opinion-of the Medical Board was not furnished to the petitioner and he had no opportunity to make his submissions in the context of the opinion expressed by the Medical Board. Without furnishing copy of the Medical Boards opinion, it was not open to the respondent Bank to have made that opinion as the basis for determining the date of birth of petitioner. That apart, I find that Exhibits 1 and 10 clearly bring out the date of birth of the petitioner as 22. 2. 37. Although respondent Bank has pleaded that Exhibits 1 and 10 were not submitted by the petitioner, their denial is too feeble to be accepted. It is not possible to accept the plea that respondent bank has not prepared and/or maintained any record containing the service book or the entries regarding service particulars of an employee. The assertion made by the respondent Bank that record of no employee is being maintained, is too far fetched to be accepted. It is not possible to accept the plea that respondent bank has not prepared and/or maintained any record containing the service book or the entries regarding service particulars of an employee. The assertion made by the respondent Bank that record of no employee is being maintained, is too far fetched to be accepted. The innocence sought to be pleaded by the respondent Bank is not worthy of acceptance. In fact the Managing Director of the Bank, who was present in the court during the course of hearing, when asked by the court, avoided to specifically reply whether service book of the employees is being maintained by the respondent or not This attempt of the respondent Bank is further indicative of the fact that decision to retire the petitioner has been taken arbitrarily. It was the duty of respondent Bank to have placed the entire service record of petitioner before the Court to substantiate its plea that the service record does not contain any date of birth. Moreover the respondent Bank has not been able to place any material before the Court to show that the entries made in Exhibits 1 and 11 are not genuine or that these documents are forged one. In my opinion, in the face of the entries made in Exhibits 1 and 11 cannot be altogether brushed aside because no evidence has been placed before the court by the respondent Bank to show that entries contained in Exhibits 1 and 11 regarding date of birth of the petitioner are fabricated. ( 8 ) ABOVE all it is more than evident from the record that no action oriented notice was given to the petitioner calling upon him to show cause in respect of Banks intention to retire the petitioner solely on the basis of opinion expressed by the medical board. If such a notice had been given to the petitioner, he may have again produced copies of Exhibits 1 and 11 in support of his date of birth. He may have produced the other evidence to contest the proposal of the Bank to retire him earlier than the date which, according to the petitioner would be his age of superannuation Failure of the respondent Bank to give such notice to the petitioner has resulted in clear violation of the principles of natural justice and that has caused manifest injustice to the petitioner. ( 9 ) FOR the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed Order dated 23. 2. 92 Exhibit 10 is quashed The petitioner shall be entitled to reinstatement and all the service benefits It shall, however, be open to the respondent Bank to serve a notice on the petitioner and pass fresh order on the question of date of birth of the petitioner after giving him an opportunity of filing a representation Costs made easy, writ Petition allowed