Judgment R. N. Sahay, J. 1. In this application, the petitioner, who at the material time, was employed as staff nurse in the Ranchi medical College Hospital, prays for quashing the order of the Superintendent of rmch Ranchi dt.21.10.91 intimating that the petitioner according to the available papers was born on 2.10.1934 and hence she shall be deemed to have superannuated from service with effect from 31.10.92. She was directed to hand over charge and send information to the Superintendent. 2. This case relates to dispute with regard to date of birth of the petitioner as records in her Service Book. The petitioner was appointed as Staff Nurse B grade and was posted in the Mental Hospital Kanke on 6.9.1958. According to the petitioner her date of birth is 2.10.1938 duly recorded in her Service Book at the time of her appointment. In normal course, she would have retired on 2nd October, 1996, but for the impugned order prematurely retiring her from service. This action of the Superintendent has been assailed in this application. The petitioner has annexed photocopy of the Service Book according to which date of birth was recorded to be 2.10.1938 by the then Superintendent, Mental Hospital, kanke, Ranchi. In column no.5 of the Service Book where the date of birth is recorded there appears to be over-writing and correction, but there is also initial of the then Superintendent. In the General Provident Fund Pass Book and other service records, the same date of birth has been recorded which according to the petitioner supports her claim. Photocopy of the G. P. F. Pass book has been filed. There was no dispute of any kind with regard to her date of birth as recorded in the Service Book. In 1969 petitioner was promoted as Nurse grade A. She served in the Mental Hospital till 1975 when she was transferred to rmch. She was promoted as Nursing sister w. e. f.6.2.1979. She was given time bound promotion w. e. f.6.9.1983. 3. It appears that in 1991 she was asked to produce the certificates issued by the school from where she passed as well as Municipal Corporation certificate. In order to make correction in the Service book. Annexure-4 is a letter of the Superintendent asking the petitioner to produce the aforesaid document. She was given time bound promotion w. e. f.6.9.1983. 3. It appears that in 1991 she was asked to produce the certificates issued by the school from where she passed as well as Municipal Corporation certificate. In order to make correction in the Service book. Annexure-4 is a letter of the Superintendent asking the petitioner to produce the aforesaid document. There is no explanation why the petitioner after 30 years of her service was asked to produce the documents in support of her date of birth. The petitioner replied by letter dt 30.8.91 that she had passed Middle School from Anglo vernacular School, Rajnand Goan Tahsil, rajnand Goan, dist. Durg (MP ). The certificate if any granted to her has been lost. She emphatically stated that there is no dispute regarding her elate of birth as recorded in her Service Book, G. RF. Pass-Book and any other service records on the basis of certificates produced by her at the time of appointment. 4. The petitioner was not given any notice and all of a sudden without considering her reply dated 30.8.91 aforesaid, respondent no.2 Superintendent of rajendra Medical College Hospital, Ranchi, issued the impugned order prematurely retiring her from service. She filed representation dated 2.11.1991 challenging the legality of the order. She requested that the impugned order (Annexure 6) be cancelled and she be allowed to continue in service till the age of superannuation i. e.31.10.96. There was no response from the concerned respondents on her representation. She filed further representations dated 5.5.92 and 20.7.92, but the concerned respondents remained silent and hence the petitioner was compelled to approach this court for appropriate reliefs. 5. The petitioner is not getting her salary nor she has been paid her retirement dues. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that there is absolutely no basis for making correction in the service book changing her date of birth to 2.10.34. 6. Superintendent R. M. C. H. whose order is under challenge has filed show cause. According to the show cause date of birth shown in the service book in column no.5 had over-writing, but it was not attested earlier by the then Superintendent, ranchi Mental Hospital. In this view of the matter, the petitioner was asked is submit school certificate and other relevent certificates to rectify the date of birth. 7. According to the show cause date of birth shown in the service book in column no.5 had over-writing, but it was not attested earlier by the then Superintendent, ranchi Mental Hospital. In this view of the matter, the petitioner was asked is submit school certificate and other relevent certificates to rectify the date of birth. 7. I pause here to consider whether it was proper for the respondent to have determined the date of birth contrary to what is recorded in the Service Book on his subjective satisfaction. It is clear that no intimation was given to the petitioner that interpolation in the Service Book was suspected and hence the petitioner should file document is support of her date of birth. It is settled law that once the date of birth is recorded in the Service Book that cannot be altered without valid justification and in accordance with the principles of natural justice. In the instant case, there has been gross violation of principles of natural justice. The petitioner was not given any prior notice of the proposed action which resulted in the impugned order. If the respondents thought the petitioner was responsible for the interpolation, then there should have been a regular enquiry which was not done. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner was guilty of interpolation in the service book which is supported by the circumstances disclosed in paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit. Interpolation in service book is a serious charge and before holding a Govt. servant guilty for such interpolation, there has to be thorough enquiry by following the procedure. In paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit, it is stated that photocopy submitted by the petitioner has no signature of superintendent above the correction. It is however, stated that original service book is still pending in the Finance Department. It means that the respondent took a decision without looking into the original service book. 8. Sri S. N. Tiwary Counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is incorrect to state that overwriting in the Service Book was not attested by the then Superintendent. It is submitted that no enquiry by the superintendent was made regarding any overwriting. Sri Tiwary submitted that untenable pleas have been taken in the counter affidavit to defeat the claim of the petitioner. 9. It is submitted that no enquiry by the superintendent was made regarding any overwriting. Sri Tiwary submitted that untenable pleas have been taken in the counter affidavit to defeat the claim of the petitioner. 9. By order dated 27.7.1994, GP I was directed to produce the gradation list and other connected documents reflecting the date of birth of the petitioner which may be in custody of the respondents. This order has not been complied. 10. The and the impugned order prematurely retiring the petitioner quashed. There has been serious violation of principle of natural justice. The petitioner has been held guilty for interpolation without there being any enquiry. It was incumbent upon the respondents to give prior notice to the petitioner of the proposed action. The petitioner was taken by surprise. She had only been asked to submit School Leaving Certificate which she was unable to produce. She had no notice of the fact that the authorities had detected the interpolation of service book. In my opinion, the respondents took a hasty action rendering the order of superannuation unconstitutional. This application is accordingly allowed and the order contained in annexure-6 is quashed. The petitioner shall be entitled to all the benefits which she would have been entitled to otherwise but for impugned order. The petitioner is entitled to costs which is assessed at Rs.1000/-.