JUDGMENT 1. :- With the consent of parties, the case is being decided finally at admission stage. 2. The petitioner had entered in the services of the respondents as an apprentice on 22-3-1962, was promoted to the post of Chargeman in the year 1963, to the post of Foreman in the year 1980 and as an Engineer Supervisor in April, 1985. At the time of entering into services, the petitioner's date of birth was entered as 31st July, 1938. It is stated by the petitioner that in his service record, date of birth continues to be mentioned as 31st July, 1938 and has not been changed, as per his knowledge. He also referred to seniority list dated 31-12-1987 where his name is shown at Serial No. 47 (Annex. 2), seniority list as circulated by letter dated 25th May, 1992 (Annex. 3) wherein his name is shown at Serial No. 20, seniority list as on 31-3-1993 published on 20th July, 1994 wherein his name is shown at Serial No. 18 and final seniority list circulated on 12-5-1995 wherein his name to shown at Serial No. 18 (Annex. 5). In all these seniority lists his dated of birth has been shown as 31st July, 1938. 3. The petitioner submits that because of displeasure he had incurred from the authorities and to revenge, he was illegally charge-sheeted and even proceeded against. He was also suspended. He had denied all the charges. Enquiry was in progress. The next date in the inquiry was fixed at 23rd August, 1995 as per Annx. 12 but before one day of the date of inquiry, he was made to retire on 22-8-1995, whereas according to the petitioner as per Annex. 13 he should have been retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 30-7-1996. The petitioner submits that he was served the order of retirement dated 22-8-1995 by Annex. 14. It is estated by the petitioner that he had asked for certain documents in relation to the incident mentioned in the year 1985 but the same had not been provided. The petitioner challenges impugned order Annex. 14 retiring him by way of superannuation on 22-8-1995 and further submits that according to his date of birth he could have only been retired in July, 1996 and not from 22-8-1995. 4. Reply has been filed by the respondents. The petitioner challenges impugned order Annex. 14 retiring him by way of superannuation on 22-8-1995 and further submits that according to his date of birth he could have only been retired in July, 1996 and not from 22-8-1995. 4. Reply has been filed by the respondents. It is admitted that the date of birth had been entered in his record from the very beginning as 31st July, 1938. However, it is stated that certain inquiry was made and Sumer Pushtikar School, Jodhpur, where the petitioner is said to have got certain education had testified that the date of birth of the petitioner is 24th January, 1931 and, therefore, the petitioner had already attained the age of superannuation on 24-1-989. Reliance has been made on Annex. R/1, a certificate issued by the said school, which pertains to the years 1946-49. This certificate, though has been issued on 16th August, 1995 by the Principal, Shri Sumer Pushtikar Senior Secondary School, Jodhpur, which is not a Government School, shows that date of admission in July 1946 and removal on 31st July, 1949 because of long absence. Relying on this certificate which was issued on the personal request of Personnel Officer (O & B), RSEB, Pali, the petitioner has been superannuated, immediately, within a week of receipt of such certificate. 5. Apart from the question which arise for determination in the present case, it is not understandable as to how, when and why and under what circumstances the Personnel Officer of the RSEB was obliged to approach the school for getting such a certificate and on whose information. It is also not understandable as to why the petitioner was not confronted by asking his explanation in regard to showing date of birth on such certificate. It is settled principle that the date of birth already shown in the record right from 1962 to 1995 and being acted upon by the respondents themselves, cannot be changed without any notice or holding an inquiry. It is the fundamental right of the delinquent official to get a proper opportunity of hearing and defence before effecting his civil rights. As soon as the Personnel Officer of the RSEB had got or managed to get a certificate Annx. R/1, the petitioner was superannuated. The action of the respondents cannot be upheld. It is the fundamental right of the delinquent official to get a proper opportunity of hearing and defence before effecting his civil rights. As soon as the Personnel Officer of the RSEB had got or managed to get a certificate Annx. R/1, the petitioner was superannuated. The action of the respondents cannot be upheld. It is cardinal principle of lav that no person can be punished or penalised or removed or superannuated on the information received un-officially, without any notice to the delinquent official to the effect that the Department has got some information about the difference of date of birth of the delinquent official. The least the Department are to have done in the present case was to apprise the petitioner of the collected facts, holding an inquiry, give proper opportunity and if the finding would been established, the date of birth could have been changed subject to right of appeal and other remedies available to the delinquent official. No such thing has been done in the present case, with the result that the petitioner has suffered civil consequences of retirement on 22-8-1995 instead of 30-7-1996 as per letter Annx. 13, when according to date of birth entered in the service record he would have attained the age of 58 years. 6. It is also nowhere averred that the date of birth in the service record of the petitioner has been changed alter receipt of the notice. It seems as soon as the Personnel Officer of RSEB through his personal contacts received the letter Annx. R/1, the RSEB proceeded with immediate action of superannuating the petitioner, without any notice or proper opportunity to the petitioner. The action of the respondents in superannuating the petitioner because of the reason they had obtained a copy of the certificate from some school and despite the fact that date of birth of the petitioner stood entered in the departmental record as 31st July, 1938, could not be sustained in the eye of law. As per the service record, the petitioner was to attain his superannuation age on 30th July, 1996 after attaining the age of 58 years and to retire him on 22nd August, 1995 saying that he has attained the age of superannuation as per some information gathered by the respondents at the back of the petitioner, is not justified and, therefore, the order Annx. 14 cannot be sustained in the eye of law and is quashed. 7. The writ petition is allowed, as prayed. For the reason that during pendency of the writ petition, the petition is deemed to have already superannuated on 30th July, 1996 after attaining the age of superannuation, he shall be entitled to all consequential benefits from 22-8-1995 to 30th July, 1996, including retiral benefits available to him. No order as to costs.Petition allowed. *******