JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner who is an ex-employee of the Rajasthan State Electricity Board, Jaipur (for short `the Board') and now already retired from service of the Board on attaining the age of superannuation on 28.2.1977, has filed this writ petition against the respondent Board on the grounds inter-alia that he was initially appointed in services of the Board as Lineman-II on 30.8.1960 in the category skilled B at Ramganj Mandi, District Kota under the administrative control of Assistant Engineer of the Board at Jaipur viz. respondent No. 4. The said appointment was made against anticipated vacancies and the staffing pattern as per the norms laid down by the Board in its meeting held on 12.10.1960. 2. It has been contended by the petitioner in the writ petition that initially the Board had orally agreed to appoint him as Lineman Grade 1 but since said post was not vacant, he was offered the post of Lineman-II which he willingly accepted. The bone of contention which is arises for consideration of this court between the petitioner and the respondent Board pertains to the incorrect recording of the date of birth in the service book which is mentioned as 25.2.1939 as per the information rendered by the petitioner at the time of joining the services of the respondent board; whereas the petitioner is claiming his date of birth as 29.3.1944. It has further been contended by the petitioner that the date of birth as referred to above was not verified by the respondents up to 1984 and in these circumstances the board had sent a communication to the petitioner on 19.1.1984 to produce documents as relied upon by him for verification of his correct date of birth. In compliance of the said order of the Asstt. Engineer the petitioner got himself examined by the Medical Jurist, S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur and submitted the relevant documents which were required and which indicated that the petitioner was about 40 years of age as on 23.3.1984. As per the instructions and guidelines which are followed by the respondent hoard in the matter of determining the correct date of birth of an employee who joins the services of the board are the following effect : 3. (i) On the basis of Higher Secondary, Matriculation and/or other School Leaving Certificate. As per the instructions and guidelines which are followed by the respondent hoard in the matter of determining the correct date of birth of an employee who joins the services of the board are the following effect : 3. (i) On the basis of Higher Secondary, Matriculation and/or other School Leaving Certificate. (ii) If the age cannot be determined by method (i) above, then on the basis of date and time of birth recorded in the Municipal Register. (iii) If the age cannot be determined by any of the methods (i) & (ii) above, then the case will be referred to the Principal District Medical Officer of the Government of Rajasthan. The physical fitness certificate will also be obtained from the medical Officer in respect of each individual. 4. Perusal of the writ petition as well as the documents in case thereto reveal that the petitioner did not comply with any of the above criteria at the time of joining his service with the respondent board as Lineman-II and rather from the service book of the petitioner which was summoned by this court in order to dispel any doubts for determining the correct date of birth as recorded in column 3 of the said service book, his date of birth has been mentioned as 25.3.1939 and duly verified by the Assistant Engineer Sub Division-II R.S.E.B., Sikar and also duly signed by the petitioner in token of correct entries recorded in the service hook his finger impressions were also obtained in token of correctness of the said particulars mentioned in the service book. 5. In the grounds stated in memo of the writ petition the petitioner has assailed the impugned order of the then Chief Engineer of the Board, dated 23.6.1992 Annexures-7A whereby the date of birth of the petitioner as entered in the service book i.e., 25.2.1939 was held to be correct on the grounds that the entire action of the respondent in the facts and circumstances of the case, is un-called for, arbitrary, capricious and unjustified for the reason that the recording of the date of birth in the service record of the petitioner viz. 25.2.1939 was without any basis in so far as no document was produced by the Asstt. 25.2.1939 was without any basis in so far as no document was produced by the Asstt. Engineer before the Chief Engineer of the Board while referring the matter to him for enquiry on 18.1.1994 for determination of his correct date of birth and the documents which the petitioner had submitted on his demand. He has further assailed the impugned decision of the Board in passing the impugned order that he had not followed the settled law as laid down by the apex court reported in 1970(4) SLR 550 wherein it has been laid down that even the administrative orders which involve civil consequences has to be passed consistently with the rules of natural justice by inquiring into the matter and all materials on record should be duly considered and the enquiry should be held with open mind which as per the contention of the petitioner has been violated in the instant case. 6. The petitioner has further contended that he was not given the benefit of selection grade as per rules and the decision of the Chief Engineer is analogous to that of removal from service before actual date of retirement and, therefore, amounts to imposition of major penalty under the Employees (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1962 and the order is ultra-vires because the procedure laid down for inflicting such penalty has not been followed. 7. The petitioner has challenged the impugned orders dated 11.3.1992 and 23.6.1992 vide (Annexures 7 and 7a) and sought a direction from this court to re-determine his correct date 'of birth in accordance with the documents already submitted by him before the competent authority as per the guidelines laid down by the Board which have been violated in the case of the petitioner, since proof of matriculation/secondary certificate is not the minimum qualification for determining the correct date of birth of the enfployee in case of dispute with regard to correct date of birth in the service record. 8. In reply to show cause notice issued by this court, the respondents have controverted the aforesaid contentions of the petitioners on the grounds inter-alia that at the time of appointment as Lineman-11, i.e. the date of his joining service with the Board the petitioner had himself submitted an application to the Executive Engineer, Chamabal Construction Division II, R.S.E.B., Jaipur wherein he had specifically of his own accord stated his age 19 years as on 30.8.1960. No documentary proof with regard to his date of birth was submitted at the time of joining the service of the board such as school leaving certificate, certificate from Municipal authorities or any other cogent proof in this regard and the said application dated 24.8.1960 submitted by the petitioner was duly forwarded by the Executive Engineer to the Superintending Engineer of the Board. Subsequently on 27.5.1981 a memo was served on the petitioner along with the charge-sheet containing the imputations of the charge on account of gross irregularities committed by the petitioner which was followed by a departmental enquiry against the petitioner. The said enquiry was completed on 15.1.1987 on the basis of the report submitted by the enquiry officer grave charges of misconduct against the petitioner were found duly proved. The first charge levelled against the petitioner were found duly proved. The first charge levelled against the petitioner was to the effect that during the period 23.11.1973 to May 1975 when the petitioner worked as Foreman-11, he rented out the land of the Board of 220 KV Grid, Heerapur to some unauthorised person after non-compliance with the order passed by the officers of the board and this was considered to be misconduct within the definition of Rule 3(i) of the Employees Conduct Regulations, 1976. The second charge was that he had unauthorisedly allowed others to install four tea stalls over the land belonging to the respondent board for which he took Rs. 300 as security amount from each owner of the tea-stall which was also misconduct in view of the provisions of the aforesaid rules/regulations of the Board. Third charge was regarding subletting of the Board's quarter No. 6 to one Shri Virendra Kumar who was brother of the petitioner amounting to misconduct within the ambit of aforesaid rules/regulations. The respondents have placed on the record a copy of the memo dated 27.5.1981 along with charge-sheet marked as Annexure-R/2 collectively and which have been perused by this court. 9. It is pertinent in this context to indicate that the departmental enquiry which was initiated against the petitioner in respect of the aforesaid charges levelled against him was completed on 4.1.1987 and on the said date enquiry officer also submitted his report to the board. Charge No. 1 was found completely proved while Charge No. 2 was partially proved and charge No. 3 was not found proved. Charge No. 1 was found completely proved while Charge No. 2 was partially proved and charge No. 3 was not found proved. The Chief Engineer on due consideration of the enquiry report concurred with the findings recorded by the enquiry officer and the petitioner was found guilty of misconduct for which he was penalised by stopping his promotion to the next higher post for one year. 10. With regard to his Date of birth it has been specifically stated in para 10 of the reply that the date of birth, i.e. 25.2.1939 was mentioned in the service book at the instance of the.petitioner himself and which was duly verified by the Asstt. Engineer of the board as referred to above which could not be verified up to 1984 and as soon as this fact came to the notice of the concerned officer of the Board a communication was sent to the petitioner by the Asstt. Engineer of the Board, Jaipur on 19.1.198411am which it was specifically mentioned that for the purpose of his pay fixation, hi date of birth was to be verified which could not be done earlier owing to non-production of proof of correct date of birth by the petitioner at the time of joining his service with the respondent board in accordance with the requirement of the Rules. The petitioner was consequently given two weeks' time to submit relevant proof in support thereof either from the concerned educational institution or from the Municipal Committee or a certificate from the Medical Jurist. It has further been contended that in compliance of the aforesaid, the petitioner submitted a certificate from the Medical Jurist dated 23.3.1984 according to which the petitioner was described as 40 years of age as on 23.3.1984. 11. During the course of hearing learned counsel for the respondent-board has contended at the bar that the petitioner himself had created deliberate confusion regarding his exact date of birth and has sought to take benefit for the purpose of extension of service beyond the age of superannuation if reckoned w.e.f. from his date of joining service with the Board i.e. 30.8.60 by obtaining certificate from the Medical Jurist wherein his age is described as 40 years as on 23.3.1984; whereas in school leaving certificate, photo state copy of which has been placed on the record vide Annexure 4, his date of birth has been described as 25.6.1942. Hence there is obvious contradiction in terms with regard to exact date of birth of the petitioner in the school leaving certificate as well as in the Medical Jurist report which cannot he accepted as true on its face value. Learned counsel has further contended that it is not open to the petitioner to have raised disputed questions of fact in the manner in which he has done by raising the same at the fag end of his career and after having raised the same before the respondent Board and having failed to obtain any relief to which he was not found entitled and hence thereafter it was not open to him to again agitate the same before this Court by way of this writ petition by involving the writ jurisdiction of this court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, since it is not the province of this court to examine disputed facts which obviously require proper adjudication by way of evidence. Learned counsel has further contended that in the service book of the petitioner which has been summoned by this court it has been brought on the record that his date of birth has been correctly mentioned by the petitioner at his own instance as 25.2.1939 which was recorded on the information rendered by the petitioner himself at the time of joining the service with the respondent-board. Hence there is obvious fallacy in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner who has sought to create deliberate confusion in absence of any cogent and authentic evidence on the record and has sought extension of the petitioner in services of the respondent Board beyond the age of superannuation to which he is not entitled under the Rules. 12. In support of his contentions advanced at the bar learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the following judgments of this court as well as apex court : Lallu Narain v. State of Rajasthan : 1986 RLW 332 , Smt. Mohini Kumar v. State of Rajasthan : 1989(2) RLW 522 , Samrat Lal Joshi v. State of Rajasthan : 1985 RLR 443 , Sohan Singh Bawa v. State of Haryana : 1967 SLR (P & H) 934 , Krishnalal v. State of Haryana, AIR 1980 SC 1252 , Municipal Board Phalod v. Krishna Gopal Joshi and Ors. : 1982 WLN(UC) 78 and Srinath Rai v. R.S.E.B. and others : 1988(6) SLR 758. 13. I have examined the ratio of the aforesaid decisions and in my considered opinion the same are not attracted to the facts of the instant case for the reason that this is not a case where the petitioner has alleged recording of incorrect entry in the service hook of the petitioner and which had been duly verified under his signatures as well as attested by the Asstt. Engineer of the Board. I find no reason to disbelieve the same. I am further of the view that the petitioner has failed to furnish any satisfactory explanation on the record as to for what impelling reasons he was prevented from furnishing the true and-correct particulars with regard to his date of birth at the time of his initial entry-in' the service with the board by placing relevant documentary evidence on the record at the time of his joining service. The perusal of the summoned record reveals that he has not furnished any documentary proof with regard to his date of birth, i.e., school leaving certificate, certificate from the Municipal authorities or report from the Medical Jurist and it is at much belated stage when a letter was sent by the Asstt. Engineer of the Board to the petitioner in January, 1984 that the petitioner became suddenly alert and thought of obtaining the documents as referred to above, and particularly at the stage when the departmental enquiry was initiated in view of his proven misconduct on the record on 27.5.81 and the charges of gross irregularities stood fully proved against him which in my opinion he had intentionally intended to cover up by raising this dispute regarding his date of birth. I am further of the view that the conduct of the petitioner is itself shrouded in suspicious circumstances since what were the impelling reasons for approaching this court by filing the instant writ petition belatedly as on 18.3.1994 and he deliberately kept quite till January, 1994 when he was nearing the intended date of retirement, i.e. on 28.2.1997 on attaining the age of superannuation, i.e., 58 years. In fact the petitioner himself is guilty of deliberate lapse of not disclosing the true facts to the concerned authorities regarding his correct date of birth and hence he is not entitled to the relief prayed for. In fact the petitioner himself is guilty of deliberate lapse of not disclosing the true facts to the concerned authorities regarding his correct date of birth and hence he is not entitled to the relief prayed for. The petitioner is further to entitled to succeed on account of delay & laches on his part. 14. I am further of the view that even on merits the petitioner has not made out any case for interference by this court and there is no violation of principles of natural justice in this case, since nothing prevented the petitioner from either producing relevant documents such as school leaving certificate, Municipal certificate or the report from the Radiologist at the time of joining service with the board and rather he himself having described his date of birth as 25.2.1939 in his Service Book, it is not open to the petitioner at this belated stage to agitate this question by way of this writ petition before this court. Moreover the petitioner has already retired from service of the respondent board during the pendency of this writ petition on 28.2.1997 and as such the exercise has become purely academic. 15. In the light of the above observations, I find no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. The summoned record be sent back immediately to the office of the respondent-board.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******