Honble MADAN, J.–These two writ petitions have been filed one and the same petitioner namely Ghasimal Dhadha for redressal of his grievances arising out of the impugned action of the respondents involving common questions of facts and law. Therefore, these petitions are being decided by this common order. (2). In first writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing impugned charge sheet dated 29th November, 1987, and order of punishment dated 25th February, 1992 passed thereon. In second writ petition, he has challenged the impugned orders dated 20.3.93, 21.5.93 & 25.5.93, whereby retiring him retrospectively w.e.f. 30.11.82, his retiral benefits were determined accordingly, and therefore, he prayed for determining the said benefits taking his superannuation date as 30.11.87 and for releasing consequential benefits accordingly. (3). Admitted and undisputed facts, in a narrow compass, are that petitioner was initially appointed and joined on November, 6, 1954 as Assistant Research Officer in the Social Welfare Department, when maximum age prescribed for recruitment to any post was 25 years; that while filling up his service book initially he entered his date of birth as 13th November, 1927, which was changed as 13th November, 1928 and then the date 13th November, 1928 was cut off by writing as 8th November, 1929 and these cuttings and corrections are duly initialled and countersigned by the petitioner; and that after his initial appointment, he was promoted as Assistant Director and Joint Director in the year 1971 and 1987 respectively, and he continued in service. Vide order dated 29.9.87 (Ann. 12) of the respondent No. 2, he has been retired from service w.e.f. 30.11.1987 on attaining 58 years of age as on 8.11.87 treating his date of birth as 8.11.29. (4). The dispute arose on 29.11.87, a day before his date of retirement i.e. 30.11.87, when a charge sheet dated 29.11.87 (Ann. 13) was issued to the petitioner making allegation that in his service book, despite his date of birth being 13.11.27, he rectified it firstly by writing 13.11.28 and then 8.11.29, for which he was not authorised and for deceiving the State Government, he deliberately and fraudulently changed his date of birth and, therefore, he was liable for misconduct. In reply to the charge sheet (Ann. In reply to the charge sheet (Ann. 14), the petitioner while admitting the entries in his service book being made by him, pleaded that rectification in the date of birth was made then and there when those entries were got entered in the service book and not subsequent thereto. The petitioner persistently pleaded that his date of birth was 8th November, 1929. He admitted that initially he entered date of birth as 13.11.27, which was rectified by writing 13.11.28 and after seeing original certificate, 8.11.29 was written against Col. 5 of date of birth in his service book at that very moment by one and the same ink. He also pleaded in his reply to the charge sheet that on the basis of his High School Certificate, the respondent No. 2 had verified in his service book. But he pleaded ignorance as to date of birth 13.11.27 having been allegedly written in the declaration form sent on 17.1.58 to the State Insurance Department. (5). During disciplinary proceedings, the Department examined PW 1 Suresh Chandra Tayal, the then Assistant Director, State Insurance Department, and PW 2 Shri Abid Ali, the then Additional Director (Admn.) Social Welfare Department, and produced as many as 15 documents in support of the charge sheet, whereas the petitioner (delinquent) examined DW 1 Brij Mohan Purohit, Retired Director and DW 2 Prem Chandra Agrawal, the then Dy. Director (Admn.) of the Social Welfare Department and produced one document Ex.D.1. The Inquiring Authority vide its report dated 6.1.90 (Ann. 22) found the petitioner guilty to the impugned charge. (6). Upon receipt of the inquiry report, the State Govt. (respondent No. 1) by its letter dated 4.12.90 after consideration of inquiry record and also the inquiry report, came to the conclusion that the charges and the allegations levelled against the petitioner are proved and therefore, in compliance to the provisions contained in R. 170 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951, show cause notice (Ann. 23) was issued to the petitioner to give finality to the decision of the State Govt. as to why by way of a punishment, a sum of Rs. 2,12,000/- be not recovered from him, which was received by him as a result of his over stay in the service by virtue of deliberate change in the date of birth. The petitioner presented his reply dated 7.1.91 (Ann. 24) to the show cause notice (Ann. 23). as to why by way of a punishment, a sum of Rs. 2,12,000/- be not recovered from him, which was received by him as a result of his over stay in the service by virtue of deliberate change in the date of birth. The petitioner presented his reply dated 7.1.91 (Ann. 24) to the show cause notice (Ann. 23). The State Government (respondent No. 1) on reconsideration of the matter, by letter dated 17.5.1991 (Ann. 25) reviewed its decision for recovery of Rs. 2,12,000/- and issued another show cause notice as to why a penalty of forfeiting 50% of five years pension and payable gratuity be not imposed upon him, to which the petitioner made his representation dated 6.6.91 (Ann. 26). Thereupon the State Government (respondent No. 1) vide order of punishment dated 25.2.92 (Ann. 27) imposed penalty of forfeiting five years 50% pension and gratuity payable to the petitioner. Hence writ petition No. 3855/92. (7). The circumstances leading to the second writ petition No. 6666/94 are that first writ petition was admitted for hearing vide order dated 25.5.92 when ad interim stay order was also passed staying the operation of the order dated 25.2.92. (Ann. 27) and directing the respondents to release the payment of gratuity and pension of the petitioner on his furnishing a solvent security. Notices issued in the first writ petition were served upon the respondents, who consequently moved for vacation of the ad interim order which was continued with minor modification that instead of furnishing security, the petitioner may furnish bank guarantee, which was furnished by the petitioner alongwith his representation dated 6.11.92. The respondents having failed to pass any order for releasing his pension, gratuity and other retiral benefits, the petitioner filed Contempt Petition No. 153/93, which was also admitted by this Court. During the pendency of first writ petition and contempt petition, the respondent No. 2 sent a letter dated 20.3.93 (Ann. 15) for determining the consequential benefits of the petitioner as if he had retired from service in the year 1982 instead of 1987; and thereafter the respondent No. 2 passed an order dated 21-5.93 (Ann. 13) modifying earlier order dated 29.9.87 of retirement giving effect to the retirement of the petitioner w.e.f. 30.11.82 instead 30.11.87 when and till that date, the petitioner had actually served the State Government. Again, by another order of the same date 21.5.93 (Ann. 13) modifying earlier order dated 29.9.87 of retirement giving effect to the retirement of the petitioner w.e.f. 30.11.82 instead 30.11.87 when and till that date, the petitioner had actually served the State Government. Again, by another order of the same date 21.5.93 (Ann. 14), the respondent No. 2 in the purported exercise of powers under R. 337 of the R.S.R. the petitioner was deemed to have been re-employed as Dy. Director for the period in between 1.12.83 to 30.11.87 at the minimum pay scale applicable at that time. Hence second writ petition No. 6666/94. (8). On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following question of law arise for consideration- (i) Whether there is any illegality in the impugned punishment order dated 25.2.92 (Ann. 27) ? (ii) Whether it is open to the petitioner to challenge the legality of the action of the respondent taken against him on the basis of the impugned order, whereby his entire retiral benefits admissible under the Rules including 50% of his pension for a period of five years to be reckoned from the date of his retirement i.e. 30.11.82, have been forfeited ? (iii) Whether it was not open to the petitioner to have corrected entry made by him in his own handwriting in column 5 pertaining to his date of birth in his service book, which by a sheer inadvertence was initially entered as 13.11.27, was changed to 13.11.28, which was then scored off by writing afresh as 8th November, 1929 as his date of birth after having duly initialled and countersigned thereon as a token of acknowledgement of said rectification/correction, which, itself, smacks absence of any malafide on the part of the petitioner or not? (iv) Whether due endorsement made by the then Director, Social Welfare Department at the foot note of first page of the service book, wherein signatures of the petitioner were re-attested by the respondent No. 2, should not be construed as confirmation of the correction regarding rectification in the entry of the date of birth ? (v) Whether it is permissible to the respondents to raise dispute regarding the same at belated stage after over three decades ? (v) Whether it is permissible to the respondents to raise dispute regarding the same at belated stage after over three decades ? (vi) Whether on account of the promotion received by the petitioner firstly as Assistant Director from the post of Assistant Research Officer and subsequently as Joint Director in the said Department on the recommendations of the D.P.C., the entire service record of the petitioner was not taken into consideration by the members of the selection committee or was not seen by the D.P.C. notwithstanding the alleged incorrect entry regarding date of birth in service book ? (vii) Whether the respondents were justified in passing the impugned order dated 25.2.92 (Ann. 27), by which 50% of payable pension for a period of five years and the gratuity to the tune of Rs. 2,12,000/- were directed to be forfeited ? (9). In reply to the show cause notice, case of the respondents is that the petitioner was appointed w.e.f. 6.11.54 but in the same breath they have stated that original service record of the petitioner has not been traceable for last 20 years and consequently they have drawn illogical conclusion on apprehensions based on filmsy grounds that the petitioner had removed his service record from the Govt. custody. I would like to observe that the respondents have not given any cogent and satisfactory explanation on record as regards their irresponsibility in the manner of dealing with and maintaining custody of the service record of the employees. It is the sole responsibility of the department, itself, and hence in my view, this delinquency cannot be attributed to the petitioner, and for which he cannot be blamed since there is not any iota of evidence to suggest that the petitioner had any hand in removing or manipulating his own service record. There is not even a slight whisper as to what action was taken by the respondents regarding the alleged loss of his service record and what action was taken by them for lodging a report with the police or any investigating agency for recovery of service record. Hence an adverse inference has to be drawn against the respondents. (10). There is not even a slight whisper as to what action was taken by the respondents regarding the alleged loss of his service record and what action was taken by them for lodging a report with the police or any investigating agency for recovery of service record. Hence an adverse inference has to be drawn against the respondents. (10). It is a matter of common parlance that if there is adversity in service record of an employee/office and even if his immediate superior officer makes any adverse report against him and if his A.C.Rs are also not satisfactory or good as per the norms laid down in the relevant rules for promotion, then the departmental promotion committee may not consider him fit for promotion and hence it is not one entry in service roll that would be relevant for that purpose but the entire service record on the basis of an over all performance of that employee has to be taken into consideration by the members of the duly constituted departmental promotion committee before his case can be considered and recommended for promotion. (11). From a perusal of the contentions advanced in the writ petition as well as made at the bar it is abundantly clear that the respondents had all along accepted particulars given by the petitioner in his service book as true and correct and had not, at any stage, ever raised any dispute by bringing it to the notice of the petitioner that an error pertaining to the incorrect date of birth in service book requires immediate rectification notwithstanding correction made thereon by the petitioner in the column of date of birth, itself when he had filled in that column in service book in his own handwriting. Since there was no embargo on the part of the respondents to issue an appointment order to the petitioner and if there was any doubt with regard to incorrect particulars as to the date of birth furnished by him then his candidature could have been rejected at the very initial stage, itself. Since there was no embargo on the part of the respondents to issue an appointment order to the petitioner and if there was any doubt with regard to incorrect particulars as to the date of birth furnished by him then his candidature could have been rejected at the very initial stage, itself. It is also well known that it is not for a single member of the selection committee, who makes recommendation for selection/promotion of the candidates but also, for all the members of the selection committee, who after overall assessment of the relative merits of the candidates, recommend for selection/promotion and then such recommended candidate is given appointment for such selection. Hence it, is absolutely fallacious to arrive at the conclusion on the basis of the contentions advanced by the respondents that the petitioner had deliberately made incorrect entries regarding his date of birth or that he had made entry fraudulently with a view to gain additional pecuniary advantage of two years service beyond the age of superannuation. (12). As regards contention of respondent that as per Rule 62 of the General Financial & Administrative Rules, the actual date or the assumed date of birth determined under Rule 63 should be recorded in the service book of an employee or any other record that may be maintained by the respective department and the entry once recorded cannot be altered except in the case of a clerical error, without previous orders of the Government, I am of the view that this Rule is wholly inapplicable to the instant case since it is not the case of the respondent that the entry regarding date of birth of the petitioner is not subject to the alteration except in the case of clerical error without previous orders of the competent authority which is not subject matter to challenge in these petitions. (13). The respondents have rather admitted that the petitioner was promoted from time to time, which obviously could not have been done without assessing his overall performance by the D.P.C. convened for the said purpose. Hence it is not open to the respondents to contend that the petitioner was not enjoying good service record and if that was so, then the D.P.C. could not have recommended him for promotion. (14). Hence it is not open to the respondents to contend that the petitioner was not enjoying good service record and if that was so, then the D.P.C. could not have recommended him for promotion. (14). As regards interpolations allegedly made by the petitioner in his service book, the contention of the respondents is that the same were also noted by the Audit party of the Accountant General office for which the petitioner was asked to submit proof regarding his date of birth by 27.4.87. I am of the view that as per law of evidence if there is any doubt or dispute regarding date of birth or any interpolation allegedly made by the delinquent in his service record, the same has got to be proved not only by cross examining the delinquent in the witness box by confronting him against the entry made in service record and also expert witness could have been examined by obtaining specimen signatures of the delinquent and thereafter tallying the same with the impugned handwriting on the document under challenge and the said exercise ought to have been done by also obtaining opinion of the Handwriting Expert in case of any dispute or doubt regarding the same. This having not been done it was not open to the respondents to advance aforesaid contention at the belated stage of over three decades. (15). In my view, the respondents were admittedly aware of the existence of the entries in the service book of the petitioner, which are under challenge rather it is not their case that they were taken by surprise and that too at the stage when the petitioner was just to retire, i.e. on 29.11.87-a day before his date of retirement 30.11.87. Moreover, accusation pertains to the petitioners service record prepared at the time of his initial entry into service in the year 1954. Consequently, 1 am of the view that the charge sheet issued to the petitioner after gross inordinate delay of nearly 33 years is fatal to the department, which has not been explained at any stage by the department by any plausible justification either in the charge-sheet or even in the reply to the writ petitions before this Court. Consequently, 1 am of the view that the charge sheet issued to the petitioner after gross inordinate delay of nearly 33 years is fatal to the department, which has not been explained at any stage by the department by any plausible justification either in the charge-sheet or even in the reply to the writ petitions before this Court. Only logical conclusion which emerges as a result of the above discussion is that the respondents were rather admittedly aware of the aforesaid entry made in the service book as is evident from the inaction on their part itself, which is fatal qua the validity and legitimacy of the impugned action against the petitioner by withholding his retiral/consequential benefits, which the respondents are not justified to do so or deduct from his pension/gratuity admissible to him in accordance with the Rules. It is well settled law that there has to be fairness in administrative action and the Courts should not hesitate to strike down any illegality which is apparent on the, face of the administrative order, itself, or at any stage when the said fact came to the notice of the Court. (16). As regards the impugned charge sheet issued on 29.11.87 under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Service Rules (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958, 1 am of the view that the said Rule provided for taking disciplinary action of various types against the Government servant, if the impugned action falls within the four corners of the said Rules and the said action can only be taken where person is in Government service as on the date when the punishment is imposed. Thus, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, in my considered view, after the Government servant is retired from service it will be wholly inappropriate and illogical and would be an act of excess of jurisdiction if the 50% five years pension & admissible gratuity as per Pension Rules is withheld, because the same is not permitted by CCA. Rules more particularly Rules 169 & 170 of the R.S.R. Rule 169(2) of the R.S R. envisages that where a pensioner is convicted of a serious crime by a court of law, action under clause (1) shall be taken in the light of the judgment of the court relating to such conviction, provided the competent authority arrives at the conclusion after holding the pensioner prima facie guilty of grave misconduct and in accordance with cl. (3) of R. 169 of the R.S.R. Further, as regards Rule 170 of the R.S.R. it is only the Governor being Head of the State who has a right to withholding or withdraw pension or any part thereof whether permanently or for a specific period and the right of directing recovery from pensionary amount admissible to an employee either wholly or any part if any pecuniary loss is caused to the Government and on the basis of the disciplinary proceedings, pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his service including service rendered upon re-employment. Thus it is only when under exceptional circumstances as stipulated under the aforesaid Rules that ft is permissible for a competent authority to withhold the pension and otherwise it is not permissible for the competent authority to do so. 1 am fortified in my observations in this regard for the judgment of this Court in the matter of Smt. Urmila Johri vs. State of Rajasthan (1). (17). It is expected of the competent authority to decide pensionary case of an employee expeditiously and simply because an employee has agitated for vindictiveness of his right in a court of law, the Government should not be biased or vindictive, as has been observed by this Court in N.D. Mantri vs. Smt. Krishna Bhatnagar (2), and in (1982 WLN (UC) 78) (3), this Court has taken the view that the Government employee should not be harassed in old matters and no departmental inquiry should be initiated. In Son Kanwar vs. State of Rajasthan (4), Mohanlal vs. State of Rajasthan (5), and Virendra Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan (6), the view taken by this Court has been unanimous that the pecuniary losses cannot be recovered from the amount of pension payable to the widow and other dependants of the deceased employee. In Son Kanwar vs. State of Rajasthan (4), Mohanlal vs. State of Rajasthan (5), and Virendra Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan (6), the view taken by this Court has been unanimous that the pecuniary losses cannot be recovered from the amount of pension payable to the widow and other dependants of the deceased employee. This Court has consistently held that the employer is not entitled to withhold pensionary and other retiral benefits of an employee consequent upon his retirement from service. 1 am of the considered view that the impugned action taken by the respondents such as forfeiting of 50% five years pension and gratuity as a result of punishment order in disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner deserves to be struck down. (18). I lend support from the decisions in State of M.P. vs. Bani Singh (7), S.C. Sharma vs. State (8), Gauri Shanker Mishra vs. State of Rajasthan ( 9), State of Andh. Pra. vs. N. Radhakishan (10), and Shri Govind Prasad vs. R.G. Prasad (11). (19). I am also of the view that the right to entitlement of the pension and gratuity is a personal right to a Government servant, which are inalienable and heritable and cannot be abridged or enlarged at the whims of any instrumentality of the State discharging the functions of the sovereign. They have rather matured into right to lead life with dignity and human dignity does not admit of an infringement at the instance of any instrumentality of the State. They have further assumed status and character of right to life and liberty and hence have become an integral part of the principles enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In this context, the observations of the Apex Court in D.S. Nakara vs. Union of India (12) are very significant, which read as under: ``Pension is neither a bounty nor a matter of grace, depending upon the sweet will of the employer. nor an ex gratia payment. It is a payment for the past service rendered. It is a social welfare measure rendering socio-economic justice on an assurance that in their old age they would not be left in lurch. Pension as a retirement benefit is in consonance with an furtherance of the goals of the Constitution. The most practical raison detre for pension is the inability to provide for oneself due to old age. It is a social welfare measure rendering socio-economic justice on an assurance that in their old age they would not be left in lurch. Pension as a retirement benefit is in consonance with an furtherance of the goals of the Constitution. The most practical raison detre for pension is the inability to provide for oneself due to old age. It creates a vested right and is governed by the statutory rules such as the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules which are enacted in exercise of power conferred by Articles 309 and 148(5) of the Constitution. (19A). As regards right to the payment of gratuity the same is protected by the Payment of Gratuity Act. (20). In the result, these two writ petitions are allowed and the impugned order dated 25.2.92, 20.3.93, 21.5.93, 25.5.93 and the charge sheet dated 29.11.87 are quashed and set aside holding them non-est in the eve of law. The respondents are directed to release the aforesaid forfeited benefits positively within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order, if not already released to the petitioner through his legal heirs. There will be no order as to costs.