ORDER Arun Mishra, J. 1. The petitioner challenges the validity of the order of his dismissal with retrospective effect from 30-9-1991, though the petitioner continued to serve till 19-6-2000, without charge-sheeting him and conduct of departmental enquiry. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Pump Khalasi Grade-II with the Steel Authority of India Limited, a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and 100% shares of which are held by the Central Government. The petitioner submits that he was promoted to the post of Khalasi Grade-I in the year 1983 and was re-designated as Pump Attendant, and was rendering the service in that capacity. At the time of appointment, he declared his date of birth as 25-8-1945, as per his horoscope, he was about 34 years of age at the relevant time. The petitioner and other persons employed were medically examined and the age was estimated by the Doctor on medical examination and was recorded by the respondents. Petitioner was informed on 30-7-1995 by the Administrative Officer that his date of birth was 9-9-1933 according to the school certificate and he was required to show-cause in the matter. Reply was submitted by the petitioner on August, 4, 1995. He pointed that he did not study in any school, he did not file any school certificate. Thereafter no action was taken for four years and without issuing a charge-sheet to the petitioner, a show-cause notice was issued that the petitioner disclosed his age to be 34 years and his date of birth is August, 25, 1945, whereas as per the school certificate, his date of birth is 9-9-1933. He was required to show cause within 15 days. Next very day i.e. on 23-10-1999 reply was filed. Petitioner submitted that he never studied in Primary School Gairtalai. Along with reply, letters of Shyamlal and Jwala Prasad, were filed. They mentioned that the petitioner never studied with them. No action was taken and thereafter an enquiry committee was constituted to enquire as to the age of the petitioner. The petitioner was called before the committee. Few questions were put to him and the enquiry was closed. Enquiry report was not made available to the petitioner. Straight-way, the order dated 19-6-2000 was issued dismissing the petitioner on the ground of mis-conduct as per Clause 27(xiii) of the Certified Standing Order applicable to Kuteshwar Limestone Mines, written explanation of workman was not found satisfactory. Few questions were put to him and the enquiry was closed. Enquiry report was not made available to the petitioner. Straight-way, the order dated 19-6-2000 was issued dismissing the petitioner on the ground of mis-conduct as per Clause 27(xiii) of the Certified Standing Order applicable to Kuteshwar Limestone Mines, written explanation of workman was not found satisfactory. Pursuant to the vigilance enquiry, it was found that the date of birth of the petitioner is 9-9-1933 and not 25-8-1945 and the punishment was imposed under Clause 28(ii)(c) of Standing Order. He was visited with the penalty "dismissal from service" w.e.f. 30-9-1991 i.e. with the retrospective effect of 9 years back. 3. In the return the respondents contended that the petitioner was rightly removed. His date of birth was wrongly declared at the time of entry in the service. In 1995 complaint was received from Smt. Kumariya Bai, Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Gairtalai regarding false declaration by the workman, date of birth is found to be 9-9-1933, as per the School Leaving Certificate, copy of which was obtained on 29-6-1995. The Block Education Officer was asked to confirm about the authenticity of the School Leaving Certificate and also to confirm that whether there is any other person by name of Shri Chandrika Prasad Dubey. Copy of the letter of Block Education Officer dated 30-9-1999 is Annexure-R/5. Respondents contend that opportunity of personal hearing was given. Petitioner is guilty of committing mis-conduct of giving false information regarding his age and, thus, was rightly dismissed from service in accordance with Clause 28(ii)(c) of the Certified Standing Order. Respondents further submit that remedy of filing an appeal is available to the petitioner under Clause 30 of the Certified Standing Order. 4. In the instant case, to consider the submission as to the validity of the impugned order of dismissal with retrospective effect, it is necessary to consider the Certified Standing Order for mines and quarries applicable to Kuteshwar Limestone Mines. Clause 27 of the Certified Standing Order makes, giving false information regarding one's particulars for purposes of employment or concealing any fact about any previous employment, age and other particulars in this respect or giving false evidence at the time of any departmental inquiry, a mis-conduct. Clause 28 provides for various penalties; minor, major penalties. Clause 29(ii)(a) deals with the procedure for dealing with cases of misconduct. Clause 28 provides for various penalties; minor, major penalties. Clause 29(ii)(a) deals with the procedure for dealing with cases of misconduct. In case where a workman is charged with an offence which may lead to the imposition of major penalty, he shall be informed in writing of the allegations against him and shall be given an opportunity to explain his conduct within a period of 7 days. On receipt of workman's explanation where the allegations are denied by him, an inquiry shall be held by an officer or officers nominated by the management. Such inquiry will be conducted by an officer other than the officer who has issued the charge-sheet or has reported the alleged misconduct. During course of inquiry the workman concerned shall be afforded reasonable opportunity for explaining and defending his action with the assistance of a fellow workman if requested by him. Clause 29(ii)(a) is reproduced hereunder: 29(ii)(a) where a workman is charged with an offence which may lead to the imposition of major penalty, he shall be informed in writing of the allegations against him and shall be given an opportunity to explain his conduct within a period of 7 days. On receipt of workman's explanation where the allegations are denied by him, an inquiry shall be held by an officer or officers nominated by the management. Such inquiry will be conducted by an officer other than the officer who has issued the charge- sheet or has reported the alleged misconduct. At the inquiry the workman concerned shall be afforded reasonable opportunity for explaining and defending his action with the assistance of a fellow workman if requested by him. Where such inquiry relates to the alleged misconduct of several workmen, the inquiry may be held for all the workmen together. 5. The removal of the petitioner did not precede with the formal departmental inquiry. He was not, as a matter of fact, charge-sheeted, only vigilance enquiry was conducted. No charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner requiring him to meet the definite article of charge. The material collected behind the back of the petitioner such as letter of Block Education Officer, was not made available to workman. He was not afforded opportunity to defend. He was simply summoned and few questions were put during the course of vigilance enquiry. There was no full-fledged inquiry conducted. The material collected behind the back of the petitioner such as letter of Block Education Officer, was not made available to workman. He was not afforded opportunity to defend. He was simply summoned and few questions were put during the course of vigilance enquiry. There was no full-fledged inquiry conducted. Petitioner places reliance on Clause 5(ii) of the Certified Standing Order, which provides that a workman who is unable to produce documentary evidence of his age shall state his age and make a written declaration that the age as stated by him is correct. He shall be sent to the company's Medical Officer for examination whose opinion as to the workman's age shall be final and binding on the workmen. Petitioner further points out that as per Clause 5(iii) the age of the workman as recorded with the company at the time of his employment shall not, thereafter be questioned. The enquiry report of the vigilance was also not made available to the petitioner. The petitioner was not informed of the proposal to dispense with his service. That too with retrospective effect. A charge-sheet is required to be issued for major penalty under Clause 29(ii)(a), no charge-sheet was issued, a show-cause notice cannot be substitute for a charge-sheet. The petitioner was not granted reasonable opportunity for explaining and defending his action in full-fledged departmental inquiry as per Regulations. He has right of cross-examination of the witnesses. As no proper inquiry was conducted, this opportunity was also deprived to the petitioner. 6. Another question is about the validity of the order of dismissal with retrospective effect 30-9-1991. The office order was issued on 19-6-2000. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has rendered his service till 19-6-2000. Thus, it could not be terminated w.e.f. 30-9-1991. It is not the case of retirement w.e.f. 30-9-1991, but, imposition of penalty of dismissal with retrospective effect which could obviously not be done. The order is, thus, held to be illegal on this count also. 7. Since, no proper disciplinary inquiry has been conducted, the respondents shall be at liberty to conduct an inquiry after properly charge- sheeting the petitioner giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to defend. The impugned order dated 19-6-2000 Annexure-P/11, is quashed. Respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner with backwages. 8. The writ petition is allowed. Costs on parties.