R. K. PATRA, J. ( 1 ) THE decision of the Steel Authority of india Limited, Rourkela Steel Plant, communicated in letter dated March 20, 1996 (Annexure-4) superannuating the petitioner from service with effect from March 31, 1997 has been challenged in this writ petition on the ground that his actual date of birth is March 16, 1941 and not March 16, 1939. ( 2 ) THE case of the petitioner is that he entered into service of Rourkela Steel Plant as a Khalasi in June, 1960 and continued as such till the year 1968. While he was working as such, he was arrested in connection with township P. S. Case No. 333 dated August 29, 1968 under Section 14 of the Foreigner Act read with Sections 471 /474 of the Indian Penal code. He was placed on trial in S. T. Case No. 11/19 of 1969 to face the aforesaid charges. He was acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge, sundargarh. In the certificate of registration granted to him under the Citizenship Act, 1955 on February 6, 1971 his age was mentioned as 29 years 3 months and 21 days which means that his date of birth is March 16, 1941. In the descriptive Roll of the Rourkela Steel Plant his date of birth was noted as February 16, 1939 and on that basis he could not have been superannuated as his actual date of birth is march 16, 1941 and the date of superannuation would be March 16, 2001. ( 3 ) THE opposite parties have filed counter affidavit wherein it has been stated that a fact-finding enquiry was conducted to determine the date of birth of the petitioner. The Enquiring Officer examined the materials on record and after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner has concluded that his date of birth should be taken as March 27, 1939 which he himself originally declared. The authority accepted the report and on that basis decided to superannuate him with effect from march 31, 1997. ( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner seriously contended that the registration certificate granted to the petitioner under section 5 of the Citizenship Act, 1955 should have been accepted because it was granted after making enquiry. ( 5 ) THE report of the Enquiring Officer is at Annexure-3. ( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner seriously contended that the registration certificate granted to the petitioner under section 5 of the Citizenship Act, 1955 should have been accepted because it was granted after making enquiry. ( 5 ) THE report of the Enquiring Officer is at Annexure-3. On its perusal we find that the aforesaid certificate of registration was duly taken into account by the Enquiring Officer who has come to hold that in course of enquiry the petitioner admitted that the entry about his age in the certificate of registration was made on his own verbal declaration and not on the basis of any supporting document. The enquiring Officer found that in his personal file, date of birth was recorded as March 27, 1940 (over- written) at the first page of the service Book against SI. No. 2. From the personal file of the petitioner he found that his date of birth has been written as March 16, 1939 at SI. No. 3 of the Descriptive Roll on april 26, 1972 and subsequently altered to 1941 by over-writing. The Descriptive Roll had been signed both by the petitioner as well as the zonal Foreman. From the application proforma submitted by the petitioner for issue of new medical card against column No. 3 his date of birth was noted as 1940 which had been signed by the petitioner himself and the General foreman. The petitioner admitted that the above said three documents were signed by him and in the first and second documents his date of birth has been over-written. His plea was that on account of mental disturbance, he declared different dates of birth in different documents. This plea was not accepted by the enquiring Officer. The petitioner admitted that the above said three documents were signed by him and in the first and second documents his date of birth has been over-written. His plea was that on account of mental disturbance, he declared different dates of birth in different documents. This plea was not accepted by the enquiring Officer. On the basis of the aforesaid evidence, the Enquiring Officer has concluded as follows:"on analysis of the above facts, it reveals that Sri S. R. Dasgupta, the concerned workman, at the time of joining RSP on June 17, 1960 has declared his date of birth in the service Book as March 27, 1940, but the year 1940 has been over-written and the same was signed by both the concerned workman and the Department Officer and again in the year 1972 Sri Dasgupta submitted a Descriptive Roll where declaring his date of birth as March 16, 1939 and subsequently the year 1939 was over-written and changed to 1941 which is clearly visible in the Descriptive Roll. Further while applying for the new medical card he declared his date of birth as the year 1940 duly signed by him. Moreover, the changes made in the Descriptive Roll was not counter-signed by any authorized authority. Further in the Service Book, volume -I he declared his qualification as matriculate whereas at the time of personal hearing he stated to have read upto class-VII. Although the qualification declared in the Service Book and during the personal hearing it is not tallying but it is a fact that Sri Dasgupta is a literate person and declaring the different dates in the three different documents is not acceptable and cannot be done by mere ignorance. Moreover, the certificate of registration issued by Registering Authority and Probate by (sic) Dy. Collector, Calcutta was issued to Sri S. R. Dasgupta on February 6, 1971 and he declared his occupation as business whereas the fact remains, at that time he was in service of Rourkela Steel Plant. Sri dasgupta at the time of obtaining the registration Certificate has not declared the facts. From the above analysis and after going through all the facts of the case and tampering of documents, it is conclusive that the first date of birth declaration made by Sri S. R. Dasgupta, P1. Sri dasgupta at the time of obtaining the registration Certificate has not declared the facts. From the above analysis and after going through all the facts of the case and tampering of documents, it is conclusive that the first date of birth declaration made by Sri S. R. Dasgupta, P1. No. 23302, T. No. 4102, Chargeman, refractory Department in the descriptive Roll as March 16, 1939, is his actual date of birth. Accordingly, his date of birth is to be reckoned as March 16, 1939. " ( 6 ) THE aforesaid finding recorded by the enquiring Officer is a pure finding of fact based on appreciation of evidence. This Court is not sitting in appeal over the report of the enquiring Officer. In exercise of supervisory jurisdiction this Court can only examine the decision-making process of the Tribunal. The petitioner has been given due opportunity of hearing in the enquiry and for the reasons aforesaid, the finding recorded by the enquiring Officer cannot be faulted with. ( 7 ) SHRI Satpathy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is entitled to receive retiral benefit from 1997 and since the authorities have illegally withheld the same, he is entitled to receive the principal amount with interest thereon. Counsel for the steel Authority of India states that all the dues payable to the petitioner have been paid. He assures that he would ask the concerned authority to examine if any dues are payable to the petitioner and if it is found that the petitioner is entitled to any dues, the same should be paid within two months. ( 8 ) WE, therefore, do not find any merit in this writ petition which is accordingly dismissed. P. K MISRA, J. : I agree.