D. BISWAS, J- The petitioner who is currently working as a District Transport Officer, Dhemaji has filed this petition challenging the order of his release from service by the notification dated 6.5.2002. The notification reads as follows: “NO-TMV 892/84/159: In continuation of Govt. Notification No. 892/84/120 dt. 30.7.2001, perused the order of the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court dtd. 26.3.2002 regarding withdrawal of the stay order dated 4.8.2001 passed by the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in W.P.(C) No. 5427/2001 )on the W.T. Message No. TMV 892/84/121 dtd. 30.7.2001 of the Govt. of Assam regarding release of Sri Ruleswar Das, Dist. Transport Officer from service. Also read: The letter dated 13.9.2001 received from Sri Atul Sarma Pandit, retired Principal i/c of Dergaon Higher Secondary School, stating the cancellation of the certificate dtd. 30.6.97 issued by him regarding the passing of Matriculation examination by Shri Ruleswar Das. Also read: The letter dated 14.9,2001 received from the Principal Dergaon Higher Secondary School regarding the system of allotment of Roll Nos. in the Matriculation examinations conducted by University of Gauhati till the year 1963. Oder: Considering the above and in pursuance of the order dated 26.3.2002 of the ,Hon'ble Gauhati High Court vacating the stay order on the release of Sri Ruleswar Das presently working as Dist. Transport Officer, Dhemaji communicated vide Notification No. TMV 892/84/120 dated 30.7.2001, Shri Ruleswar Das, D.T.O., Dhemaji is hereby released from Govt. service with immediate effect. A copy of this order is to be sent to Shri Ruleswar Das, Dist. Transport Officer, Dhemaji. He is directed to handover the charge to the seniormost Motor Vehicle Inspector in the office of the D.T.O., Dhemaji immediately." 2. It is necessary to relate back to the happniings prior to the issue of the said notification. The State Government had issued a W.T. Message dated 30.7.2001 to the Deputy Commissioner directing that the writ petitioner be released from service with immediate effect. The operation of the said notification was stayed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 5427 of 2001. Eventually, the said petition was dismissed on withdrawal and the State after necessary enquiry from the Gauhati University passed the impugned order. 3. The operation of the said notification was stayed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 5427 of 2001. Eventually, the said petition was dismissed on withdrawal and the State after necessary enquiry from the Gauhati University passed the impugned order. 3. Mr A.M. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel submits that the decision to release the petitioner from service has been taken unilaterally by the State Government because of alleged disciplinary in the date of birth and, that too, without affording an opportunity to the petitioner of being heard. According to Shri Mazumdar, this is in complete negation of the principles of natural justice and the provisions of Article 311. Mr Sarma, learned State Counsel, however, justified the order of release on the ground that the petitioner had practised fraud while giving his date of birth for entering in the service book. Shri Sarma submitted that the impugned order is not punitive as it is not an order of dismissal or removal from service, but an order simpliciter of superannuation from service on completion of 58 years. Shri Sarma further submitted that the petitioner had submitted forged Matriculation certificate in order to show that he was born on 9.10.1944. Referring to the affidavit-in-oppositipn and the documents attached therewith. Shri Sarma submitted that the petitioner's date of birth is 30.4.1939 and not 9.10.1944 and as such he was due to retire in 1997. 4. The date of birth was recorded in the service book on the basis of the certificate issued by the Principal, Dergaon Higher Secondary School on 30.6.1997 (Annexure-E). The authority received a complaint from the General Secretary, Assam Government Transport Officers' Association (Annexure-3 of the affidavit-in-opposition) to the effect that the date of birth of the petitioner is 30.4.1939. It was followed by another complaint from the members of the public. The matter was referred to the Gauhati University and the Registrar of the Gauhati University informed the authority concerned that the petitioner has passed Matriculation examination under Roll No. 137 in the year 1957 and his date of birth on 1st March, 1957 was 17 years 10 months. Thereafter, the Assistant Registrar (Admn.), Gauhati University, by letter dated 3.7.2001 (Annexure-4) informed the authority that the Matriculation certificate produced by the writ petitioner showing that he had passed the said examination in 1961 under Serial No. 000045 has not been issued by the University and it is a forged one. Thereafter, the Assistant Registrar (Admn.), Gauhati University, by letter dated 3.7.2001 (Annexure-4) informed the authority that the Matriculation certificate produced by the writ petitioner showing that he had passed the said examination in 1961 under Serial No. 000045 has not been issued by the University and it is a forged one. The certificate produced by the petitioner shows that he was 16 years 4 months 22 days on 1st March, 1961. On the basis of this certificate, the petitioner claims to have been born on 9.10.1944. This certificate having been deprecated as a forged one by the University clearly shows that the petitioner had practiced fraud while giving his date of birth for entering in the service book. That apart, the Principal In-Charge of Dergaon Higher Secondary School in his letter dated 13.7.2001 (Annexure-9) informed the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Transport Department that the certificate issued on 30th June, 1997 and signed by him did not contain the date of birth as on 9.10.1994 and it was inserted subsequently. Besides, the Principal In-charge further stated that they were mislead by the duplicate and forged Matriculation certificate produced by the petitioner while issuing the certificate dated 30th June, 1997. 5. The petitioner did not produce any authentic document before this Court to show his exact date of birth despite orders passed by this Court. This default is adverse to his case. The confusion about date of birth, therefore, stands dispelled in view of the aforesaid correspondence which beyond all shadow of doubt show that the petitioner was born in 1939 and not 1944, and he had practised fraud as alleged. 6. Mr Mazumdar, learned senior counsel, in order to show that the order of release is arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice relied on the decisions in Sarjoo Prasad-Vs-General Manager & Others (1981) 3 SCC 544 ; Dakshaprasad Deka- Vs-Inspector General of Police, Assam & Ors. AIR 1967 Assam & Nagaland 13; State of Orissa-Vs~Dr (Miss) Binapani Dei and others AIR 1967 SC 1269 ; Mohan Chandra Das-Vs-The Director, State Transport, Assam, Shillong and another ALR1969 Assam & Nagaland 259 and Atul Ch Das (ABC/36) & Ors.-Vs-Abhijit Kr. Sinha Kashyap and Ors. 2001(1) GLT 471. According to Shri Mazumdar, an enquiry ought to have been held to ascertain the correct age of the ~petitioner before the decision was taken to superannuate him. 7. Sinha Kashyap and Ors. 2001(1) GLT 471. According to Shri Mazumdar, an enquiry ought to have been held to ascertain the correct age of the ~petitioner before the decision was taken to superannuate him. 7. In the given situation, the question arises whether the petitioner was entitled to hearing. In paras-3A, 3B, 3D and 3E of the affidavit-in-opposition, it is averred by the State that the petitioner was asked to furnish a copy of the Matriculation certificate for verification of his date of birth. The petitioner informed the Under Secretary that he had already submitted a Matriculation certificate from which his date of birth was computed and recorded. Again, in reply to the letter dated 5.6.1997, the petitioner informed the authority concerned that the Matriculation certificate was misplaced and would be produced as and when found. The petitioner vide letter dated 3.7.1997 produced the forged certificate from the school in support of his date of birth. Thereafter, by the letter dated 1.1-0.1997, the petitioner informed the Under Secretary that original certificate was damaged, and a duplicate obtained from the University bearing No. 000045 dated 9.5.1990 was produced. This certificate produced by the writ petitioner has been disowned by the University. The statements made in the affidavit-in-opposition remains uncontroverted and thus it is established that the petitioner was given enough opportunity to produce the original Matriculation certificate to show that he was born on 9.10.1944. The petitioner apparently on different pretext delayed the matter and eventually submitted the forged certificate. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the petitioner was given enough opportunity to prove his date of birth and he failed to avail the same. As such he cannot be permitted now to raise the plea of non-compliance of the principles of natural justice. The decisions relied upon by Mr. Mazumdar, therefore, has no application in the facts and circumstances of this case. In my opinion, it would amount to meaningless formality to allow any more opportunity to the petitioner, the letters written by the University authority and the In-charge Principal being conducive of the matter. 8. The decisions relied upon by Mr. Mazumdar, therefore, has no application in the facts and circumstances of this case. In my opinion, it would amount to meaningless formality to allow any more opportunity to the petitioner, the letters written by the University authority and the In-charge Principal being conducive of the matter. 8. In M. C. Mehta- Vs- Union of India and others (1999) 6 SCC 237 , the Supreme Court in para-21 of the judgment observed that if on the admitted or indisputable factual position, only one conclusion is possible and permissible, the Court need not issue a writ merely because there is violation of the principles of natural justice. Here is a case where enough opportunity was given to the writ petitioner to prove his actual date of birth. The ratio available and the discussion of the fact made above clearly indicate that the conclusion about the date of birth arrived at by the State Government will not suffer any change even if the petitioner is given further hearing. The principles of natural justice are not meant to enable the guilty to delay and defeat the just retribution. In the instant case, the petitioner engaged himself in dialatory tactics and did not produce the document called for by the authority. The duplicate certificate eventually produced has been disowned by the University. This is a case where the authority concerned had no option but to take a decision to settle the matter finally. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to issue any writ to nullify the Government decision. 9. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.