Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 229 (PAT)

Abdul Rashid v. State Of Bihar

2005-03-01

NARAYAN ROY

body2005
Judgment 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. This writ application is directed against letter no. 1372 dated 20th October, 1997, as contained in annexure 4, whereby and whereunder the petitioner was informed that he superannuated with effect from 30th November, 1997 on attaining the age of 58 years. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the date of birth of the petitioner, initially was recorded in his service book as 25.11.1940, but, subsequently, the same was changed to 25.11.1939. It is further submitted that it would be manifest from the service book itself that the date of birth of the petitioner has been changed as 25.11.1939 on the basis of hearsay and, accordingly, it has been written there (said to be). 4. The original service book of the petitioner has been produced before me for my perusal. It appears that the date of birth of the petitioner as 25.11.1940 has been scored through by different ink and that has been made as 25.11.1939. 5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the date of birth of the petitioner has not been altered in presence of the petitioner nor any notice was given to him in this regard. 6. Though a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents, nowhere it is stated that the date of birth of the petitioner was interfered with in the service book with due notice to the petitioner. 7. In my opinion, the entry made in the service book and the alteration thereof appears to be in distinct hands. 8. In any view of the matter, in case the appointing authority had doubt about the date of birth of the petitioner, in that case, opportunity could have been given to the petitioner to explain and only after hearing him his date of birth could have been changed or altered. 9. Admittedly, no opportunity, whatsoever, was given to the petitioner and, thus, action of the respondents appears to be violative of the principles of the Natural Justice. 10. For the reasons aforementioned, therefore, this application is allowed, the letter, as contained in annexure 4, is set aside and the authorities are directed to determine the date of birth of the petitioner afresh according to the service records after due notice to the petitioner. 11. No order as to costs.