ORDER 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. It is stated that the writ petitioner-respondent initially was appointed with the name Jamuna Harizan with his father's name Jugal Mochi. The petitioner was appointed on 19.12.1977 and during his long-tenure, the petitioner's surname was changed from “Harizan” to “Ahirwar”. Then it is alleged that his father's name was also changed to Jugal Ahirwar and then to Jugnoo Ahirwar. The date of birth of the petitioner in Form 'B' was recorded as 3.05.1955 whereas the management subsequently declared the petitioner's date of birth as 1.1.1947. 3. It appears from the materials available on record that management was under impression that some impostor is working on the post in place of the original employee and, therefore, these changes were gradually got entered in the record of the management. From above facts, it appears that there were mainly two allegations against the petitioner; first allegation is that he is impostor and another allegation is with respect to date of birth of the petitioner. Admittedly, the management had full knowledge of discrepancies in the name of an employee and no enquiry was conducted by the management and petitioner was said to be retired by counting the age of 60 years by counting his date of birth to be 1.1.1947. The learned Single Judge set aside the said order, hence the management come up before us by preferring this appeal. 4. The facts are not in dispute, that during long tenure of the services of the petitioner from 19.12.1977, his surname was changed from “Harizan” to “Ahirwar”. So far as change in the name of the father of the petitioner is concerned, according to learned counsel for the petitioner, it was only typographical error and that was corrected. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that a committee was constituted to enquire into the matter but that committee did not proceed and the petitioner's date of birth which is admittedly recorded in the form 'B' register has not been considered while passing order of superannuation of the petitioner. 5. We are of the considered opinion that if there is allegation against the petitioner of the nature referred above then in that situation, two separate issues were there; (i) whether petitioner was impostor and (ii) whether the date of birth of the employee was 3.05.1955 or not ? 5. We are of the considered opinion that if there is allegation against the petitioner of the nature referred above then in that situation, two separate issues were there; (i) whether petitioner was impostor and (ii) whether the date of birth of the employee was 3.05.1955 or not ? For both these issues, the management did not hold any enquiry and proceeded to pass impugned order which was rightly set aside by the learned Single Judge. Both the issues are separate and independent. If the petitioner was impostor then the issue of date of birth of the original employee was not at all relevant and if the petitioner was not impostor then the issue of date of birth could have been the relevant issue for superannuating the petitioner. Therefore, the management without deciding the core issue, whether the petitioner is an impostor, proceeded to ignore the date of birth recorded in the Form 'B' register and mixed up both issues. 6. Be that as it may be, the order of superannuation of the petitioner was rightly not sustained and has rightly been quashed. Therefore, we do not find any merit in this L.P.A. However, it is made clear that if the management thinks to proceed against the petitioner to enquire about any allegation, the management will be free to do so and the petitioner will be free to take all objections in the enquiry, if any, to be conducted against the petitioner. 7. With the above observations and directions, this L.P.A is dismissed. The petitioner shall be reinstated forthwith with consequential benefits. 8. Consequently, the I.A. No. 2564 of 2010 also stands disposed of.