ORDER 1. Heard Mr. B.D. Konwar, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. A. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Mr. S. Chamaria, learned Standing Counsel, Agriculture Department. 2. Here is an interesting case of appearing twice by the petitioner in the HSLC examination, once in 1969 and another in 1984 with 2 (two) different dates of birth with wide variations. While as per the school records and the Admit Card issued for the 1969 HSLC examination in which the petitioner had appeared, he was born in 1949, but as per the 2nd HSLC examination and the Admit Card thereto of 1984 in which also the petitioner had appeared, he was born in 1965. It is the use of the Admit Card pertaining to 1984 HSLC examination by the petitioner withholding the earlier one of 1969, which has led to the present impugned order dispensing with the services of the petitioner on attaining the age of superannuation and ordering for recovery of excess amount drawn by over staying in service. 3. In the writ petition, the petitioner has not even obliquely stated about his appearing twice in the HSLC examinations in 1969 and 1984, unsuccessful on both the occasions with the declaration of two different date of birth. The petitioner, however, has challenged the impugned order dated 21.05.2013 (Annexure-8) of the Government of Assam in the Agriculture Department issued under the signature of the Commissioner and Secretary ordering for his immediate release from service since he had already attained the age of superannuation on 31.03.2011. There is also mention in the order about recovery of the amount the petitioner had already drawn by remaining in service unauthorisedly beyond the age of superannuation. As per the said order, departmental proceeding is also to be initiated against him. 4. From the materials on record, it appears that initially the petitioner entered into the services of the Agriculture Department as Muster Roll worker. No date of entry or year has been mentioned in the writ petition for the obvious reasons. His service was regularized in 2005. For the purpose of regularization of his service, the petitioner produced the Admit Card pertaining to 1984 HSLC examination withholding his earlier Admit Card pertaining to 1969 HSLC examination. As noted above, as per the 1969 HSLC examination, the petitioner’s year of birth is 1949. His service was regularized in 2005. For the purpose of regularization of his service, the petitioner produced the Admit Card pertaining to 1984 HSLC examination withholding his earlier Admit Card pertaining to 1969 HSLC examination. As noted above, as per the 1969 HSLC examination, the petitioner’s year of birth is 1949. However, declared his year of birth as 1965 while appearing for the 2nd time in the HSLC examination in 1984. It is this Admit Card which the petitioner made use of towards regularization of his service and accordingly on the basis of his 2nd year of birth i.e. 1965, he is to retire from service in 2025. On the other hand, as per his declared date of birth as per the 1969 HSLC Admit Card, his date of birth being 31.03.1949, he had attained the age of superannuation on 31.03.2011. However, on the basis of the fraud committed by him by producing the Admit Card of 1984 HSLC examination, he continued to remain in service till passing of the impugned order dated 21.05.2013 (Annexure-8). He was released from service vide Annexure-10 order dated 20.06.2013. By that time, he continued in service two years more than his actual date of superannuation on 31.03.2011. 5. It is in the aforesaid circumstances, the impugned order has been passed releasing the petitioner from service on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 31.03.2011 and ordering recovery of the excess amount drawn by over staying in service. As noted above, there is also direction for initiation of departmental proceeding against him. 6. Mr. B.D. Konwar, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that since the purported incident occurred more than four years preceding the retirement of the petitioner, as per the provisions of the Assam Service (Pension) Rules, 1969, no proceeding could have been initiated against him. He also submits that the petitioner having worked beyond the age of superannuation for more than two years and his services having been extracted by the respondents, there could not be any order for recovery for any excess drawal of pay. 7. Mr. He also submits that the petitioner having worked beyond the age of superannuation for more than two years and his services having been extracted by the respondents, there could not be any order for recovery for any excess drawal of pay. 7. Mr. S. Chamaria, learned Standing Counsel, Agriculture Department on the other hand submits that the petitioner having committed fraud on the department by producing the subsequent Admit Card pertaining to his 1984 HSLC examination and withholding the earlier Admit Card pertaining to 1969 HSLC examination, he is not entitled to any leniency and rather the case is required to be dealt with sternly. 8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and have also considered the entire materials on record. 9. As noted above, there is no denial on the part of the petitioner neither in his show cause reply nor in the writ petition about the fact of his appearing twice in the HSLC examination once in 1969 and thereafter again in 1984 committing fraud by declaring two different dates/years of birth with wide variations (about 16 years). While appearing in the 1969 HSLC examination, the petitioner declared his year of birth as 1949 and to be precise 31.03.1949, but while appearing in 1984 HSLC examination, he declared his date of birth as 01.04.1965. Thus if we go by his first appearance in the 1969 HSLC examination, the petitioner was just about 04 (four) years of age and yet could appear in the HSLC Examination in 1969. However, in 1984 HSLC examination, he had shown his date of birth as 01.04.1965. 10. It appears that the school in which the petitioner had studied had earlier issued a certificate certifying his year of birth as 1965. However, later on, the same was rectified in reference to the school Register, where the date of birth of the petitioner stood recorded as 31.03.1949. On receipt of a complaint, the departmental authority carried out enquiry including the reference to the Secondary Education Board of Assam and the said enquiry revealed that the petitioner’s date of birth as recorded in the 1969 HSLC Admit Card is 31.03.1949. However, withholding the said fact, he again appeared in the 1984 HSLC examination declaring his year of birth as 1965. 11. However, withholding the said fact, he again appeared in the 1984 HSLC examination declaring his year of birth as 1965. 11. As will be evident from Annexure-5 communication dated 14.03.2013 of the Government of Assam in the Pension and Public Grievance Department addressed to the Additional Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam, that the petitioner was a student of Rajghat High School and he was admitted in Class-VII on 02.01.1964. As per the Admission Register vide S. No. 108, his age was 14 years 09 months on 31.12.1963 and accordingly his date of birth is 31.03.1949. He initially appeared in the HSLC examination in the year 1969 as a private candidate from the said school (non-recognized) and in the relevant documents, his age was recorded as 17 years 11 months 17 days as on 01.03.1969. After a long gap of about 15 years, he again appeared in the HSLC examination in the year 1984 showing his date of birth as 31.03.1965 and thus there was manipulation and fraud on his part. 12. The Annexure-6 is the communication dated 7/13.3.2013 made to the Pension and Public Grievance department by the SEBA confirming the above position. For a ready reference the said letter is quoted below:- “From – D.R. Rajbangshi, M.Sc Acs, Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, Assam, Bamunimaidam, Guwahati-21 To, The Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Pension and Public Grievance Department, Dispur, Guwahati-6 Subject – Verification of AGE/DATE OF BIRTH OF FAIZUL HAQUE Ref – Your letter No. C&S/P &PG/2013/8 dated 21.02.2013 Sir, With reference to the subject cited above, I have the honour to inform you that Faizul Haque had appeared in the HSLC Examination in 1969 through Rajghat High School in Mangaldoi HSLC Examination Centre under Roll-Mang No. 1251 as a male private candidate with the Admit Card showing the age as 17 (Seventeen) years 11 (Eleven) months 17 (Seventeen) days on 01.03.1969 (as per this office records). The candidate could not pass the said examination. Again, the said candidate had again appeared in the HSLC Examination after a gap of a long period in the year 1984 under Roll-R-71 No. 760 through Deomornoi HSLC Examination Centre as a male private candidate with the Admit Card showing the date of Birth as 31.03.1965. This time also the candidate could not pass the Examination. Again, the said candidate had again appeared in the HSLC Examination after a gap of a long period in the year 1984 under Roll-R-71 No. 760 through Deomornoi HSLC Examination Centre as a male private candidate with the Admit Card showing the date of Birth as 31.03.1965. This time also the candidate could not pass the Examination. Hence, the age of Faizul Haque may be treated as 17 (seventeen) years 11 (Eleven) months 17 (Seventeen) days on 01.03.1969 as per records of HSLC Examination, 1969, based on the first appearance in HSLC in the year 1969. Yours faithfully, (D.R. Rajbangshi, ACS) Secretary Board of Secondary Education, Assam Guwahati-21” 13. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, the aforesaid facts have been vividly stated to which there is no denial whatsoever on the part of the petitioner in his affidavit in reply. 14. Mr. B.D. Konwar, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the Annexure-A judgment dated 25.09.2013 passed in WP (C) No. 1776 of 2012 (Parbati Prasad Kalita vs. State of Assam and Others) to argue that there could not have been any order for recovery as the petitioner had admittedly rendered his service for the period in question. By bow, the law is well settled on the question of recovery of excess drawal of pay. Unlike the present case, in the said case, there was no guilt or any fraud committed by the petitioner. He had no role in making the entry relating to the date of birth. But in the instant case, the petitioner committed fraud on the respondents for the purpose of staying in service up to 2025. However, because of the timely detection, his service could be dispensed with by the impugned order. But by that time, he remained in service for more than two years unauthorisedly beyond the age of superannuation. In such circumstances, the respondents were within their jurisdiction and competence to order for recovery of the excess amount drawn by the petitioner. 15. As has been held by the Apex Court in Channabasappa Basappa Happali vs. State of Mysore, AIR 1972 SC 32 , the relevant facts speak for themselves. When the facts admitted constitute the guilt, the plea of violation of the principles of natural justice is totally misplaced. 15. As has been held by the Apex Court in Channabasappa Basappa Happali vs. State of Mysore, AIR 1972 SC 32 , the relevant facts speak for themselves. When the facts admitted constitute the guilt, the plea of violation of the principles of natural justice is totally misplaced. The plea of bar of initiation of disciplinary proceeding is also misplaced the petitioner having committed a continued wrong. It will be pertinent to mention here that as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, he is no longer interested to continue in service up to 2025 and naturally so as he is bound to know the fallacy of such a plea his entire claim being based on fraud and falsehood. 16. In the instant case the petitioner has not even obliquely stated about his dual role played in the entire matter by projecting his date of birth once as per the 1965 HSLC examination Admit Card and the other as per the 1984 HSLC examination Admit Card. If this is the conduct of the petitioner, the respondents were fully justified in issuing the impugned order. It is expected that they will complete the departmental proceeding as expeditiously as possible. 17. Writ petition stands dismissed. The impugned order operating in this writ petition stands vacated.