JUDGMENT : J.B. Pardiwala, J. 1. By this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ applicant (deceased), through his legal heirs on record, has prayed for the following reliefs: "14 (a) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to admit the Special Civil Application. (b) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to allow this Special Civil Application by issuing writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature and thereby directing the respondents to declare the impugned action of the removal of the petitioner from the service on a ground of superannuation is null and void and ab-initio and thereby get back the petitioner on service, for considering his service to be continued and allowed the petitioner to join on his service and declared the impugned action is an ex-parte, arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional, ab-initio, null and void. (c) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to get back the petitioner on his service from the date of the order passed by the respondents for removal from service. (d) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to pay all the remaining dues and other benefits of the petitioners forthwith preferably within a month. (e) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to award the costs this petition. (f) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to grant and other or further reliefs, which may be deemed fit, just and proper in the interest of justice." 2. The case of the writ applicant may be summarized as under: "2.1 The writ applicant joined the services of the Corporation as a Security Personnel on 24th January 1980. 2.2 He worked as a Security Personnel at the Dhrangadhra ST Depot. 2.3 At the time of his appointment, he had produced the School Leaving Certificate wherein his birth date was shown as 9th July 1946. 2.4 On the basis of the School Leaving Certificate and other documents, the birth date in the service-book, which is on record, was shown as 9th July 1946. An identity card was also issued by the Corporation in which the date of birth was mentioned as 9th July 1946. 2.4 On the basis of the School Leaving Certificate and other documents, the birth date in the service-book, which is on record, was shown as 9th July 1946. An identity card was also issued by the Corporation in which the date of birth was mentioned as 9th July 1946. It appears that one Bhagwan Ramji Dalwadi, a resident of Vadipara, Surendranagar, addressed a letter dated 22nd November 1999 to the Divisional Director, ST Rajkot, stating that the correct birth date of the writ applicant was 9th July 1940 and not 9th July 1946. In the letter, which is on record at Annexure: "C" to this petition (page - 45), it has been stated that at the time of the appointment in the year 1980, the writ applicant had falsely disclosed his birth date to be 9th July 1946. 2.5 The letter referred to above led to a formal inquiry in this regard. The inquiry was conducted by the Vigilance Officer of the Corporation. 2.6 It appears that the Vigilance Officer personally visited the school in which the writ applicant had studied i.e. the School No. 5, Dhrangadhra and inquired about the correctness of the birth date. The school authority issued a fresh leaving certificate to the Vigilance Officer wherein the date of birth has been shown as 29th July 1940. In the School Leaving Certificate collected by the officer, the date of admission in the school has been shown as 26th February 1954 and the date of leaving the school has been shown as 30th November 1954. 2.7 At the end of the inquiry, the authority concerned reached to the conclusion that the correct birth date of the writ applicant was 9th July 1940 and he should have retired in the year 1998. Accordingly, an order was passed on 14th February 2000 relieving the writ applicant from service with immediate effect. 2.8 Hence, this writ application." 3. Mr. H.M. Prachchhak, the learned counsel appearing for the writ applicant vehemently submitted that it was not proper on the part of the Corporation to initiate such an inquiry after a period of twenty years. For twenty years, nobody questioned the correctness of the birth date of the writ applicant. 4. According to Mr. 2.8 Hence, this writ application." 3. Mr. H.M. Prachchhak, the learned counsel appearing for the writ applicant vehemently submitted that it was not proper on the part of the Corporation to initiate such an inquiry after a period of twenty years. For twenty years, nobody questioned the correctness of the birth date of the writ applicant. 4. According to Mr. Prachchhak, a disgruntled person, namely, Bhagwan Ramji Dalwadi with whom the relations of the applicant were sour, wrote a misleading letter, the cognizance of which should not have been taken by the Corporation. 5. Mr. Prachchhak, the learned counsel submits that the inquiry was conducted in a very slip shod manner. A formal statement of the writ applicant was recorded and relying upon the fresh leaving certificate which was issued by the school, the Inquiry Officer, in his report, opined that the correct birth date of the writ applicant was 9th July 1940 and not 9th July 1946. Mr. Prachchhak submitted that although the statement of the writ applicant was recorded by the Vigilance Officer, yet no formal show cause notice in writing was issued calling upon the writ applicant to show cause as to why his birth date should not be believed to be 9th July 1940. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sarjoo Prasad v. The General Manager and another [ AIR 1981 SC 1481 ]. 6. In such circumstances referred to above, Mr. Prachchhak, the learned counsel prays that there being merit in this writ application, the same may be allowed and the relief prayed for be granted. 7. On the other hand, this writ application has been vehemently opposed by Mr. Munshaw, the learned counsel appearing for the Corporation. According to Mr. Munshaw, sufficient opportunity was given to the writ applicant to establish that his correct birth date was 9th July 1946 and not 9th July 1940. Despite giving sufficient time and opportunity, the writ applicant failed to produce the original certificate. According to Mr. Munshaw, the Vigilance Officer personally visited the school concerned and after verifying the records, the Principal of that school issued a fresh leaving certificate, which is at Annexure: "F" to this petition (page - 51). Despite giving sufficient time and opportunity, the writ applicant failed to produce the original certificate. According to Mr. Munshaw, the Vigilance Officer personally visited the school concerned and after verifying the records, the Principal of that school issued a fresh leaving certificate, which is at Annexure: "F" to this petition (page - 51). He would submit that at the time of the appointment, the writ applicant had disclosed or had rather declared his birth date falsely as 9th July 1946. According to him, there being no merit in this writ application, the same may be rejected. 8. Mr. Munshaw has placed reliance on the following averments made in the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent No. 1: "4. It is mot respectfully stated that the petitioner herein was working as a Watchman in Rajkot Division of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation. The respondent was recruited in the service on 24th January 1980 and at that point of time a xerox copy of a school leaving certificate was produced by him and his birth date was noted as 9th July 1946. A xerox copy of the said school leaving certificate duly signed by the petitioner assuring to producing an original one is annexed herewith and marked as annexure 'A' to this reply. A xerox copy of service book showing birth date of the petitioner as 9th July 1946 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure 'B' to this reply. It is stated that at a later point of time on 22nd November 1999, a complaint was received by the Divisional Controller at Rajkot to the effect that the petitioner was born on 9th July 1940 and as such the petitioner had played fraud with the record and produced bogus/tampered school leaving certificate showing his birth date as 9th July 1946 and therefore, necessary actions may be taken against him and a copy of the said complaint dated 22nd November 1999 is annexed herewith and marked as annexure 'C' to this reply. It is stated that immediately the Divisional Controller instructed a Security Officer of the respondent - Corporation to look into the matter and accordingly a detailed report showing that the birth date of the petitioner is 9th July 1940 and the petitioner had produced false document before the Divisional Controller and a copy of the report of the Security Officer is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure 'D' to this reply. Respondent No. 1 humbly states that as such the Security Officer had collected several documents and perused the records to come to a conclusion that the petitioner had born on 9th July 1940 and therefore, after perusing the report and substantial record, it was thought fit to remove the petitioner from the service with immediate effect and a copy of the said order dated 14th February 2000 is annexed herewith and marked as annexure 'E' to this reply. 5. Respondent No. 1 states that in the school leaving certificate issued by the Head Master of the School No. 5 at Dhrangdhara on 20th January 2000, it is clearly pointed out that the petitioner was born on 9th July 1940 and a copy of the said school leaving certificate issued by the Head Master of the school No. 5 at Dhrangadhara on 20th January 2000 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure 'F' to this reply. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner was serving in the cadre of a watchman and the retirement age is 58 years and, therefore, as he had crossed the said age on 9th July 1998, the impugned order was passed on 14th February 2000 and, therefore, same is just, legal and in the interest of administration and public at large. It is stated that as such on the basis of forged/bogus and tampered document not only that the petitioner had obtained employment in the Public Enterprise by way of cheating, but also continued in the service beyond the age of superannuation and, therefore, prayer of the petitioner for reinstatement in the service on the basis of his birth date dated 9th July 1946 is totally baseless and requires to be rejected. However, the respondent No. 1 craves leave to state that the petitioner is already paid the amount of Rs. 1,39,043/- towards Contributory Provident Fund on 5th August 2000 though a Pay Order upto the date of 31st July, 1998. However, the respondent No. 1 craves leave to state that the petitioner is already paid the amount of Rs. 1,39,043/- towards Contributory Provident Fund on 5th August 2000 though a Pay Order upto the date of 31st July, 1998. It is further stated that so far as claim of pension is concerned, the Provident Fund Commissioner is already sent the papers on 20th January 2011 and needful is required to be done at his end. Respondent No. 1 states that so far as payment of gratuity is concerned, the decision is pending because of wrong entries in the service book due to bogus certificate with regard to the age produced by the petitioner. It is stated that on the basis of bogus certificate, the petitioner has not only enrolled himself in the employment of the respondent No. 1 - Corporation, but has also served beyond the age of superannuation and, therefore, an appropriate decision is required to be taken by the Management and hence even notice is also issued on the petitioner on 23rd October 2001 for the recovery of the amount of the salary paid to the petitioner from the amount payable towards gratuity and a copy of the said notice is annexed herewith and marked as annexure 'G' to this reply. In view of the above mentioned facts and circumstances, it is clear that the petitioner is not entitled to reinstatement in the service as he was born on 9th July 1940 and he is also paid most of the retiral benefits and the rest would be paid in accordance with the Rules and Regulations at the earliest and hence the present petition requires to be rejected in limine with costs in the interest of administration and justice." 9. To the aforesaid reply of the Corporation, the writ applicant has filed a rejoinder inter alia stating as under: "4. With reference to para- 4, I deny the averments and allegations made therein. I say that I was appointed as Watchman on 24.01.1980 and at that point of time, may birth date was recorded in my service book and identity card is based upon, the school leaving certificate, which was issued by the school authority in 1974 and I have supplied the same to the respondent No. 1 - Corporation. I say that I was appointed as Watchman on 24.01.1980 and at that point of time, may birth date was recorded in my service book and identity card is based upon, the school leaving certificate, which was issued by the school authority in 1974 and I have supplied the same to the respondent No. 1 - Corporation. In the said school leaving certificate, the birth date, which was reported 09.07.1946 and upto 1998, there is no grievance raised by the respondent regarding the birth date, which is reported in the school leaving certificate. I further say that suddenly, 14.02.2000, the respondent No. 1 - Corporation issued termination letter, which is annexed along with the main petition and Annexure -C at page - 17, but without there being nay departmental inquiry or without initiation any departmental proceedings against the present petitioner and without giving any opportunity, they have terminated service of the present petitioner. Now, they have produced one letter along with their affidavit-in-reply written by some one, who is not connected either the petitioner's appointment or with the department and relying upon this fictitious letter they have started some confidential inquiry and appointed some officers for the said inquiry in whole scenario. It is crystal clear that the said inquiry proceedings conducted against the present petitioner in clear violation of the fundamental rights and without giving any proper opportunity they have ex-parte carried the inquiry proceedings, which is unconstitutional, against the principles of natural justice and therefore, the said action of the respondent is required to be deprecated, which is against the settled principle reported in the case of Sarju Prasad v. The General Manager and others, reported in AIR 1981 S.C. 1481 , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows: "Employees not given opportunity of hearing - order correcting birth-date and retiring the employee on that basis is liable to be set aside in view of the principle of natural justice." This is not followed by the respondent No. 1 - Corporation and retired the petitioner on 14.02.2000 and on the contrary, they have withheld the gratuity and other dues payable to the petitioner. I say that the respondents have produced some confidential report made by the security, but before issuing a letter of removal of the petitioner, they have not initiated any action, either criminal or departmental against the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner has placed this material for the first time before this Hon'ble Court, which suggests some high handed and mala-fide action in the matter or some bad intention on the part of the respondent No. 1 - Corporation. Therefore, the petition is required to be admitted. 5. With reference to para - 5, I say and submit that the school leaving certificate issued by the school teacher on 20.03.1974 and the school leaving certificate which they have procured from the school on 20.01.2000, its apparently saw that the subsequent school leaving certificate is not original one and there are all likelihood that there is some further clarification like; that the petitioner was borne on 09.07.1940 and also writing in Hindu Calender year like the petitioner was borne on "Savant 1996 Na Asadha Sud Choth Ne Budhvar" that was not reflected in the first certificate, which produced by the petitioner at the time of joining in the service. This fact is smoke something malafide and colourful exercise of powers on the part of the respondent and therefore, the allegations made by the respondent to temper with the public document is totally baseless, incorrect and which is not supported by any independent evidence. The petitioner has not cheated the Corporation, but on the contrary, the public enterprise has acted in high-handed manner and without following any legal procedure, they have withheld the gratuity and other benefits of the petitioner and merely saying show that they have sent the papers of the service record and forwarded to the Provident Fund Commissioner for fixation of pension but till today, there is nothing into the matter nor there is any response from the respondent No. 1 - Corporation. After initiation of this present proceedings they have made such general statements that they are doing needful in the matter. I say and submit that once the birth date rightly or wrongly reported in the service record then the retirement governed on the basis of the service record, it is the law and the legal settled principle of law. After initiation of this present proceedings they have made such general statements that they are doing needful in the matter. I say and submit that once the birth date rightly or wrongly reported in the service record then the retirement governed on the basis of the service record, it is the law and the legal settled principle of law. The petitioner has not made any correction on the date of birth in his service record and after 20 years of his service without following any legal provision, the respondent - Corporation has determined the date of birth of the employee, without notice is not valid and, this is exactly done in the matter of the petitioner employee and, therefore, the respondent No. 1 - Corporation has conveniently, not given true and correct facts before this Hon'ble Court. Therefore, the petition is required to be admitted. I further say and submit that the respondent - Corporation has on the contrary issued a notice to recover the amount, which I had paid by the Corporation as a salary, but as per the Corporation it is illegally I had worked with the respondent No. 1 - Corporation and therefore, the said payable is required to be returned to the Corporation by the petitioner. Again, this is against settled legal principle that once the workman worked either rightly or wrongly got the salary that cannot be recovered from the workman but it is not followed in the case of the present petitioner." 10. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having considered the materials on record, the only question that falls for my consideration is whether the respondent - Corporation committed any error in passing the impugned order. 11. The writ applicant was appointed in the year 1980. At that point of time, after due verification of all the documents, the birth date was considered as 9th July 1946. The service-book was accordingly prepared. In the service-book, which is on record, the birth date is shown as 9th July 1946. 12. For a period of twenty years, no one questioned the correctness of the birth date. One fine day, the Corporation received a letter from one Bhagwan Ramji Dalwadi informing that the correct birth date of the writ applicant was 9th July 1940. In the service-book, which is on record, the birth date is shown as 9th July 1946. 12. For a period of twenty years, no one questioned the correctness of the birth date. One fine day, the Corporation received a letter from one Bhagwan Ramji Dalwadi informing that the correct birth date of the writ applicant was 9th July 1940. I do not find any fault with the Corporation if it thought fit to take cognizance of the contents of the letter and initiated a formal inquiry in that regard. However, I am not convinced with the manner in which the inquiry was conducted and the ultimate conclusion arrived at. 13. Let me for the time being believe that the correct leaving certificate is the one which the Vigilance Officer collected in the course of the inquiry. The School Leaving Certificate collected by the Vigilance Officer is dated 28th January 2000. It is signed by the Principal of that school. What is really baffling me is that the other dates stated in the said School Leaving Certificate are correct, then it goes to show that the writ applicant was admitted in the 1st standard at the age of 14 years. The birth date is shown 9th July 1940 and the date of admission in the school is shown as 26th February 1954 and the admission is shown to be in the 1st standard. 14. To a pertinent query in this regard put by me to Mr. Munshaw, the reply of Mr. Munshaw is that he is unable to reconcile the date shown in the School Leaving Certificate collected by the Vigilance Officer. 15. Mr. Prachchhak, the learned counsel at this stage pointed out something very peculiar. In the School Leaving Certificate, which was collected by the Vigilance Officer, there is a noting which reads "SAMVAT 1996 NA ASHADH SUD CHOTH NE BUDHVAR". From the calender, Mr. Prachchhak pointed out that 9th July 1940 does not reconcile with "SAMVAT 1996 NA ASHADH SUD CHOTH NE BUDHVAR". 16. To the above also, there is no reply at the end of Mr. Munshaw. The difficulty with me at this stage is that which certificate should be believed to be correct, the one which was produced by the writ applicant in the year 1980 or the one which was collected by the Vigilance Officer in the course of the inquiry in the year 2000. Munshaw. The difficulty with me at this stage is that which certificate should be believed to be correct, the one which was produced by the writ applicant in the year 1980 or the one which was collected by the Vigilance Officer in the course of the inquiry in the year 2000. If the later one is correct then it is difficult for me to believe that the school had admitted the writ applicant in the 1st standard at the age of 14 years. There is definitely a doubt in this regard. It is equally true that the writ applicant was also not able to produce any original certificate although opportunity was given to him. 17. Since I have to adjudicate the correctness of the decision on the basis of the materials on record, I am left with no other option, but to believe that the birth date of the writ applicant was 9th July 1946. In fact there could have been a little more inquiry, but the matter was closed no sooner the fresh leaving school was obtained by the officer concerned in the year 2000. 18. If the correct birth date is believed to be 9th July 1946, then the writ applicant would have retired in the year 2004. However, believing the correct birth date to be 9th July 1940, he was relieved from service in the year 2000. It is not in dispute that the salary for the period between 1998 and 2000 was not recovered from the writ applicant. 19. The decision of the Supreme Court on which reliance has been placed does not help the writ applicant because it cannot be said that no opportunity of hearing was given to the writ applicant or he was not put to notice before altering the birth date. 20. The writ applicant passed away in the year 2010. 21. The above takes me to consider what relief should be granted to the legal heirs on record. The learned counsel appearing for the writ applicant submits that but for the impugned order, the writ applicant would have served for four more years i.e. upto 2004. Since he was not permitted to serve, the salary for the period of four years should be calculated and paid to the legal heirs. Mr. The learned counsel appearing for the writ applicant submits that but for the impugned order, the writ applicant would have served for four more years i.e. upto 2004. Since he was not permitted to serve, the salary for the period of four years should be calculated and paid to the legal heirs. Mr. Munshaw would submit that the legal heirs are not entitled to any monetary relief on the principle of "No work, no pay". It is difficult for me to accept the submission of Mr. Munshaw because the writ applicant was not permitted to work on account of the impugned order. It is not the case that the writ applicant was not willing to work. 22. In view of the above, this writ application succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned order relieving the writ applicant from service dated 14th February 2000 is hereby ordered to be quashed. The Corporation is directed to calculate the requisite amount of the salary for the period between 2000 and 2004 i.e. salary which the writ applicant would have otherwise received if he would have retired according to the birth date i.e. 9th July 1946. The requisite amount be calculated and paid to the widow of the writ applicant, namely, Rabari Manuben Hirabhai, by an account payee cheque drawn in her favour after proper identification. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.