Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1413 (GAU)

B. LALHMINGTHANGA v. STATE OF MIZORAM

2017-11-08

MIR ALFAZ ALI

body2017
JUDGMENT : MIR Alfaz Ali, J. Heard Mr. S. Borgohain, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Mary, learned Govt. Advocate, Mizoram. 2. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the notification under Memo No. A.19014/122/86-PERS(B) dated 06.02.2017 (Annexure-16 to the writ petition), by which, the petitioner was released from service on superannuation. 3. The case of the writ petitioner is that the petitioner joined in his service in the year 1986 as Sub-Civil Service (Group-B). Initially the appointment of the petitioner was on adhoc basis. However, after a short period, his service was regularised. At the time of joining service, the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as 06.06.1956 as reflected in the testimonial certificate issued on 02.09.1980 by the Headmaster of Government High School, Lunglei due to clerical mistake. The actual date of birth of the petitioner was 06.06.1959. On realising the mistake with regard to his date of birth, the petitioner made correspondences with the concerned authorities for rectification of his date of birth and on being rectified by the concerned authorities, made a representation on 16.07.2008 annexing all the relevant documents to the Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Mizoram, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms with a prayer for alteration/correction of his date of birth. 4. The Government vide letter dated 16.03.2009 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition) communicated that the department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms was unable to accede to the representation made by the petitioner for alteration of the date of birth for want of requisite justification. On receipt of such communication from the Government, the petitioner did not take any further step. However, the petitioner came across an Office Memorandum dated 07.01.2014 captioned Alteration/Correction of date of birth vide Memo No. A.21016/1/2012-P&AR(GSW), whereby the Government instructed the controlling officers of all the departments that proposal (if any) for approval of alteration/correction/over-writing of date of birth of a Government servant recorded in the service book should be submitted to DP&AR within two months from the date of issuance of the said office memorandum. It was also mentioned in the said office memorandum that any proposal so received after two months would no longer be entertained. 5. The petitioner then submitted another representation on 06.03.2014 enclosing all necessary testimonials for re-consideration of his representation for correction/alteration of date of birth. It was also mentioned in the said office memorandum that any proposal so received after two months would no longer be entertained. 5. The petitioner then submitted another representation on 06.03.2014 enclosing all necessary testimonials for re-consideration of his representation for correction/alteration of date of birth. The petitioner mentioned in the said representation that his earlier representation was not acceded to. The petitioner also made a representation to the Chief Minister on 06.05.2014 canvassing all the circumstances for consideration as made in the representation. The Chief Minister made a note to the Chief Secretary, which states as "the claim is supported by numbers of certificates including the Baptismal certificate. The claim seems to be genuine, please examine". The representation of the petitioner was duly considered along with the cases of other similarly situated Government employees of Mizoram and vide order dated 29.10.2014, the Government was pleased to accept the representation of the petitioner and allowed the alteration of date of birth to be 06.06.1959 vide Annexure-12 order dated 27.08.2014 and the same was notified vide notification No. A-1904/122/86-PERS(B) dated 11.11.2014. 6. The orders dated 27.08.2014 (Annexure-12) and notification dated 11.11.2014 (Annexure-13) reads as follows : "Government of Mizoram Department Of Personnel & Administrative Reforms General Service Wing Subject:- Alteration of date of birth in respect of Pu. B. Lalhmingthanga, MCS. Ref I.D. No. A.19014/122/86-PERS(B) dated 27.8.2014 With reference to above, Joint Secretary, DP & AR(CSW) is informed that DP&AR(GSW) accepted 6.6.1959 (the sixth day of June Nineteen fifty Nine) as the correct date of birth in respect of Pu. B. Lalhminghtanga, MCS. Sd/- Lalrohilua Under Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram Deptt of Personnel & Administrative reforms (General Service Wing)" *** "Government of Mizoram Department Of Personnel & Administrative Reforms Civil Service Wing Notification Dated Aizawl, the 11th November, 2014 No. A. 19014/122/86-Pers(B) The Governor of Mizoram is pleased to accept 06.06.1959 (the sixth date of June Nineteen Fifty Nine) as the correct date of birth of Pu. B. Lalhmingthanga, MCS, Secretary to Government of Mizoram. This issues with the approval of DP&AR (GSW) vide their I.D. No. A.21016/1/2012-P&AR(GSW) dated 29.10.2014. Sd/- Nandini Paliwal Special Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram" 7. B. Lalhmingthanga, MCS, Secretary to Government of Mizoram. This issues with the approval of DP&AR (GSW) vide their I.D. No. A.21016/1/2012-P&AR(GSW) dated 29.10.2014. Sd/- Nandini Paliwal Special Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram" 7. After about 2 years of the correction of the date of birth of the petitioner, the respondent No. 4 filed a complaint dated 18.11.2016 to the Principal Secretary, Government of Mizoram, Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms for reviewing the petitioner's date of birth alleging that the alteration of date of birth of the petitioner was against the office memorandum dated 16.12.2014 and also that such change of date of birth of the petitioner affected the respondent No. 4. In pursuance of such complaint made by the respondent No. 4, the Government vide the impugned order dated 06.02.2017 released the petitioner with immediate effect from 06.02.2017 and further treated the period from 01.07.2016 to 06.02.2017 as deemed extension of service. The petitioner made a representation to the Chief Secretary, Government of Mizoram vide letter dated 16.02.2017 with reference to the notification dated 06.02.2017 and the Government vide letter dated 20.03.2017 replied citing reason, that above order was issued in compliance of the judgment of the Apex Court in Union of India v. Harnam Singh and also in tune with provision contained in Note 6 below FR 56. It has been stated by the petitioner that before issuance of the notification dated 06.02.2017 releasing the petitioner by reviewing the order dated 27.08.2014, no notice was served on the petitioner nor he was given any opportunity of being heard, though, alteration of the date of birth of the petitioner by way of reviewing of the earlier notification dated 11.11.2014 had civil consequence as the petitioner was made to retire from the service before the date, which has been accepted by the Government. The petitioner stated in the writ petition that the impugned notification dated 06.02.2017, was issued by reviewing the order dated 27.08.2014 and notification dated 11.11.2017 accepting the date of birth of the petitioner to be 06.06.1959 without giving notice and without hearing the petitioner in flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner stated that the action of the Government by the impugned notification dated 06.02.2017 violated the fundamental right of the petitioner guaranteed under Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and also offended Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. The petitioner stated that the action of the Government by the impugned notification dated 06.02.2017 violated the fundamental right of the petitioner guaranteed under Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and also offended Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. Aggrieved by the action of the Government, the petitioner has approached this Court. 8. The State respondent in their affidavit-in-opposition stated that alteration of the date of birth of the petitioner vide Government notification dated 11.11.2014 was erroneous as originally the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded in the service book as 08.06.1956 and the application for correction of date of birth was submitted by the petitioner 28 years after entering into the service and such application was also in contravention of the time limit of 5 years imposed by the provisions in Note 6 below FR 56. It has also been stated in the counter affidavit that the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as 08.06.1956 in the service book on the basis of original HSLC certificate, which was considered to be authentic document and the petitioner, later on, in support of his claim for correction of the date of birth, submitted only a provisional certificate and failed to produce the original one, as the same was stated to have been deposited with the Board of Secondary Education, Assam for correction on 14.08.2003. It is also stated that while altering the date of birth of the petitioner, the provision contained in Note 6 below FR 56 and also the decision of the Apex Court in Union of India v. Harnam Singh reported in (1993) 2 SCC 162 was not adhered to by the Government. 9. It has further been stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner came to know through other sources about the complaint submitted by the respondent No. 4 and he immediately availed the opportunity to represent his stand, before he was formally informed in writing to do so. The representation dated 05.12.2016 addressed to the Chief Minister, by the petitioner transpired that the petitioner had the knowledge of the complaint made by the respondent No. 4 and therefore, the Government did not consider it necessary to ask him for his response and his representation was duly considered. The representation dated 05.12.2016 addressed to the Chief Minister, by the petitioner transpired that the petitioner had the knowledge of the complaint made by the respondent No. 4 and therefore, the Government did not consider it necessary to ask him for his response and his representation was duly considered. It is also stated that the petitioner submitted an unsigned and undated written note, which is duly received by the Government on 22.12.2016 and was also taken into account. The petitioner was also given the opportunity to meet the Principal Secretary, DP&AR to further place his case. It is further stated that the petitioner had influential friends and acquaintances person and lobbied very hard for his case at various levels at the relevant time. It has been stated that the decision of the Government was well considered one and not at all taken ex-parte, but after taking into account his oral and written submission as well as evidences on record, the Government was compelled to review its earlier decision of 2014, since it was challenged by the respondent No. 4, the complainant. It is further stated that as the petitioner was not dismissed or removed from service or reduced in rank, Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India cannot be pressed into service in the present case. 10. The petitioner filed a rejoinder to the counter affidavit. In paragraph-12 of the rejoinder, the petitioner responded to the averments of the respondents in paragraph-14 of the counter affidavit and stated that he came to know about the complaint of the respondents No. 4 through print media, namely 'Frontier Despatch', a weekly in its Volume-I, Issue 40 dated 25th November - 1st December, wherein an article was published titled as "MCS officers complain to Government over senior colleague becoming 3 years younger". The said article prima facie suggested/portrayed to the amass that the petitioner was a person of doubtful integrity and in view of the same he apprised the Chief Minister. 11. The said article prima facie suggested/portrayed to the amass that the petitioner was a person of doubtful integrity and in view of the same he apprised the Chief Minister. 11. The respondents have filed another affidavit as rejoinder to the affidavit filed by the petitioner, wherein it has been stated that the date of birth of the petitioner was belatedly changed by the Principal of the Government High School by issuing a fresh provisional certificate, which was never accepted by the Government in the report of the then Additional Deputy Commissioner of Lunglei District pointed to the contrary as date of birth recorded in the HSLC certificate was different. It has also been stated that: "intention of the office memorandum issued vide No. A.21016/1/2012-P&AR(GSW) dated 07.01.2014 was not to allow alteration/correction of the date of birth of the Government servant recorded in the service book on the ground that date of birth recorded in the HSLC/birth certificate etc. defers from the date of birth recorded in the service book and it does not in any way go beyond the mandate as provided in Note 6 below FR 56. The office memorandum issued vide No. A.12016/1/12-P&AR(GSW) dated 10.07.2014 clearly clarified that change of date of birth after 5 years from the date of entry into Government service is not open to any Government servant. The objective of earlier instructions on the subject was essentially to settle cases where date of birth recorded in the service book were either cancelled or overwritten or altered resulting in delays in settlement of pension cases." 12. Mr. S. Borgohain, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the date of birth of the petitioner was corrected by the State respondent as 06.06.1959, after due consideration of his representation and on the basis of the birth certificate, Baptism certificate and provisional certificate issued by Principal of Government Higher Secondary School, Lunglei and the same was duly notified by notification dated 11.11.2014. Therefore the date of superannuation of the petitioner should be on the basis of the date of birth so recorded in the service record. But the State respondent on the basis of a complaint made by one of junior colleague of the petitioner, altered the date of birth of the petitioner and released him on superannuation by order dated 06.02.2017, without giving any notice to the petitioner and without giving him any opportunity of being heard. But the State respondent on the basis of a complaint made by one of junior colleague of the petitioner, altered the date of birth of the petitioner and released him on superannuation by order dated 06.02.2017, without giving any notice to the petitioner and without giving him any opportunity of being heard. Review of the earlier decision accepting the date of birth of the petitioner to be 06.06.1959 and alteration of such date of birth recorded in the service record, having civil consequences, without giving notice and without hearing the petitioner was hit by violation of principal of natural justice, submits Mr. Borgohain. Mr. Borgohain, learned counsel for the petitioner further submits, that the impugned notification superannuating the petitioner arbitrarily and in flagrant violation of the principle of natural justice, violated the fundamental right of the petitioner under Article 14 of the Constitution. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in Satyavir Singh v. Union of India reported in (1985) 4 SCC 252 , wherein the Apex Court relying on a Constitutional Bench judgment in Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel reported in (1985) 3 SCC 398 observed as under "It gives a constitutional mandate to the principles of natural justice and the audialterampartem rule by providing that a civil servant shall not be dismissed or removed from service or reduced in rank until after an inquiry in which he has been informed of the charges against him and has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges." "Article 14 applies not only to discriminatory class legislation but also a arbitrary or discriminatory State action. Violation of a rule of natural justice results in arbitrariness which is the same as discrimination, and where discrimination is the result of State action, it is a violation of Article 14. Therefore, a violation of a principle of natural justice by a State action, is a violation of Article 14." "the principles of natural justice apply both to quasi-judicial as well as administrative inquiries entailing civil consequences". 13. Placing reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in the State of Assam v. Daksha Prasad Deka reported in (1970) 3 SCC 624 , Mr. 13. Placing reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in the State of Assam v. Daksha Prasad Deka reported in (1970) 3 SCC 624 , Mr. Borgohain submits that date of birth of a public servant recorded in the service book is crucial and therefore, a public servant is entitled to dispute his date of birth entered into the record and may apply for correction. When the authority, on the representation of the petitioner considering the materials placed before it, corrected/altered his date of birth, the subsequent action of the Government in altering such date of birth, which was accepted by the Government and recorded in the service book vide notification dated 11.11.2014, without hearing the petitioner also violated the Article 311(2) of the Constitution. 14. Ms. Marry L. Khiangte, learned Govt. Advocate, placing reliance on the decision of Union of India v. Harnam Singh reported in (1993) 2 SCC 162 submits that as the earlier decision altering the date of birth of the petitioner was taken without adhering to the decision of the Apex Court and also the provision of Note 6 below of FR 56, the Government has reviewed the earlier decision and altered the date of birth of the petitioner and the petitioner was released on superannuation, as per the date of birth of the petitioner recorded in his HSLC certificate. Learned Govt. Advocate further submits, that the Government was within its competence to review its earlier order, which was erroneously passed without adhering to the mandate of the Apex Court and also the relevant provision of the F.R.. To buttress the above contention, learned State Counsel placed reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in Vinod Kumar v. State of Haryana & Ors. reported in AIR 2014 SC 33 and R.R. Verma & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. reported in (1980) 3 SCC 402 . It has also been contended by learned Govt. Advocate that the petitioner was aware of the complaint made by the respondent No. 4 and he also made various representation reflecting that he had knowledge of the representation or review petition filed by the respondent NO. 4. v. Union of India & Ors. reported in (1980) 3 SCC 402 . It has also been contended by learned Govt. Advocate that the petitioner was aware of the complaint made by the respondent No. 4 and he also made various representation reflecting that he had knowledge of the representation or review petition filed by the respondent NO. 4. Therefore, although no formal notice was given, the grievance of the petitioner was considered by State Government, while altering the date of birth reviewing the earlier decision and therefore, it cannot be said that the Government reviewed the earlier decision ex-parte or in violation of principles of natural justice. Learned State Counsel further submits that the petitioner having not been removed/dismissed or reduced in rank, there is no question of violation of Article 311(2) of the Constitution. 15. From the pleadings of the parties and also the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for both the sides, the sole point falls for consideration in this writ petition is whether the action of the State respondents in altering the date of birth of the petitioner and issuance of the impugned notification dated 06.02.2017 is hit by the principle of natural justice and fair play. 16. The stand of the petitioner as canvassed in the writ petition is that his actual date of birth was 06.06.1959, but due to clerical mistake in the certificate, issued by the Headmaster of Government High School, Lunglei, the date of birth was wrongly recorded as 06.06.1956 in the HSLC certificate. Noticing such anomaly in the service record with regard to the date of birth, the petitioner made a representation on 16.07.2008 for correction of his date of birth, which was not accepted by the Government. The petitioner made the second representation for correction of his date of birth in pursuance of an office memorandum dated 07.01.2014, issued by the Government. For better appreciation, the said notification is reproduced herein below : "Government of Mizoram Department Of Personnel & Administrative Reforms (General Service Wing) ............ Office Memorandum Date Aizawl, the 7th January 2014 Subject Alteration/correction of date of birth. Instruction has been issued by this Department vide O.M. No. A21016/1/90-P&AR(GSW)/pt dated 4.6.2012 (copy enclosed) in which proposals for approval of alteration/correction of date of birth of Government servants are to be submitted to DP&AR within 3 (three) months from the date of issue of the said Office Memorandum. Instruction has been issued by this Department vide O.M. No. A21016/1/90-P&AR(GSW)/pt dated 4.6.2012 (copy enclosed) in which proposals for approval of alteration/correction of date of birth of Government servants are to be submitted to DP&AR within 3 (three) months from the date of issue of the said Office Memorandum. Inspite of such instruction, it is seen that proposals are submitted to the DP&AR, after a lapse of the stipulated time of 3 (three) months. This kind of belated submission of the proposal by the Department is viewed seriously and is treated as lapse on the part of respective Controlling officer in the Department. It is hereby once again instructed the Controlling officers of all the Departments that proposal (if any) for approval of alteration/correction/over-writing of date of birth of a Government servant recorded in the Service Book should be submitted to DP&AR within 2(two) months from the date of issue of this Office Memorandum. Any proposal so received after 2 (two) months will no longer be entertained. Sd/- C. ZOTHANKHUMI Addl. Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram Deptt. of Personnel and Administrative Reforms" 17. In the additional affidavit filed by the State respondent replying the rejoinder affidavit of the petitioner, stated that intention of the office memorandum dated 07.01.2014 was not to allow alteration/correction of the date of birth of the Government servant beyond the mandate as provided in Note 6 below FR 56. The respondent also mentioned in the said affidavit referring to another office memorandum dated 10.07.2014, wherein it has been clarified, that the change of date birth after 5 years from the date entry into Government service is not open to any Government servant. It is also the stand of the respondent that the object of the notification dated 07.01.2014 was essentially to settle cases where date of birth recorded in the service book were either cancelled or overwritten or altered resulting in delays in settlement of pension cases. 18. The notification dated 07.01.2014 as reproduced hereinbefore would show, that there was nothing in the said notification that it was intended or it was meant for only certain categories of Government servant or for settlement of pension cases only. Therefore, the stand of the State respondent, that the notification dated 07.01.2014 does not entitle the petitioner to seek for correction of his date of birth does not look sound. Therefore, the stand of the State respondent, that the notification dated 07.01.2014 does not entitle the petitioner to seek for correction of his date of birth does not look sound. The Apex Court in Harnam Singh (supra) as relied by the State respondent, observed, that the representation submitted by the Government servant for correction of date of birth after 5 years from the joining in service should not be entertained in view of the time limit prescribed in Note 6 below FR 56. The Apex Court in the said judgment also mentioned, that Government servant who makes an application for correction of date of birth beyond such period of 5 years, cannot claim correction or alteration of date of birth as a matter or right. Since the date of birth recorded in the service record is crucial, and until such record is corrected, the date of birth recorded in the service record would determine his date of superannuation, the Apex Court held that a Government servant has a right to apply for correction or alteration of his date of birth in the service record and until such record is corrected he cannot claim the protection guaranteed under Article 311(2) of the Constitution. As per the mandate of Harnam Singh (supra) case, though no application for correction of date of birth shall be entertained after a period of 5 years from the date of entry to the service as mandated in Note 6 to FR 56, the Government servant is not debarred from filing such petition even after expiry of 5 years. The only rider put by the Apex Court is that, if petition is filed after expiry of such period of 5 years, the Government servant cannot claim alteration of his date of birth as a matter of right. Therefore, the Note 6 below FR 56, as well as, the judgment of Harnam Singh (supra) has not taken away the discretion of the Government to alter the date of birth in an appropriate case. Only point is that in such case, the Government servant cannot claim such alteration as a matter of right. What the Apex Court observed in Harnam Singh (supra) cannot be better placed than quoting in verbatim. Only point is that in such case, the Government servant cannot claim such alteration as a matter of right. What the Apex Court observed in Harnam Singh (supra) cannot be better placed than quoting in verbatim. The Apex Court held - "A Government servant, after entry into service, acquires the right to continue in service till the age of retirement, as fixed by the State in exercise of its powers regulating conditions of service, unless the services are dispensed with on other grounds contained in the relevant service rules after following the procedure prescribed therein. The date of birth entered in the service records of a civil servant is, thus of utmost importance for the reason that the right to continue in service stands decided by its entry in the service record. A Government servant who has declared his age at the initial stage of the employment is, of course, not precluded from making a request later on for correcting his age. It is open to a civil servant to claim correction of his date of birth, if he is in possession of irrefutable proof relating to his date of birth as different from the one earlier recorded and even if there is no period of limitation prescribed for seeking correction of date of birth, the Government servant must do so without any unreasonable delay. In the absence of any provision in the rules for correction of date of birth, the general principle of refusing relief on grounds of laches or stale claims, is generally applied to by the courts and tribunals. It is nonetheless competent for the Government to fix a time limit, in the service rules, after which no application for correction of date of birth of a Government servant can be entertained. A Government servant who makes an application for correction of date of birth beyond the time, so fixed, therefore, cannot claim, as a matter of right, the correction of his date of birth even if he has good evidence to establish that the recorded date of birth is clearly erroneous. The law of limitation may operate harshly but it has to be applied with all its rigour and the courts or tribunals cannot come to the aid of those who sleep over their rights and allow the period of limitation to expire. The law of limitation may operate harshly but it has to be applied with all its rigour and the courts or tribunals cannot come to the aid of those who sleep over their rights and allow the period of limitation to expire. Unless altered, his date of birth as recorded would determine his date of superannuation even if it amounts to abridging his right to continue in service on the basis of his actual age. Indeed, as held by this Court in State of Assam v. Daksha Prasad Deka, a public servant may dispute the date of birth as entered in the service record and apply for its correction but till the record is corrected he cannot claim to continue in service on the basis of the date of birth claimed by him." "............The date of compulsory retirement under F.R. 56(a) must in our judgment, be determined on the basis of the service record, and not on what the respondent claimed to be his date of birth, unless the service record is first corrected consistently with the appropriate procedure. A public servant may dispute the date of birth as entered in the service record and may apply for correction of the record. But until the record is corrected, he cannot claim that he has been deprived of the guarantee under Article 311(2) of the Constitution by being compulsorily retired on attaining the age of superannuation on the footing of the date of birth entered in the service record." 19. In the present case, the Government order dated 27.08.2014 and notification dated 11.11.2014 clearly demonstrated that the representation of the petitioner for correction his date of birth was accepted by the Government and his date of birth was recorded as 06.06.1959. Therefore the date of birth of the petitioner stood to be 06.06.1959, as accepted and recorded by the Government in the service record. FR 56 Clause-A provides that: "except as otherwise provided in this Rule every Government servant shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of sixty years". When the date of birth of the petitioner was evidently and admittedly corrected and recorded in the service record, as 06.06.1959, the petitioner acquired the right to continue in service till attaining the age of superannuation on the basis of the date of birth recorded in the service record. When the date of birth of the petitioner was evidently and admittedly corrected and recorded in the service record, as 06.06.1959, the petitioner acquired the right to continue in service till attaining the age of superannuation on the basis of the date of birth recorded in the service record. He could not be compelled to superannuate unless such date of birth recorded in the service record was altered or correction was made in the service record. Notification dated 06.02.2017 would show that superannuation of the petitioner was not on the footing of the date of birth recorded in the service record as per order dated 27.08.2014 and notification dated 11.11.2014. 20. Evidently, the impugned notification dated 06.02.2017 releasing the petitioner on superannuation was issued on the basis of review of the previous order of the Government accepting 06.06.1959 as date of birth of the petitioner. When the Government reviewed its previous decision, whereby altered the date of birth of petitioner recorded in service record, question necessarily arises, whether the date of birth accepted by the Government and recorded in the service record, could be altered/changed on the complaint of a third party, without giving any notice and without hearing the petitioner, when such action of the Government carries civil consequence and is likely to have adverse affect on the petitioner. 21. Annexure-14 to the writ petition shows that the private respondent No. 4 submitted a representation for alteration or review of the date of birth of the petitioner, wherein he stated as under "Of late, I have come to learnt that our senior-most member among the MCS Pu B Lalhmingthanga has altered his date of birth from 6.6.56 to 6.6.59 after 28 years of service through English Weekly of the Frontier Dispatch. This alteration of his date of birth appears to be against the latest Office Memorandum of DoPT dated 16th Dec 2014 and I am the direct victim from this alteration of his date of birth. It is a well laid down law that alteration of date of birth by a government servant is not permissible after a lapse of 5 years from joining the service." 22. Acting on the said complaint/review petition of respondent No. 4, the Government reviewed its earlier decision with regard to date of birth of the petitioner and released him from service on superannuation vide notification dated 06.02.2017. 23. Acting on the said complaint/review petition of respondent No. 4, the Government reviewed its earlier decision with regard to date of birth of the petitioner and released him from service on superannuation vide notification dated 06.02.2017. 23. That the Government has altered the date of birth of the petitioner, by reviewing its previous decision, acting on the complaint/review petition filed by the respondent No. 4 is also reflected in the affidavit filed by the State respondent on 01.11.2017, as well as, the letter dated 20.03.2017 (Annexure-18 to the writ petition), issued by the Under Secretary to the Government of Mizoram. It is also admitted position, as would appear from paragraph-8 of the said affidavit, that no notice was issued to the petitioner nor the petitioner was given any opportunity of being heard, while acting on the complaint/review petition of the respondent No. 4, the Government reviewed its earlier order, whereby the date of birth of the petitioner was accepted as 06.06.1959, and recorded in the service record. Review of the earlier decision and thereby altering the date of birth of the petitioner, resulting in reduction of serving tenure of the petitioner by two years, obviously adversely affected the petitioner and therefore, such alteration in the date of birth of the petitioner by reviewing previous order could not be made without giving the petitioner opportunity of being heard. One of the basic essentials of the "doctrine of audi alteram partem" is that when an order is required to be passed against a person, which is likely to adversely affect him, he must be granted an opportunity of being heard. The Apex Court in Assistant Commissioner, Commercial, Tax Department, works Contract and Leasing, Kota v. Shukla and Brothers reported in (2010) 4 SCC 785 while elaborating the doctrine of "audi alteram partem" observed that: "the doctrine of audi alteram partem has three basic essentials. Firstly, a person against whom an order is required to be passed or whose rights are likely to be affected adversely must be granted an opportunity of being heard. Secondly, the concerned authority should provide a fair and transparent procedure and lastly, the authority concerned must apply its mind and dispose of the matter by a reasoned or speaking order. This has been uniformly applied by Courts in India and abroad." 24. Secondly, the concerned authority should provide a fair and transparent procedure and lastly, the authority concerned must apply its mind and dispose of the matter by a reasoned or speaking order. This has been uniformly applied by Courts in India and abroad." 24. The stand of the Government with regard to not giving notice and opportunity of being heard to the petitioner has been stated in para-8 of the additional affidavit of the Government against the rejoinder affidavit of the petitioner. The stand of the Government is that the petitioner came to know about the complaint given by the respondent No. 4 from other source and he also addressed a representation to the Chief Minister. It has been further stated in the affidavits, that from the contents of the representation addressed to the Chief Minister, it was clear, that the petitioner had the knowledge of the complaint given by the respondent No. 4, therefore it was not considered necessary to give notice to him. Even if it is assumed for argument's sake, that the petitioner knew about the complaint given by respondent No. 4, would it absolve the Government from its obligation to issue notice and giving the petitioner opportunity of being heard. How the petitioner would know whether Government is going to entertain the complaint, unless the petitioner is given notice to represent his case. How would he represent his case against the complaint, unless he knows about the contents of the complaint and unless he is given the opportunity to respond to the complaint. Notice does not necessarily mean mere information about the complaint. The Government was certainly under obligation to give the petitioner a copy of the complaint with notice enabling him to represent his case. Therefore, only because the petitioner came to know from other source about the complaint given by respondent No. 4, that cannot absolve the Government from its obligation of issuing notice to the petitioner and giving him opportunity of being heard. When the impugned order has the civil consequence and is likely to adversely affect the petitioner, petitioner obviously had the right to be heard and represent his case before the Government. When the impugned order has the civil consequence and is likely to adversely affect the petitioner, petitioner obviously had the right to be heard and represent his case before the Government. The failure of the Government to issue notice and giving the petitioner opportunity of being heard in the facts and circumstances of the case, was flagrant violation of principles of natural justice having the consequence of completely vitiating the action of the Government. 25. It will not be out of context to mention here, the observation of the Apex Court in Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Works Contract and Leasing, Kota v. Shukla and Brothers reported in (2010) 4 SCC 785 regarding with the consequence of non-compliance of principles and natural justice, the Apex Court observed as under "The principle of natural justice has twin ingredients; firstly, the person who is likely to be adversely affected by the action of the authorities should be given notice to show cause thereof and grant an opportunity of hearing and secondly, the orders so passed by the authorities should give reason for arriving at any conclusion showing proper application of mind. Violation of either of them could in the given facts and circumstances of the case, vitiate the order itself. Such rule being applicable to the administrative authorities certainly requires that the judgment of the Court should meet with this requirement with higher degree of satisfaction. The order of an administrative authority may not provide reasons like a judgment but the order must be supported by the reasons of rationality. The distinction between passing of an order by an administrative or quasi-judicial authority has practically extinguished and both are required to pass reasoned orders. 26. Placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Vinod Kumar v. State of Haryana (supra) and R.R. Verma v. Union of India (supra), learned Government Advocate sought to defend the action of the Government contending that it was within competence of the Government to review its earlier order. In Vinod Kumar (supra), the Apex Court held as under "Thus, if wrong and illegal acts, applying the aforesaid parameters of judicial review can be set aside by the courts, obviously the same mischief can be undone by the administrative authorities themselves by reviewing such an order if found to be ultra vires. of course, it is to be done after following the principles of natural justice. of course, it is to be done after following the principles of natural justice. This is precisely the position in the instant case and we are of the considered opinion that it was open to the Respondents to take corrective measures by annulling the palpably illegal order of the earlier DGP, Haryana. 27. In R.R. Verma (supra), the Apex Court held as under: "The last point raised by Shri Garg was that the Central Government had no power to review its earlier orders as the rules do not vest the Government with any such power. Shri Garg relied on certain decisions of this Court in support of his submission Patel Narshi Thakershi and Ors. v. Pradvamunsinghji Arjunsinghji, A.I.R. 1970 SC 1273, and S.K. Bannerjee and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors. (1971) 2 SCR 522 and State of Assam and Anr. v. J.N. Roy Biswas (1976)II LLJ 17 SC. All the cases cited by Shri Garg are cases where the Government was exercising quasi judicial powers vested in them by statute. We do not think that the principle that the power to review must be conferred by statute either specifically or by necessary implication is applicable to decisions purely of an administrative nature. To extend the principle to pure administrative decisions would indeed lead to untoward and startling results. Surely, any Government must be free to alter policy or its decision in administrative matters. If they are to carry on its their daily administration they cannot be hidebound by the rules and restrictions of judicial procedure though of course they are bound to obey all statutory requirements and also observe the principles of natural justice where rights of parties may be affected. Here again, we emphasise that if administrative decisions are reviewed, the decisions taken after review are subject to judicial review on all grounds on which an administrative decision may be questioned in a Court. We see no force in this submission of the learned Counsel. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. 28. Above two decisions of the Apex Court, heavily relied by the learned State Counsel makes it abundantly clear, that the Government can review an administrative order, but while reviewing such order, the Government is obliged to follow the principles of natural justice. 29. We see no force in this submission of the learned Counsel. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. 28. Above two decisions of the Apex Court, heavily relied by the learned State Counsel makes it abundantly clear, that the Government can review an administrative order, but while reviewing such order, the Government is obliged to follow the principles of natural justice. 29. There is no quarrel about the proposition of law that the Government has the competence to review its order, but such review cannot be in violation of the principles of natural justice. In the instant case, admittedly no notice was served on the petitioner nor any opportunity of being heard was given to the petitioner, while the Government reviewed its earlier decision to rectify the date of birth of the petitioner and upon such review, issued the impugned notification dated 06.02.2017 having civil consequence. Such action of the Government in violation of principles of natural justice, in my view, vitiated the impugned action of the Government. It is also to be noted here, that the action of the Government in reviewing its earlier decision altering the date of birth of the petitioner on the complaint of a junior colleague of the petitioner, without giving him notice, also demonstrates absence of fair play and transparency on the part of the authority. Administrative action in the present case being devoid of fairness and transparency and in violation of principles of natural justice certainly amounted to violation of the fundamental right of the petitioner under Article 14 of the Constitution. 30. In view of the foregoing discussions, the impugned action of the Government, vide notification dated 06.02.2017 releasing the petitioner on superannuation deserves to be set aside and quashed. 31. At this juncture, learned counsel for the Government submits that the matter may be remanded back to the Government for fresh consideration, which has been vehemently objected by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this being not a disciplinary proceeding, there is no question of remanding back the matter as the action of the Government is totally unsustainable for violation of principles of natural justice and for that matter also violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. I have considered the submissions. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this being not a disciplinary proceeding, there is no question of remanding back the matter as the action of the Government is totally unsustainable for violation of principles of natural justice and for that matter also violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. I have considered the submissions. As the action of the Government and impugned notification dated 06.02.2017 is hit by violation of principles of natural justice and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, I do hereby set aside and quashed the impugned notification under Memo No. A.19014/122/86 PERS(B) dated 06.02.2017. Parties shall be at liberty to proceed as per law. 32. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. No order as to costs.