JUDGMENT : (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA) 1. The present appeal is directed against the judgement dated 28.07.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the captioned writ petition. The learned Single Judge, while allowing the captioned writ petition, has quashed and set aside the order dated 14.02.2000 relieving the deceased employee, who is being represented by his legal heirs. 2. Learned advocate Mr.H.S.Munshaw appearing for the appellants has submitted that the learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated that the original respondent No.1- late Mr.Hirabhai Vaghabhai Rabari was recruited as a Security Personnel/ Watchman in the service of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (GSRTC) on 24.01.1980 and his date of birth was recorded in the service book on the basis of the photo copy of School Leaving Certificate indicating his birth date as 09.07.1946. It is submitted that there was no other original documentary evidence to indicate that the respondent No.1 was born on 09.07.1946. 3. Learned advocate Mr.H.S.Munshaw for the appellants has further submitted that the learned Single Judge has erred in not appreciating that a Security Officer of Rajkot Division was instructed to look into the matter and his report indicated that late Mr.Rabari was born on 09.07.1940 and the School Leaving Certificate produced by him was fake. 4. Learned advocate Mr.H.S.Munshaw has further submitted that the learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated that the Security Officer collected several documents including School Leaving Certificate from the School, where the respondent No.1- late Mr.Rabari had studied. It is submitted that late Mr.Rabari was offered all the opportunities by the Security Officer inquiring into the matter to prove his case by way of producing original document indicating that his birth date was 09.07.1946 however, nothing was produced by him to substantiate his birth date. It is thus contended that, it cannot be said that the principles of natural justice were not complied with. 5. Learned advocate Mr.H.S.Munshaw for the appellants has further submitted that the learned Single Judge has erred in not considering the centre point of controversy i.e. the genuine and original certificate or document indicating that the respondent No.1- late Mr.Hirabhai Rabari was born on 09.07.1946. He has submitted that other issues are secondary when the respondent No.1 has failed to justify his side by way of producing original documents to confirm that his birth date was 09.07.1946. 6. He has submitted that other issues are secondary when the respondent No.1 has failed to justify his side by way of producing original documents to confirm that his birth date was 09.07.1946. 6. Per Contra, learned advocate Mr.Vicky Mehta appearing for the respondents, who are the legal heirs of the original petitioner- deceased employee, has submitted that the impugned judgement passed by the learned Single Judge does not require any interference as the same is appropriately passed. It is submitted that as per the School Leaving Certificate of the deceased employee, his birth date is recorded as 09.07.1946 and accordingly, he could not have been made to retire/ removed from service on the basis of birth date of 09.07.1940. It is submitted that the appellants have removed the original petitioner (deceased employee) on the ground that his date of birth recorded, appears to be incorrect and it should be 09.07.1940. He has submitted that action is taken without hearing the deceased employee and hence, the learned Single Judge has precisely quashed and set aside the order of removal. 7. We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. The facts, which are established from the pleadings, are that the original petitioner was appointed as Watchman/ Chokidar under the State Transport Depot at Dhrangadhra. He was appointed on 24.01.1980.His date of birth was recorded as 09.07.1946 on the basis of photocopy of the School Leaving Certificate. In the year 2000 i.e. on 14.02.2000, the deceased employee was served with a letter from the Depot Manager that he is relieved immediately from the service, on reaching the age of superannuation. The petitioner- deceased employee thereafter, has filed a representation before the said respondent authority that he has been wrongly retired from service since his date of birth is 09.07.1946, which is recorded in the School Leaving Certificate. It appears that a legal notice was also issued through an advocate to the respondent authorities, which was replied by the advocate representing the appellant authority. It was stated in the reply that as per the date of birth registered in the Birth & Death Register, the actual date of birth of the deceased employee was 09.07.1940. Ultimately, since his request was not exceeded by the appellants, he was constrained to file a writ petition. The learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition by recording as under: “11. Ultimately, since his request was not exceeded by the appellants, he was constrained to file a writ petition. The learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition by recording as under: “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 9ª 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. 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. xxx xxx xxx 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. 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.” 8. Thus, the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition by recording that for a period of 20 years, correctness of date of birth of the deceased employee was never doubted and no opportunity of hearing was given to the deceased employee before relieving him from service. The learned Single Judge has also upheld the correctness of the School Leaving Certificate by calculating the age and his admission in School on 26.02.1954. 9. We may first deal with the issue of opportunity of hearing. Before the deceased employee was relieved from service on the ground that he has reached the age of superannuation, a detailed inquiry was undertaken by the appellant authorities. The said report was prepared by the Superintendent ST, Rajkot Depot and was further sent to the Divisional Director of ST, Rajkot on 08.02.2000. We have perused the report No.29/2000 at Annexure “D”. The same is translated as under: “After examining the record, the Principal of Pay Center School No.1 has issued the School Leaving Certificate of Shri Hira Vagha Rabari, wherein his date of birth is recorded as 09.07.1940, and the School Number is 5. It is mentioned that he was studying in Standard 1. The same is enclosed herewith as Enclosure-5. The date of birth of Shri Hirabhai Vaghabhai Rabari, Watchman is 09.07.1940. Upon recording his statement regarding the application, he stated that the date of birth mentioned in the application, i.e., 09.07.1940, is incorrect. The date of birth mentioned in the certificate attached at the time of joining S.T. is 09.07.1946, and he has the original certificate. Moreover, the date of birth mentioned in the application dated 02.01.2000, submitted at the Divisional Office, Rajkot, is 09.07.1940, which he states to be incorrect. He was studying in standard 1 and the Primary School has been closed. Moreover, the date of birth mentioned in the application dated 02.01.2000, submitted at the Divisional Office, Rajkot, is 09.07.1940, which he states to be incorrect. He was studying in standard 1 and the Primary School has been closed. He is aware that, the record of the same at present is at the current Dhrangdhara Panchayat Pay Center Number 1. He is aware of this. If required to submit the original certificate, he will produce a certificate from School No.1. As dictated in his statement, he got the statement dictated through his son Shri Navinbhai Hirabhai Rabari and after it was read over to him, he made signature after understanding the same. The same is attached herewith as under. As Shri Hirabhai Vaghabhai Rabari appeared to show the certificate submitted by him at the Divisional Office, Rajkot, on 21.01.2000, his statement was recorded, wherein he stated that he was asked to submit the School Leaving Certificate, which he did in person, and he has received it back. The date of birth on this certificate is 09.07.1946, whereas he was informed that it is registered as 09.07.1940 in the school. Therefore, he was informed to submit any other evidence regarding the date of birth by 31.01.2000, if available. Moreover, he was informed to submit a freshly issued Birth Certificate of the same school from where he obtained the original certificate by 31.01.2000. He was apprised that, if no evidence is submitted, the inquiry report will be sent, considering the date of birth as 09.07.1940. This fact was recorded by his son Navinbhai Hirabhai as dictated by him. On being read over to him, he signed it. The same is at Enclosure-7A, and the photocopy is at Enclosure-7B. As the date of birth mentioned in the certificate submitted by Shri Hirabhai Vaghabhai Rabari is 09.07.1946 and the date of birth mentioned in the certificate issued by the school during the inquiry is 09.07.1940, I met the Principal in person at Dhrangdhra on 03.02.2000 for further verification of the same and showed him both certificates. I personally informed him to provide remarks about the certificate submitted by Shri Hirabhai. However, he orally replied that, he could not give his remarks in this regard as it is an old certificate. I personally informed him to provide remarks about the certificate submitted by Shri Hirabhai. However, he orally replied that, he could not give his remarks in this regard as it is an old certificate. Moreover, the basis for the date of birth is the record in the main register recorded at the time of registration, and he can state it after seeing the same; also, the old outward records are also not easily available. Therefore, the School Leaving Certificate of Shri Hirabhai Vaghabhai Rabari, performing duty as Watchman at Dhrangdhra S.T. Depot was issued on 20.01.2000 after verifying the record of the school. A certificate regarding the same was issued. It has been informed, vide outward No.55, dated 03.02.2000, that the date of birth recorded in the school records is 09.07.1940. Enclosure- 8. Observation: In connection with the application against Shri Hira Vagha Rabari, he stated that he joined the service by mentioning his date of birth as 09.07.1946, on the basis the certificate of the Civil Surgeon. However, upon inquiry, it transpired that he submitted the School Leaving Certificate from Dhrangdhara School No.5, wherein his date of birth is mentioned as 09.07.1946. As Shri Hira Vagha Rabari submitted a certificate regarding his date of birth issued from School No.5, upon inquiring about the school, it was found that the school has been closed as it was old. Since the record of the same is at School No.1, I went there and, after depositing the required fee, obtained the School Leaving Certificate of Shri Hira Vagha Rabari of School No.5, wherein his date of birth is clearly mentioned as 09.07.1940. The certificate submitted by Shri Hira Vagha Rabari and the certificate obtained on the basis of the school record have different dates of birth. His date of birth, as per the school records, is 09.07.1940. The Principal was personally informed to provide remarks regarding the certificate submitted by Shri Hirabhai and the certificate issued by the Principal during the inquiry. However, he orally informed that, as it is an old outward record, he cannot provide his remarks. Therefore, the certificate issued by him during the inquiry on 20.01.2000 was issued after verifying the record, and he has clearly stated in writing that the date of birth of Hirabhai Vaghabhai Rabari is 09.07.1940. However, he orally informed that, as it is an old outward record, he cannot provide his remarks. Therefore, the certificate issued by him during the inquiry on 20.01.2000 was issued after verifying the record, and he has clearly stated in writing that the date of birth of Hirabhai Vaghabhai Rabari is 09.07.1940. Thus, it is clearly found from the record of Dhrangdhra School that the date of birth of Shri Hira Vaghabhai Rabari is 09.07.1940. Conclusion: The Watchman at Dhrangdhra Depot, namely Shri Hirabhai Vaghabhai Rabari, joined services at the Institute by submitting a School Leaving Certificate with the date of birth 09.07.1946 from School No.5, Dhrangdhra. During the inquiry, as per the record of School No.5, Dhrangdhra, the date of birth of Shri Hirabhai Vaghabhai Rabari is registered as 09.07.1940. During the inquiry, his School Leaving Certificate was obtained after depositing the required fee, wherein his date of birth is mentioned as 09.07.1940. Thereafter, a certificate was issued stating that the said certificate was issued after verifying the record. Thus, the date of birth of Shri Hirabhai Vaghabhai Rabari is registered in the record of School No.5 as 09.07.1940. Moreover, Shri Rabari was informed to submit any other evidence regarding the date of birth, if available, but he has not submitted any evidence. Thus, the date of birth of Shri Hirabhai Vaghabhai Rabari is 09.07.1940 as per the record. The date of birth in the certificate submitted by him is found to be false as per the record of the school.” 10. A fare reading of the aforesaid report reveals that the deceased employee was given ample opportunities by the appellant authorities to produce any other evidence except his School Leaving Certificate, since the same was found to be doubtful on the inquiry made from the School authority however, the deceased employee did not produce any evidence showing his date of birth as 09.07.1946. In fact, the findings of the report would reveal that the authorities have undertaken detailed inquiry and inquired from the School, in which he had studied, and it was found that the date of birth was registered as 09.07.1940, and the date of birth recorded in the service book on the basis of the School Leaving Certificate was found to be false. Thus, the date of birth, which is recorded in the School Leaving Certificate showing 09.07.1946, does not reconcile with the School records and hence, the same cannot be placed reliance. Hence, it cannot be said that the deceased-petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of hearing. 11. We have also perused the said School Leaving Certificate. The same reveals that it is issued on 28.03.1974, after a period of 20 years, after the respondent-employee left the School on 30.11.1954. Thus, prima facie, we are of the considered opinion that the said School Leaving Certificate, which is procured after 20 years, does not inspire confidence. Hence, in our opinion, the learned Single Judge has erred in allowing the writ petition by calculating his age of admission by placing reliance on the School Leaving Certificate. 12. The learned Single Judge ought not to have allowed the writ petition by observing that the appellants did not do anything during the service period of the employee. Such observations cannot be allowed to be sustained, since the issue of production of a document, which is unreliable or appears to be false and through which an employee has gained any service benefit, can be examined at any stage. The employer has an administrative right to inquire into the validity/legality of the document produced by an employee for gaining any service benefit even after his/her retirement. 13. The only quintessential feature is compliance of the principle of natural justice. If the document is found to be forged or false, the employer has the right to withdraw the benefits, which have been conferred on the employee on the basis of such document, since it would be void ab initio. 14. On an overall appreciation of facts, we are inclined to interfere with the judgement passed by the learned Single Judge. Thus, the impugned judgement dated 28.07.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.4166 of 2002 is hereby quashed and set aside. However, we direct the appellant authorities to pay all the undisputed retirement benefits to the heirs of the deceased employee, within a period of twelve weeks, from the date of receipt of this order. 15. The present appeal stands allowed.