THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR W.A.No.250 of 2006 JUDGMENT (Per Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) The appellants’ Corporation filed this writ appeal against the order dated 22.02.2005 in W.P.No.15739 of 2002, whereby the learned single Judge of this Court while allowing the writ petition, set aside the orders dated 20.06.2002 and 30.06.2002, passed by the Corporation. 2. The brief facts are that the respondent joined service on 15.12.1960 as Junior Clerk in the appellants’ Corporation and was promoted from time to time, later, retired from service at the stage of Assistant Traffic Manager/Depot Manager. He alleged that his date of birth was mentioned as 04.06.1944 in his Higher Secondary Certificate, service record and seniority list published in respect of various categories of posts held by him. He stated that the second appellant issued a notification dated 18.03.2002, mentioning his date of attaining the age of superannuation as 30.06.2002. But, the first appellant issued a show cause notice on 20.06.2002, which was served on the respondent on 25.06.2002, calling upon him to explain as to why the date of birth should not be entered as 14.08.1941 as shown in the format and further, he deemed to have been retired from service on 31.08.1999, by giving seven days time for his explanation. The respondent states that even before submitting his explanation to the said show cause notice, the second appellant issued proceedings dated 30.06.2002, stating that he was deemed to have retired from service in 1999 based on the date of birth as 14.08.1941. Challenging the said show cause notice and the proceedings dated 20.06.2002 and 30.06.2002 respectively, the respondent filed the writ petition. Through the impugned order, the learned singe Judge of this Court allowed the writ petition by setting aside the orders impugned therein. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants’ Corporation filed the present appeal. 3. Heard the learned standing counsel for the appellants’ Corporation and the learned counsel for the respondent. 4. Learned standing counsel for the appellants’ Corporation contended that if the date of birth of the respondent is taken as 04.06.1944, as mentioned in the Higher Secondary Certificate, he was aged 16 years at the time entering into service in 1960 and that the respondent’s father made a representation on 11.07.1960 to the Director of Public Instructions, Government of Andhra Pradesh, for alteration of his son’s date of birth as 14.08.1941. He also contended that without taking into consideration the said aspects, the learned single Judge passed orders in favour of the respondent. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that based on the school and service records, which show the date of birth of the respondent is 04.06.1944, the learned single Judge passed the impugned order. He contended that the appellants served on the respondent the show cause notice on 25.06.2002, giving seven days time for his explanation and before expiry of the said period, they issued proceedings that he deemed to have retired from service in 1999, which is in violation of the principles of natural justice. 6. The record shows that the respondent retired from service on 30.06.2002 at the stage of Assistant Traffic Manager. His date of birth was mentioned as 04.06.1944 in his school records as well as in the service record. The appellants’ Corporation placed reliance on a format, which was duly certified by them, showing the date of birth of the respondent as 14.08.1941. A perusal of a xerox copy thereof shows that they rounded up the date of birth and put a question mark. Except that format, no piece of evidence is produced by the Corporation. As such, it can be said that the said format cannot be taken as basis so as to infer that the date of birth of the respondent as 14.08.1941. 7. Further, the show cause notice dated 20.06.2002, issued by the first petitioner was served on the respondent on 25.06.2002, as per which, the respondent was given seven days time for submitting his explanation. However, without waiting for such period, the second appellant issued proceedings dated 30.06.2002 stating that the respondent was deemed to have been retired from service on 31.08.1999. As such, the action of the Corporation is violative of principles of natural justice and is not sustainable, as rightly held by the learned single Judge of this Court. 8. In view of the above, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order impugned. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date:19.09.2011 sj