The duty to give reasonable opportunity of being heard is implied from the nature of the function to be performed by the authority which has vested power to take punitive action. Every executive authority must ensure that justice is not only done but also appears to have been done, and the procedure for depriving a person of his livelihood must be strictly followed.

Kailash Gambhir, J.-By way of this writ petition the petitioner widow of late Shri Sardar Singh has approached this Court seeking quashing/setting aside of the order dated 9.11.1999, whereby husband of the petitioner was prematurely retired from his service before completing the age of superannuation. The petitioner also seeks quashing of office order dated 15th July, 2002 whereby decision was taken to pay GPF and leave encashment, considering the date of retirement of the deceased as 31.8.1984 and to recover the excess payment made to the deceased.

2. The brief facts relevant for deciding the present case, inter alia, are that the husband of the petitioner was working on the post of Chowkidar on regular basis w.ef. 5.9.1974. Prior to conferment of regular status, the petitioner was asked to produce his age proof. The deceased was not in possession of his school leaving certificate or birth certificate. The deceased had submitted an affidavit in support of his age proof. In the absence of any such certificate the deceased was examined by the Medical Board so as to assess his age and as per the assessment of the Medical Board, the age of the deceased was considered at that time to be of about 30-32 years. The date of birth of the deceased was assessed as 1.5.1943 accordingly, and the deceased was given proper appointment letter on the said post of Chowkidar. The deceased was also allotted GPF No. BB 6148 in which he started making regular contribution. While husband of the petitioner was performing his normal duties on the said post of Chowkidar he got the shock of his life by receiving letter dated 9.11.1999 from the respondent thereby abruptly relieving him from his duties immediately from the said date. In the said letter, it was mentioned that the deceased husband of the petitioner was being relieved from his duties on the basis of his date of birth being 8.8.1924 and in terms of the directions/ orders dated 16.4.1999 issued in this regard by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Education). Husband of the petitioner was taken aback as he was neither aware of any decision taken by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Education) on 16.4.1999 nor came to know that on what basis his date of birth was being taken as 8.8.1924. After receiving the said letter the husband of the petitioner made efforts to find out as to why his date of birth was taken as 8.8.1924 when his age was duly certified by the Medical Board. I~ is further stated by the petitioner that the deceased husband of the petitioner was surprised to know that the respondent had acted at the behest of some Class IV employee who had lodged some false complaint against the deceased husband of the petitioner about his date of birth. Acting on the said complaint, the respondent verified the records of MC (Boys) School, Kanjhawla, wherefrom the date of birth of the deceased husband of the petitioner was ascertained as 8.8.1924. Believing such an information as correct the respondent without seeking any clarification or explanation from the deceased husband of the petitioner in a most illegal and arbitrary manner took the decision of prematurely retiring the husband of the petitioner. The illegality on the part of the respondent did not stop here alone, but vide office order dated 15th July, 2002 the deceased husband of the petitioner was informed that he will be paid GPF and leave encashment taking into consideration his date of retirement as 31st August, 1984 and recovery proceedings would be launched if it was found that any excess payment was made to him. It is further stated that retiral benefits including GPF, leave encashment, etc. were not given either to the deceased husband of the petitioner or to the petitioner even by taking the said date of premature retirement of the deceased i.e. 9.11.1999.

3. The right of the respondent/MCD to file the counter affidavit was closed vide order dated 4.4.2007 as despite repeated opportunities granted to the respondent no c