JUDGMENT :

C.L. Soni, J.

The petitioner has prayed for following relief in para 13 of the petition :

“(A) Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or writ in the nature of Mandamus or appropriate writ, order or Direction the respondents corporation for not to implementing the letter dated 18/07/2013,issued to the petitioner without giving an opportunity being heard and meantime the petitioner may not be take any punitive action against the petitioner for early retire from the service and the respondents may maintain the status quo, at the present post, where the petitioner is working as a senior coach of the respondents-corporation.

(B) Pending hearing and final disposal of this Special Civil Application Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant stay of the letter dated 18/07/2013, issued by the respondent no.1 to the petitioner and maintain the status quo, qua the petitioner.

(C) Be pleased to grant any other and further relief as think fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.”

2. The case of the petitioner is that the respondents have suddenly given letter dated 18.7.2013 to him stating that he has changed date of birth in the duplicate service book which was submitted with letter dated 17.11.2012, and no approval taken from the Government while correcting the date of birth in his duplicate service book, and that treating the birth date of 17.5.1955 recorded earlier in the service book, he has to be superannuated in July, 2013. The petitioner was also asked to immediately submit account of the bills of Rs. 1,39,70,550.00 of his office.

3. The petitioner has averred in the petition that at the time of joining the service on 16.12.1987, the petitioner had submitted his relevant documents-School Leaving Certificate (SLC) and SSC Certificate, driving licence, passport, birth certificate and the identity card issued by the respondent authority, and his date of birth mentioned in all documents is 22.6.1956 which is the true and correct date of birth. It is the case of the petitioner that there is no evidence coming from the respondent authority to controvert the above date of birth which is supported by the SLC and other documents. The petitioner has lastly averred that the action of the respondents to retire him with effect from 31.7.2013 without holding inquiry is against the principles of natural justice.

4. The respondents have filed affidavit-in-reply stating that considering the date of birth entered at the time of entry in service, the petitioner is to retire from 31.7.2013. However, the petitioner has played some mischief with the service book which remained in his custody. The Competent Authority intimated the petitioner to follow the procedure for preparing duplicate service book. It is further stated in the affidavit-in-reply that in letter dated 1.1.2013 written by the petitioner to the Secretary, Sports Authority of Gujarat, the petitioner has stated that due to heavy rain in 2004, entire service record was destroyed in rain and at the relevant time,duplicate service book was prepared. However, permission of the competent authority was not taken. However, considering the endorsement and other writings in the service book, the service book could not be said to be duplicate one. It clearly appears that the service book is original one, however, same was projected as duplicate by putting word “Duplicate” on the first page of service book. It is further stated that as per the resolution of the General Administration Department dated 11.8.1989, the petitioner was required to make application for correction of his date of birth within the period of five years from the date of preparation of service book and before completion of probation or from the date of becoming permanent employee on being converted from temporary employee. It is lastly pointed out that the procedure which is required to be followed for correction in the date of birth is not followed in the case of the petiti