JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition is directed against the order of the Assistant Engineer (Civil), Ground Water Department, Jodhpur, dated 12-8-1974, whereby the petitioner's services were terminated with effect from 11-9-1974. 2. The Petitioner was a mason in the Ground Water Department and was appointed by the Executive Engineer (Famine), Rajasthan Ground Water Board, Jodhpur, vide his order dated 14-8-1959 (Annexure I). He continued to remain in service upto 12-8-1974 and on 12-8-74 his service were terminated, as he remained absent with effect from 17-6-1974. The petitioner's case is that on 9-9-1974 he submitted an application (Annexure G) stating therein that he was suffering from typhoid from 17-6-1974,60 could not attend the Office Along with this application he also submitted a medical certificate and prayed for grant of 70 days leave with effect from 17-6-1974. He joined his duty on : 1-9-1974 at Jaisalmer and worked upto 20-9-1974 and further reported himself at Jodhpur as directed by the Assistant Engineer, but the Personnel officer refused to take the petitioner on duty on 23-9-1974 It appears that the petitioner came to know of the order of the Assistant Engineer dated 12-8-1974 and he submitted a representation against the same and also served a notice on 21-10-1974. His grievance is that his services have been terminated in contravention of rule 23-A (1) and 23-A (2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules inasmuch as no termination order could be passed by the Assistant Engineer as the Assistant Engineer was not his appointing authority and further the petitioner had been In continuous Government service for more than three years and satisfied the requirements of sub-rule (2) of rule 23-A of the Rajasthan Service Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules)" So his services could not be terminated in the manner as was done by the Assistant Engineer without disciplinary proceedings being initiating against him. 3. The writ petition has been opposed on behalf of the respondents. 4. I have heard Sri B. A. Purohit, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Shri S.L Mardia, learned Additional Government Advocate, for the State of Rajasthan. 5. Having heard both the parties, in my opinion, the order of termination of the petitioner passed by the Assistant Engineer, cannot be sustained in view of the fact that it is in contravention of rule 23-A (1) of the Rules. 5. Having heard both the parties, in my opinion, the order of termination of the petitioner passed by the Assistant Engineer, cannot be sustained in view of the fact that it is in contravention of rule 23-A (1) of the Rules. Admittedly, it was the Executive Engineer (Famine) Ground Water Board, Jodhpur, who appointed the petitioner and so for the petitioner Executive Engineer (Famine Ground Water Board, was the appointing authority and under sub-rule (1) of rule 23-A of the Rules the services of the petitioner could only be terminated by the Executive Engineer (Famine) Ground Water Board, who was the appointing authority, and not by the Assistant Engineer, Ground Water Department. I am fortified in this view by a decision of the Supreme Court in Om Prakash Gupta Swadheen v. Union of India and others, (A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 1261 ) cited by Shri Purohit in order to support his contention. 6. Further rule 23 - A (2) of the Rules is also attracted in the present case in view of the fact that the petitioner has put in more than three years continuous service and it has not been pointed out that the petitioner did not satisfy the suitability in respect of age and qualifications for the post of mason. As regards the other requirements under clause (b) to sub-rule (2) of rule 23 of the Rules, it may be pointed out that for the post of mason consultation with the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, is not required If sub-rule (2) of the Rule 23 - A of the Rules is attracted, then admittedly the petitioner's services have not been terminated in the manner as required in the case p of a Government servant in permanent service. No disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. It appears that the services have been terminated on account of the petitioner's absence. For the charge of absence, an opportunity was required to be given to the petitioner of being heard, after initiation of the disciplinary proceedings, but admittedly this procedure has not been followed. No disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. It appears that the services have been terminated on account of the petitioner's absence. For the charge of absence, an opportunity was required to be given to the petitioner of being heard, after initiation of the disciplinary proceedings, but admittedly this procedure has not been followed. Reference in this connection may be made to a Division Bench decision of the this Court in Fateh Chand v. State of Rajasthan ;1967 R.L.W. 1966 in which the petitioner's services were ordered to be terminated by one month's notice and the order of termination was held to be illegal, and In - operative as being violative of Rule 23 - A (2) of the Rules and was quashed. This decision applies to the facts of the present case Consequently, the order of 'the Assistant engineer (Civil), Ground Water Department, Jodhpur, dated 12-8-1974 deserved to be quashed. 7. In the result, this writ petition is allowed and the order of the Assistant Engineer (Civil), Ground Water Department, Jodhpur, dated 12-8-1974, is quashed.Petition allowed. *******