By Court This writ application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for quashing an order dated 22nd October, 1981 passed by the Assistant Director Public Relations Department of the Irrigation Department, terminating the service of the petitioner a copy of that order is Annexure-5 to the writ application. According to the petitioner he was appointed as a Driver on muster roll in the year 1968. Thereafter he was converted as work charged staff under orders of the Superintending Engineer, Gandak Project by order dated 4.8.69. It is the case of the petitioner that his pay and allowances were withheld since October, 1980. Thereafter he was compelled to file a suit for recovery of arrears of his salary before the learned Subordinate Judge II, Patna. In that money suit an application to allow the petitioner to sue as an indigent person has also been filed on behalf of the petitioner. In the meantime the impugned order was issued on 22nd October, 1981 terminating the services of the petitioner with effect from November, 1980. In the order it has been mentioned that as the petitioner was absent from duty since November, 1980 and a notice was published on 3.9.81 in one of the local dailies saying that if petitioner did not join within a week thereafter then his services shall automatically stand terminated and as the petitioner did not join in spite of the said notice, his service was being terminated since the day he was absent from duty. i.e. since November, 1980. 2. It is not in dispute that the appointment of the petitioner was temporary and it could have been terminated any day. But the problem which has arisen in the present case is that the order of termination has been made effective retrospectively, i.e., with effect from November, 1980. It is well known that an order of termination simpliciter cannot be passed which at the same time amounts to an order of punishment. On the statement of the respondent themselves the petitioner has continued in service till 22.10.81 when the impugned order was passed. If the respondents or any one of them wanted to forfeit the salary which was payable to the petitioner since November 1980, that could have been done only as a measure of punishment. On the statement of the respondent themselves the petitioner has continued in service till 22.10.81 when the impugned order was passed. If the respondents or any one of them wanted to forfeit the salary which was payable to the petitioner since November 1980, that could have been done only as a measure of punishment. In that event it was necessary that the petitioner should have been communicated the charge that he was absent from duty since November, 1980 and then he should have been given an opportunity to show cause as to why his services should not be terminated with effect from the date and even the salary payable to him be not forfeited in accordance with rule. This was necessary on the principles of natural justice. As no opportunity was given to the petitioner any order which is penal in nature could not have been passed against him. 3. Accordingly, we allow the writ application in part and quash the impugned order in part saying that the services of the petitioners were being terminated with effect from November, 1980. That order shall be deemed to have come in force on 22nd October, 1981 and since that day the services of the petitioner shall be deemed to have been terminated. The effect will be that the petitioner shall be entitled to arrears of salary upto 21st October, 1981. We are quite conscious that for that relief a suit is pending, but taking all the facts and circumstances into consideration, we were of the view that any such suit cannot be held to be a bar in granting the relief aforesaid when this writ application has been admitted and about the filing of the suit it has been stated in the writ application itself. The respondents should pay the arrears of salary to the petitioner for the period November, 1980 to 21st October, 1981 within three months from the date of production of the certified copy of the order before the authority concerned. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner undertakes that after payment the petitioner shall withdraw the suit which for all practical purposes shall become infructuous. There will be no order as to cost. Application allowed.