By Court.-By a short order passed on 19.1.84 we quashed the order impugned in the present proceeding and allowed the petition stating that we would give reasons. We now set out reasons herein below. 2. The petitioner challenged the validity of the order dated 1st June, 1979 passed by the Governor of Manipur, by which Ms earlier order of even number dated 19.4.79 under which the petitioner was reinstated, stood cancelled. We may state here, in short, the material facts bearing on the question raised herein. The petitioner was appointed as a Constable on 1.12.70. He was posted in 1975 at Lilong Police Station. On 6.6.75 the Police Inspector Shri L. Yaima Singh and the Sub-Inspector Shri Th. Nabakishor Singh along with the petitioner took Md. Salam Mia in a jeep who was an accused in connection with the F. I R. No. 30 (5) 75 of Lilong Police Station under Sec­tion 379 I. P. C. for the purpose of production before the Judi­cial Magistrate 1st Class, Thoubal, to seek, remand in the Police custody. After the remand order the accused wanted to attend the call of nature and for that purpose he was led to the latrine inside the court compound of the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Thoubal under escort of the petitioner when the accused made good his escape. The above two officers present at the spot and the petitioner chased the accused, but they could not appre­hend him. An F. I. R. was lodged for the escape of the accused from lawful custody. Meanwhile the accused surrendered in court. The police case in F. I. R. 30(5) 75 ended in submission of the Final Report. The petitioner was placed under suspension on a charge of negligence of duty for suffering escape of the accused from his lawful custody. A departmental proceeding was started and an enquiry was held by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Thoubal, who submitted his report on 12.9.75 stating that the charge against the petitioner was proved. It was however stated that during his service career, the petitioner had earned as many as three rewards to his credit and no punishment be awarded against him. A departmental proceeding was started and an enquiry was held by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Thoubal, who submitted his report on 12.9.75 stating that the charge against the petitioner was proved. It was however stated that during his service career, the petitioner had earned as many as three rewards to his credit and no punishment be awarded against him. The Superintendent of Police (Central), Manipur, who was the disciplinary authority, accepted the finding of the Enquiry Officer that the charge against the petitioner was proved and on the finding above, he came to the provisi­onal conclusion of awarding the petitioner the punishment of dismissal from service, his pay during the period under suspen­sion being restricted to subsistence allowance only. After giving opportunity to show cause as to why the petitioner should not be dismissed from service, he passed the final order of dismi­ssal of the petitioner from service. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Inspector General of Police, Manipur, who by order dated 18th November, 1976 dismissed it. The petitioner made serveral representations to the Government of Manipur and the Government of Manipur refused to interfere with the order of dismissal. Thereafter the petitioner made a representation to the Governor of Manipur, and the Governor of Manipur after taking into account all relevant records as well as the attendant circumstances which led to the passing of the order of dismissal, passed an order for reinstatement of the petitioner to his post as Constable with immediate effect, subject to the condition that he would not be entitled to any arrears of pay and allowances during the period he was not in service. This order was passed on 19.4.79 (Annexure A/6 to the petition). Despite the order of the Governor dated 19.4.79, the petitioner was not allowed to join the service. Meanwhile, the petitioner was served with another order dated 1.6.79 made by the Governor of Manipur cancelling his earlier order of reinstatement. The petitioner being aggrieved by this order cance­lling the order of reinstatement has challenged the legality of the same in the present proceeding. 3. The respondents, viz., the State of Manipur, the Inspector General of Manipur, and the Superintendent of Police (Central), Manipur while resisting the contention of the petitioner filed a joint affidavit-in-opposition. The petitioner being aggrieved by this order cance­lling the order of reinstatement has challenged the legality of the same in the present proceeding. 3. The respondents, viz., the State of Manipur, the Inspector General of Manipur, and the Superintendent of Police (Central), Manipur while resisting the contention of the petitioner filed a joint affidavit-in-opposition. It was stated in the affidavit, inter alia, that the order of reinstatement dated 19.4.79 (Annexure A/6) was passed without considering the earlier order passed by the competent authorities and through mistake the Chief Minister of Manipur made a note on 31.3.79 that the petitioner might be reinstated in service and on the basis of the said note the order of reinstatement was passed. It was discovered subsequently that there was an error apparent on the face of the record and as such the subsequent order impugned herein was passed. It is stated that there was no illegality in the order impugned herein. 4. On the averment of the parties made in the petition and in counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, the following questions emerged for our consideration ; (i) Whether the impugned order suffers from illegality, inasmuch as no reason was given in the order itself for cancellation of the earlier order of reinstatement and (ii) Whether the impugned order is invalid, being violative of principle of Natural Justice and hit by Article 311(2) of the Constitution. 5. We have heard at length the learned counsel of both the parties. On the first question, it is apparently cleat that the impugned order contains no reason. It reads as : "Orders by the Governor : Manipur Imphal, the 1st June, 1979. No. 1/4/76-H(2) : The Governor of Manipur is pleased to order that his order of even No. dated 19.4.1979 under which Shri L.Tomba Singh Ex-constable No. 2292 had been reinstated, is hereby cancelled. By order & in the name of Governor Sd/- S. Vaiphei Under Secretary to the Govt. of Manipur." 6. The respondents in their joint counter-affidavit had given reasons on the basis of which the impugned order had to be passed. It is a settled law that on the order of reinstatement (Annexure A/6) the petitioner would become a government servant and he acquired as such a status, a civil status and his rights accrued thereto cannot be taken away except in accordance with law. It is a settled law that on the order of reinstatement (Annexure A/6) the petitioner would become a government servant and he acquired as such a status, a civil status and his rights accrued thereto cannot be taken away except in accordance with law. The Supreme Court in Roshan Ali vs. Union of India : AIR 1967 SC 1889 has ruled that a person once appointed to his post or office under Government, he acquires a status and his rights and obligations are no longer determined by consent of both parties, but by statute or statutory rules which may be framed and altered unilaterally by the Government. In other words the legal position of a Government servant is more of status than of contract. The hall-mark of status is the attachment to a legal relationship of rights and duties imposed by the public law and not be mere agreement of the parties. The emolument of the Government servant and his terms of service are governed by statute or statutory rules. This view was reiterated by Supreme Court in Dinesh Chadra Sangma vs. State of Assam & Ors. : AIR 1978 SC 17 , where it was pointed out that the pleasure doctrine under 310 is limited by Article 311(2). The service of a permanent Government servant cannot be terminated except in accordance with Rules made under Article 309 subject to Article 311(2) of the Constitution and the Fundamental Rights. 7. There cannot be two opinions by now that the impugned order made by the Governor of Manipur is quasi-judicial in nature. It affects the rights of the petitioner as pointed out above. In Siemens Engineering and Manufacturing Co. of India Ltd. vs. Union of India : AIR 1976 SC 1185 , it was observed as follows : "It is now settled law that where an authority makes an order in exercise of a quasi-judicial function it must record its reasons in support of the order it makes. Every quasi-judicial order must be supported by reasons. That has been laid down by a long line of decisions of this Court ending with N. M. Desai vs. The Testeels Ltd. C. A. No 255 of 1970 D/17.12.1975 (SC)". See also Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India; AIR 1978 SC 597 : Mohindher Singh Gill vs. Chief Election Commissi­oner, New Delhi : AIR 1978 SC 851 . That has been laid down by a long line of decisions of this Court ending with N. M. Desai vs. The Testeels Ltd. C. A. No 255 of 1970 D/17.12.1975 (SC)". See also Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India; AIR 1978 SC 597 : Mohindher Singh Gill vs. Chief Election Commissi­oner, New Delhi : AIR 1978 SC 851 . The Supreme Court in Organo Chemical Industries & Am. vs. Union of India & Ors. : AIR 1979 SC 1803 approved the observation made in Siemens' case and proceeded to point out that fair play in Administration is a finer juristic facet, at once fundamental and inviolable and natural justice is an inalienable functional component of quasi-judicial acts. As no reason has been set out in the impugned order which is undoubtedly a quasi-judicial order, the impugned order is tainted with illegality and as such, the order is invalid. 8. The respondents sought to justify the order by giving reasons in the affidavit in paragraphs 11 and 12 of the counter affidavit which we have already referred to earlier. In our opi­nion, giving reasons in the affidavit cannot cure the illegality of the impugned order. The Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh (Supra) quoted with approval the observation of Bose J. in Gordhandas Bhanji ( AIR 1952 SC 16 ), which reads as follows : "Public orders publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he inten­ded to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the acting and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself". Krishna Iyer, J. proceeded further with observation as : "Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they grow older". The above authorities of the Supreme Court are sufficient to reinforce our finding that the impugned order is invalid being without any reason. The first question, therefore, has to be answered against the respondents and we hold the impugned order to be invalid. 9. We now turn to the second question raised which is the sec­ond infirmity of the impugned order. It has not been disputed by lear­ned Govt. The first question, therefore, has to be answered against the respondents and we hold the impugned order to be invalid. 9. We now turn to the second question raised which is the sec­ond infirmity of the impugned order. It has not been disputed by lear­ned Govt. Advocate that no opportunity was given to the petitioner to have his say before passing the impugned order. 'When power to affect citizen's rights especially by way of punitive impost or damages for wrong doing, is quasi-judicial in character even if exercised by executive echelons'. In Commissioner of Coal Mines Provident fund, Dhanbad and Ors. vs. J. P. Lalla AIR 1976 SC 676 it was ruled that when a body or authority has to determine a matter involving rights judicially, the principle of Natural Justice is implied if the decision of the body or authority affects in­dividual rights or interest and in such cases having regard to the particular situation it would be unfair for a body or aut­hority not to have allowed a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The similar view was expressed by the Supreme Court in Organo Chemical Industries (supra). A reference was made of the decision of Supreme Court in Socklatinga Tea Company (P) Ltd. Catcutta-7 vs. The Chairman, Board of Trustees, A.T. PP. F. Scheme Gauhati & Ors : (1982) 1 Gauhati Law Reports 316. In S. L. Kapoor vs. Jagmohan and Ors. AIR 1981 SC 136 it was held by the Supreme Court that 'the principles of natural justice know of no exclusionary rule dependent on whether it would have made any difference if natural justice have been observed. The non-observance of natural justice is itself prejudice to any man and proof of prejudice independently of proof of denial of natural justice is unnecessary". 10. Io view of the principle of law enunciated by the Sup­reme Court from time to time, there is no escape from the con­clusion that the impugned order also suffers from the infirmity inasmuch as it violated the principle of natural justice. That apart, as discussed already on the first question the petitioner having acquired a status as a Govt. servant, his rights cannot be taken away except in accordance with Art. 311(2) of the Constitution. The impugned order is in its effect an order of removal from service, in violation of Art. 311(2) of the Cons­titution. That apart, as discussed already on the first question the petitioner having acquired a status as a Govt. servant, his rights cannot be taken away except in accordance with Art. 311(2) of the Constitution. The impugned order is in its effect an order of removal from service, in violation of Art. 311(2) of the Cons­titution. On that account also the order is invalid. 11. Lastly, the learned Government Advocate made a faint attempt to justify the impugned order by submitting that the order of reinstatement (Annexure A/6) was without jurisdiction. It is urged that there is no provision in the Assam Police Manual which is in force in Manipur empowering the Governor to pass the order of reinstatement (1/6) after the rejection of several representations made by the petitioner against the order of dismissal. In reply to it learned counsel for the petitioner draws our attention to the provisions laid down in Clause (XII) of Rule 66 of the Assam Police Manual, Part HI adopted in Manipur. It reads as : "Nothing in these rules shall preclude the Governor from revising any order passed by any authority subor­dinate to him in exercise of the powers conferred on such authority by these rules". In our view, these rules are complete answer to the above contention raised by the learned Government Advocate. The power is conferred by the said rule on the Governor to revise any order passed by any authority subordinate to him. The contention of the learned Government Advocate has no force and is rejected as such. 12. In view of the discussion above, we hold that the impugned order passed by the Governor on 1.6.79 is invalid which we do hereby quash. The petitioner shall be deemed to be in service from the date of order of reinstatement dated 19.4.79 and he shall be entitled to all benefits admissible under the Rules as Constable. The petition is, therefore, allowed. The Rule is made absolute. We make no order as to costs.