OREDR B.C. Varma, J. l. The petitioner was in the employment of the respondent, Madhya Pradesh Laghu Udyog Nigam Ltd. (a Madhya Pradesh Government Undertaking), He proceeded on leave and did not return until 5-5-1975. Before proceeding on level, he made an application for that purpose on 31-3-1975 which application was forwarded by the Regional Manager on 1-4-1975. By order dated 26-4-1975, the Managing Director of the respondent Nigam terminated the petiti0ner's services as from 5-4-1975 treating the entire period as absent from duty, The petitioner filed an appeal before the board of Directors against the order terminating his services. That appeal was rejected, although after some delay. In this petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner questions the validity of termination of his service. 2. The petitioner alleges that before terminating his service no prior notice was given nor was he given any opportunity to defend himself. The principles of natural justice were completely violated. The respondent in its turn has taken shelter under rule 18 of the 'Service Rules of the Employees of M.P. Lagbu Udyog Nigam. 1968 and submits that since the petitioner remained absent from duty without permission of the competent authority, his services stood automatically terminated. Rule 18 of the Service Rules is as follows: "18. Absence from duty-An employee shall not absent himself from duty without the prior permission of the authority competent to sanction leave, nor shall he absent himself from duty in case of sickness or disability without a report duly supported by a Medical Certificate issued by a Registered Medical Practitioner, provided that in the case of temporary indisposition entailing absence for a period not exceeding 15 days, no medical certificate be insisted upon. No employee shall leave the station where he is posted without obtaining previous permission from the authority competent to sanction causal leave Absence without intimation will amount to wilful absence entailing forfeiture of past service. An employee who absents himself from duty without leave or overstays his leave, shall not ordinarily be entitled to draw any pay and allowances during such absence or overstayal and shall further be liable to such disciplinary action as the competent authority may take including termination of his services for which no notice as required under rule 13 will be necessary. The competent authority may however, treat such period of absence or overstayal, if not followed by termination of service as period spent on earned leave on average pay or half pay as may be due, if after obtaining an explanation in writing of the official concerned, it is satisfied that such absence or overstayal was due to circumstances beyond the control of the employee." The terms of this rule signify that any employee of the Nigam shall not absent himself from duty without prior permission of the authority competent to sanction leave. Similarly, any employee shall also not leave the station where he is posted without prior permission of the authority competent to sanction casual leave. Absence without intimation is to be treated as wilful absence and the consequence is that the past services of the employee stand forfeited. The second part of this rule permits the authority to take such disciplinary action as may be thought necessary in case of an employee absenting himself from duty without leave or in case the employee overstays his leave. The disciplinary action may be taken including the termination of services of the employee and, according to that rule, in that event no notice as required by R.13 would be necessary Rule 13 permits the Nigam to terminate the services of an employee on giving three months notice if the employee is permanent or of one month's notice if the employee is temporary, or paying him three month's or one month's pay and allowances, as the case may be, in lieu of such notice. The two consequences provided in two parts of rule 18 or for absence of an employee from duty without prior permission of the concerned authority apparently are penal. The employee's past services stand automatically forfeited. Apparently, an employee shall not be visited with such penal consequences without being heard. In Jaishankar v. State of Rajasthan [ AIR 1966 SC 492 ] their Lordships were considering a somewhat similar case where employee's services stood automatically terminated for overstaying the leave. The employee's past services stand automatically forfeited. Apparently, an employee shall not be visited with such penal consequences without being heard. In Jaishankar v. State of Rajasthan [ AIR 1966 SC 492 ] their Lordships were considering a somewhat similar case where employee's services stood automatically terminated for overstaying the leave. It was observed that the removal of Government servant from his service for overstaying his leave is illegal even though it is provided by the service regulation that any individual who absents himself without permission after the end of his leave would be considered to have sacrificed his appointment and may be reinstated only with the sanction of the competent authority. Again, in case of Shivshankar v. Union of India [ AIR 1985 SC 514 ] the Court on applying the principles of audi alteram partem held that the termination of services of a Railway employee in terms of paragraph 1301 read with paragraph 1304 of the Railway Establishment Manual enabling the Railway's authorities to forfeit the services of a Railway servant for participation in an illegal strike unless condoned by a competent authority, do not exclude the observance of principles of natural justice either by express or by necessary implication. The order of forfeiture of past services were quashed as no opportunity to show cause against the proposed action was given to the employee. This statatory principle was stated by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India [ AIR 1978 SC 597 ] in these terms: "Although there are no positive word in the statute requiring that the party shall be heard, yet the justice of the common law will supply the omission of the legislature. The principles of audi alteram partem, which mandates that no one shall be condemned unheard, is part of the rules of natural justice." In view of this state of law, it has to be held that where the past services of the employee stand forfeited and without a notice to the employee defend to against that action, the services of the employee cannot be so forfeited or lost. [See Mahesh Dutta Dixit v. The M.P. Co-operative Marketing Federation Ltd. [M.P. No. 648 of 1985, decided on the 1st May 1986] and M.P. Laghu Udyog Nigam v. Presiding Officer Labour Court, Bhopal [M.P. No. 1321 of 1982, decided on the 29th January 1985]. 3. [See Mahesh Dutta Dixit v. The M.P. Co-operative Marketing Federation Ltd. [M.P. No. 648 of 1985, decided on the 1st May 1986] and M.P. Laghu Udyog Nigam v. Presiding Officer Labour Court, Bhopal [M.P. No. 1321 of 1982, decided on the 29th January 1985]. 3. Second part of rule 18 clearly contemplates a disciplinary action against an employee absenting himself from duty without leave or overstaying his leave. Such a disciplinary action may as well result in termination of his services which may be either by removal or by dismissal. The termination of employment by removal or by dismissal from his services are penalties that can be imposed upon an employee of the Nigam under rule (33) of the Service Rules Rule (35) expressly provides that no order imposing on an employee any of the penalties other than censure shall be pas1ed by the competent authority without the charge or charges being communicated to him in writing and without his having been given a reasonable opportunity of defending himself against such charge or charges and of showing cause against the action proposes to be taken against him. 4. In the instant case, the impugned order (Annexure-III) passed by the Managing Director of the Nigam indicates that the action is taken against him under the first part of rule 18. The order says that the services of the petitioner are deemed to have been terminated with effect from 5-4-1975, i.e., from the date he proceeded on leave. It is clear from the facts narrated by us above that before proceeding on leave the petitioner had made an application and had thus intimated his intention to proceed on leave. According to the petitioner, his immediate superior had recommended for sanction of the leave. Apparently as no enquiry was held and the petitioner was given no prior notice to defend himself against any such action, the impugned order is in complete violation of the rules of natural justice and for this re son, he order cannot be allowed to stand and has to be quashed. Similarly, the order dated 9-12-1985, passed in appeal (Annexure F) which upholds the order Annexure III is also liable to be quashed. 5. Consequently, the petition is allowed. The impugned order, Annexure-III, and the one passed in appeal, Annexure-F, dated 9-12-1985 are hereby quashed. The petitioner shall be deemed to be in service throughout. Similarly, the order dated 9-12-1985, passed in appeal (Annexure F) which upholds the order Annexure III is also liable to be quashed. 5. Consequently, the petition is allowed. The impugned order, Annexure-III, and the one passed in appeal, Annexure-F, dated 9-12-1985 are hereby quashed. The petitioner shall be deemed to be in service throughout. He shall be entitled to all the emoluments and benefits during all this period as per rules. The petitioner shall also be entitled to cost of this petition. Counsel's fee Rs.100/- if certified.