Saikia, C J. — The petitioner joined the Loktak Hydro Electric Project, Manipur in 1975 as linemen casual worker arid since then he was in that service till 1983. He was sanctioned Earned Leave with effect from 9.5.83 to 4.6.83 prefixing 8th May and suffixing 5th June by an order of the Assistant Manager (Elect.) Construction Division No.1, National Hydro Electric Power Corporation Ltd, Loktak Hydro Electric Project, Manipur respondent No. 2 herein, on medical ground. It is the case of the petitioner that due to illness, be could not join on 6,6.83 and he sent a telegraphic message to the respondent No. 2 on 30.5.83 i.e. before the expiry of the leave period praying for extension of his leave on medical ground. However, in his letter dated 11.6.83, respondent No. 2 stated that Earned Leave granted to the petitioner expired on 5th June, 1983 but till date he had not reported for duty and no information was received from the petitioner's side. The petitioner was thereby informed that he should join his duty to the concerned Sub-Divisional Officer within 8 days of the date of issue of that letter, failing which his name would be struck off from the project roll as per NHPC Rule. The petitioner arrived at his working place on 18th June, 1983 and submitted his joining report to the Sub-Divisional Officer on the same forenoon and his joining report was forwarded by the said Sub-Divisional Officer, respondent No. 3 to respondent No. 2. It was only after joining that he received the letter of respondent No.2 dated 11.6.83 The respondent No.2 already passed the impugned order on 13.6.83 that is, 2 days after he seat his letter dated 11.6.83. The petitioner was served with the impugned order dated 13 683 only on 21.6.83 when he was on duty after his joining on 18.6.83. 2. The impugned order purported to terminate the petitioner's service as lineman with effect from 1.1.6.83, ('V.N.) under the Rule No. 9 (3) of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act. 1946. 3. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 18.6.83 to respondent No.2 praying that his joining report be accepted and he be allowed to resume his duty with effect from 18.6.83. This was not received by respondent No.2. 1946. 3. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 18.6.83 to respondent No.2 praying that his joining report be accepted and he be allowed to resume his duty with effect from 18.6.83. This was not received by respondent No.2. The petitioner submitted a representation to the Chief Project Manager of Loktak N.H. Project dated 30.7.83 stating his case and praying that his case be considered and he be reinstated immediately by cancelling the termination order. It is the petitioner's case that this was also not replied to. The petitioner thereafter served notice dated 3.9.83 demanding justice and finally he submitted a representation to the Manager (elect) Loktak N.E. Project stating his case and paying for reinstatement This too, Mr.Gopalachari submits, has not been replied to. Instead, by letter dated 25.7.83 the petitioners was asked to vacate his quarter. Hence, this petition. That order, however, has been stayed by this Court. 4. Admittedly, the National Hydro electric Power Corporation-Limited, shortly the 'NHPC'. is a '-State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. It is also admitted by the parties that the NHPC personnel Manual is applicable to the employees of the NHPC including the petitioner. The Manual also contains the NHPC "Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules", shortly, "the Rules" which came into force from 14.5.1979. In the Rules disciplinary authority means the authority specified by the Board from time to time and competent under the Rules to impose my of the penalties specified in the Rules. Rule 27 deals with penalties. The Major penalties are, reduction to a lower grade or post, 01 to a lower stage in a time scale ; removal from service which shall not be a dis-qualification for future employment, and dismissal, Under Rule 28 the disciplinary authority may impose any of the penalties specified in Rule 27 on any employee. No major penalty shall be imposed by any authority lower than the actual appointing authority Rule 29 of the Rules prescribes the procedure for imposing major penalties. Sub-rule (1) says that no order imposing any of the major penalties shall be made except after an inquiry is held in accordance with this rule. No major penalty shall be imposed by any authority lower than the actual appointing authority Rule 29 of the Rules prescribes the procedure for imposing major penalties. Sub-rule (1) says that no order imposing any of the major penalties shall be made except after an inquiry is held in accordance with this rule. The Manual also contains the Model Standing Orders which are applicable having come into force in accordance with the provisions of Section 7 of the Industrial Employment (Standing Or­ders) Act, 1946 and those shall apply to all workmen as defined in Sect­ion 2(i) of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 employed in all the Divisions/Sub-divisions/Sections/Offices in the Project Area, or in any office situated outside the project Area, or as may be opened in future. Project means and includes the Loktak Hydroelectric Project. Paragraph 17 of the Standing Orders deals with overstay on leave and provides : "If any workman remains absent unauthorisedly or beyond the period of leave originally granted or subsequently extended and approved, for a period exceeding eight consecutive days, he shall be considered as having voluntarily abandoned his employment and left the services of the Project without due notice and his name shall be struck off the rolls of the project with effect from the date of such absence. However, if a workman reports back for duty within one week of the issuance of termination letter and explains to the satisfaction of the Management the reasons for his unauthorised absence from duty the Competent Authority may at its discretion, take him back on duty as it may deem fit." 5. In the instant case the petitioner was granted leave by order dated 27.4.83. He was allowed to avail of leave Travel Concession for the block year 1982-83 to pay visit to his Home town and back with his family members as per NHPC Rules. He was on 27 days' Earned Leave from 9.5.83 to 4.6.83. Admittedly, he returned back to duty on 18.6.83 and submitted his joining report. Thus, he having explained the reasons for his unauthorised absence from duty, the competent authority could have, at his discretion take him back on duty as he might deem fit. Besides, the petitioner's service having been the source of his livelihood it could not have been terminated without at least giving him an opportunity to explain. Thus, he having explained the reasons for his unauthorised absence from duty, the competent authority could have, at his discretion take him back on duty as he might deem fit. Besides, the petitioner's service having been the source of his livelihood it could not have been terminated without at least giving him an opportunity to explain. Para 17 of the Standing Orders dealing with overstay on leave is in conformity with the principles of natural justice. 6. In JAI SANKAR v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN. AIR 1966 SC 492 it was held that the petitioner Government servant was entitled to an opportunity to show cause against the proposed removal from service on his over-staying his leave and as no such opportunity was given to him, his removal from service was illegal and that he was entitled to that declaration. True, that this decision was rendered in the context of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. The instant petitioner is no doubt a servant of the NHPC and Article 311, as such, is not applicable. However, para 17 of the Standing orders having embodied the principles of natural justice, there is no reason why the petitioner was not entitled to such a notice and why his termination of service without such notice should not be liable to be set aside for violation of natural justice. 7. Mr.Th.Priyananda Singh submits that it is open for the petitioner to pursue his remedies under the Industrial Disputes Act as the Standing Orders applicable to his case. However, the fact that the NHPC is a State, has not been denied and that the Discipline an! Appeal Rules and, that the Standing Orders have statutory force has also not been denied. Under the above circumstances we are persuaded to hold that for the (ends of justice the petitioner need not be left to the long drawn procedure under the Industrial Disputes Act. The impugned order of termination is clearly violative of Para 17 of the Standing Orders as also of the of the principles of natural justice and the petitioner should not have been deprived of his service without affording him an opportunity of being heard. 8. We accordingly set aside the impugned order of termination. The result is that the petitioner shall be deemed to have continued in service. 8. We accordingly set aside the impugned order of termination. The result is that the petitioner shall be deemed to have continued in service. It shall be open for the NHPC or any appropriate authority to give notice to the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be dealt with according to the Rules for his over-stayal on leave and if the petitioner shows cause pursuant to such notice if and when given, the same shall be decided in accordance with the Rules applicable to the case. The petitioner shall be paid such pay and allowances during this period as the authorities would decide in accordance with the Rules. 9. In the result this petition is allowed and the Rule is made absolute to the extent indicated above. The Stay order if any, stands vacated. We, however, make no order as to costs.