BALAKRISHNA, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition is directed against the order passed by the respondent dated 9-11-1987dismissing the petitioner from service. ( 2 ) THE facts of the case, in brief, are as follows: the petitioner was working as a clerk-cum-typist in the respondent corporation. It isstated that she belongs to a tribe called 'malcru'. from 16-6-1986 she was on maternity leave for3 months and subsequently extended the saidperiod for another 15 days and reported for dutyon 30-9-1986. The head of the office refusedto take her on duty and the petitioner made arepresentation stating that she has to be takenon duty as she has come back after completingher maternity leave. On 13-1-1987, the respondentissued an endorsement to the effect thatthere is some controversy about the caste towhich she belongs and, therefore, until orders arereceived from the central office, she cannot betaken back on duty. A careful reading of theendorsement also makes out the fact that oralinstructions were received from the higherauthorities directing the head of the office notto take her on duty after return from leave. Asagainst this endorsement, the petitioner filedw. p. No. 3293/87 before this court and thiscourt, by us order dated 18-3-1987, allowed thewrit petition and quashed the endorsement. this court also directed reinstatement of thepetitioner in service forthwith and also held thatthe petitioner is entitled to all consequentialbenefits such as arrears of salary etc. ( 3 ) BY order dated 29-4-1987, petitioner was asked to report for duty and accordingly petitioner resumed duly and she had been working as a clerk-cum-typist in the establishment of the respondent. But on 9-11-1987, the respondent passed an order dismissing the petitioner from service without holding any enquiry and without even issuing a notice. It is this order that is challenged in this writ petition. ( 4 ) IT is not necessary to go into the details of the facts because of the glaring infirmity in the proceeding relating to the dismissal of the petitioner from service. The following relevant portion of the impugned order is sufficient to convince that the proceedings have been thoroughly arbitrary and most disagreeably bureaucratic in dealing with the rights of the petitioner:"the holding of a regular departmental enquiry will surely cause suffocated and unhealthy atmosphere in which the delinquent official may psychologically be obesscd with pains and panics and may even undergo humiliating and harrowing mental sufferings. As such it is extremely impracticable to hold a regular enquiry in the manner provided under the rules 11, 12 and 13 of Karnataka civil services (c. c. a.) rules, 1957 as adopted by the corporation. "there are few more sentences which are necessary to reproduce. One of the portions reads thus:"i am responsible for the integrity and the efficiency of the administration of this scheduled castes and scheduled tribes development corporation. It is obviously undesirable that the matter like this should be made the subject of evidence in the court of law or otherwise discussed in public. Having considered the materials and circumstances of this case, it is not reasonably practicable to hold a. Regular departmental enquiry against the delinquent official Smt. B. Annapurnamma. She has rendered herself unfit to be retained in this corporation continuing her in the service of this corporation will surely bring about demoralising effect on the administration of this corporation. Smt. B. Annapurnamma is guilty of misconduct. " ( 5 ) IMPUTATION of the most serious nature has been made against the petitioner and it is merely on allegation without proof that the petitioner has been condemned and removed from service. It is a well-known proposition of law that no one can be condemned, without being heard. Principles of natural justice have been thrown into the winds and enquiry has been dispensed with not only because of the imbecility of the official who is charged with the responsibility of holding an enquiry under the c. c. a. rules, but also because of the illusions of assumed reactions likely to be caused to the petitioner. The authority passing the impugned order seems to have undergone more of psychological trauma than the petitioner herself. To put it in more mild language, this is a classic instance of bureaucratic inebriation. It is a matter of pity that in the instant case the concerned officer who is under a statutory duty to hold an enquiry before condemning the petitioner, has failed to discharge the duty imposed by law and sought refuge on imaginary grounds in order to dispense with an enquiry which would have thrown light on the truth of the allegations made against the petitioner. This kind of a disposal of the services of the petitioner is most primitive in character. This kind of a disposal of the services of the petitioner is most primitive in character. It is lime for the officials who are'not only civil servants, but also public servants to realise their accountability to the citizens. An order so lackadaisical and perverse deserves to be quashed without a second thought. ( 6 ) A developing nation which is on thres hold of radicle changes cannot afford administrative lethargy or chicanery. What is demanded of the public officials and civil servants is public accountability and social responsibility. The demands of a progressive society are indeed great but not greater than the call of conscience in a just and humane bureaucracy. Statutory obligations arc meant to be performed and not circumvented on flimsy grounds and lame pretexts. It is time for the bureaucracy to realise that behind every law made by the legislature is the force of public interest and public policy in the country which is wedded to participatory democracy. It is true that there is no place for passion or emotion in a judgment. But it is equally true that "the tug of emotion triggered off by equity is too strong to resist". As held by the Supreme Court in Engineering Mazdoor Sabha v Hind Cycles Ltd. , AIR 1963 SC 874 : "no doubt, even while acting administratively, the authorities must act bona-fide". I am convinced that the authority has fallen short of bonafides in conduct as well as action. "every Administrative Act is thus treated as judicial if it adversely affected any person's rights or as lord parker put it, entailed a penalty". Vine v National Dock labour board, 1957 a. c. 488. There cannot be a more blatant violation of natural Justice than this in as much as an employee has been thrown out of service without an enquiry setting at nought the principle of fairness and reasonableness. It is rightly said that the primary purpose of administrative law is to keep the powers of government within their legal. Bounds so as to protect the citizcn against their abuse. "the powerful engine of authority must be prevented from running amok". ( 7 ) IN the result, for the reasons stated above, Rule is issued and made absolute. The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 9-11-1987 is quashed and the respondent is directed to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits. "the powerful engine of authority must be prevented from running amok". ( 7 ) IN the result, for the reasons stated above, Rule is issued and made absolute. The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 9-11-1987 is quashed and the respondent is directed to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits. In the circumstances of the case, I am inclined to award cost of Rs. 1,000/- to the petitioner and i order accordingly. Time for compliance is 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Writ petition allowed. --- *** --- .