JUDGMENT 1. - This matter comes up for consideration of Miscellaneous Application dated 24.9.91 filed on behalf of the petitioner. 2. Yesterday, arguments were heard on the application filed on behalf of the petitioner. Originally, the petition was filed against a show cause notice dated 5.9.91, by which the management of the respondent Mill had proposed to dismiss the petitioner from service on the basis of finding of guilt recorded against the petitioner in a domestic inquiry. The writ petition was taken up for consideration by this court on 23.9.91 and then on 24.9.91 and 25.9.91. After hearing the parties, writ petition was admitted on 26.9.91. It had been brought to the notice of the court by the learned counsel for the respondents that the order of dismissal had been passed by the director of the respondent Mill on 12.9.91. Petitioner thereafter applied for amendment of the writ petition. The application for amendment has been accepted and the amended writ petition has been taken on record.. 3. In the Misc. Application, the petitioner has made a prayer that the respondent No. 2 be directed to restore possession and position of the house belonging to the petitioner as it existed on 19.9.91 i.e. the date of filing of the writ petition and the respondent No. 2 may be restrained from giving effect to the order of dismissal. 1 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5431/91 4. Petitioner was given notice dated 5.9.91 and was called upon to show cause against the proposed action within a period of 7 days. According to the petitioner, the notice had been received by him on 7.9.91 and he had sent his reply by registered post on 13.9.91. However, before expiry of period of even 7 days counting from the date of receipt of notice, the competent authority issued the order of dismissal on 12.9.91. Obviously, therefore, it had not considered the reply filed by the petitioner. Rather no occasion arose for consideration of the reply filed by the petitioner, in view of premature action taken by the competent authority for dismissal of the petitioner from service. 5. Obviously, therefore, it had not considered the reply filed by the petitioner. Rather no occasion arose for consideration of the reply filed by the petitioner, in view of premature action taken by the competent authority for dismissal of the petitioner from service. 5. One of the contentions raised in the petition is that while in other cases of departmental inquiries, at least 15 days time is given to file reply to the show cause notice, in the present case, unusually, a short period of 7 days was given and even before expiry of 7 days counting from the date of receipt, the order of dismissal was passed. 6. Respondents have come out with a case that 7 days period has to be counted from the date of issue of notice and from that point of time, the competent authority was fully justified in passing the order of dismissal on 12.9.91. Prima facie, I find that the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is correct. The period of notice is to be counted and taken into consideration from the date the notice is served on the party, which is called upon to submit the explanation. Unless he is served with the notice, he cannot possibly know the contents of the notice and cannot possibly know as to in respect of what allegation what reply or representation is to be submitted. From the point of time of receipt of notice, the petitioner has sent his reply within 7 days. The mode of service of notice was by registered post and mode of sending representation was also by registered post and, therefore, the petitioner was justified in sending his reply within 7 days of the date of receipt of notice. 7. In my opinion, prima facie, the Managing Director was not justified in passing the order of dismissal from service before expiry of even 7 days period. However, finding on this issue will depend on the ultimate decision of the court after hearing both the parties. 8. Petitioner's case is that while he was at Jaipur in connection with the proceedings of this writ petition, the respondents took upon themselves the task of throwing his family out of the quarter, which was allotted to the petitioner by the Mill during the course of employment. Petitioner's two children are studying in school at Keshorai-patan and his wife is in employment. Petitioner's two children are studying in school at Keshorai-patan and his wife is in employment. While the petitioner was away and his kids had gone to the school, the authorities of the Mill forcibly evicted the petitioner's family from the quarter with the help of the police and not only took away the goods which had been supplied by the Mill but also took away the domestic goods of the petitioner. The result was that the petitioner's family was thrown on the road without any shelter. According to the petitioner, his family has suffered extreme humiliation and injury on account of being kept on roads. Even reasonable opportunity was not afforded to the family of the petitioner to arrange for another accommodation. Respondents have filed reply to the Misc. Application filed by the petitioner and in this reply, the respondents have asserted that once the petitioner had been dismissed from service, he lost every right to retain the quarter, which had been allotted to him by the Mill. The Mill had given him quarter while he was in employment. Furniture and other goods were also given to the petitioner, and as soon as the relationship between the master and servant came to an end, the occupation of the quarter and the goods of the Mill became unauthorised. The Security Officer of the Mill and other officers had apprehended that the petitioner will take away the goods and will misappropriate them and, therefore, steps had to be taken to protect the property of the Mill. Opportunity was given to the petitioner to vacate the quarter, but the petitioner's wife misbehaved with the authorities of the Mill and also used abusive language and this forced the authorised of the Mill to act in accordance with the law in getting the quarter vacated. Respondents have enclosed a list of the goods, of which possession was taken. Learned counsel for the respondent was repeatedly asked as to how the police intervened in the matter. This question was asked to him in the context of his submission that Unauthorised Occupants Act is not applicable to the premises of the Mill. Learned counsel stated that since there was apprehension of breach of peace, the police was informed and the police intervened. 9. Prima facie, in my opinion the role of the police in this matter is very dubious and unjustified. Learned counsel stated that since there was apprehension of breach of peace, the police was informed and the police intervened. 9. Prima facie, in my opinion the role of the police in this matter is very dubious and unjustified. No material has been placed by the respondents to establish that the petitioner had mis-appropriated or taken away the goods belonging to the Mill during the period of 7 days i.e. from 12.9.91 to 19.9.91. Admittedly, the petitioners children and wife were staying in the quarter. True it is that once relationship of matter and servant between the petitioner and the management had come to an end by passing of the order dated 12.9.91, the petitioner was required to vacate the quarter, but then the manner in which the authorities of the Mill have acted in evicting the children and the wife of the petitioner leads much to be desired. Apparently, the authorities thought that they are above the law and no provision of law is applicable to them. Otherwise, there could be no justification for throwing a lady and children of the petitioner on 4 roads. There is absolutely no justification whatsoever for taking possession of the domestic goods belonging to the petitioner. One cannot comprehend a situation like the present in 1991. This might have been possible in 1950 but not in 1991. In my opinion, there is either any legal nor any logical justification on the part of the authorities of the Mill to have taken this action against the petitioner. I am clearly of the opinion that the respondents have acted with hot haste and in a most unjust manner in evicting the petitioner's family from the quarter 'in question. It is true that if the petitioner's dismissal is ultimately upheld by the court, the petitioner is bound to vacate the quarter and even otherwise in the normal course, the petitioner could have been asked to vacate the premises by giving him reasonable opportunity of securing another accommodation. However, adopting a most strange and unusual mode without regard to the minimum humanitarian consideration, the authorities of the Mill forcibly evicted the petitioner's wife and his children from the quarter. 10. Having regard to the over all facts of the case, I make the following order (a) the petitioner shall be paid a sum of Rs. However, adopting a most strange and unusual mode without regard to the minimum humanitarian consideration, the authorities of the Mill forcibly evicted the petitioner's wife and his children from the quarter. 10. Having regard to the over all facts of the case, I make the following order (a) the petitioner shall be paid a sum of Rs. 900/- per month because that is the salary which he would have received if he would remained under suspension before passing of the order of dismissal; (2) the respondents should deliver all goods to the petitioner or his wife immediately on their approaching the In charge of the Store and in any case, this should be done within 3 days. Petitioner or his wife is directed to contact the In charge of Store tomorrow; (3) the quarter which was in possession of the petitioner shall not be allotted to any one else till further orders of the court. 11. The writ petition be listed for final disposal on 25.11.1991.Stay Application Allowed Accordingly. *******