JUDGMENT S.H.A. Raza, J. - The petitioner, who was an employee of Uttar Pradesh Chalchitra Nigam, an instrumentality of the State, was suspended and a departmental inquiry was held against him. The Inquiry Officer found him guilty as a result of which his two annual increments were stopped and he was ordered to be reinstated. Later on he did not join the post which he was holding. He was issued a notice but he never reported for duty. It has been averred in the counter affidavit that for the first time the opposite parties came to know regarding the whereabouts of the petitioner through a letter of the petitioner's wife Smt. Saeeda Begum which was received in the office of opposite parties on 28th August, 1985, by means of which she had informed that her husband had gone to Bombay for treatment. In the said letter nothing was mentioned about the nature of illness. Bombay address of the petitioner was also given in the said letter. A registered letter was sent to Bombay on 451985 on his address, by means of which he was directed to join the duty on 2091985. It was also made clear that if he failed to turn up his services would be terminated. In response to the said letter the petitioner sent an application he informed that he was not fully fit to join and requested for more time to join the duty. No medical certificate was annexed with the said application. Even after expiry of one month the petitioner failed to join. Even before letters were sent to petitioner's local address at Lucknow which came back with the remark that the had not returned from Bombay and when the Bombay address was inquired, nobody gave the address. Notices were also published in Dainik Jagran & Amrit Prabhat on 23885 and 2481985 respectively. It was stated in paragraph 12 of the counter affidavit that since the petitioner failed to join the duty and also never prayed for the extension of time to join the duty the order terminating the services was passed. 2. Mere a reading of the counter affidavit indicates that the petitioner's services were terminated for the reason that the petitioner absconded from duty. 2. Mere a reading of the counter affidavit indicates that the petitioner's services were terminated for the reason that the petitioner absconded from duty. It has long been settled in the case of Jai Shanker v. State of Rajasthan ( AIR 1966 SC 492 ) that even in such a situation the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution of India are attracted. Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the aforesaid case indicated as under: the removal of a government servant from 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 and of his leave would be considered to have sacrificed his appointment and may be reinstated only with the sanction of the competent authority. It was further observed by the Supreme Court that a discharge from service of an incumbent by way of punishment amounts to removal from service and the constitutional protection of Article 311 cannot be taken away from him by contending that under the Service Regulations the incumbent himself gives up the employment and all that the Government does is not to allow the person to be reinstated. 3. Applying the ratio of this case Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jagmohan Lal, as he then was, in the case of B M. Tripathi v. The State of U.P. and others (AIR 1971 Allahabad 346) quashed the order of termination which was passed against the petitioner who absented from duty. 4. Besides that, the impugned order itself indicates that the petitioner's services were terminated as he absconded from duty. From the language of the impugned order as well as the averments made in the counter affidavit it is clearly established that the foundation of the order was to remove the petitioner from service on the specific charge that he absconded from duty. Language of the order itself indicates that it was punitive in nature. It is a settled law that if service of a temporary govt. servant is said to be terminated on account of some specific fault then provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution of India must be complied with, but in the instant case the services of the petitioner were terminated without giving him a reasonable opportunity. As such the impugned order is hit by Article 311 of the Constitution of India and is totally vitiated. 5. As such the impugned order is hit by Article 311 of the Constitution of India and is totally vitiated. 5. In view of what has been indicated hereinabove the writ petition is allowed. A writ in the nature of certiorari is issued quashing the impugned order of termination dated 28th October, 1985 contained in Annexure4. 6. At this juncture, Mr. Jagdish Bhalla, counsel for the opposite parties has brought the attention of this Court towards the fact that U.P. Chalchitra Nigam has been wound up and hence the petitioner would be entitled for the salary only till the date on which the Chalchitra Nigam was wound U.P. He also submitted that, the workers who were retrenched filed a writ petition. The writ petition filed by the workers was disposed of with a direction to the authority concerned to provide alternative employment to the workers. 7. In view of the submission made by Sri J. Bhalla the petitioner of this writ petition would get the consequential benefits only upto the date Chalchitra Nigam was wound up and the benefit which was allowed by this Court to the petitioners of the writ petition filed by the workers of the Chalchitra Nigam would also be available to the petitioner. (Petition allowed)