JUDGMENT A notice to show cause was issued to the respondents as to why this petition be not allowed and the impugned order Annexure P- V be not quashed, on the short ground that the petitioner was never heard before terminating his services. In response to the notice on admission and stay, the respondents 2 and 3 have filed their return. The Director of Urban Administration, Bhopal (respondent No.1) is a formal party and does not want to file any return nor would like to file any affidavit. The petitioner was an employee of the erstwhile Gram Panchayat, Khalwara. His services were absorbed in the services of the Municipal Council, Kymore, in the cadre of peon, vide resolution of the Municipal Council, Kymore, passed on 24.1.1989 (Annexure P-I). By the impugned order dated 30.5.1991 (Annexure P- V), the petitioner's services have been termination alleging that he failed to appear in the Office and produce the relevant record and was absent for more than three months. The impugned order of termination is based, prima facie on the alleged mis-conduct, for which the petitioner was not given any show cause notice nor opportunity of hearing. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent 2 and 3 representing Municipal Council, Kymore, has supported the impugned order of termination of the services of the petitioner on several grounds. Firstly it is submitted that as per Annexure R-2 (1), the absorption of the services of the petitioner in the services of the Municipal Council, Kymore, it self was bad for want of sanctioned post of peon and for want of orders of the competent authority. The second contention raised is that the petitioner has not exhausted the remedy of appeal and revision available to him under the service rules. Lastly it is urged that notice for his appearance, was also published vide Annexure R-16, was sent to the petitioner but he failed to appear. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, in our opinion, the petition deserve to succeed on the short ground that before terminating his services, no show cause notice was given to the petitioner nor was he given any opportunity of hearing, as required under the M.P. Municipal Employees Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules, 1968. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, in our opinion, the petition deserve to succeed on the short ground that before terminating his services, no show cause notice was given to the petitioner nor was he given any opportunity of hearing, as required under the M.P. Municipal Employees Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules, 1968. The services of the petitioner have been terminated on the ground of refusing to attend Office and produce some relevant record as also on the ground of his unauthorised long three months' absence. The allegations made against the petitioner clearly amounted to misconduct, which deserve enquiry after giving due opportunity to the petitioner, as per the rules. The contention now advanced on behalf of the Municipal Council that the petitioner's absorption itself was bad, was never put to the petitioner as one of the grounds on which his services were terminated. The petitioner was also not heard on the question of his absorption in the services of the Municipal Council. It is true that there was alternative remedies available to the petitioner under the rules to file appeal or revision. But on that ground we cannot refuse to grant relief to the petitioner as we find there is pulpable error of not following the principles of natural justice. The petition, therefore, succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 30.5.1991 terminating the services of the petitioner is quashed with a direction that the petitioner be forthwith reinstated and paid all arrears of regular salary. Under the circumstances, the petitioner shall get the cost of this petition. Counsel's fee Rs. 500/-, if certified, it shall be recovered from the respondent to 2 and 3, in equal proportion.