Judgment S. B. Sinha, Gurusharan Sharma, JJ. 1. The petitioner in this application has prayed for quashing the letter issued on 17.7.1992 by the respondent whereby and whereunder the petitioner had been intimated that the petitioners representation for reinstatement/re-appointment cannot be accepted. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing the letter dated 21.11.1992 issued by the Respondent-Electrical Executive Engineer, Hajipur, whereby it was communicated to the petitioner that it is not feasible to appoint him. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing the order dated 22.7.1986 whereby the services of the petitioner has been terminated in view of his unauthorised absence. The petitioner has also prayed that Clause 24 of Standing Order of bihar State Electricity Board be declared ultra vires to Article 16 of the constitution of India. The said letters and order are contained in Annexures-1, 2 and 3 to the writ application. 2. The fact of the matter is not much in dispute. The petitioner was allegedly on leave from 1.6.1986 to 10.6.1956. According to the petitioner, he was suffering from Jaundice. As he did not recover from his illness, he sent an application on 11th June, 1986 and, thereafter, by his letter dated 1.7.1986 requested for grant of leave upto 31st july, 1986 3. The petitioner was declared fit on 4.3.1986 when he submitted his joining alongwith Medical Certificate, but the respondents without assigning any person refused to accept the same. 4. According to the petitioner, he immediately, thereafter, requested the Electrical Executive Engineer for acceptance of his joining and he was communicated that his services have been terminated which order had been sent to him by Registered post. The petitioner has contended that he has not received a copy of the said order. 5. The petitioner has contended that the impugned order has been passed, inter alia, on the basis of letter dated 30.6.1986 as contained in annexure 10 to the writ application whereby and whereunder the Assistant electrical Engineer communicated to the Electrical Executive Engineer to the effect that Junior Engineer had intimated that the petitioner was absent from 1st June, 1986, without any information, in relation whereof the Assistant electrical Engineer asked for an explanation from this petitioner but no reply has been received by him in relation thereto. 6. According to the petitioner, the Electrical Executive Engineer was not the appointing authority. 6. According to the petitioner, the Electrical Executive Engineer was not the appointing authority. So, he filed a representation on 2nd September, 1986, before the Electrical Supdt. Engineer who was the appointing authority. A copy of the said representation is contained in Annexure-II to the writ application. 7. The petitioner again filed a representation before the Chairman of the Bihar State Electricity Board. In the meanwhile, Electrical Superintendent engineer issued an office order bearing No.427 dated 2.9.1988 whereby an enquiry was directed to be made as against the petitioner. 8. An Enquiry Report was submitted on 23.1.1989 whereby it was stated that the order of termination was issued illegally as the petitioner should have been given an opportunity and steps should be taken for reinstatement of the petitioner after verification of his explanation. 9. By a letter dated 17.2 1989 addressed to the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, muzaffarpur, the r espondent Superintendent Engineer forwarded the enquiry report in which it was stated that the petitioner had submitted a representation to him on 2nd Sept, 1986, and he had sent letters dated 11.6 1986 and 1.7.1986, addressed to the Junior Engineer for extension of his leave upto 31.7.1986. 10. The Superintending Engineer further accepted that the petitioner gave joining on 4.8.1986 with Medical Certificate but his joining was not accepted. 11. The Superintending Engineer, therefore, recommended to the general Manager to consider the case of the petitioner. In the meantime, the respondent Supdt. Engineer was asked by the Deputy Director of personnel of the Board to send the report and the Enquiry Report was forwarded to him by the Supdt. Engineer by his letter dated 12.8.1989. A copy of the said letter is contained in Annexure-15 to the writ application. 12. Thereafter, the Supdt. Engineer by his letter dated 26.12.1989 as contained in Annexure-16 to the writ application commnnicated the deputy Director of Personnel that 5th order to termination passed as against the petitioner was not approved by him. 13. Thereafter, by a letter dated 8.5.1990 as contained in Annexure 9 to the writ application the Director of Personnel asked for opinion and comment from the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, who in turn by his letter dated 29.5.1990 intimated the Director of Personnel that the case of the petitioner be considered for re-appointment. 14. An Enquiry Committee was, thereafter, constituted and the electrical Supdt. 14. An Enquiry Committee was, thereafter, constituted and the electrical Supdt. Engineer by his letter dated 18.11.1991 forwarded the enquiry Report to the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Muzaffarpur area Electricity Board. In the said Enquiry Report it was stated that, although, the petitioner was on leave, the medical certificate was not on record. 15. In this case, a counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents whereby, Inter alia, it has been stated that the services of the petitioner had been terminated in terms of Clause 24 of the Standing Order of Bihar State Electricity Board. 16. Clause 24 of Standing Order of Bihar State Electricity Board reads as follows: "automatic cessation of employment.-If a workman absents himself at any time or overstays the period of leave originally granted or subsequently extended, he shall lose his lien on his appointment unless he (a) returns within 8 days of the expiry of the leave and (b) explains to the satisfaction of the appointing authority his inability to return before the expiry of his leave-----" 17. It was stated that the petitioner was asked to submit his explanation as to why he remained authorisedly absent and why his lien shall not be ceased but allegedly the petitioner did not close to submit any explanation. 18. From the conspectus of the events as noticed hereinbefore it is clear that the order of termination was passed in terms of Clause 24 of Standing Order of Bihar State Electricity Board aforementioned. 19. It has also not been denied that the said order was passed by the electrical Executive Engineer who was not the appointing authority of the petitioner. 20. It is now well hnown by various decisions of the Supreme Court of India that such a provision in the Certificate Standing Order or in regulation would be ultra vires Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of india. 21. Reference in thin connection may be made in Delhi Transport corporation V/s. D. T. C. Mazdoor Congress and others, reported in AIR 1991 sc 101 , wherein Regulation 9 (b) Delhi Road Transport Authority (Conditions of Appointment and Services) Regulation, 1952, was in question. 22. 21. Reference in thin connection may be made in Delhi Transport corporation V/s. D. T. C. Mazdoor Congress and others, reported in AIR 1991 sc 101 , wherein Regulation 9 (b) Delhi Road Transport Authority (Conditions of Appointment and Services) Regulation, 1952, was in question. 22. The Supreme Court of India upon considering a large number of decisions, inter alia, held as follows : "thus, it could be held that Art.14 read with Art.16 (1) accords right to an equality or an equal treatment consistent with the principles of natural justice Any law made or action taken by the employer, corporate statutory or instrumentally under article 12 must act fairly, justly and reasonably. Right to fair is an essential inbuilt of natural justice. Exercise of unbridled and uncanalised discretionary power impinges upon the right of the citizen ; vesting of discretion is no wrong provided it is exercised purposively judiciously and without prejudice. Wider the discretion, the greater the chances of abuse. Absolute discretion is destructive of freedom than of mans other inventions. Absolute discretion marks the beginning of the end of the liberty. The conferment of absolute power to dismiss a permanent employee is antithesis to justness or fair treatment. The exercise of discretionary power wide of mark would breed arbitrary, unreasonable or unfair actions and would not be consistent with reason and justice The provisions of a Statute, regulations or rules that empower an employer or the management to dismiss, or reduce in rank of an employee must be consistent with just, reasonable and fair procedure. It would, further, be held that right to public employment which includes right to continued public employment till the employee is superannuated as per rules or compulsorily retired or duly terminated in accordance with the procedure established by law is an integral part of right to livelihood which in turn is an integral facet of right of life assured by Art.21 of the Constitution. Any procedure prescribed to deprive such a right to livelihood or continued employment must be just, fair and reasonable procedure. In other words, an employee in a public employment also must not be arbitrarily, unjustly and unreasonably be deprived of his/her livelihood which is ensured in continued employment till it is terminated in accordance with just, fair and reasonable procedure. Otherwise any law or rule in violation thereof is void. " 23. In other words, an employee in a public employment also must not be arbitrarily, unjustly and unreasonably be deprived of his/her livelihood which is ensured in continued employment till it is terminated in accordance with just, fair and reasonable procedure. Otherwise any law or rule in violation thereof is void. " 23. This aspect of the matter has also been considered recently in d. K. Yadav V/s. J. M. A. Industries Ltd. reported in 1993 (3) SCC 259 , wherein the Supreme Court was considering of the provisions of a Standing order. It was held that the Standing Orders certised under the Industrial employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, has force of a statute and, thus, the same must conform to the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of india. This aspect of the matter has also been considered by the Supreme court in Workmen of Hindustan Steel Ltd. V/s. Hindustan Steel Ltd. and others reported in AIR 1985 SC 251 . 24. It is, therefore, clear that the provisions of Certified Standing order constitute conditions of service between an employer and employee. 25. It is not disputed that absence of an employee without obtaining leave is a misconduct. For such a misconduct, therefore, a disciplinary proceeding is to be initiated in view of the fact that thereby an employee loses his livelihood which evidently attracts Articles 14 and 21 of the constitution of India. Such a provision, therefore, has to be tested not only upon the touched Article 14 of the Constitution of India but also upon the same Article 21 thereof as also Sec.23 of the Indian Contract act. 26. Thus, Clause 24 of the Certified Standing Order as noticed hereinbefore cannot be held to be intra vires. 27. It is not disputed that in such a disciplinary proceeding, an enquiry is required to be held in terms of the provisions of said Certified standing Order. 28. For the reasons aforementioned, this application is allowed and the impugued order dated 17.7.1992 is quashed. 29. However, it goes without saying that the Respondents would be at liberty to initiate a departmental proceeding as against the petitioner and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Application Allowed