JUDGMENT SUSANTA CHATTERJI, J. 1. The present writ petition has been filed praying inter alia for a writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents to cancel, rescind and/or withdraw the impugned orders, being Annexure 'D' and 'E' to the petition and for an ad-interim order of injunction restraining the respondents from enforcing and/or giving effect or further effect to the impugned orders, being Annexure 'D' and 'E' to the petition, as indicated above, and not to remove the petitioner from the quarters, and for other consequential reliefs. 2. It is stated in details that the writ petitioner was working as Assistant Shipper H.T. and B.F. Department of Alloy Steels Plant, Durgapur, Steel Authority of India Ltd., A Government of India Enterprise. He applied for leave on 6th February, 1982, and further prayed for extension of the same on 23rd February to 4th March, 1982 owing to his mother's ailment. Lastly, by a letter dated 2nd March, 1982 the petitioner made an application for leave for a period of 90 days. Accordingly, the petitioner, under Rule 15(v) of the Standing Orders for Alloy Steels Plant, contended that the reasons for refusal of leave should be communicated to the workmen in writing and, in fact, there was no refusal in writing by the authorities. Under Rule 15(viii) of the Standing Orders for Alloy Steel Plant, on receipt of such application the sanctioning authority shall immediately inform the workmen in writing whether the leave or extension of leave has been granted or not. It is contended that the action of the respondent nos. 5 and 6 is illegal arbitrary, mala fide and contrary to the statutory rules and the order of termination was issued for oblique motive and for collateral and illegal purpose. By developing all the points the writ petitioner has prayed for the reliefs, as indicated above. 3. A supplementary affidavit was filed bringing on record certain copies of the letters, as referred thereto. 4. The writ petition is seriously opposed by the respondents controverting the allegations of the petitioner. It is placed on record that on successful completion of training the writ petitioner was appointed on and from 22nd October, 1964, as Junior Operative Grade III. The petitioner started absenting himself from duties with effect from 28th January, 1982, without any intimation or prior sanction. It is placed on record that on successful completion of training the writ petitioner was appointed on and from 22nd October, 1964, as Junior Operative Grade III. The petitioner started absenting himself from duties with effect from 28th January, 1982, without any intimation or prior sanction. On a subsequent date one casual leave application was received by the Shift-in-Charge from the writ petitioner praying for six days' leave from 28th January, 1982 to 2nd February, 1982. It is further placed on record that even after the expiry of the aforesaid 6 days period of causal leave the writ petitioner neither reported back for duty nor did he send any intimation with regard to his unauthorised absence. On 15th February, 1982, a letter was sent to the writ petitioner under registered post with acknowledgement due to his two given addresses-both permanent and last-known, advising him to resume his duties by 22nd February, 1982. Since the writ petitioner did not resume his duties on 22nd February, 1982, nor sent any intimation regarding reasons of his absence, his services stood automatically terminated with effect from 25th February, 1982, in accordance with clause 15(xi) of the Standing Orders. The aforesaid fact was intimated to the petitioner by a letter dated 25th February, 1982, sent under registered post with acknowledgement due to his permanent address as also to his last known address. At a much later date on 4th March, 1982 a letter dated 2nd March, 1982 was received from the petitioner inter alia informing him about his mother's ailment. A long list was given showing the petitioner's frequent absence from duties constantly from June, 1981 to December, 1981. 5. The allegations of the petitioner have been controverted and it is asserted that the acts and action done or caused to have been done by the respondents, are fair and there is nothing for this Writ Court to interfere. 6. It transpires from the materials on record that the writ petition was moved on 14th May, 1982, a Rule was issued and an interim order was made to the extent that the respondents were directed to maintain status quo as regards possession of the quarters by the petitioner as on that date until further orders. The respondents were given liberty to apply for variation and/or vacating the interim order upon notice to the petitioner. 7. Mr. The respondents were given liberty to apply for variation and/or vacating the interim order upon notice to the petitioner. 7. Mr. Amaresh Chakraborty, learned Advocate appearing in support of the writ petition, has drawn the attention of this Court to the averments made in the writ petition, averments made in the affidavit-in-opposition and the reply made by the petitioner. The Court's attention has been drawn to a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1966 SC 472/492, in particular, paragraph 7 and also AIR 1976 SC 1111 . 8. Mr. Sunit Dutt, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent has opposed the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and with regard to the ratio of the judgment reported in AIR 1964 SC 1272 , including AIR 1968 SC 83, para. 7, 1991 (2) CHN 398 , 1992 (1) CLJ 399. The attention of this Court has further been drawn to 1982(1) SCC, 645. 9. Upon perusal of the materials on record and the said reports and decisions, this Court is of the view that those principles are not in dispute. In fact, by considering the facts of the present case and the standing orders, this Court is of the view that the petitioner was a habitual absentee from duty. Any past inference will not, however, disentitle the petitioner from defending his case against the termination. Life includes livelihood is a principle which has to be implemented by letter and spirit. In the instant case, the petitioner's letters for his absence have got to be explained and an opportunity of hearing should have been given to the petitioner instead of terminating him from his services automatically due to his absence. If the petitioner has committed any act in deviation of the clause as envisaged in the standing orders, a proper step should have been taken by the respondent authority to bring proper charges against him and to proceed thereafter by giving him an opportunity to explain his conduct and to explain the letters. This Writ Court cannot be converted into a Court admitting evidence and to find out whether the petitioner had really written letters and/or those letters were spurious and/or manufactured for the purpose of making out a case. 10. With great anxiety and caution, this Court has considered the allegations and counter-allegations. This Writ Court cannot be converted into a Court admitting evidence and to find out whether the petitioner had really written letters and/or those letters were spurious and/or manufactured for the purpose of making out a case. 10. With great anxiety and caution, this Court has considered the allegations and counter-allegations. The facts as disclosed by the petitioner convince this Court, that instead of invoking the provisions of the standing orders to terminate the job of the petitioner automatically the respondents ought to have taken steps by giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to show cause against the proposed action of termination for any contravention of the clause as envisaged in the standing orders on account of the purported absence. 11. Regard being had to the materials on record, the writ petition and the Rule are disposed of by quashing the impugned order of termination of the service of the petitioner. This judgment will not prevent the respondents from initiating any proceeding on the ground of alleged absence of the petitioner as contemplated by giving all opportunities of defence. Had he been given opportunity he would have been able to defend his case in accordance with law. 12. Such proceedings should be initiated within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of this order and the enquiry if any, should be completed within a period of three months from the date of issuance of the notice and the petitioner will co-operate fully with the authority without asking any unnecessary adjournment. In default to maintain time schedule, the petitioner will be entitled to join and receive financial benefits. 13. The petitioner will not, however, be entitled to join till the disposal of the enquiry. The interim order as made at the time of issuance of the Rule will, however, continue. 14. There will be no order as to costs. 15. Let Xerox copies of this order be made available to the learned Advocates on record for both parties on their usual undertakings and upon compliance with necessary formalities. Impugned order quashed; liberty given to proceed afresh.