JUDGMENT Notice of admission was given. The respondents have been served. No one has put in appearance. The short argument raised on behalf of the petitioner is that he was given employment on 24th of May, 1994. This is sought to be brought to an end by passing an order on 27th of September, 1994. I have perused the order dated 27th of September, 1994. All that it says is that the petitioner and some other employees did not give correct information to the respondents at the time of seeking employment. Nothing is apparent from the order as to what wrong information was given. The order annexure P/8 does not give any process of reasoning. A Division Bench of this Court in Sanjay Kumar Dixit v. Collector, Jabalpur and others, 1994 (I) VIBHA 137 has concluded that an order bringing an end to the service tenure affects civil rights and this should be passed consistently with the principles of natural justice. Following the ratio of decision given by the Division Bench, similar order was passed in writ petition No. 1971 of 1990 decided On 19th of October, 1994 [(Subhash Chandra Parashar v. The Janpad Panchayat, Gohad and others) 1995 (I) VIBHA 192]. As noticed above, the respondents have been duly served. They have not put in appearance. The averments made in the writ petition have been taken as correct. The order annexure P/8 in so far as it puts an end to the service tenure of the petitioner is set aside. The respondents would, however, be at liberty to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after affording due opportunity to the petitioner. In case some adverse order is passed, that order shall not be given effect to for a period of one week. This petition is disposed of accordingly. 1994 (I) VIBHA 137 and 1995 (I) VIBHA 192 relied on.