JUDGMENT 1. :- By this writ petition the petitioner has prayed that the respondents be directed to permit the petitioner to join his duties on the post, as the other similarly situated persons are working, with all consequential benefits treating the petitioner as being continuous in service as being posted as Computer since March, 1972. 2. That the petitioner was appointed on the post of Computer, along with other about 71 persons, by order dated F-Estt/DES/11960-12030 dated 25.3.72. The petitioner joined his duties on 1.4.72 in the office of Special Officer, Agriculture Census at Revenue Board Rajasthan, Ajmer. The petitioner has also undergone for training of Punch-card at Agriculture Census, Revenue Board Rajasthan, Ajmer and after completing the training the petitioner was posted in the Codeing section. Other selected persons had also been posted on various jobs along with the petitioner in the Statistics Department. By an order dated 28.10.72 (Ann.3), the petitioner was transferred from Ajmer to District Family Planning Officer Chittorgarh. He was relieved from the office of Agriculture Census, Rajasthan Ajmer vide order dated 31.10.72 (Ann.4). 3. That after relieving the petitioner from the office of Agriculture Census, Rajasthan Ajmer the petitioner fell ill and he immediately sent intimation about his illness to the office of Family Planning Officer, Chittorgarh and also to the Director, Economics & Statisties Department, Rajasthan Jaipur. When the petitioner recovered from illness, he immediately approached to the Family Planning Officer, Chittorgarh. But the Family Planning Officer, has not permitted the petitioner to join his duties as he has not joined his duties within seven days and he asked the petitioner to contact the Director, Economics & Statistics Department Jaipur with regard to his transfer from Ajmer to Chittorgarh. The petitioner has thereafter approached the Director, Economics & Statistics Department, Jaipur on 1.2.73 and had requested him to clarify the position of his posting either at Chittorgarh or anywhere else, in Rajasthan. The petitioner has also submitted the representation before the Director on 1.2.73 (Ann. 5). Thereafter he has written several letters to the Director, Economics & Statistics Department, Jaipur for allowing him to join his duties. The details of letters have been disclosed by the petitioner in para Nos. 10 & 11 of the writ petition. Even the petitioner has wrote to the Minister concerned on 6.12.78. But no suitable order has been passed. 4. Thereafter he has written several letters to the Director, Economics & Statistics Department, Jaipur for allowing him to join his duties. The details of letters have been disclosed by the petitioner in para Nos. 10 & 11 of the writ petition. Even the petitioner has wrote to the Minister concerned on 6.12.78. But no suitable order has been passed. 4. In reply it has been submitted that the petitioner was appointed on adhoc basis for one year and after his transfer to Chittorgarh, neither he applied for leave nor he joined his duties on new place of posting. Therefore, the petitioner has no right to join on the post of Computer either in Chittorgarh or in Ajmer. 5. In rejoinder the petitioner submitted that junior persons who were appointed along with the petitioner by the same order have been retained and thereafter they have been promoted. The appointment of the petitioner was against a permanent post. Due to illness the petitioner could not join, therefore without holding enquiry, the termination of the petitioner is bad in law. 6. In the case of Chetan Singh v. State of Rajasthan 1977(1) SLR 504 services of the petitioner were terminated on the ground of absence without leave. This court has considered that no opportunity was given to the petitioner apparently because the respondents assumed that as he had no extraordinary leave to his credit and he had himself asked for being relieved on his own risk and as no leave was sanctioned, his services could be terminated under rule 96(b) read with rule 86 of the Rules. The court had taken the view that the flow however is that before doing that an opportunity as provided under Article 311 of the Constitution and the rules had to be given. As no opportunity was given to him there has been a violation of Article 311 and the rules, and the impugned order cannot be upheld. 7. In the case of Dewan Singh v. State of Haryana and another AIR 1976 SC 1921 , their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that the action of dismissal or removal canot be proposed in all fairness, unless Tribunal had reached a conclusion about the guilt after making a proper enquiry, giving the employee reasonable opportunity to defend. The principles of natural justice are dearly ingrained in Section 124(2). 8. The principles of natural justice are dearly ingrained in Section 124(2). 8. In the case of Bahadur Singh v. The State of Haryana & others 1988(1) SLR 650, in para No.7 it has been held that services cannot be terminated straightway on account of absence from duty. Disciplinary proceedings contemplated by the rules are required to be taken. Therefore, the order of termination of services of the petitioner passed by Divisional Forest Officer, Bhilwani cannot stand the test of law and is, therefore, quashed. 9. In the case of Jamail Singh & Ors. etc. v. State of Punjab & Ors. Unreported Judgments (SC) 1986(2) 235 in para No. 34 , their Lordships of Supreme Court have observed that adhoc services of the appellants have been arbitrarily terminated, as no longer required, while the respondents have retained other surveyors who are juniors to the appellants. Therefore, on this ground also the impugned order of termination of the services of the appellants are illegal and bad being in contravention of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 10. In the case of Jagtar Singh v. Punjab State 1990(5) SLR page 118 in para No.8, the Court has observed as under:- "A proper enquiry had to be held and thereafter consequential order could be passed. Dw.1 Amar Singh Clerk appeared on behalf of the respondent. He candidly admitted in his cross-examination that at no stage any enquiry was conducted against the plaintiff. If the plaintiff had remained absent from duty without obtaining leave, a charge-sheet ought to have been framed against him, an enquiry ought to have been held and thereafter penal action could be taken against him. In the instant case, admittedly the principle of natural justice was violated. The order of termination cannot be upheld and the same is quashed." 11. In the instant case, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Computer vide order dated 25.3.72. Thereafter he was transferred from Ajmer to Chittorgarh vide order dated 28.10.72. He fell ill, after recovery when the petitioner went to the place of new posting in the office of Family Planning Officer, Chittorgarh, he was not allowed to join. Thereafter, he approached to the Director, Economics & Statistics Department, Jaipur. No formal order was passed to allow the petitioner to join at Chittorgarh. He fell ill, after recovery when the petitioner went to the place of new posting in the office of Family Planning Officer, Chittorgarh, he was not allowed to join. Thereafter, he approached to the Director, Economics & Statistics Department, Jaipur. No formal order was passed to allow the petitioner to join at Chittorgarh. Various letters have been written by the petitioner to the Director, Economics & Statistics Department Jaipur even to the Minister also. But no relief was granted to the petitioner. To ascertain the fact whether the petitioner has approached Family Planning Officer, Chittorgarh after his recovery the counsel for respondents was directed to produce the record. No such record has been placed before me. On the contrary, on the applications/letters sent to Director, Economics & Statistics Department, Jaipur and Minister, no formal order was passed nor he was allowed to join. 12. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed on adhoc basis vide order dated 25.3.72. But the similarly situated persons, who were appointed along with the petitioner, were not only allowed to continue but they have been promoted subsequently on the higher posts. One of them is Ghanshyam Shivnani, appointed along with the petitioner and his appointment letter is annexure-19. It is also an admitted case of the respondents that no opportunity was given to the petitioner, nor any enquiry has been held before terminating the services of the petitioner. Even no formal order of termination has been passed. This act is certainly an arbitrary action of the respondents and contrary to the provisions of law. While the petitioner was appointed against a permanent post, his services cannot be terminated without affording an opportunity of being heard. From the beginning, the case of the petitioner is that after transfer from Ajmer to Chittorgarh he fell ill. After recovery of his illness he was not allowed to join his duties. This action is not proper on the part of the concerned authorities, that too without affording an opportunity of hearing. 13. In the result, the writ petition is partly allowed. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner on the post of Computer, within a month from the date of this order. This action is not proper on the part of the concerned authorities, that too without affording an opportunity of hearing. 13. In the result, the writ petition is partly allowed. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner on the post of Computer, within a month from the date of this order. For the other consequential benefits, the petitioner is directed to make representation to the concerned authority and the concerned authority after receipt of the representation shall decide the same, within two months thereafter. No order as to cost.Petition partly allowed. *******