JUDGMENT 1. - The facts as unfolded by this writ petition briefly stated are that the petitioner was appointed as 'Paricharak' in the Ayurvedic Department of the State of Rajasthan on 26.12.1970 and was confirmed on the said post on 8.2.1971. The order regarding pay fixation was passed by the respondent on 17.11.1980 vide Annexure 1. Thereafter the petitioner has been regularly attending his duties but the officer-in-charge of the dispensary where the petitioner was last posted did not permit the petitioner to discharge his duties regularly on the said post by creating obstructions on one pretext or the other. It has further been contended in the petition that the petitioner had moved to the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dholpur and the said court had passed an interim order on 2.3.1984 restraining the respondents from transferring the petitioner from Chhavni to Badi in District Dholpur. On 14.3.1986 the petitioner was posted at Kotra. The petitioner was subjected to victimisation and harassment at Kotra dispensary. The petitioner was even not allowed to sign the attendance register by the department and ultimately District Ayurvedic Officer vide his order, dated 9.8.1989 directed that petitioner should be taken back to duty with immediate effect and dispute regarding his absence from duty would be dealth with separately. This fact is borne out from the perusal of Annex.2, i.e. order dated 9.8.1989 passed by District Ayurvedic Officer, Bharatpur. The petitioner joined his duties and gave his joining report vide Annexs. 3 & 4 respectively. 2. It has further been contended that in pursuance of the above order the petitioner had resumed his duties at Dispensary at Kotra District Dholpur but unfortunately to the plight of petitioner, notwithstanding the aforesaid orders of the department itself, the petitioner was again not allowed to discharge his duties so much so that he has not even permitted to sign the attendance register in the dispensary at Kotra. Again left with no alternative, the petitioner submitted series of representations with effect from 1.8.89 vide Annexures 5 to 7. Finally on 13.9.1989 the petitioner again represented his case to the District Ayurvedic Officer with a request to allow him to continue his duties but all to no avail. Subsequently on 2.9.1990 the petitioner again requested the Officer-in-charge of the dispensary to take the petitioner on duty but he was not allowed either to resume his duty or sign the attendance register. Subsequently on 2.9.1990 the petitioner again requested the Officer-in-charge of the dispensary to take the petitioner on duty but he was not allowed either to resume his duty or sign the attendance register. Thereafter the petitioner also represented his case to the hon'ble Minister for Ayurvedic Department of the State of Rajasthan on 29.12.1990 but no assistance whatsoever was given to the petitioner and finally he sent a notice for demand of justice vide Annexures 9A & B dated 3.1.1991. Having failed to elicit any response from the respondents, the petitioner was finally constrained to file this writ petition in this court on 19.5.1992. 3. The respondents on being noticed by this court have filed their reply to the writ petition contending inter alia that there is no reason and rationality in taking the allegations and submissions of the petitioner seriously for any consideration. With regard to Annexure 2 which is an order dated 9.8.1989 passed by the District Ayurvedic Officer, Bharatpur, respondents have contended that the petitioner has been non-serious about his duties and remained absent without any permission or sanction from the competent authority and which itself is an act of indiscipline. It has further been contended by the respondents that it was only on the intervention of District Ayurvedic Officer, Bharatpur that the petitioner was allowed to resume his duties, but it was stated in the order Annexure 2 that the decision regarding the absence of the petitioner from duty shall be taken subsequently. It has further been contended that as regards Annexure 3 which has been filed by the petitioner also indicates that the petitioner was relieved from duty and he was asked to work on the same post of "Paricharak" at dispensary Kotra District Dholpur. It was specifically stated in the said order that the petitioner shall be entitled to receive his salary dues after attending his duties, but the decision with regard to the period of his absence from duty shall be taken by the management of the respondents afterwards. It was specifically stated in the said order that the petitioner shall be entitled to receive his salary dues after attending his duties, but the decision with regard to the period of his absence from duty shall be taken by the management of the respondents afterwards. Perusal of the said order does not indicate as to when the respondents would appoint an enquiry officer to conduct the enquiry with regard to the period during which the petitioner remained absent from duty nor any document has been placed on the record by the respondents which would reveal as to whether any enquiry was initiated pursuant to the above order regarding the period during which the petitioner remained absent from duty. Apart from the above, the respondents have not stated any cogent reasons as to what were those exceptional circumstances which impelled the respondents to discontinue the petitioner's services after he was allowed to resume his duties in pursuance to the order Annexure 2. In view of the aforesaid circumstances the question of the petitioner having remained absent from duty according to his whims and desires as has been contended by the respondents in their reply does not arise since respondents have failed to establish petitioner's alleged wilful absence from duty for the period in question i.e., 23.12.88 to 8.8.1989 by appointing an enquiry officer which was incumbent upon them to appoint and who alone could prove on the basis of evidence led before him regarding the period of abasencee from duty of the petitioner. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the relevant documents on the record as well as the aforesaid reply filed by the respondents. 5. Prima facie I am of the opinion that there is no reason or rationality for respondents not to have allowed petitioner to continue to discharge his duties once having taken a positive stand in favour of the petitioner vide orders as referred to above by having issued posting orders in favour of petitioner vide order, dated 9.8.89, Annexure 2 and vide order dated 28.8.1989, Annexure 3, by which the petitioner was directed to report for duty at dispensary Kotra District Dholpur and the petitioner in pursuance of the said orders had joined his duties on the said post. Thereafter I find no justification for the respondents not to have allowed the petitioner to have either signed the attendance register or to discharge his duties on the said post. Respondents have infact, filed a very vague reply which is not supported by any documentary evidence on the record with regard to the period during which the petitioner remained absent from his duty nor there is any basis for the respondents for not having appointed the enquiry officer who, if appointed, could have arrived at a conclusion as to the reasons for the petitioner's absence from duty during the disputed period, i.e. 23.12.1988 to 8.8.1989. In my view the impugned action of the respondents in not having allowed the petitioner to discharge his duties after submitting his joining report is most unwarranted since it is in view of the settled law that no person shall be deprived of his right to earn his livelihood or suspended, dismissed or removed from service without having been afforded due opportunity of hearing in accordance with law. In this case admittedly the respondents have violated the due process of law and the cardinal principle as enshrined in Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India and the principles of natural justice and hence the impugned order, dated 11.9.1989 passed by respondent No.2 viz. District Ayurvedic Officer, Bharatpur (Annexure 6) by which the said respondent passed the order containing imputations of misconduct on account of petitioner's absence from duty for the aforesaid period and the consequent retrenchment of the petitioner from service deserve to be quashed and set aside. 6. The writ petition is consequently allowed. The impugned order dated 11.9.89 passed by respondent No.2 (Annex.6) viz. District Ayurvedic Officer, Bharatpur as well as the consequent retrenchment of petitioner from service are quashed and set aside. The respondents are hereby directed to permit the petitioner to resume and discharge his duties on the post of "Paricharak" which he has already been discharging in dispensary at Kotra, District Dholpur forthwith and the respondents shall issue necessary orders in this regard within a period of two weeks of the submission of the certified copy of this order by the petitioner. With regard to the period of alleged absence from duty of the petitioner, i.e., 23.12.88 to 8.8.1989 since the same has not been proved by any positive evidence on record as no enquiry officer was appointed, the said period cannot be construed as a period of absence from duty and consequently the respondences are directed to treat the said period as period spent on duty in accordance with law. Consequently the petitioner shall be deemed to be in continuous services of the respondents and shall accordingly be entitled to all the emoluments and consequential benefits which may be admissible to him in accordance with rules. The respondents are further directed to release the amount as admissible to the petitioner for the period in question i.e., 23.12.1988 till the date when the posting orders are actually issued in favour of the petitioner by the respondents and when the petitioner resumes his duties in pursuance of the said order, whith interest & 18% per annum from due date within a period of four weeks. There will be no order as to costs.Petition allowed. *******