A. R. TIWARI, J. ( 1 ) THE employee has filed this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to obtain writ of certiorari incinerating the order dated 11. 2. 1988 passed by Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, ujjain in Appeal No. 514/72-73 (Annexure-'p/6') ; and order dated 2. 1. 1991 passed by Board of Revenue in Appeal No. 86-3-1988 (Annexure 'p/7' ). ( 2 ) FACTS lie in a narrow compass. The petitioner held the most of Clerk in shamgarh Co-operative Marketing Society Limited, Shamgarh (respondent No. 4 ). He was a confirmed employee. Respondent No. 4, however, terminated his service by order dated 21. 9. 1969 without any show-cause notice and without any opportunity of hearing. The petitioner filed the application before the Assistant Registrar, co-operative Societies, Mandsaur under Section 55 (2) of the M. P. Co-operative societies Act, 1960 (respondent No. 3 ). Respondent No. 3 allowed the application, registered as Case No. 58/69-70, set aside, the order of removal and directed reinstatement with back wages (Annexure-'p/4' ). Respondent No. 4 filed the appeal before joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies. , Ujjain (respondent No. 2), which was registered as Appeal No. 514/72-73. The appeal was allowed on 11. 2. 1988 and the order passed by respondent No. 3 was vacated (Annexure-'p/6' ). Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the appeal before board of Revenue (Respondent No. 1 ). The appeal was dismissed on 2. 1. 1991 (Annexure-T/7'), The orders (Annexures- 'p/6' and 'p/7')are challenged in this writ petition. Prayer is made for direction to restore the order (Annexure-'p/4' ). ( 3 ) RESPONDENT No. 4 has filed the return in oppugnation. ( 4 ) I have heard Shri A. K. Sethi, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri anwar Khan, learned Counsel for respondent No. 4, today. Respondents No. i and 3 are the authorities passing the orders. ( 5 ) THE Counsel for the petitioner-submitted that respondent No. 1 erred in dismissing the appeal on the concept of Master and Servant. He has placed reliance on AIR 1979 SC 429 The Manager, government Branch Press and others v. D. B. Belliappa, AIR 1987 SC 111 , o. P, Bhandari v. Indian Tourism Development corporation Ltd. and others, air 1991 SC 101 , Delhi Transport Corporation v. D. T. C. Mazdoor congress and others. He has placed reliance on AIR 1979 SC 429 The Manager, government Branch Press and others v. D. B. Belliappa, AIR 1987 SC 111 , o. P, Bhandari v. Indian Tourism Development corporation Ltd. and others, air 1991 SC 101 , Delhi Transport Corporation v. D. T. C. Mazdoor congress and others. ( 6 ) THE contention is that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Clerk and was confirmed in that post on 7. 12. 1962, After about seven years his services were terminated without any show- cause notice and opportunity of hearing. The services were terminated by order dated 21. 9. 1969 (Annexure-'p/3') in terms noted below : ( 7 ) THE Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Apex Court in O. P. Bhandari's case (supra) has held that the provisions authorising termination of service of employee by merely giving a notice of termination is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. He also submitted that employer has no unfettered dominion over the employee and should abide by rules and regulations as also concept of fair play. ( 8 ) THE position between an employer and employee is no longer in tenebrosity. Employer's dominion over his employees was in tune with rustic simplicity of by-gone days, but is incompatible with current pattern. Lord Denning put it elegantly in Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union, (1971) 1 All ER 148 and Supreme Court stated in Khudi Ram's case (1975) 2 SCR 832 : air 1975 SC 550 , that in a Government of laws "there is nothing like unfettered discretion immune from judicial reviewability". Fairness, founded on reason, is the essence of the guarantee epitomised in Article 14 and 16 (1 ). If the power has been exercised improperly or mistakenly so as to impinge unjustly on legitimate rights or interests of the subject, then Courts must so declare. The Courts stand between the executive and the subject alert, alert to see that discretionary power is not exceeded or misused. Lord Atkin highlighted that aspect. Liver Sidge v. Anderson, (1942) AC 206, is instructive and indicator of the amplitude of the power available with the Courts. ( 9 ) THE Counsel for respondent No. 4 has supported the orders (Annexures-'p/6' and 'p/7' ). Lord Atkin highlighted that aspect. Liver Sidge v. Anderson, (1942) AC 206, is instructive and indicator of the amplitude of the power available with the Courts. ( 9 ) THE Counsel for respondent No. 4 has supported the orders (Annexures-'p/6' and 'p/7' ). ( 10 ) HOWEVER, I find that the respondent No. 1 dismissed the appeal mainly on the concept of Master and Servant in matter of employment and has not properly appreciated the contentions, as noted above. ( 11 ) AS I am electing to remand the matter, I refrain from expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter ( 12 ) IN the face of factual matrix and legal position, i find it fit to quash the order (Annexure-'p/7') and direct remitial for fresh decision of the appeal by respondent no. 1. ( 13 ) IN the circumstances, I allow this writ petition in part, quash the order passed by respondent No. 1 in Appeal, No 86/3/88 on 2. 1. 1991 (Annexure-'p/7')against the order dated 11. 2. 1988 passed by Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, ujjain in Appeal No. 514/72-73 (Annexure-'p/6') and direct respondent No. 1 to revivify the aforesaid appeal under its original number and decide the same afresh in accordance with law after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and respondent No. 4. The points posed in the petition and opposed in the return shall be open and litigable before respondent No. 1 in the appeal directed to be re-heard. ( 14 ) AS the matter is quite old. I also direct that the parties shall appear before respondent No. I on 24. 9. 1997 and respondent No. 1 shall make an endeavour to decide the appeal within a period of FOUR MONTHS from the date fixed in this order. In case of camp, on 24. 9. 1997, parties may appear at Indore Camp. ( 15 ) THE petition is, thus, allowed in part in terms indicated above but without any orders as to costs. The security cost, if deposited, be refunded to the petitioner, after due verification. Petition allowed. .