ORDER 1. Shri A.K. Sethi learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Shekhar Bhargav learned Additional Advocate General for respondent No. 1 & 2. None for the other respondents. No notice was issued to them in view of the facts available in the record. It appears that after the judgment of this Court, the petitioner filed an appeal before the competent authority, which was required to dispose of the appeal in accordance with law. Directions of this Court as contained in paragraph 12(ii) are, "the petitioner is granted liberty to question the validity of order/step/action for removal of the petitioner from service and to claim consequential benefits via alternative efficacious remedy, as noted above, within a period of fifteen days from today. " 2. In paragraph 9 of the judgment, the Court had observed that counsel for the petitioner sought liberty to resort to the remedy available u/S. 6(iii) of the Adhiniyam undisputedly, an appeal was filed within 15 days. The appeal was to be heard and decided in accordance with law. It appears that on some date of hearing, the petitioner made submissions to the Appellate Authority that she be given some more time to make her submissions and file the documents. On 1.4.98, Dr. Mukti Rai Officer on Special duty, Higher Education, Bhopal sent a message to the Additional Director, Higher Education, Indore, Ujjain Division to communicate to the present petitioner that she was directed to appear before the appellate authority on 7.4.98 at about 4 p.m. It appears that the petitioner approached the authority on 7.4.98 and was served a copy of order dated 6.4.98 bearing no. F 17 RS/97/C-3/38. As the judicial conscious of the Court was shocked, the Court required the learned government advocate to seek instructions, on 2.7.98. It was ordered that instruction be sought, so that the' case be heard on 9.7.98. Learned counsel for the State on 9.7.97 informed this Court that he could not get any instructions from the appellate authority. On 9.7.98, this Court directed that the matter be taken up for consideration on 11.7.98. Learned Government Advocate was directed to send a fax/telephonic message to the officer to remain present in the Court on 11.7.98. Learned counsel for the State on 9.7.97 informed this Court that he could not get any instructions from the appellate authority. On 9.7.98, this Court directed that the matter be taken up for consideration on 11.7.98. Learned Government Advocate was directed to send a fax/telephonic message to the officer to remain present in the Court on 11.7.98. The learned Government Advocate was also asked to inform the officer that if he does not appear in the Court of 11.7.98, the Court would be constrained to draw contempt proceedings and may issue non-bailable warrants for appearance of the officer in the Court. 3. Today when the case was taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the State informed that the said appellate officer could not get the message, he is not present in the Court. The learned Additional Advocate General informs that because of some communication gap, the said appellate officer/authority could not appear. He further submits that after going through the proceedings and the mandate issued by the Court, the said officer was immediately informed, who on telephone showed his inability to come, as he had no driver, and it was already 1 p.m. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that the appellate authority had no reason to disobey the orders passed by this Court. He, however, submits apology on behalf of respondent No. 1. 4. Records would clearly show that notices in appeal were issued to the petitioner on 1.4.98. She was asked to appear on 7.4.98. It is also not in dispute that the order dismissing the appeal was passed on 6.4.98. Le. a day before the date of hearing. Smt. Mukti Rai present in the Court was asked to satisfy the Court as to how an order could be .passed on 6.4.98. In presence of Learned Additional Advocate General, Learned Govt. Advocate Shri S.S. Sen, and Shri Sethi, learned counsel for he petitioner she stated that the petitioner approached her on 7.4.98, and on a querry, replied that she was to add nothing, nor was she required to file the documents. According to her, on this, she asked the appellate authority as to what was to be done. Appellate Authority informed Sml. Mukti Rai that the draft already prepared on 6.4.98 be finalised and be issued as appellate order. According to her, the draft was already prepared on 6.4.98 and was given to the petitioner on 7.4.98. According to her, on this, she asked the appellate authority as to what was to be done. Appellate Authority informed Sml. Mukti Rai that the draft already prepared on 6.4.98 be finalised and be issued as appellate order. According to her, the draft was already prepared on 6.4.98 and was given to the petitioner on 7.4.98. The proceedings of 27.3.98 record that the case was fixed for hearing on 30.3.98. 'The next proceedings on the said page are dated as 4.6.98. The parties admit that these are proceedings dated 6.4.98. The proceedings record as under :- vkns’k ikfjr vihy esa dksbZ lkj u gksus ls fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA These proceedings would clearly show that the order was delivered on 6.4.98, and not on 7.4.98. If the order was only in a draft on 6.4.98, was not ready and was not signed by the appellate authority, then the proceedings dated 6.4.98, could not be written in the said proceeding form. The statement made by Smt. Mukti Rai is apparently contrary to the records. Assuming the statement made by Smt Mukti Rai is correct. then there was no good reason for the Officer (appellate authority) to sign the proceedings on 6.4.98. It is further to be been that the order was ready on 6.4.98, the draft was prepared by Mrs. Mukti Rai It is unknown to law that the appeal is heard by some authority, and the draft order was prepared by some one else, it would be a strange proposal that some subordinate of the appellate authority would prepare the draft of the judgment/order and the authority after being satisl1ed of the contents of the said order would deliver it under his signatures. 'The application of the mind should he of the appellate authority, and not of some persons subordinate to him. It is unfortunate that higher authorities in the Education department who are supposed to be well versed with law, are acting in flagrant violation of law and are showing disregard to the basic principles of law. 5. The matter does not end here. After the proceedings were signed on 6.4.98, we find one note-sheet. which records "Continue from the earlier page... 5. The matter does not end here. After the proceedings were signed on 6.4.98, we find one note-sheet. which records "Continue from the earlier page... The proceedings record that under the instructions of the Secretary, the matter was required to be heard on 7.4.98 at 4 p.m. If these proceedings were part of the record, then there was no good reason for the said Secretary/Appellate Authority to sign proceedings on 6.4.98. It is expected of the authorities that before putting their signatures, they would read the proceedings. It was the duty of the Secretary to see that the case was fixed on 7.4.98. and he was obliged under the law not to make up his mind before 7.4.98, nor he was entitled either to call for draft order or to make a draft of the proposed judgment. Unless the hearing is over, no Court or authority is entitled to form an opinion in relation to the subject. If it is permitted, it would lead to a chaotic condition. Hearing would virtually, post decisional hearing, bias and prejudices would precipitate on the surface. It would be a different thing to say that the authority had put .certain question to a party, and on that particular subject, he had made up his mind; but if the authority or Court prepares a draft of judgment and then asks the party to argue the matter, it is virtually violating rather assassinating the principles of natural justice. I am unable to hold that the conduct of the said appellant is fair. I am also unable to hold that the conduct of Smt. Mukti Rai was also fair. If she knew that the petitioner would be appearing on 7th then it was her duty to inform the Secretary. that no order could be passed on 6th. It was also her duty to inform the Secretary that no order or draft should be made on 6th. Under the law she had no authority to prepare a draft under. It was not expected of the Secretary as an appellate authority to ask his subordinates to prepare a draft order. Courts and public at large always rely upon the fairness of the administrative action. If proceedings like present are approved. then the whole system would be led to a dooms day. It was not expected of the Secretary as an appellate authority to ask his subordinates to prepare a draft order. Courts and public at large always rely upon the fairness of the administrative action. If proceedings like present are approved. then the whole system would be led to a dooms day. No person would ever rely upon the Court or authority because they would feel that the officer would be really with a judgment before the hearing is concluded. 6. At one point of time, I wanted to issue contempt notice to the appellate authority Shri Kushiram and Smt. Muktirai. But at this stage, I feel that it is for the State to take suitable action against such officers, who play fraud on justice. 7. The order Annexure P-13. for the reasons stated aforesaid, being a mockery of law deserves to be and is accordingly quashed. The appeal shall he heard by the appellate authority, which shall not in any case be the present respondent Kushiran1. The petition is allowed with costs. Smt. Mukti Rai and said Secretary Kushiram are saddled with exemplary costs Rs. 10.000/- each, which they shall pay to the petitioner within 15 days from today, and shall produce a copy of the receipt in this Court. 8. At this stage, Shri Sethi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under the garb of order dated 27.3.98, the respondent- College, has terminated the petitioner's service. He submits that on 27.3.98, the earlier order of stay was not vacated. 9. Proceedings on 27.3.98 record that the petitioner Miss Mathur would not he permitted to endorse her signatures on the attendance register. If this order was interpreted by respondent- College. as an order vacating stay, then at this stage, this Court would not make any interference. It would he open to the petitioner to make an application to the appellate authority that in view of the proceedings dated 27.3.98, and as the final order has been passed by this Court the status quo-ante be restored, and she he permitted to continue on the post. The petitioner would also be free to make proper representations before the college authorities and appellate authority that the order dated 27.3.98 did not amount to vacation of the stay order. If such an application or representation is made, it shall be decided in accordance with law.