Order Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. In spite of the time being granted to the Respondent Board, no counter- affidavit has been filed. 3. The present application has been filed for quashing the order dated 9.2.1994, as contained in Annexure 1, by which, the petitioner has been informed by the Board that he is not entitled to any terminal benefits for the services rendered by him under the Bihar State Electricity Board (in short 'the Board'). 4. The facts necessary for disposal of the present writ application are that the petitioner joined the Board as an Assistant Engineer on 13.8.1966. Thereafter, he joined the Bharat Heavy Electrical Limited in the year 1979, after he was relieved by the Board. At the time of his joining in the said Heavy Electrical Limited, the lien in the Board was retained for one year. Thereafter, the lien was not extended though a prayer for extension was made. On 29.8.1985, the petitioner was asked by the Board to show cause as to why his services be not terminated under Regulation 73(1)(a)(vi) of the Bihar State Electricity-Board Service Regulations, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulations') on the allegation that he left the country without permission of the permanent employer. Thereafter, the petitioner did nut file show-cause inspite of valid service of the notice and the service of the petitioner was terminated by order dated 2.1.1993 with retrospective effect from 16.2.1979, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure 19. 5. Thereafter, the petitioner applied in prescribed form for refund of provident und money and payment of other terminal benefits in 1993, which has been rejected by the Board by the impugned order. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the service of the petitioner was terminated by the Board in terms of Regulation 73(1)(a)(vi) of the Regulations, which provides for termination of service for absence from duty for a continued period of eight days without any intimation or sufficient cause and that in terms of Regulations 75, he is entitled to proportionate retiral benefits, but the Board has wrongly rejected his claim by the impugned order, as contained in Annexure 1. 7. Learned counsel for the Board, on the other, hand, submits that the petitioner is not entitled to terminal benefits as he was terminated from service. 7. Learned counsel for the Board, on the other, hand, submits that the petitioner is not entitled to terminal benefits as he was terminated from service. However, it is stated that the proportionate amount of G.P.F. has already been paid to the petitioner. 8. Regulation 73 of the Regulations gives power to the Board or any competent authority to terminate the service of an employee in the circumstances mentioned is the said Regulation. The relevant circumstances for the purpose of this case are clauses (vi), (vii) and (viii) of the said Regulation, which are reproduced below: "(vi) Absence from duty for a continued period of eight days, without any intimation of sufficient cause. (vii) As a measure of punishment for departmental proceedings in accordance with Discipline and Appeal Regulations in force. (viii) Conviction by law on ground of moral turpitude." 9. Regulation 75 provides that when a permanent employee or a temporary employee resigns or leaves the service of the Board voluntarily after due notice, where required, or his services are terminated by the Board or any competent authority except in the circumstances mentioned in sub-regulation 73(1)(a)(vii) and (viii), he shall be eligible for payment of proportionate pension, full amount of G.P. Fund standing to his credit if he is under the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme, proportionate amount of gratuity and proportionate amount of any other terminal benefits admissible. 10. As stated above, the service of the petitioner has been terminated under clause (vi) of Regulation 73(1) (a) and not under clauses (vii) and (viii) thereof and as such in view of the provisions contained in Regulation 75, as mentioned above, he shall be eligible for payment of proportionate pension, proportionate amount of gratuity and other terminal benefits. In that view of the matter, the Respondent-Board was not justified in rejecting the claim of the petitioner that he is not entitled to any terminal benefits. 11. The impugned order shows that the only ground for denying the terminal benefits is that the petitioner's services have been terminated by the Board. Only when the termination is either by way of punishment after proceeding or because of a conviction by a court of law on ground of moral turpitude, the employee is not entitled to terminal benefits. 11. The impugned order shows that the only ground for denying the terminal benefits is that the petitioner's services have been terminated by the Board. Only when the termination is either by way of punishment after proceeding or because of a conviction by a court of law on ground of moral turpitude, the employee is not entitled to terminal benefits. Accordingly, the impugned order, as contained in Annexure 1 is quashed and the Board is directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner in the light of Regulation 75 of the Regulations within a period of two months from the date of production or receipt of a copy of this order and if the petitioner is found entitled to the payment of terminal benefits, then he should be paid the same. 12. In the result, this writ application is allowed with the aforesaid observation/direction.