ORDER : The son of the deceased employee has filed this writ application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the ORDER :dated 27.1.1993 passed by the respondent Director, Public Health Organisation, whereby the pensionary benefits has been denied on the ground that the services of the concerned employee stands terminated w.e.f. 22.8.1982, a copy of the said ORDER :is Annexure-6 to this writ application. A further prayer has been made for a direction to the respondents to pay the pensionary benefits, legally payable to the deceased employee, who died in harness on 9.1.1989 as also to appoint the petitioner on compassionate grounds. 2. The case of the petitioner in short, is that his mother Smt. Tamijan Khatoon was appointed on vacant post of Trained Dai in the pay scale of Rs. 28-1-40 on 16th December, 1958. A copy of the appointment letter is made Annexure-1 to this writ application. Pursuant to the appointment letter she joined in December, 1958 itself, and was posted to various places including Hilsa, Fatwah and finally at Field Demonstration Centre, Rajgir in the year 1976 where she remained till her death. The mother of the petitioner while working at Rajgir, she met with an accident in August, 1982 as a result of which she sustained multiple fracture injuries in her leg and other parts of the body and, as such, she could not join the duty. Due to her illness she remained absent from 21.8.1982 to 2.1.1987 when she joined the duty after she had recovered from her illness. It is alleged that she sent her leave application along with medical certificate from time to time. The joining letter as well as the Medical Certificate in support of her illness have been made Annexures-2 and 3 to this writ application. It is alleged that after joining, she again fell seriously ill on 1.1.1988 and ultimately she died in January, 1988 while she was in service. The petitioner is the only son of the deceased employee as the husband of the deceased has predeceased her. After the death of his mother, the petitioner filed an application before the Medical officer Incharge, Rajgir for appointment on compassionate ground including grant of death-cum-pensionary benefits to the deceased mother. The petitioner is the only son of the deceased employee as the husband of the deceased has predeceased her. After the death of his mother, the petitioner filed an application before the Medical officer Incharge, Rajgir for appointment on compassionate ground including grant of death-cum-pensionary benefits to the deceased mother. No ORDER :has been passed and on the contrary, the petitioner received a letter dated 27.1.1993 informing him that his deceased mother having been discharged from the service with effect from 1987 due to her long absence and, as such, neither the pensionary benefits is payable to the concerned employee nor the question of appointment on compassionate ground and a copy of the said ORDER :is made Annexure-6 to this writ application. 3. In this case, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State respondent namely Director of Health Organisation, wherein inter-alia it is stated that, no doubt the petitioner is entitled for duty pay for the period from 28.2.1982, G.P.F. as well as insurance amounts, and the moment application for payment of the amount aforesaid is filled up, the payment shall be made accordingly. However it is further stated that the concerned employee remained absent with effect from 28.2.1982 without any leave application and as such a registered notice was issued directing her to join her duty, but even after service of notice, she did not join and, thereafter, the notice was published in the newspaper directing her to join by 16.8.86, failing which she will be discharged from the service, a copy of the notice published in the news paper is made Annexure-8 to the counter affidavit. 4. The sum and substance of the stand taken in the counter affidavit is that since the petitioner remained absent for a long period and inspite of the notice having been served, she failed to join her duty as a result she was discharged from the service. Accordingly the petitioner is neither entitled to the pensionary benefits nor appointment on compassionate grounds. A counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the Accountant General wherein inter-alia it is stated that the State respondent namely Medical Officer Incharge, Rajgir was requested to send the pension paper including sanction ORDER :for payment of pension and gratuity so that authority slip may be issued. 5. A counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the Accountant General wherein inter-alia it is stated that the State respondent namely Medical Officer Incharge, Rajgir was requested to send the pension paper including sanction ORDER :for payment of pension and gratuity so that authority slip may be issued. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the ORDER :under challenge in this writ application and submits that no such notice was ever served upon the petitioner. The petitioner on the other hand used to send her leave application from time to time under certificate of posting. It is stated that the Medical report was also submitted at the time of joining her duty when she recovered from her illness. It is submitted that the alleged discharge ORDER :could not have been passed merely on the ground of absence of petitioner without giving an opportunity to the concerned employee to substantiate her case. It is submitted that before passing the ORDER :of discharge, no enquiry has been held, much less the departmental proceeding, and, as such, the ORDER :of alleged discharge is wholly illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. In support of his contention learned counsel has relined upon the decision in the case of Smt. Pravabati Sengupta vs. The State of Bihar and ors. reported in 1989 B.L.J. 487 : 1989 PLJR 485 ), in the case of Sidhnath Upadhya vs. The State of Bihar reported in ( 1991 (2) P.L.J.R. 148 ) and Ramanand Singh vs. The State of Bihar and ors. reported in (1991) B.L.J.R. 198). Before discussing the ratio of the aforesaid decision cited by the learned counsel in support of his contention, it has to be considered as to whether the deceased employee was given an opportunity to explain her conduct and/or any departmental proceeding was initiated before passing the ORDER :of discharge of the petitioner from the service. 6. On the material available on records, it stand admitted that neither any departmental proceeding was initiated nor proper and sufficient opportunity was given to the deceased employee to explain her absence before passing the ORDER :of discharge. Though it is stated in the counter affidavit that notices were sent to the concerned employee, yet there is no evidence on record to show that such notices were ever served upon her. Publication of notice on the newspaper cannot always be treated as valid service. Though it is stated in the counter affidavit that notices were sent to the concerned employee, yet there is no evidence on record to show that such notices were ever served upon her. Publication of notice on the newspaper cannot always be treated as valid service. In the instant case admittedly the deceased employee sustained multiple fracture injuries as a result she remained confined to bed during the period in question. She reported for duty when she recovered from her illness along with Medical Certificate. In the aforesaid circumstances the respondent authorities ought to have initiated a departmental enquiry in ORDER :to find her guilty of the charges levelled against her. Clause (b) of Rule 76 of the Bihar Service Code envisages that if a government servant, absents from duty, after expiry of the leave for continuous period of five years, unless the State Government otherwise decide, shall be removed from the service after following the procedure prescribed in Civil Service (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules as well as the Bihar and Orissa Suboprdinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1935. In the instant case admittedly no proceeding whatsoever, much less in accordance with the aforesaid Rules, was ever initiated before passing the ORDER :of removal of the employee from the service of the Government. In my considered opinion even if the Government servant absents from duty without leave continuously for more than five years his services cannot be terminated unless the procedure prescribed under the aforesaid Rules is followed. In Smt. Prabhawati Singh's case (supra) a division Bench of this Court on similar facts like the instant one, has held that the government servant cannot be removed from the service even if the employee absents herself without leave from .her duty continuously for more than five years without following the procedure prescribed under the Rule. In case of Sidhnath Upadhya (supra) the concerned employee absented from his duty for a period of 19 years without any leave as a result his services were terminated on the ground of being absent from duty without leave. A Division Bench of this Court has held that such dismissal and/or termination of the employee from service without contemplating any departmental proceeding is wholly illegal and accordingly quashed the ORDER :of dismissal. A similar view has been taken by another Division bench decision of this Court in the case of Ramanand Singh (supra). A Division Bench of this Court has held that such dismissal and/or termination of the employee from service without contemplating any departmental proceeding is wholly illegal and accordingly quashed the ORDER :of dismissal. A similar view has been taken by another Division bench decision of this Court in the case of Ramanand Singh (supra). The concerned employee remained absent for 15 years and as such his services were terminated without initiating any departmental proceeding. In the premises it has been held that there cannot be any automatic termination of service unless a departmental proceeding is initiated. Accordingly after having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and going through the pleadings filed on their behalf including the decision referred to above the ORDER :dated 27.1.93 passed by the respondent Director of Public Health Department Annexure-6 is hereby quashed. 7. Consequently the State respondents are directed to issue the sanction ORDER :with respect to the death-cum-pensionary benefits, legally payable to the petitioner within six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this ORDER :and forward the same to the respondent Accountant General, who will issue the authority slip within two weeks therefrom. Having regard to the fact that the concerned employee died in harness and having further regard to the fact that even the admitted legal dues has not been paid as yet, the petitioner is entitled to the interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of death till the date of respective payments along with cost assessed at Rs. 5000/-. Both interest and the cost shall be paid along with the principal amount within the time aforesaid. This writ application is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. 8. Before I part with the case, I may observe that if the State, so advised may realise the amount of interest and cost from the persons found responsible for passing the impugned ORDER :and consequently delaying the payments.