ORDER Arun Mishra, J. The Petitioner assails the order of her dismissal from service. She was appointed as primary teacher in D.A.V. Public School as per order dated 6-6-1991 (Annx. P/1). She was transferred from D.A.V. Public School Bina to D.A.V. Public School Sidhi on 19-4-1993 as per Annx. P/2. As per office order dated 20-3-1996, she was again transferred from D.A.V. Public School, Sidhi to DAV Public School, Bina. She challenged the order of her transfer from Sidhi to Bina by filing a Civil Suit No. 124-A/90 before the Civil Judge Class II, Baidhan, District Sidhi. Civil Judge Class II by order dated 10-5-1996 granted the injunction in her favour. Challenging the said order, an appeal was preferred before the District Judge, Sidhi by the Management. The Appellate Court by order dated 5-7-1996 reversed the order. Matter travelled to this Court in C.R. No. 1320/96 and by order dated 4-9-1996, the trial Court was directed to decide the application for temporary injunction afresh after hearing the non applicant No. 1 and 2. Matter of injunction again travelled to this Court in C.R. No. 1554/97. The revision was dismissed and decision of the civil suit was expedited. The civil suit came to be decided on 4-10-2000 by Civil Judge Class-II, Baidhan District Sidhi. The civil suit was dismissed. A month thereafter, the service of the Petitioner was terminated by the Regional Director-Respondent No. 2 owing to her long absence by order dated 16-11-2000 (Annx. P/9). The Petitioner alleges that the order of removal is illegal and is bad in law as no enquiry was conducted prior to passing the impugned order. She further alleged that order of dismissal is based on vengeance and was an outcome of the fact that Respondents were unhappy because of filing of civil suit against them challenging the order of transfer. The case of the Respondents in the return is that no enquiry was required to be conducted. Show cause notice was given on 12-7-1998, which was not attended too and Respondent No. 2 is authorised to take disciplinary action as per the authority dated 11-5-1992. The impugned order speaks that Petitioner was removed owing to her long absence. The rules framed by the Management Committee, Dayanand Anglo Vedic College Trust and Management Society-Respondent No. 1, which is registered under the Societies Registration Act provides in part-VII 'Appointments and General Conditions of Service'. The impugned order speaks that Petitioner was removed owing to her long absence. The rules framed by the Management Committee, Dayanand Anglo Vedic College Trust and Management Society-Respondent No. 1, which is registered under the Societies Registration Act provides in part-VII 'Appointments and General Conditions of Service'. Rule 3 of Part-VII provides if the Committee dispenses with the services of a permanent employee, it shall give him three months' notice or pay him three months' salary in lieu of such notice. Rule 8 provides right to transfer its employees from one institute to another, when it considers necessary. Rule 3 of part-IX provides 'absence without leave or overstaying leave, including vacation, unless satisfactorily explained, entails forfeiture of pay for such period as may be determined by the Managing Committee'. There is no rule providing for automatic termination of an employee. Thus an enquiry was clearly necessary to be conducted. On similar question in Laxman Dundappa Dhamanekar and Anr. v. Management of Vishwa Bharata Seva Samiti and Anr. AIR 2001 SCW 3786 , the Apex Court held as under: So far the second question that arises for consideration is whether the Appellants having been appointed on probation they would be deemed to have become regular teachers on expiry of probationary period. We are not inclined to go into that question in view of the fact that even though the Appellants were probationers, their services could not be ceased to have effect either by non-approval by the Head of the Department or by their remaining absent from their respective duties. There is no provision either in the Act or the Rules providing for automatic termination of services of a teacher on account of being absent without leave. If any teacher remains absent without any leave, it is open to the Management to terminate the services of such teachers only after complying with the provisions of the Act and the rules or principles of natural justice. In the present case, we do not find any provision either in the Act or Rules providing for automatic termination of service of a teacher in the event of a teacher remaining absent without leave. In the absence of such a provision in the Act or Rules, the alleged deemed termination of services of the Appellants without giving any opportunity to the Appellants was unlawful and deserves to be set aside. In the absence of such a provision in the Act or Rules, the alleged deemed termination of services of the Appellants without giving any opportunity to the Appellants was unlawful and deserves to be set aside. Even where there is provision regarding automatic termination of service in the event of over-staying the leave, enquiry is mandatory into the causes of over-staying so as to find out whether it was deliberate or there was just and sufficient cause for such over-staying. In Scooters India Ltd. v. M. Mohammad Yaqub and Anr., (2001) 1 SCC 61 , the Supreme Court held as under: On the other hand Mr. Chinnaswamy has relied upon the case of Uptron India Ltd. v. Shammi Bha. In this case it was held that such a Standing order conferred a discretion upon the management to terminate or not to terminate the services of an employee who overstays the leave. It was held that the discretion had to be based on an objective consideration of all circumstances and material which may be available on record. It was held that questions which would naturally arise are what circumstances compelled the employee to proceed on leave, why he overstayed leave, was there any just and reasonable cause for overstaying leave, whether he gave any further application for extension of leave, whether any medical certificate was sent if he had, in the meantime fallen ill. It was held that such questions could only be answered by the management provided it was inherent in the provision that the employee against whom action was proposed to be taken on the basis of such a provision was given an opportunity of hearing. It was held that principles of natural justice had to be read into such a clause and the principles of natural justice had to be complied with. It was held that the employee had to be informed of the grounds for which action was proposed to be taken against him for overstaying the leave. It was held that a Standing Order which provided for automatic termination of service of a permanent employee would be bad if it did not purport to provide an opportunity of hearing to the employee whose services are treated to have come to an end automatically. Therefore, it is clear that there could not be any automatic termination of the Respondent on the basis of Standing Order No. 9.3.12. Therefore, it is clear that there could not be any automatic termination of the Respondent on the basis of Standing Order No. 9.3.12. The principles of natural justice had to be complied with. It is apparent that Petitioner was challenging her order of transfer. She was initially granted the order of injunction also. Later on it was vacated. It is also clear that after dismissal of the civil suit she was not served with any notice and outrightly order of her dismissal was dispatched. She was not informed even of the proposal of dispensing with her service. She was not proceeded with departmentally; no enquiry was conducted. The facts and circumstances of the case indicates that the order of termination cannot sustain. In the circumstances it is held that the impugned order is absolutely violative of principles of natural justice. Coming to the next question about the consequence of reinstatement and quashing the impugned order of removal is about the back wages. Since, it appears that Petitioner did not join even after the civil suit was dismissed where it was incumbent upon her to join. She is held disentitled to the back wages. She should be reinstated but without payment of back wages. However, she shall be deemed to be in continued service. Resultantly, the writ petition is allowed. Impugned order of removal Annx. P/9 dated 16-11-2000 is quashed. Costs on parties. Final Result : Allowed