B. J. SHETHNA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner Mohanbhai Chanabhai working as sweeper with the respondent Corporation had initially filed this petition through his Learned Advocate Shri P. B. Majmudar (who has been later on elevated to the bench of this Court) challenging the impugned order of dismissal/termination from service (Annexure D) dated 4. 2. 1988 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Health and Hospitals, Surat Municipal Corporation dismissing him from service w. e. f. 14. 4. 1981. ( 2 ) ). DURING the pendency and final disposal of this petition, his learned advocate was elevated to the bench of this court, as stated earlier. Therefore, Office had issued notice to the petitioner to make alternative arrangements to appear on his behalf but so far no arrangement is made. Under the circumstances, Mr. Prashant Desai, Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation is heard and the matter is decided on merits. ( 3 ) ). HAVING perused the averments made in the petition as well as the reply affidavit and more particularly, the contents of the impugned order at Annexure D, Mr. Desai, Learned Counsel for the respondent was hardly in a position to defend the impugned order. It is well settled principle of law that no retrospective effect can be given to the termination. From the impugned order at Annexure D dated 4. 2. 1988, it is clear that w. e. f. 14. 4. 1981, the services of the petitioner came to an end. Therefore, only on this ground the impugned order was required to be set aside. ( 4 ) ). IT may be stated that the services of the petitioner was terminated by the impugned order at Annexure- `d on the ground that without prior permission he was remaining absent. When he was tried to be served with the memo, it had come back with the endorsement that he has left the country and no reply to that memo was given. Therefore, the resolution was passed on 13. 8. 1984 to the effect that the petitioner had stopped attending his duty w. e. f. 14. 4. 81 and abandoned his service. If he has really abandoned his services then there should have been proper enquiry but without holding such regular enquiry he could not have been dismissed from service, that too, with retrospective effect. 8. 1984 to the effect that the petitioner had stopped attending his duty w. e. f. 14. 4. 81 and abandoned his service. If he has really abandoned his services then there should have been proper enquiry but without holding such regular enquiry he could not have been dismissed from service, that too, with retrospective effect. Hence, on this ground also, the impugned order is required to be set aside. ( 5 ) ). MR. DESAI further submitted that the Corporation may be allowed to pass fresh order after holding regular enquiry against the petitioner. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the respondent - Corporation should be restrained from holding such enquiry, as I am not inclined to pass any order awarding back wages to the petitioner, because admittedly for a considerable long time, he remained absent without prior permission. ( 6 ) ). IN view of the above discussions, while setting aside the impugned order at Annexure D dated 4. 2. 1988, the respondent Corporation is directed to reinstate the petitioner in service latest by 31. 1. 2003 with all other benefits of service except the backwages. Rule made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs. The respondent may inform the petitioner to resume duty latest by 31. 1. 2003 by Regd. A. D. Post. Office may also send a copy of this order to the petitioner forthwith. .