Judgment :- The writ petitioner was employed as an instructor in the second respondent institution. He had put in 23 years of service. As per the service regulations, he is entitled to the salary to be paid on par with Government Orders periodically. While so, on 12.10.2001, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner by the second respondent. To that, a reply was given by the petitioner on 13.10.2001. Thereafter, no charges were framed and no enquiry was conducted. But suddenly, by an order dated 12.11.2001, the petitioner was terminated from the service. Challenging that termination, the present writ petition has been filed. 2. The second respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit, which contains a number of violations of the rules committed by the petitioner earlier. But, it is also admitted in the counter affidavit that no enquiry was conducted. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that since the institutions are being managed by Catholic Religious Priests, the petitioner was treated very softly and he was given a lot of opportunities to reform himself and however, because of the adamant behaviour of the petitioner and also the ignorance of the procedure in conducting the domestic enquiry, the impugned order was passed. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that the management has got strong documentary evidence in support of the charges and the only defect is the non-conducting of the enquiry. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that inasmuch as the petitioner was terminated without conducting any enquiry, the termination order is illegal and therefore, the said order of termination is liable to be set aside and the petitioner is also entitled for full back wages. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent vehemently contended that though the procedure adopted was not illegal and the petitioner has been terminated for valid reasons and as stated in the counter affidavit, the petitioner has been dealt with very softly as the institution is run by the Catholic Religious Priests. 5. From the counter affidavit, it is seen that no enquiry was conducted before termination and there is no evidence to show that any charges were framed against the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned order has been passed without framing charges and also without conducting any enquiry. 5. From the counter affidavit, it is seen that no enquiry was conducted before termination and there is no evidence to show that any charges were framed against the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned order has been passed without framing charges and also without conducting any enquiry. Inasmuch as an employee, who was put in more than 23 years of service, has been terminated without conducting any enquiry or without framing any charges, the termination order has become illegal. The mere fact that the second respondent was ignorant of the procedure in conducting an administrative enquiry, it does not absolve the responsibility of the second respondent. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside, as it is not validly passed. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent submitted that even assuming that the impugned order is illegal and the same is set aside, still the petitioner is not entitled to get full back wages. In support of his contention, he relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in U.P.WAREHOUSING CORPORATION -vs- VIJAY NARAYAN (AIR 1980 SUPREME COURT 840), wherein the Supreme Court has held as follows:- "In matters of employment, while exercising its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, over the orders and quasi-judicial proceeding of an administrative authority-not being proceeding under the industrial/labour law before an industrial labour tribunal-culminating in dismissal of the employee, the High Court should ordinarily, in the event of the dismissal being found illegal, simply quash the same and should not further give a positive direction for payment to the employee full back wages (although as a consequence of the annulment of the dismissal, the position as it obtained immediately before the dismissal is restores); such peculiar powers can properly be exercised in a case where the impugned adjudication or award has been given by an Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court. Whether a workman or employee of a statutory authority should be reinstated in public employment with or without full back wages, is a question of fact depending on evidence to be produced before the tribunal. Whether a workman or employee of a statutory authority should be reinstated in public employment with or without full back wages, is a question of fact depending on evidence to be produced before the tribunal. If after the termination of his employment the workman/employee was gainfully employed elsewhere, that is one of the important factors to be considered in determining whether or not the reinstatement should be with full back wages and with continuity of employment." He has also referred to another judgment of the Supreme Court reported in RAM ASREY SINGH -vs- RAM BUX SINGH (2003-II LABOUR LAW JOURNAL 176), wherein the Supreme Court has held that on reinstatement, there was no automatic entitlement to full back wages, but it has to be decided on facts. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to get full back wages. 7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Supreme Court, in MANORMA VERMA -vs- STATE OF BIHAR (1994 SUPP [3] SUPREME COURT CASES 671), has categorically held that in service law, once termination is found to be illegal, the consequential order for grant of back wages must follow, unless there are reasons justifying a departure from normal order and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to full back wages. 8. Though the Supreme Court has held in the earlier case that the question of full back wages need not be decided, but, it depends upon the facts of each and every case and it is not automatic. In MANORMA VERMA -vs- STATE OF BIHAR (1994 SUPP [3] SUPREME COURT CASES 671), the Supreme Court has held that when the termination is found to be illegal, the consequential order of grant of back wages must follow, unless there are reasons justifying a departure from the normal order. In that case, the Supreme Court also granted back wages finding that the appellant was not gain fully employed elsewhere during the period of termination. Therefore, the question arises in this case as to whether the petitioner is entitled to back wages or not. The Supreme Court, in MANORMA VERMA -vs- STATE OF BIHAR (1994 SUPP [3] SUPREME COURT CASES 671), has also held as follows:- " We do not see any justification for the High Court not allowing the appellant back wages after it came to the conclusion that the termination was illegal. The Supreme Court, in MANORMA VERMA -vs- STATE OF BIHAR (1994 SUPP [3] SUPREME COURT CASES 671), has also held as follows:- " We do not see any justification for the High Court not allowing the appellant back wages after it came to the conclusion that the termination was illegal. Ordinarily, the consequential order of grant of back wages must follow, unless there are reasons on record which would justify a departure from the normal order. We do not see any reasons on record to come to the conclusion that the appellant was not entitled to back wages. There is also nothing on record to show that during the period she was out of service, she was gainfully employed elsewhere. In the circumstances, we allow this appeal and set aside that part of the High Court's order by which the appellant was denied back wages and award her back wages from the date of termination of service till she was reinstated in service under the impugned order of the High Court." From this, it is seen that unless there are reasons justifying a departure from the normal rule, the Court cannot deviate or refuse to grant back wages. In this case also, there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner was employed gainfully elsewhere during the period of termination. 9. Following the above said decision of the Supreme Court, viz., MANORMA VERMA -vs- STATE OF BIHAR (1994 SUPP [3] SUPREME COURT CASES 671), the petitioner is entitled for back wages and this Court cannot deny the same merely because there is no evidence to show that the petitioner was not gainfully employed elsewhere. It is only for the respondent to prove that the petitioner/employee was gainfully employed elsewhere. Therefore, there are no special reasons justifying the departure from the normal order for grant of back wages. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to full back wages. 10. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that even if an order of reinstatement is ordered, no order of reinstatement can be issued, inasmuch as the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation on 30.9.2003. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be reemployed or reinstated. In the circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to full back wages. 11. This argument of the counsel for the respondents cannot be accepted. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be reemployed or reinstated. In the circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to full back wages. 11. This argument of the counsel for the respondents cannot be accepted. When the order of termination is held to be illegal, it automatically follows that the petitioner is deemed to have been in service and it is also deemed that he was never out of service. Therefore, the petitioner, on attaining the age of superannuation, would normally retire in accordance with the rules. The writ petition is allowed as prayed for. Consequently, connected W.M.P. is closed.