Judgment ( 1. ) IN the case of State of Orissa and Ors. v. Gangaram Chhapolia and Anr. , AIR 1982 Orissa 277, R. C. Patnaik, J. (as His Lordship then was), speaking over the plight and the anguish of the State of Orissa stated in Paragraph 7 as under : "7. It is permissible to deviate and consider a few questions. If one were asked "what afflicts the State of Orissa ?" The answer could be : "inter alia, the malady of the racket of arbitration". The learned Judge while so stating in Paragraph 9, reflected on a pronouncement as under: "a pregnant sentence comes to mind "awake, Arise, o Partha". How long shall you be in slumber ?" ( 2. ) THE purpose of quoting the aforesaid judgment has a definite and indubitable relevance to the case at hand. As far as first part is concerned there may not be a racket relating to arbitration but there can be no doubt that in certain circumstances the authorities have taken recourse to the habit of led back and adopted an attitude that exhibits total non emphathetic attitude towards service holders. The non concern has reached its Zenith inasmuch as this Court has noticed that disciplinary proceedings have continued for more than seventeen years and in certain cases the Disciplinary Authority after receiving the report of the Inquiry Officer has passed the order of punishment after ten years. I am conscious that these facts are not reflected from the present petition but notice can be taken note of the aforesaid as they have formed part of many any order of this Court on many an occasion. Hence, the question, how long one can remain in slumber ? ( 3. ) THE poignant question being, put presently I shall deal with the factual expose, which do not need much adumbration, for the simple reason there is nothing to be filtered. The petitioner was appointed as a Generator Operator in the work charged establishment on 542-83 vide Annexure A-l. The said appointment was under Kolar Project Division, Bhopal which at the time of issuance of order was under the Department of Irrigation and as presently come under the Water Resources Department. Early years of the 1980s merged into 90s and then came the second millennium year. Everything was as it is. Early years of the 1980s merged into 90s and then came the second millennium year. Everything was as it is. The petitioner enjoyed the status as conferred on him and the efflux of time did not create any kind of dent in his career. But as a bolt from the blue an order visited him on 11-6-2002 vide Annexure A-2 passed by Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department terminating his services. A free translation of the said order reads as under : "office of Chief Engineer, Challan Avam Rakhrakhav, Water Resources Department, Narmada Bhavan, Bhopal The services of Shri Hamid Khan son of Shri Rahub Khan, Generator Operator (Worked Charged Establishment) Electrical/mechanical Light Machinery, Tube Well and Gate Division, Hoshangabad are terminated with immediate effect. " ( 4. ) A glance at this order would clearly make one envision as if the authority was competing with the Spartans who were famous for their laconic delineation with regard to issues. Nineteen years of service in a work charged establishment can not be wiped off or extinguished in a manner like this. By no stretch of imagination, it can be conceived that the petitioner was daily wage employee. There is set of Rules called Madhya Pradesh Irrigation Department Work Charged and Contingent Employees Recruitment and Conditions Service Rules, 1977. The petitioner has irrefragably earned certain status under the Rules. The authority concerned, who is holding the post of Chief Engineer and it can be said with certitude that it is a high rank in the cadre passed an order as if he had harboured an idea that the high authority can pass an order in an extremely sketchy manner showing scant regard for law, as if the Rule of Law has become alien in prevailing democratic set up. On a question being put to Mr. Yadav, learned Government Advocate, on what basis the order is supportable, he submitted that the order as passed can not be supported unless anything else there is to the order. Anything else has not come on record as no counter affidavit has been filed though matter has been lingering for more than two years. Quite apart from the above, if anything else was there the same should have been reflected in the order and there was no necessity on the part of the authority to keep it away as if it is Treasure Island. Quite apart from the above, if anything else was there the same should have been reflected in the order and there was no necessity on the part of the authority to keep it away as if it is Treasure Island. The transparency in passing of the order is a sine qua non to show that the persons who are holding public offices are applying their mind, discretion and not passing the orders without adverting to the issues in question. The authorities are required to remember that they arc dealing with the persons who are dependent upon their jobs and the status can not be segregated in an arbitrary manner. The possible conception of public accountability has escaped from the mind of the respondent No. 3. It is not fortunate or valuable sign. ( 5. ) TRUE it is, the service jurisprudence accepts the concept of termination simpliciter but it depends upon the facts and circumstances of the case. In the instant case, the authority could not have passed such an order in the guise of termination simpliciter when the petitioner was brought under work- charged establishment 19 years back. Once the status is conferred in law it has to be withdrawn as per law. That is the basic tenet of rule of law. A person who is not a respecter of rule of law is not entitled to any kind of consideration. Accountability at any level is a primary requirement. He who forgets this, may have an idea that forgetting is a virtue but while dealing with this kind of situation it is not a welcome one. On a perusal of the material brought on record I have no hesitation in holding that the respondent No. 3 has not applied his mind and passed an order which creates a shock in the conscience. To elaborate: when a matter like this travels to the Court it can not be dealt in a routine course by quashing the order and requiring the State to make good the loss. The State is made for public good and the officers of the State have not only to follow obligatorily the ideas of a welfare State but have to have veneration for the citizenry rights. I may humbly put, both the ideas have been ostracized when one has glance at order contained in Annexure A-2. There is no other option but to quash the same. I may humbly put, both the ideas have been ostracized when one has glance at order contained in Annexure A-2. There is no other option but to quash the same. ( 6. ) ONCE the impugned order is quashed the natural corollary is that the petitioner is to be reinstated. At this juncture, it is submitted by Mr. Shailesh Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner that for no fault of his the petitioner had to go out of the job for a period of two years and his family had to suffer tremendous difficulty and face catastrophe because the petitioner could not take up any other job and his school going children had to face suffering. That apart, it is also submitted by Mr. Mishra that when job of a person is taken away not only it causes economic hardship but he has to face humiliation as the Society does not know what kind of order has been passed. Definitely, there is a point to see over there and one can not be oblivious of the said facet. This has become a consequence because of the lugubrious propensity shown by the respondent No. 3. The State, the collective, should bear the burden immediately but the respondent No. 3 who had passed the order can not be allowed to fly in the air of Spain as if nothing has happened. ( 7. ) CONSIDERING the totality of circumstances, I am inclined to direct that the petitioner would be entitled to 50% backwages which shall be paid at the time of reinstatement which would be given effect to by end of August, 2004. The money paid to the petitioner shall be realized from the respondent No. 3 by the competent authority of the State after following the due procedure as well as the cherished principle of audi alteram partem. This direction is given so that the authority before passing any order shall dwell upon and delve into the material brought before him. Be it noted, it should not be construed that whether an order or when all order of termination is quashed majesty of law would not command the officers to pay, for there can be erroneous impression, fallacious interpretation, a different perspective but when the order clearly exposits the total non-application of mind there can be no doubt that it was passed in a mechanical and routine manner. In that case, depending upon fact situation a direction can be issued. The present case, being one of such a nature, this direction has been issued. ( 8. ) THE writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.