Judgment 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. This writ application is directed against the orders as contained in Annexure 2 and 3 whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been dismissed from services and his departmental appeal has been rejected. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that a departmental proceeding was initiated against him in his absence for the alleged charge of misappropriation of government money and he was put under suspension but at no point of time any intimation was served upon the petitioner to this effect nor articles of charges were served. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the enquiry report on which basis the order of dismissal was passed, was never served upon him and the entire proceeding was concluded ex parte. Learned counsel has tried to impress upon the court that since the petitioner was suffering from mental disorder he got himself admitted in mental asylum at Ranchi from 1.9.1992 and all of a sudden he came to know about the order of dismissal and thereafter he preferred statutory appeal which also was dismissed. 4. Though a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents, no satisfactory explanation whatsoever has been given as to whether any opportunity to defend was given to the petitioner. This court, faced with these situation, directed the state counsel to produce the entire records of the case. J.C. to G.P. 3 has produced the entire records before me and he submits that after initiation of the departmental proceeding a notice was sent to the petitioner through his home address which returned unserved. Thereafter again notices were sent to the petitioner with his home address which too ultimately were not delivered to him and accordingly the disciplinary authority proceeded with the departmental proceeding where enquiry was completed and the charges were found proved against the petitioner and ultimately he was dismissed from services. Learned counsel for the state could not satisfy the court as to whether articles of charges were served on the petitioner by any mode. Learned counsel submitted that there is no whisper about the same in the records. 5. From the order impugned as contained in Annexure 2 appears that the petitioner has been dismissed with retrospective effect i.e. with effect from 31.7,1989 though the order was passed on 19th September, 1992. 6. Learned counsel submitted that there is no whisper about the same in the records. 5. From the order impugned as contained in Annexure 2 appears that the petitioner has been dismissed with retrospective effect i.e. with effect from 31.7,1989 though the order was passed on 19th September, 1992. 6. Having heard counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the proceeding was concluded against the petitioner and the order of punishment was passed in a most arbitrary manner in violation of the principles of natural justice. 7. For the reasons aforementioned, therefore, orders impugned as contained in Annexures 2 and 3 are not sustainable in law. 8. In the result, this application is allowed. Orders impugned as contained in Annexures 2 and 3 are set aside and the matter is remitted back to the authorities concerned to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. No costs.