Judgment ( 1. ) THIS petition was originally filed by Smt. Sakun Bai who passed away during the pendency of this petition on 25/8/2004 and the present petitioner has been brought on record. However, for convenience hereinafter the petitioner would mean the original petitioner Smt. Sakun Bai. ( 2. ) BY this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is seeking quashment of her termination order Annexure-R/5 which has been affirmed by respondent No. 2 in appeal and the appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed vide Annexure-P/4 dated 29/9/1999. ( 3. ) THE unfolded facts are that vide order dated 15/1/1985 the petitioner was appointed on compassionate basis on the post of Peon. It was complained by the petitioner that she is ill as a result of which on 15/9/1997 she submitted an application to obtain leave. However, without obtaining the order of sanctioning the leave, she proceeded for the leave. After she became medically fit she submitted her joining on 28/10/1998. But, she was informed on 30/10/1998 that vide order dated 3-4-1998 her services were terminated on account of unauthorised long absence. The petitioner assailed the order of her termination by preferring an appeal to the Collector which has been dismissed by the impugned order Annexure-P/4 dated 29/9/1999. Hence this petition. ( 4. ) THE contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the termination of petitioner has been accorded on account of misconduct by casting stigma of unauthorised absence on her for a long period and if that is the position, a departmental enquiry ought to have been contemplated and since no departmental enquiry was initiated against her, the order of termination which is stigmatic in nature, is bad in law. In support of his contention learned Counsel has placed heavy reliance on the decision of Supreme Court in Uptron India Ltd. v. Shammi Bhan and Anr. AIR1998 SC 1681 , [1998 (79 )FLR233 ], (1999 )2 GLR1309 , JT1998 (3 )SC 47 , (1998 ) III MLJ76 (SC ), 1998 (2 )SCALE586 , (1998 )6 SCC538 , [1998 ]1 SCR719 , 1998 (1 )UJ528 (SC ), (1999 )1 UPLBEC778. ( 5. AIR1998 SC 1681 , [1998 (79 )FLR233 ], (1999 )2 GLR1309 , JT1998 (3 )SC 47 , (1998 ) III MLJ76 (SC ), 1998 (2 )SCALE586 , (1998 )6 SCC538 , [1998 ]1 SCR719 , 1998 (1 )UJ528 (SC ), (1999 )1 UPLBEC778. ( 5. ) PER contra, Shri Wadhwa, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 not only argued in support of the order passed by the Collector but has also submitted that since the petitioner remain absent for a considerable long period, therefore, her services were terminated after sending several notices to her and also by paper publication and, therefore, the action of respondent No. 1 cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal exercise of jurisdiction. In support of his contention, learned Counsel has placed heavy reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Punjab and Sind Bank and Ors. v. Sakattar Singh (2001) 1 SCC 214 . ( 6. ) AFTER having heard learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this petition deserves to be allowed. ] ( 7. ) SO far as the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sakattar Singh (supra) is concerned, it is tangentially off the point for the simple reason that in that case the delinquent was an employee of the bank and by Bipartite Settlement if a delinquent employee remains absent beyond the sanction leave, order of termination can be passed. However, there is no rule as such under the Municipality Act. ( 8. ) ADMITTEDLY, the services of the petitioner have been terminated on account of misconduct by casting stigma on her that she remained absent for a long period and no departmental enquiry was initiated against her and if that is the position, the view of this Court is that the order of termination of petitioner is illegal. In that regard the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Sammi Bhan and another (supra) may be taken into consideration. ( 9. ) HOWEVER, since the original petitioner Smt. Sakun Bai has already died on 25/8/2004, the heirs of the original petitioner Smt. Sakun Bai shall be entitled for the wages for the period 3-4-1998 to 25-8-2004. Respondent No. 1 is hereby directed to do the needful in that regard. ( 10. ) THIS petition is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove with no order as to costs.