ORDER Devi Prasad Singh, J.—Case called out. None present for the petitioner. Heard learned standing counsel and perused the records. 2. Brief fact of the case is that by an order dated 19.6.1985 petitioner was appointed on the post of Octroi Peon in the Nagar Palika, Gonda by the Executive Officer. Later on Executive Officer by order dated 13.9.1985 appointed the petitioner on the post of Peon, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. It appears that because of satisfactory work by an order dated 22.11.1985 the petitioner was promoted to discharge duty on the post of Octroi Moharrir. Later on petitioner’s matter was placed before the Selection Committee and in pursuance to report of the Selection committee by an order dated 13.3.1989 petitioner was appointed on the post of Octroi peon and he had taken over the charge on the same day, i.e., 13.3.1989. 3. By impugned order dated 13.7.1989, the petitioner’s services were dispensed with on the ground that petitioner had failed to fulfil the wishes of Chairman, Nagar Palika, Gonda. The impugned order dated 13.7.1989 as contained in Annexure-7 to the writ petition for convenience is reproduced as under : •ÊŒ?‡Ê ?§Êÿʸ‹ÿ •œË?Ê?§/øÈ¢ªË •œË?Ê?§ ÁŸêŸ ?§?¸øÊ/UË ÁŒŸÊ¢?§ v{.|.v~}~ ‚? ÊÁ‹?§Ê ??¥ ?§Êÿ¸ Ÿ„UË¥ ?§/?¥Uª?– 8?‚Ë ßë¿UÊ •äÿ?ʘ ?„UÙŒÿ Ÿ? vÿÄà ?§Ë „ÒU– v. üÊË ß‚/UÊ/U •‹Ë w. üÊË äÿÊŸ ø㌠üÊË?ÊSÃ? „U0 •?UŸËÿ vx/| •Áœ‡ÊÊ‚Ë •Áœ?§Ê/UË Ÿª/U ÊÁ‹?§Ê ªÙá«UÊ– 4. At the face of record the impugned order has been passed mechanically to fulfil the wishes expressed by the Chairman, Nagar Palika, Gonda. The Executive Officer had complied with the direction issued by the Chairman Nagar Palika Parishad. 5. By interim order dated 31.7.1989, the impugned order was stayed by this Court and petitioner has been permitted to continue in service. It appears that appointing authority, i.e., Executive Officer had not applied his mind and restrained the petitioner to discharge duties from 16.7.1989. The appointing authority had not applied mind in terminating the petitioner’s services. The manner is feudalistic and does not meet out the requirement of Article 14 read with Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 6. It appears that appointing authority, i.e., Executive Officer had not applied his mind and restrained the petitioner to discharge duties from 16.7.1989. The appointing authority had not applied mind in terminating the petitioner’s services. The manner is feudalistic and does not meet out the requirement of Article 14 read with Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 6. In a democratic setup the decision taken by the authorities must conform with the fundamental right guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution of India appears that the Chairman of the Nagar Palika, Gonda had behaved like a King by expressing his wishes not to permit the petitioner to continue in service. The impugned order seems to blatant abuse of power by the Chairman as well as Executive Officer Nagar Palika India. A democratic setup runs on the basis of rule of law. In the present case the impugned order does not disclose the reason to dispense with the petitioner’s services. Every unreasoned order divesting a person from the source of livelihood suffers from arbitrary exercise of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Keeping in view the tenor of order (supra), it appears that the Executive Officer has failed to discharge his obligation and acted to fulfill the wishes of the Chairman of the Nagar Palika Parishad like private servant. This is sorry state of affairs. 7. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, AIR 1975 SC 2260 , has defined the Rule of law as under : “205. Rule of Law postulates that the decisions should be made by the application of known principles and rules and in general such decisions should be predictable and the citizen should know where he is. If a decision is taken without any principle or without any rule, it is not predictable and such decision is the antithesis of a decision taken in accordance with the rule of law.” 8. In the present case, the decision taken by the Executive Officer to terminate the petitioner’s services does not conform to any Rules, Regulations or statutory provisions. He proceeded to terminate the services merely on asking of the Chairman Nagar Palika, Gonda. In a democratic setup of our country all three wings of Government have to work independently in accordance to Rules or statutory provisions. He proceeded to terminate the services merely on asking of the Chairman Nagar Palika, Gonda. In a democratic setup of our country all three wings of Government have to work independently in accordance to Rules or statutory provisions. The Executive Officer does not suppose to work at the dictate of politicians but they have to discharge their obligation in accordance to rules. A decision taken to fulfil the wishes of political master in violation of Rules and Regulations is antithesis of the Rule of law. In a civilized society governed by Rule of law such action is highly deplorable. 9. In view of above, writ petition is allowed with exemplary cost keeping in view the principle emerges from a case in Salem Advocate Bar Association (II) v. Union of India, (2005) 6 SCC 344 : 2005 (3) AWC 2996 (SC). A writ in the nature of certiorari is issued quashing the impugned order dated 13.7.1989 passed by the Executive Officer, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure-7 to the -writ petition with cost quantifies to Rs. 50,000. The Nagar Palika shall deposit the cost in this Court within a period of two months. Out of which Rs. 25,000 shall be remitted to the Mediation Center. Petitioner is entitled to withdraw remaining Rs. 25,000 from this Court. 10. Registry is directed to communicate the decision to the Executive Officer, Nagar Palika, Gonda forthwith say within a period of one week. In case cost is not deposited District Magistrate shall take follow up action and recover the cost as arrears of land revenue and remit it to this Court. It shall be open to the State Government/Nagar Palika to recover the costs from the Executive Officer as well as Chairman concerned in equal proportion. Writ petition is allowed accordingly.