Order The present writ petition has been preferred for the following reliefs:- (A) The order dated 7.10.2004 passed by the Secretary whereby and whereunder the office order dated 6.4.2004 has been kept in abeyance (Annexure-7) be quashed. (B) The Respondents be directed not to give effect to the office order 7.2.2004 and to implement the order and direction dated 6.4.2004 without any further delay. (C) The respondents be directed to pay all the legal dues to the petitioner as he was in service without any break. 2. The facts, in brief, are set out as under:- The petitioner was initially appointed as Supervisor Cooperative Society on 29.8.64 and he was suspended on 25.8.97 on the charges of embezzlement of amount and financial irregularities. The petitioner was served with a letter from the District Cooperative Officer, Ranchi, respondent no. 4 herein vide memo No. 96 dated 26.2.2001 stating therein that he will retire w.e.f. 28.2.2001. Just a day before superannuation i.e. 27.2.2001 he was served with a letter vide memo no. 1251 dated 27.2.2001 issued by the Registrar, Cooperative Society, Bihar, Patna dismissing him from service. 3. The petitioner being constrained filed a petition before Secretary, Cooperative Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi praying to set aside the order passed by the Registrar, dated 27.2.2001 vide which he was dismissed from service just a day before retirement. The Secretary, Cooperative Department, Govt. of Jharkhand passed a detailed order no. 128 dated 6.4.2004 setting aside the order No. 1251 dated 27.2.2001 vide which the Registrar, Cooperative Society dismissed the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a representation dated 29.4.2004' before District Cooperative Officer, Ranchi and prayed for payment of all legal and retiral dues. The District Cooperative Officer, Ranchi wrote to the Registrar, Cooperative Society, Jharkhand, Ranchi for necessary compliance of the order no. 128, dated 6.4.2004. 4. It appears that another order was passed by Secretary, Cooperative Department, Ranchi on 7.10.2004 to keep the order dated 6.4.2004 in abeyance. The reason assigned in the impugned order was that the appeal preferred was much beyond the period of limitation in the earlier round and the Secretary, Cooperative Department, who heard the appeal had joined the post only in 2003 and the appeal was preferred after two years and four months and neither any application for condonation of delay was filed nor any reason was assigned for condoning the delay. It has further been recorded that the order was passed straightway without even setting aside the order of the dismissal by the appellate authority without considering the main issues nor any reasons has been assigned., The aforesaid order keeping in abeyance the order dated 6.4.2004 is sought to be challenged in the present writ petition. 5. The main contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that no opportunity was given to him nor any notice was given to him before issuing the impugned order dated 7.10.2004. It has further been contended that the office order dated 7.10.2004 issued by the Secretary, Cooperative Department, Govt. of Jharkhand was illegal, arbitrary and without any application of mind and further it was not competent to review its own order without giving any notice or show cause to the petitioner and it has further been contended that the entire action was arbitrary and against the well settled principles of natural justice. 6. The further contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that once the order of dismissal was set aside by the appellate authority vide its order dated 6.4.2004 then without issuing any notice or asking for any show cause/explanation the impugned order could not have been passed. 7. I have considered the rival submissions and pleadings. It appears that the present writ petition has been preferred primarily on the ground of non-compliance of the principles of natural justice. The law with regard to principles of natural justice is well settled and it goes without saying that the respondent authority i.e. Secretary, Cooperative Department, Jharkhand before reviewing the order and or keeping it in abeyance, ought to have at least asked for a show cause. 8. Even otherwise under Rules of Business there is no such power conferred upon an appellate authority of the same designation to recall/review the order of his predecessor on the same post. The fact remains that if such order is allowed to be sustained vide which the new incumbent on the same post reviews his or her predecessor order, there will be no finality and it will lead to a chaotic situation. The remedy lies in challenging the order either before a higher authority and or before the Court of law. The fact remains that if such order is allowed to be sustained vide which the new incumbent on the same post reviews his or her predecessor order, there will be no finality and it will lead to a chaotic situation. The remedy lies in challenging the order either before a higher authority and or before the Court of law. Taking an action suo motto which is not only punitive but involves civil consequences without complying with the principles of natural justice is on the face of it arbitrary and illegal and thus violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 9. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the respondent No. 2 was not competent to review or keep the order in abeyance passed by a competent authority and has thus travelled beyond its jurisdiction. Till date no decision has been taken and the petitioner has already suffered for good five years which is on the face of it unjust, unfair and unreasonable, more so, when it strikes at the root of the authority to pass such orders. 10. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 7.2.2004 is set aside and the respondents are directed to implement their own order and direction dated 6.4.2004 without any further delay