1. Petitioner was appointed as Medical Assistant in the respondent university. Petitioner's services have been terminated w.e.f. 13th November, 1993, vide Uni­versity order No. 390 (Est.) of 1998 dated 14th November, 1998. The petitioner feeling aggrieved of the said order has challenged the same on the ground that initially earned leave was sanctioned in his favour and subsequently, though extension of leave was sought by submitting telegrams no decision was taken nor communicated to the petitioner. It is also pleaded that while terminating the services of the petitioner, procedure as prescribed by law has not been followed. 2. On issuing notice in this case, respondents filed counter affidavit/reply affidavit. Petitioner has filed rejoinder affidavit. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the matter. 4. Perusal of impugned termination order reveals that the petitioner was alleged to have absconded from duty w.e.f. 13th November, 1993. It further reveals that show cause notice was served upon him by Chief Training Organizer KVK, Malangpora, under No. AU/KVK/94/284-85 dated 26-09-1994. It is stated in the impugned termination order that a public notice under No. AU/ADM/1/1-5/6 dated 04-09-1998 was served through local dailies and the petitioner was directed to report for duty within period of 21 days and was further directed that incase of failure to report for duty, his services will be terminated. 5. It is for the reasons mentioned in the impugned termination order that the services of petitioner were ordered to be terminated w.e.f. 13th November, 1993. The respondents alongwith counter affidavit/reply affidavit have placed on record the notice issued to the petitioner bearing No. AU/KVK/94/284-85 dated 26th September, 1994. The said notice was issued by Chief Training Organizer, Camp Malangpora. In the said notice, it is stated that the petitioner has submitted earned leave w.e.f 14th September, 1993 for a period of one month which was sanctioned in his favour in terms Order No. KVK/CS/93/1-3/301-2 dated 09th September, 1993. It is further highlighted in the said notice that petitioner has submitted telegram requesting for extension of 30 days leave which has been sanctioned in his favour vide order No. KVK/CS/94/583-85 dated 27-01-1994. The said notice fur­ther demonstrates that petitioner has submitted two more telegrams requesting therein for extension of earned leave. In terms of said notice petitioner was informed that his leave case will not be settled/decided, unless and until he rejoins his duties. The said notice fur­ther demonstrates that petitioner has submitted two more telegrams requesting therein for extension of earned leave. In terms of said notice petitioner was informed that his leave case will not be settled/decided, unless and until he rejoins his duties. The petitioner was asked to rejoin his duties as otherwise disciplinary action will be initiated in terms of Article 128 of J&K Civil Service Rules. The respondents have placed on record the reply submitted by petitioner to the said notice. In the reply the petitioner has reiterated statement that he had sent telegrams seeking extension of earned leave. The petitioner has also stated in the said reply that because of the prevailing circumstances the work could not be continued at Malangpora and the authority had to shift to Shalimar. In the reply to show cause notice it is also stated that job requirement at Shalimar was minimum which made the petitioner to accept job in Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. It is also stated in that reply that absence of the petitioner will not affect the working at his place of posting and had it been so, he would not have preferred job outside the country. 6. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that in view of the stand taken by the petitioner in the writ petition and also in his aforementioned show cause notice, a duty was cast on the respondents to initiate an inquiry in accordance with rules and afford opportunity to the petitioner to defend his case. Learned counsel referred to and relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled Union of India and others v. Dinanath Shan to ram Karekar and others, reported in AIR 1998 Supreme Court 2722 and Division Bench judgment of this Court titled Khair Din v. State of J&K and others, reported in SLJ 1994, page 462. 7. It is submitted that in almost identical circumstances the termination of an employee has been held to be bad by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Division Bench of this Court. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner accordingly submitted that in the above facts and circumstances, the petition deserves to be allowed. 9. Mr. Lone, learned counsel for respondents in his fairness admitted that the university is following the rules called Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Classi­fication, Control and Appeal) Rules 1956 (for short "Rules of 1956"). 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner accordingly submitted that in the above facts and circumstances, the petition deserves to be allowed. 9. Mr. Lone, learned counsel for respondents in his fairness admitted that the university is following the rules called Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Classi­fication, Control and Appeal) Rules 1956 (for short "Rules of 1956"). The learned counsel further submitted that petitioner remained out of service for five years and as he has admitted in his reply to show cause notice that he has accepted job in Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, thus there was no requirement to conduct inquiry in terms of Rules, of 1956. The learned counsel submitted that as petitioner was working in Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, would mean he has surrendered his job with the respondent university and in such circumstances there was no requirement of initiating inquiry as prescribed by rules. 10. The contentions of learned counsel for respondents can not be accepted for following reasons. 11. An appointment of a person on a civil post though originates from a contract, but after his appointment he attains status and his service conditions one governed by statute and by statutory rules. Any action which is required to be taken against the official which would result in passing adverse orders against him or which will entail penal or civil consequences has to be in accordance with provisions of rules made by the rule making authority. It is admitted by learned counsel for respondents that Rules of 1956 are applicable, so in order to terminate the services of an employee, provisions thereof are to be followed. To terminate services of the petitioner, inquiry as completed by Rule 33 of Civil Service Rules 1956, was to be conducted, which would require framing of charge sheet and leading of evidence. If it would have been shown that notice was actually served on the petitioner, even then in the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondent had to conduct an inquiry in exparte and then pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Admittedly same has not been done by the respondents which renders the im­pugned order illegal. 12. It is true that the petitioner has admitted in his reply to show cause notice that he has taken job in Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. He has given reason for taking the job in Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Admittedly same has not been done by the respondents which renders the im­pugned order illegal. 12. It is true that the petitioner has admitted in his reply to show cause notice that he has taken job in Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. He has given reason for taking the job in Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. He has specifically stated in the said reply that because of the minimum work at Shalimar, his absence from his place of posting would not affect the working. He has also specifically stated if his services were required, he would not have preferred job out side the country. Thus the explana­tions tendered by the petitioner in his show cause notice indicates that petitioner has not surrendered his job or absconded. A declaration to the effect that a person has surrendered his job can not be made in vacuum. Intention of an employee has to be gathered from surrounding circumstances. In this case what is writ large on the face of record is that the petitioner had not shown his intention to leave his job permanently. The admission, however, made by the petitioner in his reply to show cause notice may in law constitute a grave misconduct. It is for the competent authority in a regular inquiry to enter into the satisfaction as to whether act of alleged misconduct of the petitioner would warrant dismissal/termination from services or would warrant imposition of any other minor penalty. It is further statutory duty of authority to take a decision as this Court can not substitute itself for statutory authority. 13. The impugned order deserves to be set-aside on the ground of non-appli­cation of mind as well. Whereas in the impugned order, though mention about show cause notice dated 26th September, 1994 is made, but the reply of petitioner is not considered. Had the authority considered the reply of the petitioner to the show cause notice dated 26th of September, 1994, may be, the order impugned in this petition may have not been passed. Non-consideration of reply of the petitioner which is admitted by the respondents to have been received by them being part of counter affidavit renders the impugned order illegal. 14. For the above stated reasons this petition is allowed and impugned order dated 14th November, 1998 is quashed. However, quashment of the order may not prevent the competent authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner.