Judgment : 1. The present writ petition is filed challenging the order of the second respondent dated 27.02.2003, whereby, the petitioner's service was terminated. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Pump Operator in the second respondent Panchayat and he served for more than 23 years. According to the petitioner, the second respondent issued a show cause notice alleging certain lapses. It is his case that he had submitted his explanation immediately. However, another notice was issued by the second respondent on 04.02.2002, to which also he submitted his explanation. When that being the position, the present impugned order was passed by the second respondent terminating the service of the petitioner. 3. The petitioner challenges the impugned order mainly on the ground that the same violates the principles of Natural Justice, in view of the fact that no enquiry was conducted and no sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner before passing the order of termination. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side. 5. A bare perusal of the impugned order would show that the same came to be passed without conducting any enquiry even though five charges were framed against the petitioner. No doubt, it is stated in the impugned order that on three occasions the petitioner was called upon to give his explanation before passing the impugned order and that the petitioner had not given his explanation within the stipulated time. 6. On the other hand, it is contended by the petitioner in the affidavit that he had given explanation to the show cause notice issued by the second respondent. 7. Though this writ petition was filed in the year 2003 and notice was ordered to the respondents and they also entered appearance, till date no counter affidavit is filed before this Court. 8. A bare perusal of the impugned order would show that the same came to be passed without holding an enquiry. I am of the firm view that the order of dismissal from service being a major penalty, cannot be imposed in such a hasty manner without holding an enquiry even assuming that the petitioner had not given any explanation within the stipulated time. Even with regard to the submission of the explanation, it is disputed by the petitioner by contending that he had submitted the explanation already. Even with regard to the submission of the explanation, it is disputed by the petitioner by contending that he had submitted the explanation already. When the second respondent has chosen to frame charges against the petitioner, then in all fairness, he is bound to hold an enquiry and finally pass the order based upon the outcome of the enquiry. 9. Therefore, in my considered view the impugned order cannot be sustained and therefore the same has to be set aside and the matter has to be remitted back to the second respondent for holding an enquiry after giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner in accordance with law. 10. As the petitioner was 54 years age at the time of filing of the writ petition, he had attained the age of superannuation during the pendency of the writ petition and therefore the question of reinstatement into service does not arise in consequence of the order passed in this writ petition. Therefore, the impugned order is set aide and the mater is remitted back to the second respondent for holding enquiry and thereafter to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.