ORDER : Ashoke Kumar Dasadhikari, J. The writ petitioner is aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 31st May 2013 issued by the General manager (Admn), Rahul Foundation refusing to allow the petitioner to join his service on the alleged ground of unauthorized absence. Mr. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as lecturer in Durgapur Institute of Advanced Technology and Management, District-Burdwan (hereinafter referred to as the said College) which is recognized under AICTE, a statutory body and also recognized by UGC. The concerned college is a public authority and discharging public function and as such an authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Mr. Pal submitted that since after the date of appointment petitioner joined his service on and from 2nd July 2010. The performance of the petitioner was well appreciated by the college, students, Guardians and he continued for a year as lecturer of the college. Mr. Pal submitted that on 2nd July, 2011 when the petitioner started from his residential house for attending his duty to the college, he met an accident with a car and suffered serious head injury, as a result petitioner was taken to a private hospital situated at Saktinagar in the district of Nadia. Petitioner's condition was so serious that he was unable to write a single word in his own hand and to inform the incident to the employer about such incident. Mr. Pal submitted that on 2nd July 2011 petitioner was transferred to Apollo Gleneagles Hospital, Kolkata, where he was admitted and treated for a period of fortnight under the supervision of Dr. Sisir Das and Dr. Buddhadeb Chatterjee and petitioner was discharged on 16th July 2011. Mr. Pal submitted that petitioner further went to said doctors for medical assistance but the concerned doctors advised the petitioner to continue limb physiotherapy thrice daily and heart cervical collar for three months. Follow up advice was also given in the said discharge certificate. Mr. Pal further submitted that the petitioner did not get himself completely cure and had to take help of Dr. Sanjoy Bhowmick of the aforementioned hospital and was under the treatment of Dr. Bhowmick from 2nd June, 2011 to 18th August, 2011. Thereafter, petitioner was treated by Dr, Benoy Mahendra and Dr. Sisir Das of Apollo Gleneagles Hospital. Subsequently petitioner was also treated by Dr. Sanjoy Bhowmick of the aforementioned hospital and was under the treatment of Dr. Bhowmick from 2nd June, 2011 to 18th August, 2011. Thereafter, petitioner was treated by Dr, Benoy Mahendra and Dr. Sisir Das of Apollo Gleneagles Hospital. Subsequently petitioner was also treated by Dr. Shobhona, Institute of Neuroscience, Kolkata on 29th August 2011 and after through check up the Doctor prescribed various medicines. On 25th September 2011 petitioner again fell sick and he was under treatment of Dr. Sanjoy Bhowmick of the aforesaid hospital. Subsequently, several doctors treated petitioner. Mr. Pal submitted since the petitioner was not completely cured and suffering from pain, he went to Dr. Sanjoy Chatterjee for further medical assistance. Ultimately, petitioner was given certificate for joining his duty by Dr. Chatterjee. On 31st January 2012 petitioner made a representation informing the Director of the Institution that concerned doctor advised him to join his duty and petitioner also made it clear that he is willing to join on 2ndFebruary 2012. However, the concerned respondents did not allow the petitioner to join his duty but the authorities discussed the matter with the petitioner on 7th February 2012. Petitioner by his letter dated 13thFebruary 2012 informed the Director referring the discussion dated 7thFebruary 2012. Petitioner wanted to join his duty on 13th February 2012 but unfortunately the concerned authorities did not allow the petitioner to join his duty on 13th February, 2012 according to the discussion held on 7th February, 2012. Mr. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in view of the meeting with an accident, petitioner could not join his duties, the concerned respondents are aware about it, petitioner after being declared fit by the doctors, applied for joining his post as lecturer and on his representation, discussion took place on 7th February, 2012 and petitioner was assured by the authorities that he would join on 13thFebruary, 2012, petitioner went to his college on that date but he was not allowed to join his post. Mr. Pal submitted that the concerned respondents did not consider the case of the petitioner and raised an allegation of unauthorized absence and removed the petitioner from service by the impugned order dated 31st May 2013. Mr. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the concerned respondents ought not to have removed without taking any steps in terms of rules prevailing. Mr. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the concerned respondents ought not to have removed without taking any steps in terms of rules prevailing. He submitted that no disciplinary proceeding was initiated, no opportunity of hearing was given and no opposition was allowed to be filed. He submitted that the respondents although took alleged plea of unauthorized absence as a ground for removal, they did not issue any show cause notice nor any charge against the petitioner and there is no disciplinary proceeding initiated for removal. He submitted that the impugned order of letter dated 31st May, 2013 should be set aside and the respondents be directed to allow the petitioner to join his duties as Lecturer. Mr. Pal submitted that petitioner has produced medical certificates, reports, prescriptions etc. before the authorities which are also disclosed in this writ petition as annexures. He submitted that there is no deliberate or intentional default on the part of the petitioner. He also submitted that immediately after getting fit certificate from the doctors petitioner made a representation but that was not considered by the authority. Mr. Pal submitted that the concerned respondents have acted contrary to norms and practices, therefore, the impugned action is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel appearing for the college submitted that immediately after petitioner's discharge from the hospital, petitioner ought to have applied for joining his duties but he has not done, he waited for a long time and thereafter filed representation on 31st January, 2012 for joining the post. He also submitted that the petitioner was a probationer, he was removed from service for his unauthorized absence. Therefore there is no illegality. He could get fresh appointment. At the time of hearing learned counsel for the college fairly submitted that petitioner is a very efficient and highly qualified teacher of the college. However, learned counsel submitted that the college authorities already appointed a person in place of the petitioner. There fore, there is no scope for absorbing the petitioner in his post at this stage. Learned counsel further submitted that there is no necessity for initiation of disciplinary proceeding. In the facts and circumstances of this case, according to him, there is no illegality whatsoever. In reply Mr. There fore, there is no scope for absorbing the petitioner in his post at this stage. Learned counsel further submitted that there is no necessity for initiation of disciplinary proceeding. In the facts and circumstances of this case, according to him, there is no illegality whatsoever. In reply Mr. Pal submitted that the appointee in place of the petitioner is made a party in this proceeding and the pleadings were duly served upon him but the teacher did not appear, not filed his counter against the pleadings. However, he submitted that it is settled that once there is an allegation against an employee there should be a disciplinary proceedings where the concerned employee do get an opportunity to give reply to the allegations and in case the allegations are not proved the employee get back his job and in case allegations are proved then consequence follow. In the instant case the concerned respondents did not follow the rules or even the principle of natural justice before issuing the impugned order of termination of his service. Submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the college as well as petitioner are considered very carefully. It is undisputed that the petitioner was selected through a proper selection process and he was allowed to join his duties in the college as lecturer. He served the college about a year. He is very efficient and his expertise was recognized by the college authorities. Petitioner is highly qualified. Accordingly this court directed the petitioner to be present before this court in person. Petitioner appeared before this court. Now petitioner is capable of joining his duty. It is evident from the impugned order issued by the concerned authority that the petitioner's removal is only on the allegation of unauthorized absence. Records reveal that the petitioner met with a fatal accident for which he had to take admission in a Private Super Specialty Hospital. Although he was discharged after two weeks but he was not physically fit to join his duties. Thereafter petitioner was treated by several doctors viz. Doctor of Orthopedic, Neuroscience. General Medicine etc. ultimately he was declared fit and within two to three days after getting fit certificate from doctor, petitioner made an application on 31st January, 2013 for joining his duties on 7th February, 2012. Thereafter petitioner was treated by several doctors viz. Doctor of Orthopedic, Neuroscience. General Medicine etc. ultimately he was declared fit and within two to three days after getting fit certificate from doctor, petitioner made an application on 31st January, 2013 for joining his duties on 7th February, 2012. Petitioner had a discussion with the Director, who assured that he would be allowed to join duty on 13th January 2012 but on that day petitioner was not allowed to join which was recorded by petitioner through his letter which was received by the authority concerned on the same day. It is well-settled principle of law, once there are allegations against an employee, authorities are required to initiate a departmental proceeding by giving an opportunity to deal with the allegations and to have disciplinary proceedings concluded. In case petitioner is found guilty of the charges then appropriate penalty would be imposed upon him. In the instant case there is allegation of unauthorized absence against the petitioner, no departmental proceedings was initiated nor he was given any opportunity of hearing. There is gross violation of principle of natural justice and fair play. Even in spite of fact that the matter is pending before the High Court the concerned authority have engaged a lecturer in place of the petitioner, although such engagement ought to have been made on temporary basis. It was also not disclosed what are terms and conditions of such appointment. The concerned teacher also did not appear before this court in spite of having service of the pleadings filed by the petitioner and he choose not to give any response to those pleading. Accordingly this court was keep in dark about the nature of appointment given by the concerned authority. Even other wise an employee appointed in a permanent post could not be removed in such a manner, violating all norms and procedures. The concerned respondents have acted illegally, arbitrarily and mala fide in the instant case. Accordingly I am of the view that the order impugned dated 31st May, 2013 is not all sustainable in law and as such set aside. The appointment of private respondent is also cancelled. The concerned respondents are directed to allow the petitioner to join his duties forthwith since the petitioner do not perform his duties, he will not be allowed to get any financial benefits for the period of absence from duty. The appointment of private respondent is also cancelled. The concerned respondents are directed to allow the petitioner to join his duties forthwith since the petitioner do not perform his duties, he will not be allowed to get any financial benefits for the period of absence from duty. However, continuity of his service benefit be given to the petitioner in accordance with law. This writ petition is allowed. There would be no order as to costs.