JUDGMENT : N. Paul Vasantha Kumar, C.J. 1. This writ petition is filed praying to quash the order No. BOG. 74/Board-62/99 dated 19.03.1999 and direct the respondents to treat the petitioner as in service without any break and entitle him to all consequential benefits. Case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Lecturer Applied Mechanics in Regional Engineering College on 01.03.1982 and he continued as Lecturer till 21.10.1986. Vide order No. 215 of 1986 he was promoted as Assistant Professor on probation for one year in the Water Resources Development. In the year 1985, petitioner was deputed by the College to take up his Research status at Indian Institute of Technology. Petitioner completed his research Thesis from 22.07.1985 to 26.08.1989. The petitioner submitted his PhD Thesis on 25.08.1989 and resumed his duties in the college. He was asked to sign an agreement in the year 1985 before his deputation for taking up research course. In terms of the agreement, the petitioner was required to serve the college for 5 years after completing his PhD course. Petitioner continued in the College from 28.08.1989 to 01.03.1994. He applied for earned leave w.e.f. 22.11.1993 to 24.12.1993 for a period of 33 days. In continuation to winter vacation w.e.f. 25.12.1993 to 28.02.1994, the said leave was sanctioned. Petitioner on the said date filed another leave application to the College to sanction leave in his favour for one year w.e.f. 01.03.1994 to 28.02.1995. The leave applied was in continuation to the earlier leave duty sanctioned. According to the petitioner, no reply was conveyed either accepting his leave or rejecting his leave request. On 01.03.1995 he again submitted a leave application seeking extension of leave upto 24.08.1995. Petitioner after availing the leave joined the college on 19.08.1995 even before the expiry of the leave applied. He attended the college and he was assigned various duties including examination duties, teaching etc. He was not paid salary from August 1995 in spite of reporting duty and discharging his duties vide communication dated 17.10.1995, he requested the Principal to release salary from the date of his joining, but the same was not released. He attended the college and he was assigned various duties including examination duties, teaching etc. He was not paid salary from August 1995 in spite of reporting duty and discharging his duties vide communication dated 17.10.1995, he requested the Principal to release salary from the date of his joining, but the same was not released. Another communication was addressed by the Department on 31.12.1995 stating that he will wait for the decision of the college in the matter and also stated that if the college intends to take any adverse decision in the matter, petitioner may be given opportunity of being heard before any such decision is taken. However on 19.03.1999 order of termination was passed. The said order is challenged on various grounds by contending that on expiry of the leave, he applied for extension of leave and no order regarding rejection of leave having been communicated. It is also contended that after the 2nd extension of leave before the expiry of the leave applied he rejoined the duty and discharged his duties and without considering the said aspects, order of termination was passed, the same is unsustainable. 2. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has initially applied for 33 days leave followed with winter vacation. Thereafter he had submitted his application seeking extension of leave for one year for which no reply was given. Before the expiry of the said leave, he again submitted an application seeking further extension of leave for which also no reply was given. Petitioner rejoined the duty before the expiry of the second spell of leave applied and he discharged his duties from 19.08.1995. Without noticing the said fact, the impugned order of termination was passed on 19.03.1999. 3. It is seen from the records that in spite of the petition pending from 1999, no counter/response has been filed to oppose the prayers made in the writ petition. 4. It is an admitted fact that petitioner after applied for extension of leave rejoined duty in August 1995 and served till the impugned order was passed for which he was not paid any salary. He has performed examination duty and also attended the classes. Before passing order of termination, petitioner should have been proceeded with the departmental action namely issuing charge of memo and thereafter an order of punishment could have been issued if the allegation is proved. He has performed examination duty and also attended the classes. Before passing order of termination, petitioner should have been proceeded with the departmental action namely issuing charge of memo and thereafter an order of punishment could have been issued if the allegation is proved. The said procedure was not followed before passing the order of termination. 5. In the objections, it is stated that petitioner was asked to resume his duties on 22.10.1994 within three months. The contention of the petitioner is that the said letter was not communicated to him who was in foreign country and the same was addressed to the petitioner in his Srinagar address. 6. During the hearing of the writ petition, learned counsel appearing for the respondents was specifically asked as to whether there is proof of service of the said letter to the petitioner, learned counsel on perusing the file fairly submitted that no acknowledgement is available to show service of said letter. In light of the said stand taken, it is evident that the said communication requesting the petitioner to resume duty was not communicated to the petitioner. 7. It is a well settled proposition of law that an order must be communicated and only thereafter it can be relied on. If an order is not communicated, same has no effect on the petitioner as held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the decisions reported in AIR 1963 Supreme Court 395, Bachhittar Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr. and AIR 1966 Supreme Court 1313 (V 53 C 253) State of Punjab v. Amar Singh Harika. Same view has been reiterated in the decisions of the Hon'ble the Supreme Court reported as (2010) 9 Supreme Court Cases 157 (Greater Mohali Area Development Authority & Ors, v. Manju Jain & Ors.) and (2012) 6 Supreme Court Cases 384 (Bipromasz Bipron Trading SA v. Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL). 8. In such circumstances, the order of termination dated 19.03.1999 is set aside so far it pertains to petitioner. The petitioner shall be treated as in service without reference to the order of termination and he is entitled to get salary from where the same has been withheld from the date he reported back to duty till his date of retirement. In such circumstances, the order of termination dated 19.03.1999 is set aside so far it pertains to petitioner. The petitioner shall be treated as in service without reference to the order of termination and he is entitled to get salary from where the same has been withheld from the date he reported back to duty till his date of retirement. He is also entitled to get service benefits other than salary for the period he has applied for extension of leave as well the period prior to his reporting duty. 9. When the writ petition was filed in the year 1999, petitioner was aged about 51 years and now his age will be about 67 years. Respondents are directed to calculate the salary and other benefits payable to the petitioner in light of the direction above ordered within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order. This writ petition is allowed. No costs.