JUDGMENT : Mohammad Yaqoob Mir, J.:- 1. Petitioners seek quashment of the orders dated 8.9.2003 and 9.2.2002 passed respectively by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 as having been passed in violation of the settled position of the law. The flashback of the factual matrix, which has given rise to this round of litigation, for appreciating the controversy in its right perspective shall be advantageous to be noticed. Respondent No. 3 was appointed by petitioner No. 2 on a consolidated salary of Rs. 550/- per month for a period of two months that is upto end of June, 1998 vide its order dated 26.4.1988. The life of the said order has been extended for another two months vide its order dated 7.7.1988. Then again, vide order dated 1.9.1988, he has been reemployed for three months (eighty nine days) w.e.f. 2.9.1988, again on same terms vide order dated 2.12.1988 has been re-employed for eighty nine days w.e.f. 1.12.1988, again vide order dated 11.2.1989 has been appointed on consolidated salary of Rs. 750/- per month w.e.f. 1.3.1989 on temporary basis for a period of eighty nine days. 2. Finally, vide order dated 26.8.1992 issued by Deputy General Manager, JAKFED, the term of temporary appointment of the respondent along with five other such persons has been extended till further orders. 3. Vide order dated 1.6.1993, respondent No. 3 was placed under suspension for non-compliance of the order of transfer. Show cause notice has been served upon him on 8.6.1993. He appeared to have filed an affidavit apologizing for non compliance based on which vide order dated 19.8.1993 issued by General Manager, a lenient view has been taken. He has been reinstated but warned to be careful in future with a further condition that any future lapse, if found, services will be terminated without notice. 4. Respondent No. 3 had opted to remain absent from duty w.e.f. 10.8.1994 to 4.9.1994 and then again from 17.9.1994 till 18.10.1994. As a result whereof show-cause notice has been issued on 18.10.1994. How that proceedings has been closed, that position is not brought on record. 5. Vide order dated 20.3.1995 issued by General Manager-respondent No. 2, services of the respondent No. 3 have been terminated w.e.f. the date of his absence from duty. In the order, it is recorded that the Manager, Udhampur reported that the respondent has remained absent from duty since 7.3.1995. 5. Vide order dated 20.3.1995 issued by General Manager-respondent No. 2, services of the respondent No. 3 have been terminated w.e.f. the date of his absence from duty. In the order, it is recorded that the Manager, Udhampur reported that the respondent has remained absent from duty since 7.3.1995. The closer of the shop caused financial loss and inconvenience to the public. It is also mentioned that previously two reports have been received about his absence and Show-cause notice on 18.10.1994 was issued. 6. The matter has come up for discussion during meeting held under the chairmanship of Managing Director, JAKFED on 13.3.1995 in the Head Office. It was decided to terminate the services of respondent No. 3. 7. The said order of termination bearing No. 7309-14 dated 20.3.1995 was challenged by the medium of appeal before the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, J&K, Jammu by respondent No. 3 Shri Krishan Kumar. The appeal has been allowed on the ground that the respondent No. 3 had not be given opportunity of being heard. The termination on the basis of shortage and absence from duty is punitive. The order was set-aside. He was directed to be put on regular duty. Salary was also directed to be released in his favour. The operative part of the order reads as under: "This principal applied in the present case as the appellant's services have been terminated on the basis of shortages and absence from duty. Therefore order being punitive the same is liable to be set aside. I therefore set aside the order dated 20.3.1995 whereby the services of the appellant have been terminated and direct the respondents to put the appellant on regular duty. Respondents are further directed to release the salary of the appellant from the date of termination till date and further the salary of the appellant for the back period shall be released." 8. Dis-satisfied with the order of the appellate authority (Registrar) petitioner filed the revision petition before the J and K Special Tribunal. It is during the pendency of the revision petition, Krishan Kumar had filed a writ petition SWP No. 2044/2002 which has been disposed of by this Court on 30.9.2002 with a direction to the Secretary, Cooperative Department to see that the order of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies is complied with. It is during the pendency of the revision petition, Krishan Kumar had filed a writ petition SWP No. 2044/2002 which has been disposed of by this Court on 30.9.2002 with a direction to the Secretary, Cooperative Department to see that the order of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies is complied with. Against the said order, LPA was filed by the present petitioner which was dismissed with a clarification that order passed by learned single Judge will not construe to be an expression on the merits of the case as and when the Revisional authority considers any application for ad-interim relief. 9. The revision petition has been finally decided on 8.9.2003. The order passed by the Registrar dated 9.2.2002 has been maintained. Again aggrieved thereof petitioners have come up with this petition. 10. How the respondent No. 3 has managed his entry into services is quite clear from the orders of engagement as referred to in the beginning part of the judgment. Least said about the same is better, otherwise prejudice will be Caused. 11. By whatever method and process, the respondent No. 3 has been engaged but has been working from 26.4.1988 till 20.3.1995 when his services were terminated. The conduct of the respondent No. 3 in discharge of his duties also stand noticed hereinabove. 12. The sole point on the basis of which order dated 20.3.1995 issued by General Manger, JAKFED terminating the services of the respondent No. 3 has been set-aside is that the respondent No-3 was condemned unheard. Appellate authority-Registrar, Cooperative Societies while setting-aside the order of termination has opined that even though the respondent No. 3 was temporary employee but before terminating his services, he was required to be heard. Notice was required to be served upon him. Same view has been upheld by the Revisional Court. 13. According to counsel for the petitioners, the show-cause notice was served upon the respondent No. 3 but same stand of the petitioner is untenable. In fact when the respondent No. 3 was placed under suspension on 1.6.1993 for non compliance of the order of his transfer, show-cause for such default was issued on 8.6.1993 which was responded and apology tendered by the respondent No. 3 was accepted. In fact when the respondent No. 3 was placed under suspension on 1.6.1993 for non compliance of the order of his transfer, show-cause for such default was issued on 8.6.1993 which was responded and apology tendered by the respondent No. 3 was accepted. When respondent No. 3 again remained absent from 10.8.1994 to 4.9.1994 and from 17.9.1994 till 18.10.1994, the show-cause notice was served upon him but no action seems to have taken so that show-cause notice was for the period of absence in the year 1994. 14. The order of termination dated 20.3.1995 refers to the absence from duty since 7.3.1995 for such absence; no show-cause notice has been issued. Though in the said order earlier absence and show-cause notice dated 18.10.1994 has been referred to, which respondent No. 3 had not responded but for the absence since 7.3.1995, no show-cause notice had been issued. 15. The cumulative effect of all facts and circumstances is that the show-cause notice for absence since 7.3.1995 so as to enable the respondent No. 3 to explain his position has not been issued. On such count, order of termination dated 20.3.1995 set-aside by the appellate authority vide its order dated 9.2.2002 and upheld by the Revisional authority (Tribunal) vide its judgment dated 8.9.2003 does not call for interference except modification to the effect that the petitioners shall be free to initiate fresh enquiry, if they so chose and then after providing opportunity to the respondent No. 3 of being heard, shall pass appropriate orders as shall be warranted in the facts and circumstance of the case. 16. In case, petitioners chose to initiate fresh enquiry, then the exercise shall be undertaken and completed within a period of three months from today. 17. The payment of back wages/salary as well as future shall be dependant upon the outcome of the enquiry. In case, petitioners will not chose to initiate fresh enquiry, in that eventuality, order of the appellate authority dated 9.2.2002 upheld by the Revisional authority on 8.9.2003 shall be carried into effect. Petition accordingly disposed of.