ORDER Pramath Patnaik, J. - In the instant writ application, the petitioner has inter alia, prayed for quashing the order dated 12.02.2013 issued under the signature of the Respondent No. 3 and further prays for re-instatement of the petitioner as para-teacher. 2. Heard Mr. Manoj Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Shivani Verma, learned J. C. to A.A.G for the respondents. 3. Sans details, the facts, as delineated in the writ application, in a nutshell, is that the petitioner, herein, was appointed as para-teacher on 11.10.2007 by the "Aam Sabha" of Village Nathgoda, Circle - Sundarpahari within the District of Godda. By the resolution dated 11.10.2007, the name of the petitioner was approved for selection as para-teacher. The petitioner continued to discharge his duties to the satisfaction of the elected body from 2007 to 2013 and not a single complain was ever lodged by the villagers or B.E.O. regarding dereliction in his duty. On 12.02.2013 the respondent no. 2 made a surprise visit and incidentally the petitioner and one more teacher of Upgraded Middle School, Nathgora, Sundarpahari, District-Godda were found absent. It is stated that on the said surprise visit in the area altogether five para-teacher and five govt. teachers were found absent. The petitioner has been terminated from the post of Para Teacher of Upgraded Middle School, Nathgora, Sundarpahari, District-Godda by Memo no. 179, dated 12th February, 2013 issued by respondent no.3, District Superintendent of Education-cum-District Programme Officer, Jharkhand Education Project, Godda on the ground of his absence during inspection at 11.45 in forenoon on 12th February, 2013 during visit of Deputy Commissioner, Godda along with Block Education Extension Officer, Sundarpahari, Godda. The impugned order says that the members of the Village Education Committee had also reported that the petitioner and another Para Teacher, Devendra Thakur were not regular in the School. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the main ground on the part of the petitioner to assail the impugned order is that the original order dated 12th February, 2013 has been passed for only one day alleged absence and in complete violation of principles of natural justice. It is submitted that after passing of the impugned order (Annexure-4) a semblance of show cause has been issued through letter no. 161 dated 20th February, 2014 (Annexure-5) issued by Block Education Extension Officer, Sundarpahari, Godda, respondent no. 4. It is submitted that after passing of the impugned order (Annexure-4) a semblance of show cause has been issued through letter no. 161 dated 20th February, 2014 (Annexure-5) issued by Block Education Extension Officer, Sundarpahari, Godda, respondent no. 4. It is further submitted that despite offering his explanation through Annexure-5A enclosing the Medical Prescription of his treatment at Sadar Hospital, Godda on the same date of the inspection as also the Medical Certificate furnished by the Medical Officer of the said Hospital, the respondents have only confirmed the order of punishment without any independent and impartial application of mind. Therefore, petitioner has been gravely prejudiced by the impugned action of the respondents. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to and relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Mrs. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and another reported in (1978) 1 SCC 248 . 5. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents, repelling the contentions made in the writ application. Per contra, Ms. Shivani Verma, learned J. C. to A.A.G has vociferously submitted that the absence of the petitioner on 12th February, 2013 was not adequately explained and he had no reason to go out of territorial area of the State of Jharkhand for undertaking treatment at Sadar Hospital, Godda, as Godda is in Jharkhand. It is further submitted that the villagers and members of Village Education Committee have also complained to the respondent authorities about the infrequent attendance of the petitioner and other Para Teachers. The explanation of the petitioner was duly considered by the Deputy Commissioner, Godda, who did not find any reason to revoke the original order of termination. Therefore, the order is proper in the eye of law and requires no interference. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties at length and on perusal of the records, I am of the considered view that the petitioner has been able to demonstrate foundational facts and law to make out a case for interference due to the reasons stated herein below : - (i) In the case of Mrs. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties at length and on perusal of the records, I am of the considered view that the petitioner has been able to demonstrate foundational facts and law to make out a case for interference due to the reasons stated herein below : - (i) In the case of Mrs. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and another reported in (1978) 1 SCC 248 , wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court has been pleased to, inter alia, hold that application of natural justice by giving hearing after taking action is to be restricted only if likely to paralyse the administrative process and defeat the urgency of the measure. (ii) The factual road map of the case of the parties noticed herein above show that there has been a complete violation of principles of natural justice in the matter of termination of the petitioner's service as Para Teacher of the school in question. A decision has been taken before hand while a formality of asking show cause has been undertaken thereafter. There is no justification on the part of the respondents for such a post decisional hearing. It further appears that even after the explanation of the petitioner enclosing the medical prescription and the certificate of a Government Doctor of Sadar Hospital, Godda, the respondents have in a premeditated state of mind affirmed the order of termination passed on the same date, on which an inspection was held and that too for alleged absence for one day. Petitioner never got any opportunity to examine any person, who were part of the inquiry report or whose statements were taken by the respondent authorities to come to a conclusion about irregular presence of the petitioner in the said school. Such situation was not at all warranted in the facts of the instant case. (iii) In substance, it appears that the impugned order has been passed incomplete violation of Audi Alteram Partem Rule where opportunity of hearing or representation against a proposed action is a sine qua non before taking any adverse decision against a person. Therefore, the impugned orders cannot survive legal scrutiny being in flagrant violation of principles of natural justice. 7. On cumulative effect of the facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements, the impugned order dated 12th February, 2013 (Annexure-4) issued by The District Superintendent of Education-cum-District Programme Officer, Jharkhand, Godda, respondent no. Therefore, the impugned orders cannot survive legal scrutiny being in flagrant violation of principles of natural justice. 7. On cumulative effect of the facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements, the impugned order dated 12th February, 2013 (Annexure-4) issued by The District Superintendent of Education-cum-District Programme Officer, Jharkhand, Godda, respondent no. 3 is quashed and set aside with a direction to respondents to reinstate the petitioner in services. Petitioner shall be reinstated in service. However, it would be open to the respondents to take a fresh decision in accordance with law after giving due opportunity to the petitioner. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid manner. Petition allowed.