JUDGMENT : Tashi Rabstan, J. 1. Through the medium of present writ petition, the petitioner is seeking quashing of Order No. 131 of 2001, dated 22.02.2001 issued by Director General of Prisons & Fire Services, J & K, Jammu, respondent No. 3 herein (though in the petition it has wrongly been written as Deputy Inspector General), whereby the petitioner has been discharged from service with immediate effect. Petitioner is also seeking a direction to the respondents to reinstatement him on the post of Warder. 2. The facts, as projected in the writ petition, are that the petitioner was appointed as a Warder in the Department of Prisons on 15.11.1984. Vide Order No. 487 of 1999, dated 10.11.1999 the petitioner was transferred from Central Jail, Jammu to Central Jail, Srinagar. It is averred that since there was none else other than the petitioner to look after his old aged mother, who was having Asthma problem and was blind by both eyes, besides the petitioner was also suffering from Asthmatic Bronchitis & Lumbago Sciatica Syndrome, as such he made a representation dated 13.11.1999 to Director General, Prisons Department, respondent No. 3 herein, for grant of mutual transfer with one Mohd. Yaseen, SGW, who had been transferred in place of petitioner. It is averred that said Mohd. Yaseen also made a representation on the same very date praying for mutual transfer with the petitioner. It is averred that instead of deciding his representation, he came to be relieved on 15.11.1999. It is averred that even the then Minister of State for Agriculture on 17.11.2000 also recommended the case of petitioner to Additional Director General of Police, Prisons & Fire Services, besides his case was also recommended by the then Minister of State, Animal/Sheep Husbandry; Parliamentary Secretary of State for Housing and Urban Development as also by the village Development Committee, Mamka. It is further averred that when the respondents did not decide his representation, he again on 08.11.2000 made a representation for grant of mutual transfer. Further, it is averred that instead of deciding his representation, Director General of Prisons & Fire Services vide Letter No. Est/417/9012-14, dated 11.12.2000 issued a Show Cause Notice to the petitioner for his unauthorized absence with effect from 16.11.1999, which came to be replied by him on 16.12.2000. Further, it is averred that instead of deciding his representation, Director General of Prisons & Fire Services vide Letter No. Est/417/9012-14, dated 11.12.2000 issued a Show Cause Notice to the petitioner for his unauthorized absence with effect from 16.11.1999, which came to be replied by him on 16.12.2000. It is averred that again the petitioner made a representations on 22.02.2001 and 30.09.2002 bringing to the notice of respondents that after giving reply to the Show Cause Notice, nothing has been responded to him. It is averred that in the month of June, 2004 he again approached the respondents when he was verbally told that he has already been discharged from service vide Order No. 131 of 2001, dated 22.02.2001, impugned herein, but the said order was never served upon him. It is averred that neither the respondents decided his representations, nor afforded him any opportunity of being heard nor conducted any inquiry or followed the procedure as required under Rule 359 of J&K Police Manual before passing the order impugned. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. Objections have been filed on behalf of respondents admitting that the petitioner was appointed on 15.11.1984 and vide order dated 10.11.1999 he was transferred to Central Jail, Srinagar. It is averred that the respondents were not bound to accept the request of petitioner regarding his mutual transfer. It is further averred that if the petitioner was not well with effect from 15.11.1999 to 07.12.2000, he ought to have resumed his duty after 07.12.2000. Further, it is averred that neither provisions of Police Manual nor Rule 359 of Police Manual are applicable to him. It is averred that since petitioner remained on unauthorized absence from duty, as such Article 128 of J&K CSR Vol-1 came to be invoked in his case. It is further averred that the order impugned came to be issued by the Director General of Prisons and Fire Services, J&K, Jammu and not by the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons. 4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, considered their rival contentions, perused the writ file as well as the record produced. 5. Respondents have admitted in their objections that the petitioner came to be appointed on 15.11.1984; meaning thereby when he was transferred to Central Jail, Srinagar vide order dated 10.11.1999, he had already put in fifteen years of service in the Police Department. 6. 5. Respondents have admitted in their objections that the petitioner came to be appointed on 15.11.1984; meaning thereby when he was transferred to Central Jail, Srinagar vide order dated 10.11.1999, he had already put in fifteen years of service in the Police Department. 6. It is the specific case of petitioner that before issuance of impugned order dated 22.02.2001, neither the respondents decided his representations nor afforded him any opportunity of being heard nor conducted any sort of inquiry or followed the procedure as required under Rule 359 of J&K Police Manual. It is also the specific plea of petitioner made in paragraph-18 of the writ petition that the respondents even did not provide him the copy of order impugned. 7. However, on perusal of objections filed by the respondents, the same seem to be evasive one. The respondents have not whispered anything with regard to what happened to the representations of petitioner nor they have averred that any inquiry was ever conducted against the petitioner before issuance of impugned order. Even the respondents have not denied the assertion of petitioner that impugned was never served upon him; meaning thereby the respondents have admitted that copy of impugned order was not served upon petitioner and that no inquiry was ever conducted before issuance of order impugned. Even a perusal of record, so produced, does not reveal that any inquiry, as required under law, was ever conducted by the respondents before issuance of impugned order. 8. The only stand taken by the respondents in justifying the impugned order is that as per Article 128 of J&K CSR, Vol-1, absence without leave or after the end of leave involves loss of appointment and that provisions of Police Manual are not applicable to the case of petitioner. Thus, it is averred that since the petitioner remained on unauthorized absence from duty, as such Article 128 of J&K CSR Vol-1 came to be invoked in his case. Thus, from the own admission of respondents themselves, it is crystal clear that no inquiry was ever conducted against the petitioner before issuance of order impugned. 9. Therefore, before proceedings further, it would be relevant to reproduce hereunder Rule 128 of J&K Civil Service Regulations: "128. Thus, from the own admission of respondents themselves, it is crystal clear that no inquiry was ever conducted against the petitioner before issuance of order impugned. 9. Therefore, before proceedings further, it would be relevant to reproduce hereunder Rule 128 of J&K Civil Service Regulations: "128. Absence without leave or after the end of leave involves loss of appointment, except as provided in Article 203(b) or when due to ill health in which case the absentee must produce the certificate of Medical Officer." 10. The said rule specifically provides that absence without leave or after the end of leave involves loss of appointment, except if the absentee produces the certificate of Medical Officer of having fallen ill. 11. A perusal of the record reveals that the petitioner in reply to the Show Cause Notice has specifically stated in paragraph-3 thereof that he was not having good health during the period-in-question and which fact he had also stated in his representation filed before respondent No. 3 before issuance of relieving order. It also reveals that the petitioner had also annexed the Medical Certificate in reply to the Show Cause Notice. The same stand has also been taken by the petitioner in the present writ petition, which has not been denied or disputed by the respondents either in their objections or during the course of final hearing of the petition, rather the respondents in paragraphs 6-7 of objections have averred that if the petitioner was not well with effect from 15.11.1999 to 07.12.2000 as per medical certificate produced by him, he ought to have resumed his duty after 07.12.2000; meaning thereby even the respondents have also admitted that the petitioner had produced the medical certificate. Therefore, in such a situation Rule 128 (supra) does not apply to the case of petitioner herein. 12. Further, in the present case, Rule 128 of J&K Civil Service Regulations cannot be read in isolation, rather it has to be read with the provisions of J&K Police Manual, more particularly Rule 359 of J&K Police Rules, 1960, which envisages that the delinquent official must be given an opportunity to meet the charges levelled against him; especially sub-rule (11)(2) thereof provides that the official has to be given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause orally and also in writing against the proposed penalty. Thus, the petitioner was required to be afforded an opportunity of hearing before discharging him from service. However, it is the specific stand of respondents that provisions of J&K Police Manual are not applicable to the case of petitioner; meaning thereby the respondents did not conduct any inquiry in terms of J & K Police Manual and the rules/regulations framed there under nor any opportunity of hearing was ever afforded to the petitioner so as to show the cause of his absence before discharging him from service. Thus, the action of respondents is in violation of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India and also against the principles of natural justice. 13. This Court while relying upon various judgments of Supreme Court in case, titled as, Kali Dass v. State & Ors., 2013 (3) JKJ 240 [HC], has observed that the delinquent official was required to be afforded an opportunity of hearing before taking punitive action against him. 14. This Court also while allowing SWP No. 2094/2012, titled as, 2016 (4) JKJ 314 [HC] Sanjay Singh v. State & Ors., on 01.06.2016, has taken the same view. 15. A Division Bench of this court in LPASW No. 105/2011 decided on 01.03.2013, has held that the State-appellant was required to hold an inquiry into the matter and pass fresh order after giving opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner. 16. Further, it is the specific case of petitioner that when he was transferred to Central Jail, Srinagar he made a representation on 13.11.1999 to respondent No. 3 for grant of mutual transfer with one Mohd. Yaseen, SGW, who had been transferred in place of petitioner, on the ground that he was the only male person in the family to look after his old aged mother, who was having Asthma problem and was blind by both eyes, besides he was also suffering from Asthmatic Bronchitis & Lumbago Sciatica Syndrome. The respondents have not disputed the pathetic condition of petitioner's mother nor ailing health of petitioner, even they have admitted the medical certificate produced by the petitioner. Therefore, there was nothing wrong in considering the request of petitioner on humanitarian grounds, that too when the petitioner had made representations for mutual transfer with one Mohd. Yaseen, SGW, who too is stated to have made the representation on the same very date when the petitioner submitted his representation. Therefore, there was nothing wrong in considering the request of petitioner on humanitarian grounds, that too when the petitioner had made representations for mutual transfer with one Mohd. Yaseen, SGW, who too is stated to have made the representation on the same very date when the petitioner submitted his representation. Although, the stand of respondents is that they were not bound to accept the request of petitioner seeking mutual transfer, yet they were bound to decide his representations in either way, that too when, as per reply of petitioner to the Show Cause Notice, said Mohd. Yaseen has already been transferred to Srinagar, which fact the respondents have not disputed. On one hand the respondents have transferred said Mohd. Yaseen to Srinagar, whereas, on the other hand the petitioner has been discharged from service with deciding his representation, that too without following the procedure as required under law and without providing him the copy of order impugned. 17. Therefore, in view of what has been discussed above, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the same is allowed and Order No. 131 of 2001, dated 22.02.2001 issued by the Director General of Prisons & Fire Services, J&K, Jammu 22.02.2001 issued by the Director General of Prisons & Fire Services, J&K, Jammu, respondent No. 3 herein, is hereby quashed. Since, as per cause title, the petitioner was 45 years of age when he filed the present writ petition on 06.08.2004 and now after the lapse of about 13 years and six months, he must be at the age of 59 years, therefore, in the given circumstances, respondents are directed to allow the petitioner to join in District Jammu within a period of fifteen days from today. Respondents are, however, at liberty to conduct inquiry against the petitioner in accordance with the rules/regulations occupying the field and complete the same within a period of three months from the date a copy of this order/judgment is served upon them. Petitioner's retention in service or otherwise as well as the status of intervening period shall depend on the outcome of such inquiry. Connected miscellaneous petition(s) accordingly stands disposed of. 18. Registry is directed to return the record to the learned counsel for respondents against proper receipt.