ORDER MANINDER S. BHATTI, J. : – The petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present petition and praying for the following reliefs : “(a) That, the petitioner prays that the Hon’ble Court may kindly direct the respondents concerned to produce entire record of Disciplinary Enquiry, in the interest of justice. (b) That, the petitioner prays that the Hon’ble Court may kindly quash the whole ex parte disciplinary proceeding, in the interest of justice. (c) That, the petitioner prays that the Hon’ble Court may kindly quash the impugned orders, in the interest of justice. (d) That, the petitioner prays that the Hon’ble Court may kindly direct the respondents concerned to grant consequential benefit, in the interest of justice. (e) That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly issue any other writ or directions in the interest of justice as the Court deems fit.” 2. The petitioner was initially appointed on daily wages under the contingency fund with Civil Court, Manasa in the year 2014. Thereafter, by order dated 26-7-2014, services of the petitioner were continued in the work charged establishment. The petitioner was thereafter served with a show cause notice dated 3-12-2016 in which allegations of unauthorized absent from duty were leveled from 26-11-2016 till 3-12-2016, i.e. when the show cause notice was issued. Pursuant to the aforesaid notice, which was served on the petitioner on 5-12-2016, services of the petitioner were terminated vide order dated 6-12-2016. Petitioner then moved a representation/mercy petition before the Registrar General, Jabalpur, however the said representation was also dismissed vide order dated 23-2-2019. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that before passing the order impugned, he was not granted with adequate opportunity of hearing, inasmuch as, a show cause notice dated 3-12-2016 was received by him on 5-12-2016, but since the petitioner was not keeping well and was also looking after his old ailing father, was not in a position to submit reply and yet the respondents in a hurried manner passed the impugned order of termination dated 8-12-2016. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner moved a representation/appeal along with the medical certificate, however, the appeal was also dismissed vide order dated 23-3-2019. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner moved a representation/appeal along with the medical certificate, however, the appeal was also dismissed vide order dated 23-3-2019. Thus, it is submitted that since no reasonable opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner, the orders impugned deserve to be set aside inasmuch as according to the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, the allegations which were leveled in the show cause notice, did not warrant the extreme step of termination of service. Moreso, it is submitted that termination of service is disproportionate to the misconduct alleged. 5. Learned counsel for respondents submits that the services of the petitioner are governed by Recruitment and Condition of Service of Contingency paid (District and Session Judges establishment) Employee Rules, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules of 1980’ for the sake of brevity). As per the counsel for respondent, the conduct pertaining to habitual absence has been elaborated in Rule 13(e) of the Rules 1980. It is further submitted that the Rule 14 provides for different kinds of penalties including major penalties. The procedure for imposing penalties, is laid down in Rule 15 of Rules 1980 and according to the respondents, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Rule 15 of the Rules 1980, the petitioner herein was given a show cause notice, however, the petitioner did not submit any reply to that notice and thus, the respondents were left with no option but to terminate the services of the petitioner and thus learned counsel for respondents has supported the orders which are impugned in the present petition. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. Before dealing with the rival contentions so putforth by the parties, it is apposite to reproduce Rule 15 of the Rules 1980. “15. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. Before dealing with the rival contentions so putforth by the parties, it is apposite to reproduce Rule 15 of the Rules 1980. “15. Procedure for imposing penalties – (1) No order imposing any of the penalties specified in clauses (vi), (vii) and (viii) of Rule 14 shall be passed except after – (i) the employee is informed in writing, when possible to do so, of the proposal to take action against him and of the allegations on which it is proposed to be taken; (ii) the employee is, as soon as possible, given an opportunity to explain his position in regard to the allegations made against him : (iii) such explanation, if any, is taken into consideration : Provided further that – (i) no person shall be dismissed without the order of the Competent Authority and Provided further that – (ii) it shall not be necessary to do so where the Honourable the Chief Justice finds it necessary to remove an employee from service on the ground of security of the State. (2) An order in writing referred to in sub-rule (1) shall take effect immediately on delivery to the employee and in the event of refusal by the employee to accept delivery of it, affixed on the notice board of the establishment on which he is borne and such affixing of the same on the notice board will be deemed to have been served on him.” 7. A perusal of Rule 15 of the Rules 1980 clearly shows that when employer intends to take action with for imposing any of the penalties enumerated in Rules 14, the employer is obliged to inform the employee of the proposed action and the allegation on which action is to be taken. Clause (ii) of 15(1) of the Rules 1980, stipulates that the employee is given an opportunity to explain his position in regard to the allegations made against him whereas Clause (iii) of the Rule 15(1) further provides that any such explanation will be taken into consideration. Therefore, the statutory requirement which is laid down in Rule 15 of the Rules 1980, cast a duty upon the respondents to afford an opportunity of hearing to the employee before taking action in accordance with the Rules of 1980. 8. Therefore, the statutory requirement which is laid down in Rule 15 of the Rules 1980, cast a duty upon the respondents to afford an opportunity of hearing to the employee before taking action in accordance with the Rules of 1980. 8. A perusal of the show cause notice dated 3-12-2016 (Annexure P/3) shows that the allegations which were leveled against the present petitioner were to the effect of absent from duty w.e.f. 26-11-2016. Here, the period of absence is required to be taken note of and thus, if the show cause notice is considered in its entirety, the same would reveal that the petitioner was not available in office from 26-11-2016 and thereafter the show cause notice was issued against him on 3-12-2016, meaning thereby the petitioner was absent for a period of about seven days. Learned counsel for the respondents have produced the original records. The show cause notice contains endorsement by the petitioner to the effect that he received the said notice on 5-12-2016 at around 11:30 AM. The show cause notice which was issued on 3-12-2016, granted time of four days to the petitioner to respond. The petitioner was obliged to furnish his reply by 7-12-2016 and the said notice was received by the petitioner on 5-12-2016. Thus, the perusal of show cause notice reveals that merely two (2) days were given to the petitioner to submit his reply. On the contrary, the entire exercise would show that the proceedings were initiated in a hasty manner, inasmuch as within seven days of absence, the show cause notice was issued on 3-12-2016 in which only two/three days time was given to submit reply thereof. The said notice was received by the petitioner on 5-12-2016 and before the petitioner could submit his reply, the order of termination was passed on 8-12-2016. No doubt, that Rule 15 of the Rules 1980 nowhere postulates any fix period to respond to show cause notice, but mere 2/3 days time to respond to the show cause notice cannot by any stretch of imagination qualify as reasonable opportunity. 9. It is also not clear from the records or even from the reply as to why the proceedings were drawn in a hurried manner and as to why representation of the petitioner (Annexure P/5) was not taken into consideration particularly when the same was supported by the medical certificates. 10. 9. It is also not clear from the records or even from the reply as to why the proceedings were drawn in a hurried manner and as to why representation of the petitioner (Annexure P/5) was not taken into consideration particularly when the same was supported by the medical certificates. 10. Undisputedly, services of the petitioner have been terminated for his alleged unauthorized absence without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard as mentioned (supra). In cases where allegation of unauthorized absence is alleged against any delinquent employee, the least that is required by the disciplinary authority, is to afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard by informing the delinquent employee of the alleged misconduct and enabling delinquent employee to respond to the alleged misconduct by way of reply or any other course, if provided, in the Service Regulations. While considering the reply so submitted, the disciplinary authority in cases of this nature of unauthorized absence, is expected to inquire into the aspect of the absence being wilful or not. If the explanation submitted by the employee is reasonable and acceptable then ordinarily no adverse action is called for. However, if the explanation given by the delinquent employee as regards his/her absence is neither bona fide nor reasonable, then the disciplinary authority is free to take appropriate action in accordance with Service Regulations and law. In the instant case, no such exercise seems to have been undertaken by the employer, thereby, vitiating the impugned orders dated 8-12-2016 (Annexure P/4) passed by respondent No. 3 and dated 23-2-2019 (Annexure P/6) passed by respondent No. 2, which are accordingly set aside. 11. In the meantime, liberty is granted to the respondents to issue a show cause notice afresh to the petitioner while granting him reasonable opportunity to respond and thereafter pass an appropriate order keeping in view the principles of natural justice. 12. Resultantly, the Writ Petition stands allowed.