JUDGMENT Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J. The present writ appeal is filed under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act , 1958, assailing the judgment dated 01.09.2015 passed in W.P(C)No.10152 of 2011 whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent No.1 is allowed, setting aside the order of termination and directing reinstatement. 2. The brief facts of the case are that Respondent No.1 was appointed as Engineer (Sales and Service) in a company and joined duty on 16.01.1995, vide Ext.P1. Thereafter the 1 st respondent was confirmed in service vide Ext.P2 order. Subsequently, the 1 st respondent applied for Leave Without Pay and Allowances, for a period of 3 years. As per Ext.P3 leave was granted with effect from 26.10.2002. Thereafter at the request of the 1 st respondent, the leave was extended vide Ext.P6 for a further period of 5 years with effect from 26.10.2005 to 25.10.2010. As per clause 3 of Ext.P7 order, the 1 st respondent was to report back for duty immediately on expiry of the above leave period. However, the 1 st respondent on expiry of the leave period neither report for duty nor apply for further leave. The appellants finally conducted an internal Departmental Enquiry wherein after verification of records it was found that the 1 st respondent never reported after the leave period and therefore, he was issued a show cause notice, but the 1 st respondent did not submit any explanation or reported for duty and finally he was dismissed from service vide Ext.P12 order. Being aggrieved, the 1 st respondent approached this Court in W.P(C)No.10152 of 2011 challenging the order of termination contending that the dismissal was in violation of the principles of natural justice and no opportunity was granted to him before passing the impugned order. 3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, Sri.Benny P.Thomas contended that the learned Single judge did not consider the fact that the 1st respondent never reported for duty after the period of sanctioned leave and hence he has no right to continue in service. He further submitted that since the 1st respondent had accepted the order sanctioning leave, in case if he violates, it would be deemed to have been terminated in case of not reporting for duty after expiry of the leave period and the same was precondition already mentioned in the impugned order. He further submitted that since the 1st respondent had accepted the order sanctioning leave, in case if he violates, it would be deemed to have been terminated in case of not reporting for duty after expiry of the leave period and the same was precondition already mentioned in the impugned order. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is any violation of principles of natural justice and that the dismissal order without any charge sheet or other proceedings has not caused any prejudice to the 1st respondent. The learned Single Judge also did not consider the fact that the 1st respondent had an alternative efficacious remedy of filing an appeal before the appropriate authority. Moreover, the learned Single Judge erred in allowing the writ petition and directing to reinstate the 1st respondent along with continuity of service and back wages with effect from 26.10.2010. 4. The learned Single Judge ought to have considered the fact that once the 1st respondent had accepted the terms and conditions of the leave sanctioning authority, there was no question of conducting any enquiry, since the same amounts to admission. On these grounds, the learned counsel for the appellants prays for setting aside the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent vehemently opposed the prayer and contended that the learned Single Judge has rightly allowed the writ petition since Ext.P12 dismissal order has been issued in gross violation of the principle of natural justice as also against the standing order. According to the standing order, the appellants have violated the provisions of paragraph 15, which provides for procedure for imposing punishment. For the purpose of convenience, paragraph 15 of the standing order is reproduced as follows: “The following shall be the procedure for punishment: A charge sheet will be given to the employee concerned and he will be asked to give his explanation. On receipt of the explanation, in case the alleged misconduct Prima facie appears to be of a serious nature, the management may place the employee under suspension pending enquiry. In other cases the Management will decide whether a formal enquiry should be conducted, and if the decision is for an enquiry an enquiry shall be ordered to be conducted. On receipt of the explanation, in case the alleged misconduct Prima facie appears to be of a serious nature, the management may place the employee under suspension pending enquiry. In other cases the Management will decide whether a formal enquiry should be conducted, and if the decision is for an enquiry an enquiry shall be ordered to be conducted. The management will, on receipt of the finding of the enquiry authority or in cases where no enquiry is ordered may, on receipt of the explanation, issue notice to the employee to show cause why a specific punishment should not be meted out to him. On receipt of his reply or in the absence of one on the expiry of the date by which the reply is called for, the Management will pass suitable orders. This procedure will be applicable only in cases where punishment are either reduction in rank, removal or dismissal. In other cases, the Management shall pass such orders as may be appropriate on receipt of the employee’s explanation.” 6. As per the aforesaid procedure, a charge sheet is mandatorily to be issued to the employee concerned asking his explanation. Thereafter on receipt of the explanation, the employee may be put on suspension and thereafter issue notice to the employee to show cause why a specific punishment should not be meted out to him. Thereafter, other procedure laid down has to be strictly followed which has not been done in the present case. 7. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent further submitted that dismissal being a major penalty, a proper enquiry ought to have been conducted. The appellants had specifically denied issuing the charge sheet to the 1st respondent. In such a situation, the learned Single Judge has rightly allowed the writ petition and as such no interference is called for. The writ appeal deserves to be dismissed. 8. Heard Sri.Benny P. Thomas, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants; Sri.N.Sasidharan Unnithan, learned counsel for the 1st respondent and Sri.Sunil Kumar Kuriakose, learned Government Pleader for the 2nd respondent at length and perused the records. 9. Admittedly, the 1st respondent was inflicted with the punishment of dismissal from service without issuance of a charge sheet or conducting proper enquiry, following the principle of natural justice. 9. Admittedly, the 1st respondent was inflicted with the punishment of dismissal from service without issuance of a charge sheet or conducting proper enquiry, following the principle of natural justice. The learned Single Judge while considering the fact, had put a specific query to the learned counsel for the appellants during the course of argument that whether the appellants had issued any Memo of Charges to the 1st respondent. The answer was in the negative. 10. Admittedly the learned Single Judge has not committed any error in allowing the writ petition and quashing Ext.P12 - order of dismissal, since no charge sheet was issued or Departmental Enquiry conducted against the 1st respondent. In view of the afore facts and circumstances, there is no reason to interfere with the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. As such the writ appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. The appellants are directed to reinstate the 1st respondent in service, if not already done and comply with the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in its letter and spirit.