JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal is preferred by the State challenging the order dated 29.08.2018 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. (S) No. 3731 of 2018. 2. The respondent had approached this Court by filing the said writ petition challenging the order dated 31.01.2016 passed by the 6 th appellant terminating the respondent from service allegedly in compliance of telephonic instructions issued by the 5 th appellant. 3. The respondent contended in the writ petition that there is a breach of rules of natural justice and he cannot be terminated from service on the basis of telephonic instructions from the 5 th appellant. He had also contended that prior to the passing of the order of termination on 31.01.2016, no show-cause notice was issued to him. 4. Though the appellants opposed the grant of relief, but the learned Single Judge granted relief to the respondent in the writ petition.The learned Single Judge held that the stand taken by the respondent that there was no compliance with principles of natural justice before issuing the order of termination, is correct. The learned Single Judge also held that terminating services of persons without following principles of natural justice was also argued by the appellants in L.P.A. No. 186 of 2017 and connected matters and the same was held in favour of the private respondents therein.The learned Single Judge therefore, set-aside the order dated 31.01.2016 on the ground of violation of natural justice and asked the respondent to tender his joining report to the 5 th appellant within two weeks and also granted him relief of continuity in service and salary as Intermediate Trained Teacher for the period he actually worked and directed the 5th appellant to pass an order on verification of records, including attendance register within four weeks. 5. Assailing the same, this appeal is filed. 6. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellants that the order of the Single Judge is an illegal order and what was done in the order dated 31.01.2016 was only cancellation of deputation of the respondent.Though the language of the impugned order suggest such interpretation, it is not the case of the appellants that the respondent had been directed to report to some other office to continue working as a teacher. Therefore, this is a blatantly false plea raised which has no merit.The impugned order though styled as a cancellation of deputation is in effect nothing but an order of termination from service without any prior show-cause notice and in gross violation of principles of natural justice. 7. In this view of the matter, the appeal filed by the appellants is dismissed with cost of Rs. 50,000/- to be paid to the respondent within eight weeks.