CWP(T) No. 2023 of 2008. 26.02.2009 Present: Ms. Ranjana Parmar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Additional Advocate General and Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General for the respondents. The petitioner was served with a show cause notice on 11.6.1991. He filed detailed reply to the show cause notice on July 12, 1991. However, vide office order dated March 25, 1992 his services were terminated with effect from 20th March, 1992. Ms. Ranjana Parmar has strenuously argued that the order dated 20th March, 1992 is vitiated for the simple reason that the reply filed by her client to the show cause notice has not been taken into consideration at all by the Assistant Engineer. This position has not been seriously disputed by the learned Senior Additional Advocate General. It is now well settled that once a show cause notice has been issued to an employee and he files reply, the same should be taken into consideration before passing appropriate order. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 25.3.1992 (Annexure A-12) is quashed and set aside with all consequential benefits. However, liberty is reserved to the respondent/State to take action against the petitioner in accordance with law and pass fresh orders after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), J. February 26, 2009. (sck)