CWP No. 443 of 2004 11.3.2010 Present: Mr. P.P.Chauhan, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Vinay Kuthiala, counsel for respondents No. 2 to 4. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 8.4.2004 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh dismissing his petition challenging Annexure A-1 whereby his services were terminated. The petitioner is primarily aggrieved by the fact that in response to the show cause notice, he submitted a detailed reply. We do not find any consideration of this reply and the points raised in the order of termination save and except that only one line has been added that his work and conduct is found untrustworthy. It is trite to observe that every authority is bound by the Principles of Natural justice and the bare minimum which is required is a consideration of the case put forth by the opposite side. We do not say that consideration has to be in a detailed manner as is prevalent in judicial proceedings. Nevertheless, the order should show that there has been consideration i.e. application of mind to the reply, which has been submitted by the delinquent. We do not find anything on record to show that reply to the show cause notice has been considered/ noticed. In these circumstances, the writ petition is allowed. Annexure A-1 passed against the petitioner terminating his services is quashed and set-aside. The parties are relegated to the stage of the reply filed by the petitioner to the show cause notice. The petitioner will be heard in the matter by the respondents before passing any order. There shall be no order as to costs. All the pending miscellaneous applications are also disposed of. This order does not in any manner adjudicate on the merits of the claim of the petitioner or the stand of the respondent. The respondents shall act independently and arrive at its own finding without being influenced by any observation made by this court in the order. ( Dev Darshan Sud), Judge. March 11, 2010. ( Kuldip Singh ), (Hem) Judge.