ORDER

1. Delay condoned.

2. Leave granted.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

4. The respondent was an employee of the State and his services were terminated for unauthorised absence. Counsel for the respondent contended that he was absent consequent to his illness and he had submitted his leave application in time. He challenged the order of termination from service and the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal passed an order on 16-4-1999 directing reinstatement of the respondent in service. Aggrieved by the same, the State preferred an appeal under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution challenging the order of the Tribunal. The High Court declined to interfere and hence this appeal.

5. Counsel for the appellant seriously contended that the termination was legal and the respondent was not entitled to be reinstated in the service due to unauthorised absence for a long period. We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order as the State had not conducted proper inquiry against the respondent. We hold that the reinstatement by the Tribunal was justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. However, we see that the direction to pay back wages for the entire period