The main legal point established in the judgment is that the intention to dishonestly misappropriate funds, as defined in the Indian Penal Code, can lead to termination of employment, and the deposit of the amount after suspension does not absolve the guilt of misappropriation.

( 1 ) THE petitioner was initially appointed as a daily wager in the Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad in the year 1984. His services were regularised in the year 1992 and on 5. 6. 1992, the petitioner was appointed as a Tax Collector. It transpires that on the basis of a preliminary enquiry it was found that large sums of money collected by the petitioner was not deposited in the Trcasuiy. Accordingly, the petitioner was placed under suspension vide an order dated 22. 2. 1994. A charge sheet dated 13. 2. 1995 was issued in which it was stated that large sums of money collected by the petitioner was not deposited in the Treasury, which he had misappropriated for his own use and therefore, caused a loss to the dcpaitmisnt. The charge-sheet further stated that when this fact was brought to the notice of the petitioner, the said amount was deposited subsequently but there was a short fall of Rs. 100. 60. The petitioner, vide his reply, admitted that whatever amount was found short was deposited by him and that he was also willing to deposit the short fall of Rs. 100. 60. The Enquiry Officer after holding the enquiry, submitted his report holding that the charge No. 1 was serious in nature and that the petitioner had collected a sum of rs. 1,48,000. 00 and odd and that he deliberately did not deposit this amount in the Treasury and deposited the amount only after he was suspended. The Enquiry Officer found that the petitioner was guilty of misusing and misappropriating the funds of the Nagar Mahapalika. On the basis of the enquiry report, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and subsequently by an order dated 19. 1. 1996, the services of the petitioner was terminated. Against the order of termination, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

( 2 ) HEARD Sri Vikas Budhwar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri S. D. Kautilya, the learned Counsel for the respondents.

( 3 ) A preliminary objection was raised by the learned Counsel for the respondent Sri S. D. Kautily a that against the order of termination, the petitioner had a right of an appeal before the commissioner and, therefore, the writ petition was not maintainable and should be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. This writ petition was entertained in the year 1996 and after eight years, I am not inclined to dismiss the writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy and, therefore, 1 propose to deal with the matter on merits, The preliminary objection raised by the learned Counsel for the respondents is accordingly rejected.

( 4 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the charges mentioned in the charge-sheet dated 13. 2. 1995 did not constitute any misconduct and, therefore, the petitioners services could not be terminated. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that once the amount of Rs. 1,48,000. 00 and odd was deposited, the question of misappropriation docs not arise nor docs it constitute a misconduct. So far as the second charge is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that there could have been a bonafide error in nor depositing a sum of Rs. 100. 60 and that the petitioner was willing to deposit the short fall. In any case, the petitioner could not be made guilty of misappropriating this small amount of Rs. 100. 60. The petitioner contended that since a sum of Rs. 1,48,000. 00 and odd had been deposited, no loss was caused to the respondents. In support of his submission, the learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decisions of this Court in Chain Sukh v. State of U. P. , reported in 1997 ALJ 1310 and Ram Bharat Tewari v. Town Area Committee, 2000 (18) LCD 1040.

( 5 ) IN my view, I am not at all impressed by the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the judgment cited are distinguishable. In Chain Sukh case (supra), charges levelled against the incumbent was dereliction of duty and in that light, the Court held that since there w