The main legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory requirement for approval of charge sheets by the appointing authority, adherence to principles of natural justice in inquiry proceedings, and the entitlement to back wages and benefits in case of illegal termination.

ORDER :

Manish Mathur, J.

1. Heard Ms. Navita Sharma learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties.

2. The present petition has been filed seeking the quashing of the termination order dated 18th September, 1995 with a further prayer for reinstatement of the petitioner on the post of Collection Amin and for regular payment of salary with all consequential benefits. As per the averments of the writ petition, while the petitioner was posted as Collection Amin, he was served with a charge sheet dated 6th March, 1995 containing charges primarily with regard to deficiency in collection work by the petitioner while working in Tehsil Nanpara, District Bahraich. Vide the charge sheet, the Tehsildar, Nanpara was appointed inquiry officer. In pursuance of which a charge sheet dated 6th March, 1995 was issued by the Tehsildar containing only one charge pertaining to lower collection than was prescribed. On receipt of the charge sheet, the petitioner filed his reply on 5th April, 1995 indicating the circumstances under which lower collection of revenue was effected. After inquiry, the Tehsildar submitted his report dated 14th September, 1995 whereupon the impugned termination order dated 18th September, 1995 has been passed.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has primarily submitted that the charge sheet was issued by the Tehsildar whereas the appointing authority of the petitioner was the Sub Divisional Magistrate and therefore the charge sheet was required to be approved by the appointing authority which was not done and therefore the entire inquiry proceedings were vitiated on that account.

4. The second submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the inquiry report is based primarily on the report dated 10th February, 1995 of the Tehsildar Shivpur but neither a copy of the aforesaid report dated 10th February, 1995 was ever furnished to the petitioner nor was he ever granted an opportunity to cross examine the said Tehsildar Shivpur.

5. The third submission by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the entire proceedings have ended merely on the basis of reply submitted by the petitioner and the proper procedure with regard to conduct of inquiry proceedings such as indication of date, time, place, opportunity of being heard, of oral examination of witnesses etc. have not been followed. On the aforesaid three counts, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire inquiry proceedings being vitiated are liable to be quashed.

6. The learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties while rebutting the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once the petitioner had admitted the fact of lower revenue, then that would amount to an admission of the charges levelled against him and therefore the entire gamut of regular inquiry proceeding was not required to be followed in a strict sense. He has further submitted that a perusal of the inquiry report and the impugned order will make it clear that the submissions of the petitioner before the inquiry officer and the disciplinary authority were adequately considered and have been dealt with in a reasonable manner. He has further submitted that although the charge sheet as well as the inquiry report indicates that the report dated 10th February, 1995 would be taken into account during the inquiry proceedings, while not admitting the same but even if a copy of the said report was not provided to the petitioner, no such ground was taken by him before the disciplinary authority or even the inquiry officer and therefore it would amount to a waiver of the said ground.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for parties and have perused the record.

8. It is not disputed that the appointing authority of the petitioner is the Sub Divisional Magistrate while the charge sheet has been issued under the signatures of the Tehsildar Nanpara. A perusal of the charge sh