SHITLA PD. SRIVASTAVA, J. ( 1 ) THIS special appeal has been filed by the petitioner-appellant against the judgment and order dated 20. 8. 1998 passed by learned single Judge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 29535 of 1990, chandra Bhusan v. District Magistrate, Fatehpur and others. ( 2 ) BRIEF facts for the purposes of the present case are that the petitioner filed writ petition for a direction to the State Government to decide the reconsideration expeditiously and further for reinstatement on the post. The petitioner has filed his own affidavit in this special appeal and has given the facts regarding the case. It is stated by the petitioner that he was appointed as collection Amin on 20. 8 1973. On 20. 3. 1982 an order was passed by the Sub-Divisional magistrate, Khaga, district Fatehpur, suspending the petitioner on the allegation that the petitioner was guilty of not depositing the amount recovered by him on 3. 3. 1982. This order of suspension was passed on a report of the Tahsildar. Khaga, district Fatehpur, dated 16. 3. 1982, who was appointed as Inquiry Officer. The case of the petitioner is that the amount remained with the petitioner only for 17 days. Seven charges were framed against the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his reply. The total amount which was recovered by the petitioner from the public was Rs. 43,036. 05. It is further stated that while departmental proceedings were pending, criminal proceedings were also started against the petitioner for the embezzlement of the amount under Section 409, I. P. C. vide Criminal Case No. 565 of 1985. A request was made that the departmental proceeding may be stayed till the proceeding in criminal ease is concluded, but ii was not accepted. The Tahsildar, Khaga submitted his report on 30. 3. 1988. A fresh charge-sheet dated 22. 5. 1989 containing the same allegation was again given to the petitioner under the authority of the District Magistrate, Fatehpur. The petitioner submitted his reply on 12. 6,1989. The inquiry report was submitted by Sri Ram Lakhan Maurya, Tahsildar, Khaga, district fatehpur. On 27. 1. 1990, the District Magistrate. Fatehpur passed order dismissing the petitioner from service on the ground of embezzlement of amount of Rs. 43,036. 05, The petitioner filed writ petition challenging the order of dismissal dated 27. 1. 1990 giving rise to the present appeal. Counter-affidavit was filed by the respondents. On 27. 1. 1990, the District Magistrate. Fatehpur passed order dismissing the petitioner from service on the ground of embezzlement of amount of Rs. 43,036. 05, The petitioner filed writ petition challenging the order of dismissal dated 27. 1. 1990 giving rise to the present appeal. Counter-affidavit was filed by the respondents. It is further stated that during the pendency of the writ petition the petitioner was convicted in Criminal Case No. 565 of 1985 by the Munsif magistrate in the year 1992. The petitioner filed a Criminal Appeal No. 90 of 1992, which was allowed on 28. 5. 1993 by the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehpur and the petitioner was not found guilty of the offence as alleged against him. The petitioner along with the supplementary affidavit brought this Judgment on record of the writ petition. The petitioner has further stated that though the allegations against the petitioner were of withholding a sum of Rs. 34. 036. 05 but an amount of Rs. 18,228. 28 was deducted from the amount of G. P. F. and insurance amount was paid to the petitioner subsequent to his dismissal. ( 3 ) LEARNED single Judge has held that the Inquiry Officer considered the evidence which was before him after giving opportunity to the petitioner who participated in the inquiry, gave his evidence and cross-examined the witnesses of the employers came to a particular finding of fact which requires no interference unless it is perverse. He has further held that there is no perversity in the order. He was of the view that the High Court cannot compel the employer to retain a person on whom the employer has lost its confidence. ( 4 ) WE have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the record. Learned counsel lor the appellant has urged that when the appellant was involved in a criminal case on the same charges which were being investigated in the depart mental proceeding, then if he was acquitted from the criminal court, then the dismissal order should have been recalled and he should have been reinstated on his post. Learned counsel lor the appellant has urged that when the appellant was involved in a criminal case on the same charges which were being investigated in the depart mental proceeding, then if he was acquitted from the criminal court, then the dismissal order should have been recalled and he should have been reinstated on his post. Further submission of the learned counsel is that the appellant remained under suspension for 8 years and twice inquiry started against him in respect of the same charges which was not proper in the eye of law and further the amount was ultimately recovered from the G. P. F. . therefore, the case of the appellant should have been reconsidered for reinstatement. ( 5 ) AFTER hearing learned counsel for the appellant we are of the view that the view taken by the learned single Judge requires no interference by this Court. From the record, it is apparent that a report was submitted against the appellant for embezzlement which was enquired, opportunity was given to the appellant then the finding was recorded against him by the competent authority and it was found that the appellant is not a fit person to be retained in service. This finding is based on evidence and if the employer does not want to retain an employee on whom the employer has lost confidence and his service has been legally terminated, this Court cannot compel the employer to reappoint him. We are of the view that the judgment of learned single judge requires no interference. ( 6 ) THE appeal is dismissed. .