JUDGMENT - V.K. BARDE, J.:---The petitioner has contended that he was appointed as Assistant Teacher in Zilla Parishad (Boys) High School, Paithan (District: Aurangabad), since 5-11-1984. His initial appointment was for a period of less than one year, but against a vacancy on permanent basis. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad was vested with powers to make such temporary appointments because the Maharashtra Public Services (Subordinate) Regional Selection Board was not then functioning. 2. The petitioner has further contended that as per the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads District Services (Recruitment) Rules, 1967, a person cannot be appointed on temporary basis for a period of less than one year. Whenever any appointment is to be made, it must be on probation for a period of one year and the Chief Executive Officer may extend the probation period, if he considers it necessary, so even if the petitioner was appointed as temporary teacher, for a period of less than one year, as he had worked against a substantive vacancy, it should be construed that he was deemed to be permanent because he had worked for a period of more than one year. 3. The Chief Executive Officer by his order dated 27-1-1986 terminated services of the petitioner. This order of termination was outcome of various disputes the petitioner had raised with respect to improper behaviour of some other teachers, Head-Master, etc. He has quoted various instances about which he had made complaints to the authorities against the Head-Master and other teachers and the Management. 4. The petitioner has further contended that he received the show cause notice issued by the Chief Executive Officer, dated 10-1-1986. Therein, certain allegations were made against him. All those were false and baseless. The charges were framed on the basis of report of the Education Officer. However, the petitioner was not provided with the report of the Education Officer to file his explanation about the charges. Even then the petitioner submitted his explanation and denied all the charges. The petitioner has contended that he is not aware as to why no departmental enquiry was held against him regarding the charges made against him. He was not given any opportunity to meet the charges. Thus, this order of termination of service is illegal and improper. 5. Even then the petitioner submitted his explanation and denied all the charges. The petitioner has contended that he is not aware as to why no departmental enquiry was held against him regarding the charges made against him. He was not given any opportunity to meet the charges. Thus, this order of termination of service is illegal and improper. 5. As per the appointment order issued to the petitioner, he was appointed for a period of one year with effect from 2-11-1985, but his services were terminated prior to 1-11-1986, that means, prior to expiry of the period of one year. Though the order of termination indicates that it is simpliciter, in fact, it is by way of punishment. The wording of the order cannot be taken at its face value. As the termination of service is by way of punishment without holding departmental enquiry, the petitioner has prayed for reinstatement in service with full back wages and other consequential benefits. 6. The petitioner has filed on record along with the petition, the orders of the appointment as Assistant Teacher, order of termination of service and other documents indicating about the dispute between him and the Management, so also, copy of the show cause notice. 7. The respondent, Zilla Parishad, has filed affidavit in reply, that of Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad. It is admitted that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher on temporary basis and from time to time, fresh orders were issued for his appointment and he was continued in service. However, it is contended that the petitioner was a temporary employee, he was not given permanency and he cannot be deemed to be permanent. 8. It is contended that there were complaints about the petitioner from Head Master as well as from other staff members and from public. His behaviour was indecent and his attitude was quarrelsome with staff members and others. He was spreading communal spirits in the students. There were complaints from lady teacher also. Because of all this, Deputy Education Officer of Zilla Parishad was appointed to enquire into the matter. The Deputy Education Officer made a detailed enquiry and submitted a report. On considering the statements recorded of the staff members and others and the report of Deputy Education Officer, the services of the petitioner were terminated. 9. Because of all this, Deputy Education Officer of Zilla Parishad was appointed to enquire into the matter. The Deputy Education Officer made a detailed enquiry and submitted a report. On considering the statements recorded of the staff members and others and the report of Deputy Education Officer, the services of the petitioner were terminated. 9. It is further contended by the respondent-Zilla Parishad, that the show cause notice dated 3-1-1986 was served on the petitioner on 11-1-1986 and he was given an opportunity to explain. However, it was not necessary to hold regular departmental enquiry against the petitioner because he was in temporary service on temporary post. It is the contention of the Zilla Parishad, that it was not necessary to hold departmental enquiry against the petitioner because of the provisions of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads District Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964. The termination order of the petitioner was because of his inefficiency in the work and his misconduct with the staff members and others. The respondents, therefore, have prayed that the writ petition be dismissed. 10. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner was appointed against a substantive post and he had worked for more than one year since the first appointment and therefore, he must be considered to be deemed permanent. However, the learned Counsel for the respondent-Zilla Parishad has strongly contended that the appointment was purely temporary appointment. It was so made clear in the order of appointment. The services of the petitioner were terminated on expiry of the first period of appointment and then fresh appointment again on temporary basis was given. Thus, till the date of termination of services of the petitioner by the order dated 27-1-1986, the petitioner was never made permanent and he remained to be temporary employee. 11. On going through the various appointment orders which are filed on record by the petitioner himself, it is clear that the petitioner was appointed as temporary employee. He might have worked for more than one year but after the break in service and every time there was fresh appointment on temporary basis. This so happened because the Chief Executive Officer was vested with powers only to make temporary arrangement till there was selection of teachers from subordinate selection Board. He might have worked for more than one year but after the break in service and every time there was fresh appointment on temporary basis. This so happened because the Chief Executive Officer was vested with powers only to make temporary arrangement till there was selection of teachers from subordinate selection Board. So, we do not find substance in the contention that the petitioner was permanent employee or he can be deemed to be permanent because he had served for more than one year. 12. From the averments in the petition and in the affidavit in reply. It is very clear that there were complaints against the petitioner and, therefore, the Deputy Education Officer was appointed to hold preliminary enquiry. He made enquiry and submitted his report. Thereafter, show cause notice was served on the petitioner and then his services were terminated after receiving his explanation. The show cause notice is there on record at Exhibit "E-1" with the affidavit in return filed by the respondent, at page 104. It is dated 3-1-1986. The explanation submitted by the petitioner is at Exhibit "E-2" with the affidavit in return filed by the respondent, at page 105 to 108. After receiving this explanation, the services of the petitioner were terminated as per the order dated 27-1-1986 which is at Exhibit "DD" filed on record by the petitioner. 13. The termination order indicates that the services of the petitioner were terminated as per the Clause Nos. 2 and 3 of the appointment order. The Clause No. 2 of the appointment order indicates that the services of the employee were liable to be terminated at any time, without pre-intimation and without giving any reasons before the expiry of the period of one year and the Clause No. 3 mentions that the temporary employee will not have any right of re-employment or for regularization of services. Thus, this order of termination of service is not casting any stigma on the petitioner. 14. The learned Counsel for the respondent Zilla Parishad has argued that the order of termination is simpliciter. It is not casting any stigma on the career of the petitioner. As per the service terms his services were terminated and, therefore, the petitioner cannot claim reinstatement. 14. The learned Counsel for the respondent Zilla Parishad has argued that the order of termination is simpliciter. It is not casting any stigma on the career of the petitioner. As per the service terms his services were terminated and, therefore, the petitioner cannot claim reinstatement. However, it has to be noted that the respondents have made it clear that there were complaints against the petitioner and, therefore, Deputy Education Officer was directed to hold enquiry. The Deputy Education Officer held preliminary enquiry and submitted his report. Thereafter, a show cause notice was served on the petitioner. His explanation was obtained and then the order of termination of service was issued. This order of termination of service is directly linked with the previous complaints, enquiry, show cause notice and explanation. The order of termination of service is founded on previous enquiry report and explanation of the petitioner. It, therefore, cannot be said that it is an order terminating the services of temporary employee, not founded on the allegations regarding misconduct. There is live connection between the order of termination of service and the previous complaints. 15. Rule 4 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads District Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964, provides for various penalties that can be imposed on the employee of the Zilla Parishad and the explanation to the Rule 4 states which will not amount to penalty within the meaning of the Rule. This explanation reads as follows:--- "The following shall not amount to a penalty within the meaning of this rule, namely:--- i) ... to vi) .... viii) termination of service (a) ........... (b) of a temporary Parishad servant on grounds unconnected with his conduct." So, this Rule also makes it clear that if the termination of service of the petitioner is connected with his conduct, then it will amount to a penalty and the Zilla Parishad must hold departmental enquiry as contemplated under Rule 6 of the said Rules. 16. Here, no departmental enquiry was held. Only after obtaining some explanation from the petitioner, his services are terminated. No doubt, the order is worded indicating that it is simpliciter termination, but in fact, based on the alleged misconduct of the petitioner. Such termination of service is illegal and has to be set aside. 16. Here, no departmental enquiry was held. Only after obtaining some explanation from the petitioner, his services are terminated. No doubt, the order is worded indicating that it is simpliciter termination, but in fact, based on the alleged misconduct of the petitioner. Such termination of service is illegal and has to be set aside. In this respect, a useful reference can be made to the decision of this Court, in the case of (Malti Dadaji Mahajan v. Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Wardha)1, 1976 Mh.L.J. 109. The petitioner is, therefore, entitled to reinstatement in service. 17. The petitioner has claimed full back wages. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that as the termination is illegal, the petitioner has to be reinstated in service with full back wages. It is admitted that the petitioner is practising as Advocate since 1991. But the learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that merely because the petitioner is practising as Advocate since 1991, his claim of full back wages cannot be denied, and in support of this contention, he has relied upon the rulings of the Apex Court, in the case of (S.M. Saiyad v. Baroda Municipal Corporation)2, A.I.R. 1984 S.C. 1829, and in the case of (Om Prakash Goel v. The Himachal Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation Ltd., Shimla and another)3, A.I.R. 1991 S.C. 1490. 18. The learned Counsel for the respondent-Zilla Parishad has argued that both these rulings are not applicable to the facts of the present case. In this matter, the petitioner had prayed for interim relief, that during the pendency of the hearing and final disposal of the writ petition, the operation of order of termination dated 27-1-1986 be stayed. Accordingly, the order staying the operation of the termination order was passed and the petitioner continued in the service of the respondent-Zilla Parishad. 19. However, the respondent-Zilla Parishad had filed Civil Application No. 1635/1989 in the writ petition and had requested for vacating the stay order. At the time of hearing of the Civil Application, the petitioner, in person, made a statement that he did not want to continue in service and the interim relief be vacated. It was brought to the notice of the petitioner that if the interim relief was to be vacated, then it will have adverse effect on his claim of backwages. At the time of hearing of the Civil Application, the petitioner, in person, made a statement that he did not want to continue in service and the interim relief be vacated. It was brought to the notice of the petitioner that if the interim relief was to be vacated, then it will have adverse effect on his claim of backwages. Even then, the petitioner insisted for vacating the interim relief and therefore, the Division Bench of this Court passed the following order in the Civil Application, on 2-8-1989:--- "As the petitioner is appearing in person, we have explained to him the consequences of his Act in asking this Court to vacate interim relief granted by this Court. As the Act has bearing on the question of back wages, his attention was specifically invited. Petitioner stated before us that he is prepared to face the same but he does not want to continue in service now. Interim relief granted in C.A. No. 171/86 vacated." 20. So, after filing of the petition, the petitioner by filing separate Civil Application obtained interim relief and was actually in service of the Zilla Parishad till the interim relief order was vacated by the Court. Not only that, the petitioner himself moved the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, by his letter dated 3-8-1989, copy of which is filed on record by the respondent, that as the interim relief is vacated, he be relieved from service with effect from 2-8-1989 and thereafter, the services of the petitioner stood terminated with effect from 2-8-1989 as per the order dated 14-8-1989, passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, copy of which is also filed on record by the respondent, along with the additional affidavit. 21. Thus, the petitioner not only pleaded before the Court, that he did not want the continuation of interim relief, and that he did not want to be in service of the Zilla Parishad, but he also informed the Zilla Parishad to relieve him from his services. It is, very clear that the petitioner was not interested in continuing service of the Zilla Parishad. He was made aware that if such a stand is taken by him, he would not be entitled to back wages. But he was prepared to suffer that consequences. 22. In such circumstances, now the petitioner cannot claim back wages. It is, very clear that the petitioner was not interested in continuing service of the Zilla Parishad. He was made aware that if such a stand is taken by him, he would not be entitled to back wages. But he was prepared to suffer that consequences. 22. In such circumstances, now the petitioner cannot claim back wages. It appears that as now the salaries of the Assistant Teachers in secondary school are very good, the petitioner wants to claim the benefit of the wages, but without actual rendering services for the same. He could have earned wages by continuing service as per the order of interim relief passed by this Court. The petitioner cannot approbate and reprobate. He cannot claim salary when he never intended to render services. 23. So, in view of the peculiar circumstances of this case, the two rulings of the Apex Court, cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, cannot be made applicable to the present matter. The petitioner is not at all entitled to back wages. He has abandoned his claim for back wages. Only because the termination of service is not as per the procedure laid down, the relief regarding reinstatement is being given but without back wages and other consequential service benefits. 24. In the result, Writ Petition No. 122/1986 is partly allowed. The order of termination, Exhibit "DD" dated 27-1-1986, passed by respondent No. 1 Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad, is set aside. It is directed that the petitioner be reinstated in service as Assistant Teacher in secondary school, by respondent No. 1 Zilla Parishad. However, the petitioner is not entitled to back wages and other consequential service benefits. The petitioner may report on duty within one month from the date of this order, and if he so reports on duty, the respondent-Zilla Parishad to allow him to join on duty. 25. Rule absolute partly in the above terms. No order as to costs. Petition partly allowed. -----