JUDGMENT Honble Dilip Gupta, J.—The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in Government Ashram type school in the year 1969 and was subsequently promoted in JTC/CT grade with effect from 3rd February, 1972. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner who was also suspended by the order dated 20th April, 1985. The petitioner challenged this suspension order before the U.P. Public Services Tribunal by filing Claim Petition No. 560 of 1985. By the order dated 30th May, 1994 the Claim Petition was allowed and the suspension order dated 20th April, 1985 was set aside. It was further ordered that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner may continue and should be completed expeditiously in accordance with law. 2. The petitioner had been served with a charge sheet dated 16th January, 1986. The inquiry was completed by the District Harijan Social Welfare Officer, who submitted the report dated 18th September, 1986. It, however, transpires that when the inquiry report was placed before the Director, Social Welfare, Uttar Pradesh, he ordered that the inquiry be conducted by the Deputy Director, Social Welfare, Varanasi Region, Varanasi. The said Deputy Director thereafter submitted the report dated 24th June, 1996 to the Director, Social Welfare, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow merely mentioning that the earlier inquiry report was correct and she agreed with it. The petitioner was thereafter issued a show-cause notice dated 19th July, 1996 by the Director, Social Welfare, Uttar Pradesh enclosing a copy of the inquiry report and the petitioner was required to submit his reply as to why he should not be dismissed from service and the amount of Rs. 24,900.75 be recovered as arrears of land revenue. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply pointing out that the fresh inquiry was never conducted and the inquiry report that had been enclosed along with the show cause notice dated 19th July, 1996 was merely a copy of the earlier inquiry report dated 18th September, 1986. The impugned order dated 30th October, 1996 was then passed terminating the services of the petitioner and the amount of Rs. 24,900.75 was ordered to be recovered as land revenue. It is this order dated 30th October, 1996 which has been impugned with the present petition. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri C.K. Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents and have perused the materials available on record. 4. 24,900.75 was ordered to be recovered as land revenue. It is this order dated 30th October, 1996 which has been impugned with the present petition. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri C.K. Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents and have perused the materials available on record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the earlier Inquiry Officer had not conducted the inquiry in accordance with the settled procedure and had submitted the report dated 18th September, 1986 with which the Director, Social Welfare, Government of U.P. did not agree and so a fresh inquiry was ordered to be conducted by the Deputy Director, Social Welfare, Varanasi Region, Varanasi as is clear from the communication dated 19th July, 1996, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure ‘19 to the petition. However, the subsequent Inquiry Officer namely the Deputy Director, Social Welfare did not issue any notice to the petitioner and submitted the ex-parte report dated 24th June, 1996. He has, therefore, challenged the termination order as having been passed in utter breach of the principles of natural justice. 5. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, on the other hand, submitted that adequate opportunity had been given to the petitioner and on the basis of the inquiry report, the order terminating the services of the petitioner had been passed. He has, therefore, submitted that it was not a case where this Court should interfere in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 6. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. 7. The petitioner was suspended by the order dated 20th April, 1985 and a charge-sheet dated 16th January, 1986 was served upon him. In the meantime the petitioner had challenged his suspension order before the U.P. Public Services Tribunal which had allowed his petition by the order dated 30th May, 1994 by quashing the suspension order. It was, however, ordered that if any disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner, the same shall be concluded expeditiously. The records reveal that the Inquiry Officer had submitted the report dated 18th September, 1986. It was, however, ordered that if any disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner, the same shall be concluded expeditiously. The records reveal that the Inquiry Officer had submitted the report dated 18th September, 1986. There appears to be no plausible reason and indeed none has been given in the counter affidavit or pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel as to why the matter remained pending before the Director, Social Welfare, Government of U.P. for all these long years. A perusal of the order dated 19th July, 1996 indicates that it is only after the dismissal of the claim petition by the U.P. Public Services Tribunal that the report was placed before the Director who ordered that the inquiry should be conducted by the Deputy Director, Social Welfare, Varanasi Region, Varanasi who was required to submit his report within the stipulated time. In such circumstances, it was imperative for the Deputy Director to hold a fresh inquiry in accordance with law but a perusal of the inquiry report dated 24th June, 1996 submitted by the Deputy Director, Social Welfare, Varanasi Region, Varanasi indicates that the Inquiry Officer merely called for the records of the earlier inquiry and in one sentence concluded that the inquiry by stating that on a careful consideration she has reached the conclusion that the earlier inquiry report was correct and she also expressed concurrence with it. What is also surprising is that along with the copy of the inquiry report dated 24th June, 1996, the copy of the earlier inquiry report dated 18th September, 1986 was also enclosed. Even a perusal of the earlier inquiry report dated 18th September, 1986 also shows that the Inquiry Officer had not dealt with the charges separately and only in a cursory manner the findings had been recorded without discussing the evidence at all. 8. In my opinion, it cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be said that the inquiry was conducted in accordance with law. The inquiry report dated 24th June, 1986 cannot be described as inquiry report. In fact, no enquiry was conducted by the Deputy Director, Social Welfare, Varanasi Region, Varanasi as was required to be done under the order of the Director of Social Welfare. In such circumstances the order of punishment dated 30th October, 1996 cannot be sustained and is, therefore, set aside. 9. In fact, no enquiry was conducted by the Deputy Director, Social Welfare, Varanasi Region, Varanasi as was required to be done under the order of the Director of Social Welfare. In such circumstances the order of punishment dated 30th October, 1996 cannot be sustained and is, therefore, set aside. 9. The question that still remains to be answered is regarding the relief to be granted to the petitioner. The Tribunal had set-aside the suspension order by the order dated 30th May, 1994 and had further ordered that the petitioner should be treated in active service throughout and entitled to full emoluments and full salary for his service period. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that his client, even if he had been in service, would have retired in the year 2004. This factor, coupled with the fact that the matter is very stale relating to the year 1984, dissuades me from passing an order for holding a fresh enquiry. The petitioner has been kept out of service for about 8 years and even if he was getting a salary of Rs. 3,500/- per month as pointed out by the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel he would have received about Rs. 3 lacs. In my opinion, the ends of justice would, therefore, be adequately met if a lump sum amount of Rs. One Lac is ordered to be paid to the petitioner towards full and final settlement of all the claims. 10. The Writ Petition succeeds and is allowed to the extent indicated above. Petition Allowed. ———