JUDGMENT Asok Potsangbam, J. 1. Heard Mr. M.I. Sharma, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Kh Tarun Kumar Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The order dated 31.8.2000, order No. 906, No. MU/ll/106/82/Admn- I by which, the service of the petitioner had been terminated w.e.f. 30th November, 2000 under Statute 31(1)(d) of the Manipur University, is under challenge in this writ petition. 3. It is stated that the petitioner was appointed as peon in the year 1982, in the service of Manipur University and subsequently, the petitioner was promoted as Library Attendant. It is further stated that the petitioner was given a notice by the Registrar of the Manipur University, dated 15th July, 2000 to explain as to why he should not be terminated from the service of the University under the relevant statute and the notice indicates the following as the days of absence from duty. From 5.12.1997 to 31.12.1997 i.e. 27 days, From 3.2.1998 to 6.4.1998 i.e. 93 days, From 25.6.1999 to 20.1.2000 i.e. 210 days, From 23.1.2000 to 29.1.2000 i.e. 7 days, From 6.2.2000 to 15.7.2000 i.e. 161 days 4. Mr. Sharma, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits, by referring to Annexure A-3, that the petitioner had already submitted an application dated 19.1.2000 requesting the Manipur University for grant of Earned Leave for the period of absence from 25.6.1999 to 20.1.2000 i.e. 210 days but the petitioner is silent as to whether he had applied for any other leave, if due to him, in respect of other absence mentioned in the notice, as extracted above. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that without holding any inquiry whatsoever, the service of the petitioner was terminated by an order dated 31.8.2000 (Annexure A-l) and the same is impugned in this writ petition. 5. The grievance of the petitioner can be described in a short compass as hereunder: That a notice dated 15th July, 2000 was given to the petitioner by the authority of the University to explain his unauthorized absence indicated in the notice therein. No inquiry whatsoever was held against the petitioner as required by law before issuing the termination order. Mr. The grievance of the petitioner can be described in a short compass as hereunder: That a notice dated 15th July, 2000 was given to the petitioner by the authority of the University to explain his unauthorized absence indicated in the notice therein. No inquiry whatsoever was held against the petitioner as required by law before issuing the termination order. Mr. Sharma submits that in order to terminate a regular employee from service on certain charges attributable to the delinquent official, the authority is bound to issue a memorandum of charge accompanied by an imputation of charge with liberty to the incumbent to file statement of defence, if the charged official chose to deny the charges levelled against him. Irrespective of pleading guilty or not, in respect of the charges levelled against the charged official, the Inquiry Officer is bound to hold an inquiry and give its findings on the charges whether the charges are proved or not. In case the inquiry is held by an Inquiry Officer, such Inquiry Officer is submit the enquiry report to the Disciplinary Authority and the Disciplinary Authority may agree or disagree with the finding of the Inquiry Officer for reasons to be recorded and in case the finding is acceptable, the appropriate punishment can be imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. 6. Mr. Tarun Kumar Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the University has produced the relevant records as directed by this Court and he has fairly submitted that there is nothing on record to indicate that an inquiry was held before the termination order was issued. However, he submits that liberty may be granted to the authority to initiate a fresh proceeding, if so advised. 7. Having considered the submission of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and on perusal of the documents available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the Annexure-1, which was issued terminating the services of the petitioner without holding any inquiry, is contrary to law, and accordingly, the impugned order dated 31.8.2000 vide No. MU/11/106/82/Admn-I is hereby quashed and set aside as illegal and unsustainable in law. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner forthwith. With regards to the back wages, the respondent may take appropriate decision in accordance with law. The respondent is at liberty to initiate fresh disciplinary proceeding, if so advised. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner forthwith. With regards to the back wages, the respondent may take appropriate decision in accordance with law. The respondent is at liberty to initiate fresh disciplinary proceeding, if so advised. However, it is made clear that if the petitioner is to continue in service as a result of the decision in this Writ Petition, the period from the date of the termination till the date of reinstatement shall be treated as on duty. 8. With the above observations and directions, this petition stands disposed of. No order as to cost.