JUDGMENT Hon’ble Devendra Kumar Arora, J.—The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners (State) for quashing of the judgment & order dated 29.2.1996, passed by the State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) in Claim Petition No. 176/1/83 (Prakash Chandra v. State of U.P. and others), as contained in Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition. The petitioners have also prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 2 not to give effect to the judgment & order dated 29.2.1996 (Annexure No. 1 to the Writ Petition). 2. Brief facts which are necessary to dispose of the matter, are recapitulated as under: 3. The respondent No. 1, Sri Prakash Chandra was a Collection Amin who was suspended on a complaint vide order dated 25.10.1978. Charge-sheet was issued to him to which he replied and after completion of inquiry his services were terminated vide order dated 7.11.1979. The respondent filed appeal against the said order before the Commissioner which was rejected by the Commissioner. The respondent preferred Claim Petition before the State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow challenging the order dated 7.11.1979, passed by the Collector on the grounds inter alia that since appointing authority of the respondent No. 1 was the Collector, the Sub Divisional Officer had no jurisdiction to pass the suspension order. Further, in a criminal case filed on similar charges, the petitioner has been acquitted by a Court of competent jurisdiction. 4. Learned Tribunal after considering the arguments advanced by the parties’ counsel, allowed the claim petition thereby quashing the impugned order passed by Collector and that of Commissioner passed in appeal and came to the conclusion that since the respondent had been acquitted in un-equivocal terms, it leads one to conclude that the punishment awarded was not in accordance with Rules. The Tribunal also came to the conclusion that no notice under F. R. 54 had been given to the petitioner (here respondent), hence, he will be entitled to full pay for the period of suspension minus subsistence allowance already paid. Further, since the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation, he will also be entitled to get pensionary benefits counting the entire period of service rendered by him. Being aggrieved, the petitioners (State) have approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition. 5. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record. 6. Further, since the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation, he will also be entitled to get pensionary benefits counting the entire period of service rendered by him. Being aggrieved, the petitioners (State) have approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition. 5. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record. 6. Submission of learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of State is that respondent No. 1, Prakash Chandra was appointed as Collection Amin on temporary basis vide order dated 26.12.1962, passed by the Collector. Bulandshahr. He was placed under suspension by the Sub Divisional Officer on some complaint by order dated 25.10.1978 and chargeshet was issued to him. The charge levelled against the respondent was that during the period 22.1.1968 to 30.3.1970 while he was deputed in tehsil Khurja, district Bulandshahr, on 22.1.1968 he was also Incharge of village Bhagwanpur and had realised Rs. 800/- as principal amount and Rs. 160/- as interest and issued receipts for the total amount of Rs. 960/- to one Aji Ram but he deposited Rs. 660/- only in the Treasury and, thus, he embezzled a sum of Rs. 300/- with dishonest intention. 7. Learned Standing Counsel also submits that the Collector, Bulandshahr directed to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the respondent and in pursuance of the same the then Sub Divisional Officer, Khurja conducted the enquiry, served the chargesheet on respondent No. 1 and submitted the enquiry report. The Collector, Bulandshahr after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the respondent passed order dated 7.11.1979 thereby removing the respondent No. 1 from service. 8. Further submission of learned counsel for petitioners (State) is that the learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate that the Sub Divisional Officer was duly authorised by the Collector, Bulandshahr to initiate disciplinary proceedings. He drew attention of this Court to Rule 19 (Ka) by which Sub Divisional Officer has been vested with powers of the Appointing Authority w.e.f. 06.9.1980 and prior to that power was being delegated to the Sub Divisional Officer and under delegated powers the Sub Divisional Officer was authorised to initiate enquiry and suspend the respondent No. 1. As such, it is wrong to say that there was no authorisation and approval. The learned Tribunal also erred in holding that acquittal from criminal Court would dis-entitle the Department to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the respondent No. 1. As such, it is wrong to say that there was no authorisation and approval. The learned Tribunal also erred in holding that acquittal from criminal Court would dis-entitle the Department to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the respondent No. 1. Further submission is that the respondent No. 1 was allowed to inspect the record and relevant documents were also supplied to him. He was also given ample opportunity to defend his case during inquiry and after found guilty, the orders were passed. As such, the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal are perverse and illegal. 9. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1, on the other hand, submitted that the respondent was appointed as Collection Amin vide order dated 26.12.1962. On 22.1.1968 the respondent alongwith his peon Mahendra Singh went to village Bhagwanpur for making realisation of takavi loans. There he sent for one Sri Aji Ram and his son Ramesh Chandra came and made payment of Rs. 500/- on behalf of his father towards principal amount and Rs. 160/- on account of interest-total Rs. 660/-. Thus, there remained Rs. 300/- as balance. The petitioner issued receipt No. 44 in the name of Sri Aji Ram for the amount of Rs., 660/- and the rest amount was recovered by Sri Bhikkimal, another Collection Amin in the year 1972-73. Apart from it, the respondent was also General Secretary of the Rajaswa Karmchari Sangh, Bulandshahr during the period 1965 to 1970 and had earned annoyance of the authorities. The respondent had also earned annoyance of farmers due to strictness in making takavi realisation. However, a complaint was made against the respondent by one Sri Karan Singh in 1969 on the basis of which his services were terminated. The respondent challenged the said termination order dated 30.3.1970 in the Court of Civil Judge, Bulandshahr vide Suit No. 172 of 1970. The said suit was decreed vide judgment & order dated 30.11.1972. Further, in order to implicate the respondent the Tehsildar, Khurja made a report to the Collector, Bulandshahr on 25.7.1974 that the respondent vide receipt No. 44 dated 22.1.1968 realised Rs. 960/- from a farmer and deposited in the treasury only Rs., 660/- thereby misappropriating the remaining sum of Rs. 300/- and recommending the said sum of Rs. 300/- be recovered from the respondent. 10. 960/- from a farmer and deposited in the treasury only Rs., 660/- thereby misappropriating the remaining sum of Rs. 300/- and recommending the said sum of Rs. 300/- be recovered from the respondent. 10. It is further submitted that against the judgment & order dated 30.11.1972 an appeal No. 45 of 1973 was filed in the Court of District Judge, Bulandshahr which on the constitution of U. P. Public Services Tribunal was transferred to the Tribunal and after hearing the same was dismissed on 18.5.1978. Accordingly, respondent was reinstated vide order dated 29.8.1978. 11. Again, the respondent was placed under suspension vide order dated 25.10.1978 by the Sub Divisional Officer, Khurja. On the same day, he was issued charge-sheet. the Collector, Bulandshahr passed the impugned order dated 7.11.1979 removing the respondent from services and depriving him of his arrears of salary apart from what had already been paid to him.Learned counsel drew our attention to Rule 494 of the C.C.A. Rules by which a Government servant could be placed under suspension by the Appointing Authority only. 12. Further submission of learned counsel for respondent is that the respondent examined two witnesses namely, Mahendra Singh, peon and Sri Bhikki Mal, Collection Amin and both of them had supported the respondent. However, their evidences were ignored by the Inquiry Officer and consequently resulted in passing of the impugned order. Further submission is that the Appointing Authority of the respondent was only the Collector who had the power to suspend him and not the Sub Divisional Officer and no order was passed by the Collector. It is wrong to say that the respondent had embezzled any amount nor is there any evidence in support of it. The Tribunal rightly came to the conclusion that the enquiry proceedings were without jurisdiction and allowed the claim petition. 13. We have considered the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record as well as the judgment and order of learned Tribunal. 14. The Tribunal rightly came to the conclusion that the enquiry proceedings were without jurisdiction and allowed the claim petition. 13. We have considered the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record as well as the judgment and order of learned Tribunal. 14. The record reveals that the learned Tribunal while examining the stand of the present petitioner to the effect that the appointing authority of opposite party No. 1 was SDO and hence he was competent to suspend, came to the conclusion that as per the the appointment order, it is evident that the appointing authority of the petitioner was Collector and as such the contention of the petitioner does not hold good. The learned Tribunal after scrutiny of the record, came to the conclusion that the SDO has not been authorized to initiate the action as the show-cause notice as well as final order were issued by the Collector himself. The learned Tribunal further observed that if the competent authority of opposite party No. 1 was S.D.O., there was no necessity for the Collector to issue subsequent orders. The learned Tribunal while making said observation placed reliance in the case of State of U.P. and others v. Chinta Haran Pathak and others, SLR 1995 (6) 702, in which it has been held that in case of dismissal from service, if the charge-sheet was issued by a person who was not so authorized by the appointing authority and the charge-sheet had not been accorded approval thereto explicitly or by necessary implication, the order of dismissal passed suffered from lack of jurisdiction. 15. The learned Tribunal has also taken into consideration the fact that the petitioner was acquitted by the Court for the same charges, for which departmental proceedings were held and came to the conclusion that the punishment awarded was not in accordance with rules. It is also observed by the learned Tribunal that no notice under fundamental rules has been issued to opposite party No. 1. Hence, he will be entitled for full pay for the period of suspension minus subsistence allowance already paid. 16. The learned Tribunal has taken into consideration the fact that opposite party No. 1 has already attained the age of superannuation, therefore, directed for providing pensionary benefits counting the entire period towards service rendered by him and pay for intervening period. 17. 16. The learned Tribunal has taken into consideration the fact that opposite party No. 1 has already attained the age of superannuation, therefore, directed for providing pensionary benefits counting the entire period towards service rendered by him and pay for intervening period. 17. Record shows that the present writ petition was filed in the year 1997 and no relief was granted to the petitioner while entertaining the writ petition and in the absence of any relief granted to the petitioner by this Court, the opposite party No. 1 must have paid his retiral dues long back. Now after about 13 years, this Court do not find any good ground to interfere with the judgment and order of the learned Tribunal. Even otherwise, on due consideration this Court does not find any infirmity in the judgment and order of learned Tribunal. 18. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. —————