JUDGMENT Hon’ble Alok Singh, J (Oral). 1. Petitioner was appointed in Army School, Hempur, District Udham Singh Nagar as Physical Training Instructor on 31.10.1980. Services of the petitioner were confirmed vide order dated 28.10.1991. On 19.3.1998, a First Information Report was got registered against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 302, 364, 201 IPC with P.S. Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar. Petitioner was arrested in connection with the FIR/Case Crime No. 159 of 1998 on 26.3.1998 and was ultimately released on bail on 3.5.1998. Petitioner thereafter gave joining in the school on 8.5.1998. Petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 21.7.1998. It seems, thereafter, Major C.S. Rathour conducted preliminary enquiry against the petitioner and submitted his report on 5.9.1998. A show cause notice was issued against the petitioner on 12.9.1998 calling his explanations on several charges, including the charge that due to registration of First Information Report against the petitioner, the name and prestige of the school was tarnished. Petitioner submitted his explanation to the show cause notice on the charges on 3.10.1998. Thereafter, impugned order dated 21.10.1998 was passed terminating the services of the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner preferred present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. I have heard Mr. Manoj Tiwari, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Alok Mahra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mrs. Anjali Bhargava, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 3. Initially writ petition was dismissed on the ground that respondent is not an authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, therefore, writ petition is not maintainable against the respondents. Petitioner preferred Special Appeal No. 371 of 2012 before the Division Bench, which was allowed vide judgment dated 14.5.2013. Division Bench of this Court has held that writ petition is very well maintainable and respondents fall within the definition of State. 4. Facts narrated hereinbefore are not disputed. Undisputedly, petitioner was acquitted from the charges levelled against him in FIR/Case Crime No. 159 of 1998. 5. Division Bench of this Court has held that writ petition is very well maintainable and respondents fall within the definition of State. 4. Facts narrated hereinbefore are not disputed. Undisputedly, petitioner was acquitted from the charges levelled against him in FIR/Case Crime No. 159 of 1998. 5. Undisputedly, after serving the show cause notice on 12.9.1998 pursuant to the preliminary enquiry report dated 5.9.1998, petitioner submitted his reply to the show cause notice on 3.10.1998; after submission of the reply to the show cause notice neither any Inquiry Officer was appointed nor any disciplinary proceeding was initiated nor any witness was examined nor any opportunity was granted to the petitioner to examine the evidence allegedly produced against him and straightway impugned order terminating the services of the petitioner was passed on the basis of preliminary enquiry held by Major C.S. Rathour and his report dated 5.9.1998, which was prior in time to the show cause notice. 6. In the service jurisprudence, none can be terminated de-hors the rules or without initiating any disciplinary proceeding against the delinquent employee. Since, no enquiry was made or opportunity of hearing was accorded except for filing reply to the show cause notice, therefore, the impugned order terminating the services of the petitioner does not sustain in the eyes of law. 7. Consequently, writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 21.10.1998, Annexure No. 11 to the writ petition, is hereby quashed. However, it would be open to the respondents, if so wish, to initiate appropriate disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner and to conclude the same in accordance with law. 8. Since, petitioner is an ex-serviceman and is getting pension, therefore, only 30 per cent of the back wages seems to be justified to be paid to the petitioner for the period the petitioner remained under suspension and termination. 9. Order accordingly.