JUDGMENT K.M. JOSEPH, C.J. (Oral) Appellants were the respondents in the writ petition. Writ petitioner filed a writ petition being Writ Petition No. 36733 of 1998 in the Allahabad High Court feeling aggrieved by the termination of his service. Writ petitioner was appointed as a Physical Education Teacher in the appellant School. Appellant School is a society funded by the Union of India. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition by finding that, though a preliminary inquiry was held against the writ petitioner and subsequently a show-cause notice was issued to which the writ petitioner gave his explanation, there is no inquiry held against the writ petitioner and his services were terminated and the same being illegal, the writ petition was allowed with liberty to the appellants to proceed against the writ petitioner. It is also ordered that, in view of the fact that the writ petitioner was an ex-serviceman and was getting pension for his service in the army, he be paid only 30 per cent of the back wages. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the appeal has been filed. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the record of the writ petitioner was not good. He was convicted in a criminal case involving offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. It is further submitted that an inquiry was held and the learned counsel drew our attention to Chapter 9 of the Rules and Regulations of the Army Welfare Education Society. 4. Even a perusal of the same would show that, what is contemplated, is holding of a preliminary investigation by the Principal and the Principal reporting the matter to the Chairman of the School Managing Committee for detailing of an Inquiry Officer/Committee for further investigation. The Inquiry Officer/Committee, so appointed, is to complete the inquiry and, thereafter, the matter is to be proceeded on the basis of the report apparently. The position found by the learned Single Judge does not appear to be wrong in facts. That is to say, though there was a preliminary inquiry held, the matter did not progress further, where an actual inquiry was held against the writ petitioner. In the absence of the inquiry, we find no reason to take a different view from that taken by the learned Single Judge. 5. That is to say, though there was a preliminary inquiry held, the matter did not progress further, where an actual inquiry was held against the writ petitioner. In the absence of the inquiry, we find no reason to take a different view from that taken by the learned Single Judge. 5. No doubt, the learned counsel for the appellants would point out that the writ petition was filed in the year 1998 in the Allahabad High Court and was made over to this High Court when the Uttarakhand High Court was formed and that the writ petitioner did not move any application for early hearing and to mulct the appellants with the liability to pay 30 per cent back wages, even after the learned Single Judge has left it open to the appellants to hold a fresh inquiry, was not justified. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner would submit that the applications were moved for early hearing. He would also submit that, actually, petitioner was not in receipt of any pension for his service under the Army. 7. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner would, in fact, point out that the writ petitioner was not convicted, but the learned counsel for the appellants would point out that he was in jail for two months. 8. Whatever that be, we would think that, in view of the illegality noticed by the learned Single Judge in the matter of terminating the services without holding an inquiry, we need not interfere with the matter. Accordingly, we see no merit in the appeal. The same is dismissed.