ORDER : Services of the petitioner, a regular employee, were terminated by respondent No.2 vide order dated 17.11.2018. This order has been assailed in the instant petition. 2. Facts 2(i) The petitioner was appointed as a part time water carrier on 02.08.1997. He was made a whole time contingent employee on 11.03.2005. On 07.08.2008, petitioner was made a regular Class-IV employee and posted as such in Government Middle School Sangalwara, District Mandi. 2(ii) As per the respondents:- 2(ii)(a) The petitioner remained willfully absent from the duties w.e.f. 20.10.2006 to 13.06.2007 and from 19.06.2007 to 05.08.2008. On 07.08.2008, the petitioner was made a regular Class-IV employee. 2(ii)(b) The petitioner applied for casual leave w.e.f. 22.02.2010 to 02.03.2010 i.e. for nine days, but thereafter, did not apply for extension of leave and remained willfully absent from the duties. He was asked to explain his position by the respondents, vide letter dated 11.02.2010, but he failed to furnish any explanation. 2(ii)(c) On 05.04.2010, the Principal, Government Senior Secondary School Jarol, District Mandi, was directed to inquire into the matter. The Principal submitted his inquiry report on 22.04.2010. On the basis of this inquiry report, an office order was issued by respondent No.2- the Deputy Director, Higher Education, Mandi, District Mandi on 04.06.2010, warning the petitioner not to repeat such act in future. It will be appropriate to extract operative part of this office order:- “Now therefore, the undersigned taking a lenient view at this time hereby warns the said Sh. Jai Nand, Peon GMS Sangalwara U/C GSSS Janjehli, District Mandi, H.P. not to repeat such an act in future, failing which action as warranted under the Rules will be initiated against him.” 2(iii) The record produced by the respondents during the hearing of this case showed that a fact finding report regarding ‘personal application of the petitioner’ was conducted by the Principal, GSSS Jhungi, District Mandi. The fact finding report was submitted to respondent No.2-the Deputy Director Higher Education, District Mandi, on 29.12.2012. Subsequently, a memorandum of charges under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, [CCS (CCA) Rules] was issued against the petitioner on 05.08.2015 by respondent No.2 with the following article of charge:- “That Sh. Jai Nand, Peon, presently posted at GMS Sangalwara U/C Govt. Sr. Sec. School, Janjehli Distt Mandi remained willfully absent from duties w.e.f. 03.03.2010 to till date. Jai Nand, Peon, presently posted at GMS Sangalwara U/C Govt. Sr. Sec. School, Janjehli Distt Mandi remained willfully absent from duties w.e.f. 03.03.2010 to till date. This act and conduct of Sh. Jai Nand, Peon, GMS Sangalwara U/C GSSS Janjehali, is of doubtful integrity and unbecoming of a Govt. servant and tantamounts to misconduct under Rule 3 of CCS (Control ) Rules 1964.” The charge against the petitioner was that he was willfully absent from the duties w.e.f. 03.03.2010 and that his act and conduct was of doubtful integrity and unbecoming of a government servant tantamounting to misconduct under Rule 3 of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. 2(iv). Memorandum of charges dated 05.08.2015 issued under Rule 14 of CCA (CCA), eventually led to issuance of order dated 17.11.2018, whereby, respondent No.2-the Deputy Director Higher Education, Mandi, District Mandi, terminated petitioner’s services w.e.f. 03.03.2010 with retrospective effect. It is in the aforesaid background that the petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition, assailing the order dated 17.11.2018. 3. Contentions Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Memorandum of charges dated 05.08.2015, produced by the respondents during hearing of the case was never served upon petitioner. The respondents never associated the petitioner with the disciplinary proceedings said to have been initiated against him under the charge sheet. The respondent-employer has not complied with the mandatory procedure laid down under the CCS (CCA) Rules for holding the disciplinary proceedings. Therefore, order dated 17.11.2018 is required to be quashed and set aside. Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the petitioner was a habitual absentee. He never diligently attended to his duties. Ever since 2006, he continued to remain absent from school for no justifiable cause. The fact finding report was submitted and preliminary inquiry was also conducted by the respondents, which proved the charges leveled against the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned order dated 17.11.2018, terminating the petitioner’s services, does not suffer from any illegality. 4 Observations 4(i) Learned counsel for the petitioner on facts submitted that the petitioner had fallen sick and proceeded on leave from 22.02.2010 to 02.03.2010. After recovering from illness, he was not allowed to join duties in the school. It transpired that correspondence in this regard was being exchanged amongst the respondents and other officials. On 04.06.2010, an office order was issued by the respondents warning the petitioner to be careful and not to repeat such acts in future. After recovering from illness, he was not allowed to join duties in the school. It transpired that correspondence in this regard was being exchanged amongst the respondents and other officials. On 04.06.2010, an office order was issued by the respondents warning the petitioner to be careful and not to repeat such acts in future. However, attendance of the petitioner was still not being marked at GMS Sanglwara, though he regularly attended the school w.e.f. 03.03.2010. On mutual transfer basis, he was transferred to GPS Shikwari, but he was not allowed to join there also. His attendance was not marked in any school. His service book was not prepared. He requested all concerned authorities in writing, seeking their help. Correspondence was though exchanged, but he did not get any relief. Feeling harassed, he instituted Civil Writ Petition No.9580 of 2012 [subsequently registered as OA(T) in the erstwhile HP State Administrative Tribunal]. The petitioner prayed therein for directing the respondents to allow him to join his duties. The relief clause of CWP No.9580 of 2012, as originally filed by the petitioner reads as under:- “a Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to join his duties in Government Middle School Sanglwara U/C GSSS Janjehli, District Mandi as Class-IV peon and to give his due remuneration/salary for his duty period for which he has been deprived of and absent period, if any, may kindly be treated as the leave of the kind due. b. To regularize the petitonr as Class-IV peon w.e.f.6.10.2006 when his juniors were regularized as Class-IV peon with all consequential benefits.” During pendency of the writ petition, the respondents issued office order on 17.11.2018 terminating petitioner’s services. Petitioner amended the writ petition and after incorporating the subsequent developments, prayed for following reliefs:- “(i) That the order of termination dated 17.11.2018 (Annexure A-14), may kindly be quashed and set aside being illegal, arbitrary and after thought just to deprive the applicant from the government job. (ii) That applicant may kindly be allowed to join his duties in Government Middle School Sanglawara U/C GSSS Jangehali, District Mandi, as Class-IV peon and to give his due remuneration/salary for his duty period for which he has been deprived of and absent period, if any, may kindly be treated as the leave of the kind due. (ii) That applicant may kindly be allowed to join his duties in Government Middle School Sanglawara U/C GSSS Jangehali, District Mandi, as Class-IV peon and to give his due remuneration/salary for his duty period for which he has been deprived of and absent period, if any, may kindly be treated as the leave of the kind due. (iii) To regularize the applicant as Class-IV peon w.e.f. 6.10.2006 when his juniors were regularized as Class–IV peon with all consequential benefits.” The argument raised on behalf of the petitioner is that for all practical purposes, services of the petitioner were orally terminated by the respondents on 03.03.2010. The petitioner was not allowed to mark his attendance in the school w.e.f. 03.03.2010. He had approached all concerned authorities with a request to allow him to join duties. However, his efforts did not yield any positive result. Petitioner, therefore, filed a writ petition before this Court in the year 2012. During pendency of the writ petition, the respondents terminated his services vide order dated 17.11.2018. By way of an amendment carried out in the writ petition, the petitioner prayed for quashing of order dated 17.11.2018. The case of the respondents is that the fact finding inquiry stood already conducted against the petitioner in the year, 2012. Therefore, subsequent to the issuance of Memorandum of charges to the petitioner on 05.08.2012 and getting no response from him to the memorandum, his services were terminated on 17.11.2018. 4(iii) The impugned order dated 17.11.2018 terminated petitioner’s services retrospectively w.e.f. 03.03.2010. Admittedly, vide office order issued on 04.06.2010, the petitioner was warned by the respondents to be careful in future. The respondents have not explained as to under what authority of law, they could terminate petitioner’s services retrospectively w.e.f. 03.03.2010 under the impugned order issued on 17.11.2018. 4(iv) Petitioner was a regular employee of the respondents. According to the record produced by the respondents during hearing of the case, the Memorandum of charges (charge-sheet) was issued to him on 05.08.2015 for remaining absent from the duties. The charge sheet was issued under the provisions of Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. Stand of the respondents during hearing of the case was that though the charge sheet was served upon the petitioner, however, he did not file any reply to it. The charge sheet was issued under the provisions of Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. Stand of the respondents during hearing of the case was that though the charge sheet was served upon the petitioner, however, he did not file any reply to it. Whereas, it was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner was never served with any charge sheet under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules. That no notice either of the charge sheet or of the disciplinary/ inquiry proceedings was ever served upon the petitioner. During hearing of the case, save and except an endorsement at the bottom of the Memorandum of charges dated 05.08.2015, the respondents could not produce any document to show service of charge sheet upon the petitioner. Respondents did not produce any document to show that regular inquiry proceedings, ex-parte or otherwise were conducted in the charge sheet issued against the petitioner. The stand taken by the respondents during hearing of the case was that regular inquiry proceedings were not held against the petitioner since, he had not filed his defence to the charge sheet. Therefore, on the basis of already existing reports dated 22.04.2010 and 29.12.2012, impugned order was passed on 17.11.2018 terminating petitioner’s services. The inquiry report submitted by the Principal, GSSS Jarol, dated 22.04.2010 resulted in issuance of office order dated 04.06.2010, whereby, warning was issued to the petitioner not to repeat “such act” in future. Subsequently, a fact finding inquiry report was submitted by the Principal GSSS Jhungi on 29.12.2012. However, this fact finding inquiry report cannot be made sole basis for terminating services of the petitioner vide the impugned order dated 17.11.2018. Petitioner was a regular employee of the respondents. The respondent had issued a Memorandum of charges against the petitioner on 05.08.2015 under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. A regular inquiry had to be held on the charges leveled against the petitioner in the charge sheet dated 05.08.2015. Though, no record has been produced before the Court to show that the charge sheet dated 05.08.2015 was actually served upon the petitioner, yet even assuming that this charge sheet was served upon the petitioner and he did not file his written defence to the same then also no document has been placed on record to show that any inquiry officer was appointed and if appointed, he conducted regular inquiry in the matter. In terms of Rule 14 (5)(b) of CCS (CCA) Rules, if no written statement of defence is submitted by the employee then the disciplinary authority may itself inquire into the article of charge or may if it considers necessary to do so, appoint under Sub-rule(2) an inquiry authority for the purpose. Detailed further procedure for conduct of inquiry proceedings has been prescribed in the Rules. The allegations of the respondents are that the petitioner did not associate with the inquiry proceedings. However, the record produced by the respondents does not show that any regular inquiry was actually conducted against the petitioner by the respondents. It appears from the record that some departmental communications were exchanged by the respondents and other officials and on the basis of that, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 31.10.2018. Subsequently, termination order was passed on 17.11.2018. It is, thus, evident that the respondents have given a complete go-by to the entire procedure contemplated under the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The principles of natural justice have not been complied with. In such circumstances, the impugned order dated 17.11.2018 cannot be sustained. 4(v) Impugned order shows that it has been passed by respondent No.2 in exercise of powers under Rule 19(i) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. As per Rule 19 of CCS (CCA) Rules, notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 14 to 18, where a penalty is imposed on a Government servant on the ground of conduct which had led to his conviction on a criminal charge or where the disciplinary authority is satisfied for reasons to be recorded by it in writing that it is not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry in the manner provided in these rules, or where the President is satisfied that in the interest of security of the State, it is not expedient to hold any inquiry in the manner provided in these rules, then the disciplinary authority may consider the circumstances of the case and pass such orders thereon as it deems fit, provided that the Government servant may be given an opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed to be imposed before any order is made in a case under Clause (i). Rule 19 being relevant is extracted as under:- “19. Rule 19 being relevant is extracted as under:- “19. Special procedure in certain cases:- Notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 14 to 18- (i) where a penalty is imposed on a Government servant on the ground of conduct which had led to his conviction on a criminal charge, or (ii) where the Disciplinary Authority is satisfied for reasons to be recorded by it in writing that it is not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry in the manner provided in these rules, or (iii) where the President is satisfied that in the interest of security of the State, it is not expedient to hold any inquiry in the manner provided in these rules. The Disciplinary Authority may consider the circumstances of the case and make such orders thereon as it deems fit: Provided that the Government servant may be given an opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed to be imposed before any order is made in a case under Clause (i): Provided further that the Commission shall be consulted, where such consultation is necessary, and the Government servant has been given an opportunity of representing against the advice of the Commission, before any orders are made in any case under this rule.” Hon’ble High Apex Court in (2001) 3 SCC 414 titled Union of India Vs. Sunil Kumar Sarkar held that Rule 19 of CCS (CCA) Rules provides a summary procedure for taking disciplinary action against a Government Servant who is already convicted in a criminal proceeding. The very foundation of imposition of punishment under Rule 19 is that there should be a prior conviction on a criminal charge. Provisions of Rule 19(i) of CCS (CCA) Rules, are not at all applicable to the facts in hand. Impugned order dated 17.11.2018 passed in purported exercise of power under Rule 19(i) CCS(CCA) Rules, is therefore, not sustainable. No record other than that referred to in preceding paras was produced by the respondents during hearing of the case. 5. In 2020 (12) SCC 426 , itled as Dr. Vijayakumaran C.P.V. Vs. Central University of Kerala, the Hon’ble Apex Court in somewhat similar circumstances held that the question whether the employee would be entitled to the back wages and other benefits from the date of his dismissal to the date of his reinstatement if ordered should invariably be left to be decided by the authority concerned according to law. Vijayakumaran C.P.V. Vs. Central University of Kerala, the Hon’ble Apex Court in somewhat similar circumstances held that the question whether the employee would be entitled to the back wages and other benefits from the date of his dismissal to the date of his reinstatement if ordered should invariably be left to be decided by the authority concerned according to law. Relevant para in this regard is as under:- “11. A priori, we have no hesitation in concluding that the impugned termination order dated 30.11.2017 is illegal being ex-facie stigmatic as it has been issued without subjecting the appellant to a regular inquiry as per the service rules. On this conclusion, the appellant would stand reinstated, but whether he should be granted backwages and other benefits including placing him under suspension and proceeding against him by way of departmental or regular inquiry as per the service rules, is, in our opinion, a matter to be taken forward by the authority concerned in accordance with law. We do not intend to issue any direction in that regard keeping in mind the principle underlying the exposition of the Constitution Bench in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad & Ors. vs. R. Karunakar & Ors.. In that case, the Court was called upon to decide as to what should be the incidental order to be passed by the Court in case after following necessary procedure, the Court/Tribunal was to set aside the order of punishment. The Court observed thus:- "31. ……………………. Where after following the above procedure, the Court/Tribunal sets aside the order of punishment, the proper relief that should be granted is to direct reinstatement of the employee with liberty to the authority/management to proceed with the inquiry, by placing the employee under suspension and continuing the inquiry from the stage of furnishing him with the report. The question whether the employee would be entitled to the back-wages and other benefits from the date of his dismissal to the date of his reinstatement if ultimately ordered, should invariably be left to be decided by the authority concerned according to law, after the culmination of the proceedings and depending on the final outcome. The question whether the employee would be entitled to the back-wages and other benefits from the date of his dismissal to the date of his reinstatement if ultimately ordered, should invariably be left to be decided by the authority concerned according to law, after the culmination of the proceedings and depending on the final outcome. If the employee succeeds in the fresh inquiry and is directed to be reinstated, the authority should be at liberty to decide according to law how it will treat the period from the date of dismissal till the reinstatement and to what benefits, if any and the extent of the benefits, he will be entitled. The reinstatement made as a result of the setting aside of the inquiry for failure to furnish the report, should be treated as reinstatement for the purpose of holding the fresh inquiry from the stage of furnishing the report and no more, where such fresh inquiry is held. That will also be the correct position in law." (emphasis supplied) Following the principle underlying the above quoted exposition, we proceed to hold that even though the impugned order of termination dated 30.11.2017 is set aside in terms of this judgment, as a result of which the appellant would stand reinstated, but at the same time, due to flawed approach of the respondent No.1-University, the entitlement to grant backwages is a matter which will be subject to the outcome of further action to be taken by the University as per the service rules and in accordance with law.” For all the foregoing reasons, the instant petition is allowed. The order dated 17.11.2018 is quashed and set-aside. Consequential action of petitioner’s reinstatement shall follow. In the facts and circumstances of the case the questions of back wages, placing him under suspension etc. as per service rules are left to be decided by the concerned authority in accordance with law. The respondents shall, however, be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law by holding inquiry against him in accordance with the procedure laid down in the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965, on the basis of Memorandum of charges dated 05.08.2005. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.