STATE OF U P Vs. GANESH KUMAR`

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, the petitioner i.e. the State has assailed the order dated 6th October, 2010 passed by the State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow in Claim Petition No. 1289/2007.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the private respondent was a constable posted at 28th Battalion P.A.C., Etawa. On 23rd March, 2007, the respondent was called to the Head-Quarter but when he appeared, he was under intoxication. In medical examination, it was revealed that he had consumed the alcohol. So, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him under Rule 14(1) of the U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991. During the inquiry, he has accepted the guilty and submitted that he was mentally upset due to death of his two brothers and prayed for mercy. On admission, finally, he was dismissed from the service vide order dated 13.06.2007. Being aggrieved, he has moved a representation before the competent authority, which was also rejected vide order dated 31.08.2007. Being not satisfied, the respondent has challenged the same before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has allowed the claim of the petitioner vide its impugned order and set aside the dismissal order dated 13.06.2007 and reinstated the respondent in service but it was observed that he will get only 25% of the back-wages from the date of his dismissal to the date of reinstatement. Now, feeling aggrieved, the petition is before this Court.

(3.) With this background, Sri Anuj Kudesia, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel submits that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is absolutely erroneous. He further submits that the Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction by issuing the direction for giving continuity in service as the same relief has not been sought by the respondent in the Tribunal. He also submits that the respondent preferred an appeal before the appellate authority which was rejected by a reasoned and speaking order dated 31.08.2007. He further submits that the respondent has committed a great offence by consuming the liquor, when he was asked at the P.A.C. Head-Quarter by superior. The inquiry officer has given full opportunity of hearing to the respondent to defend himself and conducted the inquiry in accordance with rules. Lastly, he made a request that the impugned order may kindly be set aside.