RAMA NAND OJHA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These four writ petitions based on similar facts and raising common questions of law, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, are being decided by a common judgment.

(2.) The facts, in brief, are that Rama Nand Ojha (the petitioner in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 17548 of 2010 and the respondent no.2 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.61687 of 2009), Radha Krishna Pal (respondent No.2 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 61689 of 2009) and Anil Kumar (respondent No.2 in Writ Petition No. 9464 of 2010) were constables posted in 9th/24th Battalion, P.A.C., Moradabad. In the night of 27th/28.08.2006 they along with one Subodh Kumar Sharma consumed liquor in the barrack and under its influence entered into an altercation with fellow constables as a result, two constables namely, Bhajan Singh and Subodh Kumar Sharma, loaded their rifles and pointed at each other. With the intervention of other fellow constables, the situation was defused. Departmental proceedings followed with charge of gross indiscipline etc. against them. After a full-fledged departmental enquiry the charges were found proved by the Enquiry Officer, who, with a proposal for infliction of a punishment of reduction to the lowest pay-scale for a period of three years, forwarded the enquiry report to the disciplinary authority. The Disciplinary Authority accepted the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer, however, he expressed his disagreement on the punishment proposed and issued a show-cause notice, therewith enclosing the enquiry report, calling for explanation from the delinquent constables as to why a punishment of dismissal from service be not imposed on them on the basis of the findings returned by the Enquiry Officer. In response to the show-cause notice, the delinquent constables submitted their reply. The Disciplinary Authority, after considering the reply of the delinquent constables, by a speaking order, passed orders of dismissal from service. The departmental appeal preferred against the order of dismissal was also dismissed.

(3.) Aggrieved by the orders, three claim petitions were filed before the State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow. Radha Krishna Pal preferred Claim Petition No.715 of 2007; Rama Nand Ojha preferred Claim Petition No.714 of 2007; and Anil Kumar preferred Claim Petition No. 1296 of 2007. All these three claim petitions were partly allowed by three separate judgments rendered by the Tribunal. Claim Petition Nos. 714 of 2007 and 715 of 2007 were partly allowed by two separate orders of the date 18.03.2009 whereas Claim Petition No.1296 of 2007 was partly allowed by judgment and order dated 24.07.2009. The operative portion of the order of the Tribunal, in all the three petitions, was to the effect that the order of dismissal as well as the appellate order was set aside and the opposite parties therein were directed to reinstate the petitioners in service with all consequential service benefits except the back wages and it was left open for the opposite parties to make fresh enquiry, if so advised.