STATE OF U P Vs. PREM KUMAR DUBEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, inter-alia, praying for quashing the judgment and order dated 27.03.2008 passed by State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow. It appears that the respondent no.1 herein while working as Senior Clerk in the office of Labour Commissioner, Kanpur was placed under suspension on 28.06.1996 in contemplation of enquiry against him on various charges. Charge-sheet dated 28.11.1996 was served on the respondent no.1 on 30.04.1997. It is averred that the respondent no.1 prayed for the supply of copies of certain documents but the same were not supplied; instead, enquiry report was submitted on 20.05.1997. A show-cause notice is said to have been issued to the respondent no.1 which was allegedly not served on him. A notice was therefore, published in daily news-paper "Dainik Jagaran" on 09.07.1999. THEreafter, the punishment order dated 09.09.1999 was passed dismissing the respondent no.1 from service. Respondent no.1 preferred departmental appeal, which was dismissed on 23.09.2000, and the order was communicated to the respondent no.1 through letter dated 26.09.2000. Respondent no.1 thereafter, filed claim petition being Claim Petition No.765 of 2000 before the State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow. By the judgment and order dated 27.03.2008, the Tribunal allowed the claim petition with certain directions. THE operative portion of the aforesaid judgment and order dated 27.03.2008 read as follows: "THE claim petition is allowed. THE impugned orders dated 9.9.1999, as contained in annexure-1 to the petition and appellate order dt. 23.9.2000, as contained in annexure-1 to the Additional CA/WS of the opposite parties are hereby quashed. Decision regarding back wages shall be taken by opposite party no.3. THE petitioner shall be reinstated with continuity and other service benefits within three months from the date of this order. However, if the opposite parties do not allow the petitioner to join duty within the said period of three months, the petitioner shall be entitled to get salary from the date of expiry of said period of three months. However, this order will not preclude the opposite parties from proceeding afresh against the petitioner from the stage of service of charge sheet. In case, the opposite parties decide to hold enquiry they shall take a decision with regard thereto within a period of one month and they shall finally dispose it of within next three months from the date of presentation of copy of the judgment and order before the opposite parties. THEre shall be no order as to costs." Against the aforesaid judgment and order dated 27.03.2008, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition seeking reliefs as mentioned above. We have heard Sri Pankaj Saxena, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioners, and perused the record. It is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel that the Tribunal has erred in quashing the punishment order dated 09.09.1999 and the appellate order dated 23.09.2000. It is further submitted that one month's time granted to the petitioners herein to take the decision in regard to holding the enquiry afresh against the respondent no.1, was insufficient, and the Tribunal ought to have granted further time for the same. As regards, the submissions made by the learned Standing Counsel assailing the judgment and order of the Tribunal on merits, we are of the view that the submissions made by the learned Standing Counsel can not be accepted. THE Tribunal, after elaborate discussion, has concluded that the copy of the enquiry report was not supplied to the respondent no.1 before passing the punishment order dated 09.09.1999. In view of this, the punishment order dated 09.09.1999 could not be sustained. THE Tribunal has further concluded that the order dated 23.09.2000 passed by the appellate authority has been passed in slip-shod manner without assigning any reason. We are fully in agreement with the reasoning given and the conclusions arrived at by the Tribunal. No interference is, therefore, called for with the impugned judgment and order of the Tribunal. As regards the submission made by the learned Standing Counsel that the Tribunal granted insufficient time for taking the decision for holding enquiry afresh, it was open to the petitioners to move appropriate application before the Tribunal in this regard. No relief in this regard can be granted by this Court. In view of the above, the writ petition fails and is accordingly, dismissed.