HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 10 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 53053 of 2015 Petitioner :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Respondent :- Krishna Pal Singh And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- C.K. Rai Hon'ble Arun Tandon,J.
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Heard learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the petitioners-State.
The State has filed the present writ petition against the order of the Public Services Tribunal, whereunder it has been recorded that since the Enquiry Officer had made the recommendations for the punishment proposed and the disciplinary authority has only recorded his agreement with the recommendation, which cannot be legally sustained. The Tribunal has also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Uttranchal & others Vs. Kharag Singh, (2008)SCC (L&S) 698.
Tribunal has passed impugned order dated 20.3.2015 by which the Claim Petition No. 918 of 2005 filed by the respondent no.1 has been allowed with a direction to reinstate the respondent no.1, in service as suspended employee, since the date of his dismissal within 15 days from the date of receipt of the order by further directing to make payment of subsistence allowance along with continuity of service with a further direction to complete the enquiry/disciplinary proceeding and to pass afresh order after affording opportunity of hearing to the respondent no.1 and to pass an appropriate and reasoned order for providing consequential service benefits/back wages/salary.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not see any illegality in the order passed by the Tribunal. Nothing much could be added to the finding recorded by the Tribunal under the order.
In the facts and circumstances of the case we are only providing that the employee concerned shall be reinstated within one week from today and shall be paid his subsistence allowance. The petitioners are directed to reinstate the respondent employee and treat him in service, under suspension. It is further clarified that so far as the issue of conseqnential benefit including back wages etc. are concerned, decision shall be taken after the departmental enquiry is concluded by means of a reasoned order.
The Tribunal has already permitted the petitioners to reinstate the respondent no.1 in service by providing for the enquiry to continue from the stage it had gone bad and for the purpose, three months' time has been granted.
We are of the considered opinion that the interest of State has substantially been protected under the order impugned. No case is made out for interference in this matter and it is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 16.9.2015 Ashish Pd.