- (1.)The State of Uttar Pradesh is before us in this appeal calling in question the correctness and validity of the order dated 24.5.1999 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court affirming the order passed by the Uttar Pradesh Public Services Tribunal. The only controversy that was raised before the Tribunal was with regard to the granting of salary during the suspension period to the respondent. The respondent was removed from service after holding the inquiry in regard to some alleged misconduct on his part. However, the order of dismissal from service was modified by the Director of Education, for his reinstatement by cancelling the order of dismissal but withholding the annual increment for the initial year by the order dated 22.4.1987. The said order reads:
"Shri Ram Avatar Sharma dismissed from the post of Deputy Inspector (Schools), Aligarh as per DO No. Inspection/35/30-4 (58-A) 86-87 dated 10.10.1986 issued by the Directorate, is reinstated against the post vacated by him upon his dismissal in District Aligarh, w.e.f. the date of dismissal in compliance with the order dated 30-3-1987 passed by the Hon'ble Secretary (Education) Uttar Pradesh, by cancelling the dismissal order. Sanction to release his salary of the period of suspension is accorded, after withholding the annual increment of the initial year."

(2.)The Tribunal after hearing the parties and looking to the order dated 22.4.1987 aforementioned came to the conclusion that the respondent was entitled to get the full pay for the period of suspension. This order of the Tribunal was challenged before the Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench of the High Court could not find fault with the order of the Tribunal. Hence the writ petition was dismissed affirming the order passed by the Tribunal.
(3.)The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the order dated 22.4.1987 passed by the Director of Education was a forged one; under the circumstances, no relief could have been granted to the respondent. On a perusal of the order of the Tribunal as well as the impugned judgment under challenge, it does not appear that such a contention that the order dated 22.4.1987 was a forged one, was urged for consideration. We have to go by what is recorded in the impugned order. From the order dated 22.4.1987, it is clear that only punishment of withholding increment for the initial year was made and there is a specific order for the payment of the salary for the first year of the suspension of the respondent. This being the position, we do not find any merit in this appeal. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed but with no orders as to costs.