- (1.) THIS writ petition has been preferred by State being aggrieved by a judgment and order dated 04.02.2009, passed by U.P. Public Services Tribunal in Claim Petition No. 98/V/1993, modifying the punishment of dismissal of opposite party No. 1 from service and in stead substituting the same with a punishment of stoppage of five increments with cumulative effect.
(2.) BRIEFLY narrated the facts of this case giving rise to filing of this writ petition are that opposite party No. 1 was posted as a Constable in Civil Police on the date of incident i.e. 30.06.1992. On the said date at 11.45 p.m. in the night, opposite party No. 1 was found to be lying near the gate of Police Kotwali in an intoxicated state, thus, he was proceeded against for a departmental enquiry. Charge sheet dated 16.11.1992 was served upon him to which he submitted his reply on 30.11.1992. Upon submission of enquiry report, a show cause notice dated 16.03.1993 was issued to opposite party No. 1. At that stage itself, he filed a reference petition (No. 497/F/V/1991) along with one other person namely Shri Lalta Prasad. State Public Services Tribunal vide order dated 03.12.199 1 directed the petitioners (herein) not to pass any final order in the matter. However, according to opposite party No. 1 despite that interim order of tribunal as above, the petitioners (herein) passed a punishment order on 28.03.1993 whereby he was dismissed from service. Assailing the order of dismissal, opposite party No. 1 filed Claim Petition No. 98/V/1993, on two grounds namely: (i) that even in the face of an stay order, the petitioners (herein) passed the order of punishment of dismissal from service against opposite party No. 1, and (ii) that on the date of incident at relevant time, opposite party No. 1 was not on duty, therefore, he has not committed any misconduct. During the course of hearing of claim petition, on behalf of opposite party No. 1, a reference was also made to a judgment reported in, 1983 (2) SLR 243 Ratan Lal v. The State of Haryana and Ors. in support of the plea.
(3.) THE tribunal repelled the first submission by holding that the interim order of stay had been granted only till the next date of hearing i.e. 26.12.1991 and no document was produced before it to establish that it had been extended any further. However, regarding the second argument, the tribunal was of the view that the order of punishment was highly disproportionate and unreasonable.;