- (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed against a judgment dated 15.12.2009 passed by State Public Services Tribunal, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow in Claim Petition No. 2265 of 1995, whereby the reference application was allowed and the punishment order was quashed. It was also provided in the order that since the post was non -pensionable and opposite party No. 1 had since attained the age of superannuation sometime in the year 2003, in addition to EPF, Gratuity etc. whatever admissible to him, he was also entitled to get 50% of back wages with effect from the date of dismissal from service till he attained the age of superannuation. It was also directed that opposite party No. 1 was entitled to get full salary for the suspension period minus subsistence allowance paid to him.
(2.) IT appears that opposite party No. 1 was posted as a Mechanic in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation at Balrampur. In contemplation of a departmental enquiry, he was placed under suspension on 19.02.1994. A charge sheet containing a set of three charges was issued to him, to which he submitted his reply on 25.03.1994. The Inquiry Officer after holding enquiry held that charges No. 1 and 3 were not found established against opposite party No. 1 whereas charge No. 2 was held to be partly proved because opposite party No. 1 had not sought a prior permission before availing leave, although it was the case of opposite party No. 1 that his leave had already been sanctioned by the competent authority. 4. However, the Disciplinary Authority while disagreeing with the findings of Inquiry Officer, issued a show cause notice dated 20.06.1995 asking him to furnish his reply/representation, if any. Opposite party No. 1 submitted his reply on 29.06.1995. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority also issued a notice asking opposite party No. 1 to show cause as to why his salary for suspension period be not denied. That notice was also replied to by opposite party No. 1. Thereafter, vide order dated 11.07.1995, punishment was imposed whereby opposite party No. 1 was dismissed from service while denying him salary for suspension period. 5. We have heard learned Counsel for parties and perused the record. 6. Learned Counsel for petitioners submitted that since the show cause notice in regard to disagreement of the Disciplinary Authority with enquiry report was given to delinquent employee, therefore, there was no procedural infirmity whatsoever calling for interference with the order of punishment. 7. We have carefully examined the submissions of learned Counsel for petitioners - Corporation in the light of findings recorded by the Tribunal. We are in agreement with the findings of the Tribunal insofar as they relate to the ratio rendered by Hon'ble the Apex Court in its various judgments cited in the impugned judgment of Tribunal that if the Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the findings of Inquiry Officer, it was obligatory upon him to have recorded specific findings to that effect while giving special reasons and the same should have been furnished to the delinquent employee alongwith a show cause notice. 8. Such findings required to be recorded are conspicuous by absence in the punishment order passed by the Disciplinary Authority. That apart, we also notice that the Disciplinary Authority has taken certain facts and materials into consideration, which were not germane to the enquiry proceedings, and not even relevant for passing the punishment order. 9. Thus, in view of all the aforesaid, we do not find any ground for interference with the impugned judgment. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed.;