- (1.) HEARD Shri Suneet Kumar for the petitioners. Shri Umesh Narain Sharma, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Mohd. Akram for respondent.
(2.) THE Nagarpalika Parishad, Nehtor, District Bijnor has filed this writ petition against the order of the State Public Services Tribunal, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow dated 20.1.2010 in Claim Petition No. 881 of 1995, filed by Wasiuddin -respondent in this writ petition against the order of his dismissal as Accounts Officer in Municipal Board dated 23.10.1992 and appellate order dated 29.12.1992. The Tribunal has allowed the Claim Petition, and while setting aside the orders dated 23.10.1992 and 29.12.1994, directed the opposite party to reinstate the respondent -employee in service forthwith. The operative portion of the order is quoted as below: ORDER The claim petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 23.10.92 as contained in Annexure A -1 and order dt. 29.12.94 as contained in Annexure A -2 are hereby quashed. The opposite parties are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service forthwith. He will be given continuity in service but the question of back wages will be decided by O.Ps Nos. 2 and 3 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order by them. However, this order will not preclude the opposite parties from proceeding afresh against the petitioner from the stage of service of the charge sheet in accordance with rules after supplying the relevant documents demanded by him. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/ - 20.1.10 Sd/ - 20.1.10 (Dr. G.C. Pandey) (Justice R.P. Yadav) Member (Admn.) Chairman
(3.) THE Tribunal has set aside the dismissal order on the ground, that the documents, referred to and relied upon in support of the charges in the charge sheet, were not enclosed and made annexures with the charge sheet. The respondent had made a note on the foot of the office copy of the charge sheet that the documents were not annexed therewith. He made a request for supply of the documents but the same were not given to him. The same appears in case of supplementary charge sheet also. The Tribunal found that though the petitioner -opposite party had the power to reject the request, but that no reply was given to the employee on his applications to give him copies of the documents. The Tribunal has further observed that the punishment order is too cryptic and slipshod and is not speaking and reasoned. Even the charges are not noted in the order and reply given by the employee has not been mentioned. No reason has been given to reject the pleas of the employee in defence.;