- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE petitioner retired as Soil Conserva­tion Officer, Rai Bareilly in the year 2004. He was placed under suspension on the alle­gations of misconduct. A departmental en­quiry was held against him. By order dated 18th June, 2001 the pe­titioner was punished with censure entry and recovery of Rs. 14, 867.18 from the salary. With regard to period of his suspension and salary, the order passed by the State Govern­ment provided for a separate consideration. By order dated 22nd February, 2008 the State Government, after considering the pet­itioner's representation, after his retirement, adjusted his entire period of suspension to­wards leave and treating the period to be spent on duty, allowed him 3/4 salary with allow­ances. The petitioner preferred a representa­tion, which was rejected on llth February, 2009. It is contended that the petitioner pre­ferred an appeal, which may be decided by the State Government, under Rule 11 of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Ap­peal) Rules, 1991. Rule 11 provides for right to appeal- except in a case, where orders are passed by the Governor.
(3.) THE appointing authority of the peti­tioner as Soil Conservation Officer is State Government and thus no appeal is maintain­able under Rule 11 of the Rules of 1991. A revision under Rule 13 is maintainable. In the present case, the order is passed by the State Government and that the petitioner's review petition has also been dismissed. He does not have any further right except to approach the State Public Services Tribunal at Lucknow or to file a writ petition to be entertained by the High Court, if the order is without juris­diction or in violation of principles of natural justice.;