- (1.) WE have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the pleadings of the writ petition.
(2.) IT appears from the record that the respondent was employed in service in the year 1980 as Ferro Boy and subsequently he was promoted to the post of Data Processor. On 07.4.2005 a F.I.R. was lodged against him by one Sri M. M. Ansari, the then Director, Ground Water Department, Lucknow at P.S. Hasanganj under section 332/353/504/506 I. P. C. and, thus, case crime no. 112 of 2005 was registered. Simultaneously, some disciplinary proceedings were also stated against him on 21.4.2005 on the same set of allegations and a show cause notice dated 16.11.2005 was issued which was served upon the respondent on 25.1.2005 asking him to submit a reply to the show cause notice within fifteen days. It appears that 15 days' period was to expire on 10th December, 2005 i.e. Saturday and the next day to follow was obviously Sunday, a non working day. However, without waiting for the reply vide order dated 10.12.2005 respondent was dismissed from service. The respondent filed writ petition no. 12 (SS) of 2006 in the High Court which was dismissed on 09.1.2006 on the ground of alternative remedy. Against the said order, the respondent preferred a special appeal being no. 210 of 2006 which was dismissed on 22.8.2010 giving liberty to him to approach the appropriate forum by way of availing the alternative remedy. During pendency of special appeal itself, vide judgment & order dated 19.5.2010, passed by learned Addl. Judicial Magistrate concerned, the respondent was acquitted of the criminal charges. Thus, after dismissal of the special appeal the respondent approached the State Public Services Tribunal by way of claim petition whereby the claim was allowed on 06.6.2011 on the ground that there was dearth of material to show that a copy of chargesheet was served upon the respondent or any witness was examined in support of the charges in departmental proceedings, if any, in presence of petitioner. Rather only on the basis of show cause notice and without waiting for reply, the impugned order of dismissal was passed.
(3.) IN this background, learned State Counsel submitted that jurisdiction of the tribunal was barred on the ground of limitation under section 5 (1) (b) of the U.P. Public Services (Tribunal) Act, 1976. Learned counsel also submitted that the respondent was only a work -charged employee. Therefore, no inquiry was needed in his case. Learned counsel also submitted that the respondent was not entitled to get consequential benefits for the period he has not worked. Besides, the Director who passed the order of dismissal, was not made a party although a bias was alleged against him.;