- (1.) The instant writ petition has been filed by the Petitioners (State) for quashing of the judgment & order dated 29.2.1996, passed by the State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in Claim Petition No. 176/1/83 (Prakash Chandra v. State of U.P. and Ors.), as contained in Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition. The Petitioners have also prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the Respondent No. 2 not to give effect to the judgment & order dated 29.2.1996 (Annexure No. 1 to the Writ Petition).
(2.) Brief facts which are necessary to dispose of the matter, are recapitulated as under: The Respondent No. 1, Sri Prakash Chandra was a Collection Amin who was suspended on a complaint vide order dated 25.10.1978. Charge sheet was issued to him to which he replied and after completion of inquiry his services were terminated vide order dated 07.11.1979. The Respondent filed appeal against the said order before the Commissioner which was rejected by the Commissioner. The Respondent preferred Claim Petition before the State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow challenging the order dated 07.11.1979, passed by the Collector on the grounds inter-alia that since appointing authority of the Respondent No. 1 was the Collector, the Sub Divisional Officer had no jurisdiction to pass the suspension order. Further, in a criminal case filed on similar charges, the Petitioner has been acquitted by a Court of competent jurisdiction.
(3.) Learned Tribunal after considering the arguments advanced by the parties' counsel, allowed the claim petition thereby quashing the impugned order passed by Collector and that of Commissioner passed in appeal and came to the conclusion that since the Respondent had been acquitted in un-equivocal terms, it leads one to conclude that the punishment awarded was not in accordance with Rules. The Tribunal also came to the conclusion that no notice under F. R. 54 had been given to the Petitioner (here Respondent), hence, he will be entitled to full pay for the period of suspension minus subsistence allowance already paid. Further, since the Petitioner has attained the age of superannuation, he will also be entitled to get pensionary benefits counting the entire period of service rendered by him. Being aggrieved, the Petitioners (State) have approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition.;