DEVI PRASAD SINGH,J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel and perused the record.
(2.) PRESENT writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred against the impugned judgment dated 5.7.2000, passed by the State Public Services Tribunal, Indira Bhawan, Lucknow in Claim Petition No.2027 of 1997 Ram Shanker Shukla versus State of U.P. and others. In brief, the petitioner, who was a Tehsildar promoted on the post of Deputy Collector from 12.11.1986, was served with two charge-sheets dated 22.8.1989 and 28.8.1989. After enquiry, the enquiry officer submitted a report exonerating the petitioner with regard to the charges. On the report dated 2.4.1992 being placed before the disciplinary authority, he was not agreed with the finding recorded by the enquiry officer. He served a show cause notice dated 11.2.1994 seeking reply as to why 25% of the pension may not be reduced as a measure of punishment. The petitioner submitted a reply but of no avail and he was punished accordingly. The punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority was subject matter of dispute before the tribunal.
(3.) THE petitioner took two-fold pleas before the tribunal. Firstly, no finding could have been recorded by the disciplinary authority on the judicial order while discharging his obligation to award punishment and secondly, the petitioner took a plea that the impugned order of punishment was passed in violation of principle of natural justice. It was stated by the petitioner before the tribunal that the disciplinary authority has not issued a notice containing point of disagreement with the enquiry officer and straightway a show cause notice was issued referring the difference and intention to award punishment with reduction of 25% of pension. The tribunal recorded a finding that the notice dated 11.2.1994 is a combined notice which also contains the difference expressed by the disciplinary authority as well as the show cause with regard to proposed punishment.;