Rajiv Sharma, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri M.S. Siddiqui, learned Counsel for the petitioner and the State Counsel. Petitioner has filed the instant writ petition being aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated 13.1.1994, passed by the U.P. Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow (in short, referred to as 'Tribunal'), whereby the claim petition preferred by the petitioner against the order of dismissal dated 19.2.1985 was rejected.
(2.) FROM the material on record, it comes out that the petitioner was working as Kamdar/Clerk in the year 1984 at Danapur Centre, District Bulandshahar. For dereliction in discharge of duties, disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and a charge sheet was given to him on 28.7.1984. As the charges against the petitioner were found proved, the disciplinary proceedings culminated in passing of dismissal order dated 19.2.1985 by the competent authority. Aggrieved by the said dismissal order, the petitioner approached the Tribunal by filing Claim Petition No. 83/F/IV/85 inter -alia on the ground that the enquiry was conducted in breach of the provisions of natural justice and the documents which were utilized against the petitioner were never supplied to him. Further, more serious charges were levelled against B.D. Sharma, who was In -charge of the Danapur Centre and his order of dismissal was quashed on account of defects in the disciplinary proceedings. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the learned Tribunal committed serious error in not appreciating the vital fact that there were defects and breach of principle of natural justice in conducting the departmental enquiry and as such the order of dismissal cannot be sustained. It has also been argued that the Tribunal fell into error in not considering the fact that the Tribunal itself has allowed the claim petition of Sri B.D. Sharma, Marketing Inspector though he was the In -charge of the Centre and against him serious charges of embezzlement were levelled.
(3.) ON the other hand, Standing Counsel has submitted that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal. Whatever pleas have been raised by the petitioner, same were considered by the Tribunal but were not found tenable. As regard the disciplinary proceeding, Standing Counsel has submitted that the order of dismissal was passed after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing and a finding of fact in this regard has also been recorded by the Tribunal.;