B.Dikshit, J. - (1.) By this Writ Petition the Zila Parishad Banda and its Adhyaksha have challenged the order dated 2.1.1990 passed by U.P. Public Service Tribunal-2 (referred as Tribunal) Lucknow, whereby the Tribunal has accepted claim of Mukut Bihari Respondent, a Compounder of the Zila Parishad, Banda.
(2.) The essential facts for the purpose of this writ petition are that respondent Mukut Bihari being a permanent employee of Zila Parishad Banda, as Compounder, was charged for the manipulation in the dispensary records, for not depositing the fee collected from the patients and removal of goods belonging to Zila Parishad Banda. The respondent faced disciplinary inquiry before Sahayak Lekhadhikari Zila Parishad Banda, who submitted inquiry report on 17.12.1988 as Inquiry Officer. The Inquiry Officer exonerated respondent of the charges levelled against him. The District Magistrate was also holding the post of Adhayaksha of Zila Parished. The District Magistrate in exercise of power of Adhyaksha Zila Parishad disagreed with the report of the Inquiry Officer. He held the respondent guilty of the charges for non-realisation and non-deposit of levy fee collected from the patients during the period 3.11.1977 to 20.11.77 and for dereliction of duty and disobedience of the order of competent authority. He ordered dismissal of petitioner from service and directed the recovery of the amount collected by the petitioner from. the patients which was not deposited. The appeal preferred by respondent Mukut Bihari was dismissed by the Commissioner, Jhansi Division, by order dated 2.1.1990. The petitioner challenged the order of dismissal as well as order passed in appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by order dated 2.1.1990 has allowed the claim petition, quashed the order of Adhyaksha Zila Parishad/District Magistrate dated 3.11.1983 and the order passed by the Commissioner dated 12.10.1990, in appeal. The Zila Parishad and its Adhyaksha have filed this petition challenging the order of the Tribunal.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the appointing authority 'Adhyaksha' Zila Parishad, was well within his power in dismissing the respondent from service on receipt of inquiry report and after serving a show-cause notice on respondent, (Mukut Bihari). He argued that it was well within the power of appointing authority to have ordered the punishment and as in exercise of that power the appointing authority awarded punishment of dismissal, the Tribunal could rot interfere in the matter. He also argued that as the Tribunal considered that the petitioner did not get the proper opportunity to defend himself, then the proper course open to the Tribunal was to send back the whole matter to the appointing authority to reconsider the same after providing adequate opportunity of hearing to respondent-Mukut Bihari and the Tribunal was not right in quashing the impugned order and setting aside appellate order without sending it back to appointing authority. He argued that the proper order which could be passed by Tribunal was to send the whole matter back to appointing authority to decide it afresh after providing adequate opportunity of hearing to respondent Mukut Bihari. All these arguments were opposed by counsel for respondent (Mukut Bihari) who justified the order of Tribunal as correct and appropriate under the circumstances of the case.;